RSS Feed MenuMy latest column for CNN.com discusses the Obama administration’s confused counter-terrorism policies.
By failing to interrogate the underwear bomber exhaustively, the Obama administration failed to do all that is possible to protect the country. They closed their ears to potentially useful information. The underwear bomber may divulge more later. But information loses value by the day, sometimes by the hour. Later may be too late.
The mishandling of the underwear bomber was embedded in the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court. If the Obama administration had adhered to prior decisions on military tribunals, it would have left itself room to handle the underwear bomber more responsibly.
And yet this mishandling of the underwear bomber will buy them very little goodwill from their domestic and international left.
Click here to read the rest.
franco 2 // Feb 2, 2010 at 7:41 am
Balconesfault,
“So what you’re saying is that the Obama Administration and Congress somehow managed to be composed largely of leftists who don’t believe what other leftists generally believe?”
I said “Few of these politicians will openly admit to believing these things as stated, but it is quite clear in how they vote on issues and how they attack their adversaries. ”
Still having a problem reading words on a screen I see.
“Unless you think that we go around making drone strikes on people we aren’t at war with, the first claim with respect to the Obama Administration is clearly false.”
Funny how Obama downplayed all that in the SOTU speech. You’d think there was a war going on…with the Republicans for not going along with Obama’s radical plans…but not much about the real enemies who want to kill us all. Maybe he just doesn’t want to inflame his left-wing base that he pandered too so much before the election.
“The third is based on a false supposition because without conducting an honest trial, we haven’t “brought terrorists to justice”, at least the way the American system of justice uses the term. If you’re looking to pervert the language in our Constitution, admit that’s what you’re doing and use the term “vengence” instead of “justice”.”
This is actually true and a good point. “Bringing terrorists to justice” is a kind of euphemism that perverts the word justice. However terrorists caught red-handed deserve no Constitutional protections.
It isn’t seemly for a President of any party to use the word “kill” or even the word ” vengeance”. FDR didn’t use it, Churchill didn’t use it; they said “fight” which everyone knew to meant do whatever it takes including killing. So even though this is a valid criticism of wording, actions are what count here. FDR didn’t mirandize German spies caught on our shores. If this is indeed “war” we must treat them accordingly. There is no better insight into the minds of Obama and Holder than to look at how they are treating legacy terrorist masterminds like KSM and ostensible small frys like the underwear bomber. They are reading rights and putting them on trial. That is, they are treating this as a criminal justice problem. And why are they doing this when we are supposedly “at war”? Because they believe as they have said, that we need to show the world we are a civilized nation. Where does this idea come from?
The idea that others have legitimate gripes and questions as to the overall “fairness” of the USA. And where does this idea come from? Leftist propaganda. So they either are leftists themselves or they believe the left’s propaganda (which would almost automatically make one sympathetic to left-wing causes).
Obama and those in his administration operate out of a belief system that is at odds with reality. Their attempt to square the circle will always result in incoherence. If they believe the world is one big PR game and that attacks on America will subside because people around the world will see us as “fair” and “just” because we follow all these rules when treating our enemies, well maybe they are just horribly naive…but I doubt it.
joedee1969 // Feb 2, 2010 at 7:47 am
Time for America to rethink the office of the presidency:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2010/02/why-do-we-need-a-president/comment-page-1/#comment-3907
kevin47 // Feb 2, 2010 at 7:56 am
“If you think this is a caricature of Leftist beliefs, you’re wrong. In discussions on numerous Internet forums with them, these are almost exact quotes of what they have said to me–to the best of my memory.”
As convenient as it would be for me to believe the liberals who frequent internet forums such as this represent the mainstream of leftist thought, to do so would be opportunistic. If Teabag really spoke for liberalism, there would be no liberalism.
GOProud // Feb 2, 2010 at 9:54 am
TeaBagged and Balconesfault take deadly aim at Sinz54 –someone who normally drives the short yellow bus for them.
Sorry guys, Obama and all the ACLU defenders out there can’t deny a simple fact: foreign terrorists, trained abroad, want to engage in warfare against innocent American citizens. We didn’t provoke the jihad… but simply engaging in Obama’s new Big-Hugs-Heal-All isn’t good enough to thwart the terrorists -anymore than providing them with 1st tier defense attorneys out of Eric Holder’s old firm while compensating the firm for 100s of millions in payoffs. Great for Eric and his blind trust’s revenue stream… but not too good for America. Great for al Qaeda and the ACLU, but not so much for our soldiers.
Find a terrorist who is home grown? Use the civilian courts on them; they do have their 1st, 5th, 6th and other amendment rights. Foreigner? Not so much, even if the ACLU commands the DOJ’s leadership these days and muslim sympathizers fill the WH.
I guess it all comes down to, as Slick Willy might paraphrase, what your definition of “terrorist” is… with Democrat “patriots” like Bill Ayers and Rev Wright covering Obama’s back, terrorist doesn’t have the currency it once had to demand strong, swift, certain dispatch. What’s next? “Democrats for al Qaeda” as a bumper sticker on Volvo and Prius cars?
sinz54 // Feb 2, 2010 at 10:12 am
balconesfault: I’m assuming you were onboard from the start with Ann Coulter’s first declaration on how we should handle the Middle East?
