Justice, European-Style

Scotland released the Libyan agent who was convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people.

The agent, Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi, is terminally ill so his release is for "humane" reasons.

Aside from the obscenity of releasing a mass murder, this serves as a great example of what criminal justice really means in Europe.

It is a relevant consideration for Americans, since opponents of the death penalty often use Europe's ban on the death penalty as a reason we should ban it.

The release of al-Megrahi illustrates the problem with the philosophy underlying the left's view of criminal justice: it is a soft-on-crime approach, with shorter sentences (he was only sentenced to a minimum of 27 years in prison for his conviction in the killing of 270 people) and more lenient view on releasing prisoners.

Abandoning the death penalty is likely to be the first step in weakening criminal penalties across a range of crimes, that life without parole as the substitute for the death penalty will also come under assault, and all "lesser" crimes will eventually have weakened criminal penalties.

One of the most effective ways to reduce crime is to keep criminals behind bars. And the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes can help raise the penalties for all other crimes, which helps keep violent criminals behind bars and off the streets.

So the next time someone uses Europe as an example for abandoning the death penalty, remember the Lockerbie case.

Do as the Europeans Do?

In America, the left often uses policies that predominate in Europe as an argument for their introduction or expansion in the U.S.: national health care, labor regulations, and the death penalty top the list.

But when it comes to "stimulus" spending, Europe has taken a much tougher line than the Democrats' spend-till-we-drop approach. The leading European nations have announced "stimulus" plans that are a much smaller percentage of GDP that America's.

Don't hold your breath for our left to suggest we mimic Europe in this regard. In fact, the Obama administration is pushing Europe to spend more, but those nations are resisting such entreaties out of a concern that spending sprees won't do much good but will increase their debt burdens.

EU to Eastern Europe: Drop Dead

The European Union rejected pleas from Eastern European governments for aid to deal with the crisis effecting their financial system. In contrast, recall that the United States came to Mexico's rescue in 1994 during a financial crisis.

Yes, the wealthy Western European nations who rejected such aid are having their own problems, and yes, such aid rewards bad behavior.

But such aid can also help prevent Eastern Europe, less than 20 years after being liberated from their former Soviet masters, from succumbing to Russian pressure.

This continues the pattern of Europe's inability to take strong measures in support of freedom and against tyranny. From the wars of ethnic cleansing by Serbia in the 1990's that were only addressed by American intervention after Europe dithered, to the appeasement of Russia in the face of its war against Georgia last year, Europe continues to demonstrate, in a tragic twist of the Marine slogan, that there is "no worse friend, and no better enemy" than Europe.

Europe 1, Obama 0

In an effort to get our European allies to contribute a meaningful number of additional troops to Afghanistan, Barack Obama has come up short. Other than commitments of a couple hundred troops, Europe has added nothing like the 17,000 new troops we just announced.

It looks like an Obama administration has not ushered in a sea change in our allies' willingness to help us in the fight against terrorism. As I discussed earlier, that is not surprising. The only thing that is surprising about this situation are the claims to the contrary during the presidential campaign.

The Reality of the "Cycle of Violence"

One of the common refrains in discussing the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict is to implore the "cycle of violence", which sees the conflict in morally neutral terms where the parties are primarily responding to each other's military actions.

Israel's military efforts are typically in response to multiple attacks by its enemies, such as its current military campaign in response to months of rockets attacks by Hamas into Israel or the 2006 campaign in Lebanon against Hezbollah after their capture of Israel soldiers.

On the other hand, the terror groups initiate the use of low-intensity military attacks as a core part of their strategy to weaken Israel's resolve. If they didn't launch such attacks, there wouldn't be the frequent military clashes involving Israel and the terror groups.

And we now have the recurring spectacle of the UN and European Union repeating their refrain and seeking a cease-fire, and in the process trying to prevent Israel from inflicting substantial damage on Hamas.

If Europe, the UN, and others really want to stop the "cycle of violence", then they need to let Israel deliver a truly devastating military blow against Hamas. While that won't guarantee peace, it would begin to change the strategic calculation of Hamas, Hezbollah, and their supporters.

From their warped perspective, the ongoing military struggle against Israel is working: Israel pulled out of Lebanon, pulled out of Gaza, and has offered unprecedented concessions on Palestinian statehood - so why stop now? If the terror groups saw that the international community won't come to its defense anymore when Israel responds militarily, it would over time help produce the perspective needed for lasting peace: the desire of the terrorists, Palestinians, and their supporters to genuinely live in peace with Israel.