Embassies, part 2: How do we respond to protests?

In my last post, I outlined why the film that has caused such a ruckus overseas is protected speech, despite the fact that it is ignorant and hateful. Of course, because of that film, an Ambassador is dead and our Embassies are burning. What do we do about this?

First, a definition: A protest is a bunch of people carrying signs, maybe chanting, to express an opinion. What is occurring are not protests: They are what we call "riots". So let's call a spade a spade: These demonstrations are riots, plain and simple. If the people are simply protesting, they ought to be allowed to continue. Heck, they should be encouraged! Statements from the embassy should read something like this:

"While we do not agree with the burning of our President in effigy, we absolutely endorse the people's right to do it. And also, where exactly are you getting all these American flags? Like, seriously, the number of flags we've watched you guys burn could probably clothe every child in Africa. There must be entire factories devoted to nothing but producing highly flammable American flags. Maybe some of that energy ought to be channeled into, I dunno, making farm equipment or curing AIDS. Just sayin', it's an idea. But hey, what do I know. Flame on!"

An attack, a riot, now that is something different. Remember, our embassies are a little piece of America inside the host nation. The French Embassy in America isn't American soil: it is French. Unless we evict them, that land does not belong to us. Likewise, an attack on an American embassy abroad is exactly the same as an attack here at home. So, if a company of soldiers marched into the French embassy and killed a bunch of people, that would be an invasion and a declaration of war.

At least, that's how it used to be. Unfortunately, that's not how things have been lately. For the last few decades, embassies have been fair game for any nutjob with a rifle. So how do we stop that?

The key to enforcing your will anywhere is to be swift, decisive, and consistent. We have to enforce consequences on two groups of people: The host nation, and the perps who actually do the attack.

First, the host nation. That one is actually pretty easy. We give millions, sometimes billions of dollars in aid to these nations every year cause we are swell guys. So, we hit them where it counts: Their wallets. Any damage done to an embassy gets repaired on the host nation's dime through aid money. Also, any time a demonstration outside the embassy gets out of hand and our people are hurt, or our property damaged, we charge you a fee. Say $10 million. Every time. Do that, and watch how quickly "We strongly condemn these actions" turns into riot police and a complete civil liberties crack down.

Second, the perps. Of course, you'll never stop every crazy, no matter how great you are. Even in nations that we are generally friendly with, we could still be attacked. If an actual nation attacked the embassy, the answer is easy: War. Unfortunately, nowadays that never happens. It's always a random group of "extremists" who fade back into the crowd. What is a superpower to do?

First, we are patient. We recognize this as a problem and devote resources to monitoring its development. We wait until we have for sure credible evidence that an attack is going to happen. We find out who it is, and we track them down. Then, we put the word out on the street that "Hey, btdubs, if anybody attacks our embassy there will be consequences. Just so you know." Then we do something really crazy: Nothing. We let them come.

Stay with me.

We have to be super, ultra sure for this plan to work, which may mean we miss a few attacks in the meantime. No big deal, we haven't been doing anything about the ones that are happening anyhow, so that's pretty much status quo. But eventually we'll know ahead of time what's gonna happen. We beef up security to repulse the attack, then we let them do it. We run them off.

Then the plan happens. Our enemy only understands one language, and that language is overwhelming violence. I propose we speak his language.

We hunt them down. Publicly. Ruthlessly. When we find them, we execute them in as barbaric a fashion as we can conceive. I'm talking kill them in such a mind-bendingly violent way that the mob will be calling us for pointers. Maybe we do it on public TV. Maybe we make a reality TV show about it, like Hunger Games: America. What is important is that we do it, and everyone knows we do it, and that we then do it every other time from here on out. We make a public example, then we put their heads on spikes and hang a sign that says "Who else wants some?"

It'll take some time to prove we're serious, but eventually, the absolute certainty of being executed in a horrifying fashion will dissuade further attacks.

