Germany: A Good Terrorist Target Says Claremont Institute's Mark Helprin

In tomorrow's Wall Street Journal, Mark Helprin of the Claremont Institute lays out the reasons that Western Europe should invest in its own military defense in a post-Cold War world.
He elegantly paints the reasons for why Germany and the rest of Europe has been soft on Islamic terrorism by affording jihadists the same standards of proof as normal criminals. Do Europeans honestly believe that jihadists can be rehabilitated in their systems or are they just out of fresh ideas? Helprin discusses why Germany in particular and Europe in general fails to really go after those who would end Western civilization.

Germany must fascinate the Jihadists, too -- not for displacing America as the prime target, but as the richest target least defended. Though it will never happen, they believe that Islam will conquer the world, and so they try. Unlike the U.S., Europe is not removed from them by an ocean, and in it are 50 million of their co-religionists among whom they can disappear and find support. Perhaps out of habit, Europe is also kind to mass murderers, who if caught spend a few years in a comfortable prison sharpening their resolve before they are released to fight again. In July the French sentenced eight terrorists connected to the murder of 45 people to terms ranging from one year, suspended, to 10 years. In Spain, with 191 dead and 1,800 wounded, the perpetrators will spend no more than 40 years behind soft bars. Though in 2003 Germany found a September 11th facilitator guilty of 3,066 counts of accessory to murder and sentenced him to seven years (20 hours per person), he was recently reconvicted and sentenced to 43 hours per person, not counting parole.

And there's the problem with treating terrorism as a law enforcement option as several Claremont professors implicitly want.

Harvey Mudd in CSM: Thou Shall Not Prank These Students

Harvey Mudd's "no prank" list was mentioned in The Christian Science Monitor. Yes, the article is from October 31, and no, I'm not slipping. I'm deliberating how I feel about this issue. On the one hand, no prank lists suck the marrow out of fun. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure there are a few things I own that I wouldn't want messed with. In any event, here's the quotation:

Following complaints in 2000 from several students at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, Calif., about an annual prank where sophomores perform elaborate freshman room rearrangements - such as turning a dorm room into a campsite, complete with sod - administrators decided that rather than sacrifice their prank culture, they would refine it by creating a "no prank list."

"There is an implicit assumption that when you come to Harvey Mudd that you are willing to be party to pranks against you and your room," explains Guy Gerbick, associate dean of students. "We tell students during orientation, 'If you don't want to have certain things or yourself or any of your stuff pranked, let us know, and we'll put you on a list.' "

Over half the student body has registered. According to Mr. Gerbick, most make specific demands, such as not to interrupt sleep or meddle with a prized guitar or stuffed-animal collection. Only about 15 students have asked for no involvement whatsoever.

Think about all that regulation! If you prank so and so's teddy bear collection, you get in some serious trouble. Who would want to take the risk? Only the daring or the foolish. Too bad we don't have the good ole days when you could prank away and let boys be boys. Frankly if you can't get in trouble for it -- if your heart doesn't escalate-- than it isn't a prank.