Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken critic of Islam who moved to the United States to escape death threats, returned to the Netherlands on Monday because the Dutch government said it would no longer pay for her security needs while she lived in the United States.

Hirsi Ali’s return raises the question of how the Netherlands or any country can protect its citizens from extremists while securing the rights of free speech and critical debate. Some politicians have called for an urgent session of Parliament. Many in the United States want to know why our government hasn’t stepped in to guarantee her protection in some way.

Dutch novelist Leon de Winter, a supporter of Hirsi Ali, offered the following commentary, reprinted in the New York Times and Courrier International:

Dutch society has no choice in this case. Canceling Ayaan’s protection would be the equivalent of a death sentence. Because she is so well known in the Netherlands and practically lives the life of a prisoner, not even able to go out on the street, the most humane solution is to continue to provide her with protection in America.

Society should cover the cost of this protection, for freedom of expression, one of the pillars of our culture, is being questioned. … The cost of this protection is nothing compared to its goal, which is to guarantee the continuity of our values.

So how do we as citizens of free countries reach out to protect those who have the courage to speak out? Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports that, according to her lawyer, Britta Böhler, Hirsi Alli is willing to pay for her own protection but that it will take some time to find the necessary resources. What is the cost of courage for the individual and for the nations? Both in monetary and in less substantial but still important terms. Can we let someone who is brave enough to speak out stand by themselves or shouldn’t we stand with them?

In an attempt to put the American people at ease with the concept of remaining in Iraq, the president gave a bumbling, historically inaccurate speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Kansas City yesterday. In his attempt to draw parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, Bush said:

One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people’, ‘re-education camps’, and ‘killing fields’.

What about the 4 million Vietnamese civilians indiscriminately killed in a conflict perpetuated by US involvement? South Vietnam was a dictatorship supported in the vain fight against Communism, and more blood was shed during our long involvement in Vietnam than in the years after the war. That’s the real legacy.

Bush also believes that Iraq is currently a democracy. Ok, yes, they have elections, but there are multiple car bombs a day and hundreds of civilians die a week. I would personally rather lived repressed than in constant fear of dying at the market. And you?

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) sums it up nicely in saying, “instead of providing the country with a history lesson…[Bush] should be reevaluating his flawed strategies.”

On a final note, the Los Angeles Times provides a thoughtful take on yesterday’s speech, saying it contained

rhetoric that would stir any patriot but logic that should persuade few. . . . The real lesson of Vietnam is that its civil war was a nationalist struggle that toppled no communist “dominoes” across Asia. Bush’s rhetoric implying an Al Qaeda “domino effect” in the Middle East has the same false ring.

Sorry Georgie, but maybe you should consult a college student who has taken a modern history class, as I think they may be more help than your current aides.

Car bombers linked to al-Qaeda (almost…) detonated three separate car bombs this weekend in the U.K., two in London and one at the Glasgow Airport. This led me to question our own level of safety from terror attacks, especially pertinent to us living in the nation’s capital, a seemingly prime target for such activities.

Why have there been no attacks in America since 9/11? I am of course thankful that nothing has happened domestically, but why has nothing happened? Are federal government anti-terror practices working, averting bombings of the likes the U.K. has seen in the past two years? Or, as The Onion satirized, are terrorists becoming complacent with/in America? Is there another answer?

Given the lack of trust I have in the current administration, and given their failed policies all across the board, including toward anti-terrorism efforts, a few examples on proven anti-terror failures come to mind. First, there is the largely unguarded East Coast port system. Second, don’t forget about the constant ability for TSA undercover agents to sneak weapons and bomb material past airport security. And finally, the weigh station/security system on our nations highways is rarely even in working order (I drove from GA to DC and not a SINGLE weigh station was open. Could I not have had a dirty bomb in my U-Haul??)

So, again, I’ll pose the question that has been nagging me…What has prevented more 9/11s??

(Click “Read on…” to see the comments)

Read the rest of this entry &raquo