Burning embassies and "hate speech"

UPDATE: A coworker sent me an awesome pic from Reuters that lays out everything to date (9/14/12). Added it below.

For the last week, North Africa and the Middle East have been illuminated by light of burning American flags. From Egypt to Sudan, Tunisia to Afghanistan, demonstrations have raged over a "blasphemous" film made about the Prophet. If you are confused by all the news stories pouring in, here's a timeline of the original series of events, including the murder of our Ambassador to Libya. Also, here it is in picture form.

The film in question is "The innocence of Muslims", an amateur movie produced in America. It portrays the Prophet as a womanizer, child molester, charlatan, rapist, violent man. Possibly also as a cyborg. I don't know, I didn't actually watch it. Clips of the video & trailer  went viral across the Islamic world.

Showing the usual amount of restraint and rational thought present in these situations, peaceful protests sprung up outside various embassies to express their outrage at this film. If by peaceful protests you mean full scale riots, complete with burning flags, storming the walls of various compounds, and a coordinated attack (which of course had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the unrelated anniversary of 9/11. Right.) on a consulate in Libya which resulted in the killing of the American Ambassador.

I'm not going to get into whether the attacks were planned or not (they were), or whether the Administration should have better protected its foreign installations (it should), or whether Romney was out of line when he called Obama out on it (he wasn't), or any of that. In my next post I'll say what I believe ought to be done about all this stuff going on. In this one, I want to address the idea that the film is a "hate crime".

An article appeared in the Huffington Post by one Mr. Abbas Barzegar. Mr. Barzegar correctly noted that a widespread Muslim mindless, violent & savage response to a negative stereotype that depicts them as mindless, violent savages is pretty ironic. Unfortunately, after that his grasp of irony dips to that of Alanis Morissette.

"Anyone who has a inkling of familiarity with the Muslim world knows that sacrilege and blasphemy are not understood as acts of free speech, political expression, or artistic creativity. No, they are bright red lines that promise public panic and guarantee violence. Couple that reality with two centuries of colonial and neo-imperial European domination of the greater Middle East and you have the perfect storm for an international communications disaster. So, as history repeats itself, the only thing ludicrous is the incessant stubbornness of both the West's commitment to "free speech" and the Muslim world's rush to violence, the irony of which is lost upon them both....one look at Sam Bacile's film will demonstrate that its vitriolic message elevates it to the status of a hate crime.

Consider this: how is it possible that not the FBI nor Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could stop Pastor Terry Jones from putting the Quran on Trial and burning it when it was well known that the act would cause violence around the world and harm the security of the US personnel abroad?"

Isn't it a big pain when stupid things like "rights" and "laws" get in the way of enforcing your own sensibilities on an unwilling populace? Mr. Barzegar's reasoning goes like this: Person "A" says something that Person "B" does not like. Person "B" decides to act on his dislike by murdering person "A", or his family. Person "A" had it coming, because he shouldn't have said something so mean.

The reason that neither the FBI nor the SoD, nor the President, nor anyone else could stop a Quran burning or a movie being produced is that it does not matter if you agree with what the person is doing or saying so long as they are not directly harming someone else by doing it. It does not matter if what he is saying is ignorant, hateful, and vitriolic. It does not matter! It is his right to say it.

Rights exist to protect the minority from the majority. That means that the right that allows Mr. Barzegar to criticize his government is the same right that allows neo-Nazis to march peacefully in Jewish communities and ignorant filmmakers to make poor cinema about religious figures. You cannot have one without the other.

Of course, I can already see the straw men marching on the horizon, so I'll go ahead and cut them off: Restrictions on speech, such as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, are not equivalent to restrictions on "hate speech". In the former, if a crowd of reasonable people are in a theater, an expected, reasonable response would be fleeing the imaginary fire, which could cause death. If the same person shouts "I hate Jews!" or "Muslims are stupid for realz!", no one is harmed by the words. A reasonable response to this would result in no violence.

Speech is not a crime, Mr. Barzegar, even if it is hateful.