Why We Shouldn't Appease Islamists With The Constitution

In The Beheader's Veto, David French responds to Justice Stephen Breyer's suggestion that burning the Koran is similar to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater and thus not a First Amendment right--noting the costly sacrifice involved:

Bill Clinton had Yassir Arafat in the White House more than any other foreign leader, and radicals bombed the World Trade Center, bombed our embassies, attacked the USS Cole, and hatched the 9/11 plot.
George W. Bush went out of his way to portray Islam as a religion of peace, and Hamas, Hezbollah, the Mahdi militia, Fatah, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban launched violent campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Gaza, Indonesia, Britain, Spain, the West Bank, and Lebanon. Barack Obama “changed the tone” in Cairo, and we still face the same radicals with the same intentions while fending off attempted bombings in Times Square and in the air over Detroit.

If we can't possibly appease the enemy, why even contemplate giving up our freedoms? If heads will roll even if Korans are handled with kid gloves (literally), why preemptively surrender a core part of our constitutional identity? No court ruling can stop Islamic terror, but court rulings can limit our liberty. Let’s leave our constitutional doctrine alone and trust our military to protect our lives.

Unfortunately, the first step would be to recognize the threat and its nature, and we just aren't up to that point yet.

Technorati Tag: First Amendment and Islamists and Stephen Breyer.