Ann Coulter was FIRED from the National Review for that column she wrote.
When have any leftists been FIRED from left-wing publications for claiming that the Afghanistan War is all about oil? Or claiming that these terrorists were “desperate” and “provoked” by alleged “U.S. aggression”? Or claiming that Bush deliberately “allowed” 9-11 to happen in order to impose “fascism” on America and “steal” Iraq’s oil?
You on the Left routinely tolerate, if not cheer, the most hateful and paranoid things said about your own country. Some of those things are congruent if not identical to the things that Osama bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood have said about America.
On this very blog here, I have yet to see “teabag” or “rbottoms” have one good word to say about the country they live in. And “rbottoms” is serving in the U.S. military. Why did he bother to sign up, just for the paycheck?
sinz54 // Feb 2, 2010 at 10:15 am
GOProud: We didn’t provoke the jihad
The Islamists have a funny idea: All the lands comprising the former Islamic caliphate belong to THEM.
And anybody else–Jews, Christians, Hindus–have three choices: Convert to Islam; accept being second-class citizens under Muslim rulers; or else get the hell out.
And that idea they have runs counter to both the United Nations Charter and to the U.S. Bill of Rights.
And that’s why they have attacked us, and that’s what this war is all about.
teabag // Feb 2, 2010 at 10:17 am
Sinz and fellow travelers are more dangerous to this country and it’s ideals than any terrorists or terror organizations.
Take em out shoot them as soon and as cheaply as possible. Thats the RW way. Stalinism at it’s very best.
GOProud // Feb 2, 2010 at 10:28 am
TeaBagged gets bagged again with this whooper “Sinz and fellow travelers are more dangerous to this country…”
Last time I checked, Sinz54 and all the guys on the short yellow bus didn’t kill over 3000 innocent Americans and foreign natls on 9-11, TeaBagged. Some days you should just accept your ill-equipped for adult conversation and stay at the child care center with the other kids. Play nice now.
balconesfault // Feb 2, 2010 at 12:51 pm
If they believe the world is one big PR game and that attacks on America will subside because people around the world will see us as “fair” and “just” because we follow all these rules when treating our enemies, well maybe they are just horribly naive…but I doubt it.
You misconstrue the goal.
There will always be some number of nihilists bent on attacking America. Hell, they clearly don’t have much compulsion against even killing their fellow Muslims. They’ll kill because it’s easier than building.
The number of these nihilists is not fixed, however. Just as 9/11 caused many Americans to cross over to the dark side and embrace torture – something expressly rejected by the Reagan Administration, and something we argued was one reason that Saddam was evil – much of how we responded to 9/11 in the Middle East has increased the number of anti-American radicals.
Our military leaders pretty much all agree, for example, that the perception that the US was unjustly detaining and torturing innocents in Iraq made life more dangerous for US soldiers over there.
In addition, our efforts to stop terrorist attacks are most effective if we have the support of local governments. And the ability of local governments to really participate with America in cracking down on the nihilists depends on the support of their citizenry – even in non-democratic countries. And the greater the perception that America is waging a crusade, the harder it is for those governments to actively cooperate with us.
Third, the most obscene error that the right makes imo is the presumption that everyone who has been rounded up is a terrorist, and thus deserving of the worst we can mete out. This has been so disproven that anyone who makes the claim should be ashamed … yet it still seems to be a first presumption by many.
A nation full of right wingers who distrust our government so much that they want to bear arms in order to be able to fight it … yet who trust it enough to grant unlimited powers for it to detain and torture and deny justice to anyone (ok, in your case, any foreigner) caught in its net.
Kanzeon // Feb 2, 2010 at 3:45 pm
sinz54:
“Ann Coulter was FIRED from the National Review for that column she wrote.”
And she went on to grace the cover of Time, and appear on the Today show and Fox. Savage has a job, and Levin, and Beck.
“When have any leftists been FIRED from left-wing publications for claiming that the Afghanistan War is all about oil?”
I don’t think you identify “left” and “right” very well. Lew Rockwell, for example is a libertarian, and a chairman of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Judging by his webpage, he thinks the Afghanistan war is about an oil pipeline:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis114.html
“Or claiming that these terrorists were “desperate” and “provoked” by alleged “U.S. aggression”?”
That is probably a left position, but I don’t often see it stated in those terms.
” Or claiming that Bush deliberately “allowed” 9-11 to happen ”
Well:
“Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement come from diverse social backgrounds.[1][25][28] The movement draws adherents from both the left and the right. The Conservative supporters of the movement often come from a Libertarian background”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_truth_movement#Adherents
“You on the Left routinely tolerate, if not cheer, the most hateful and paranoid things said about your own country.”
Have you ever listened to Glenn Beck? Do you think that calling the President a socialist, fascists, or racist isn’t hateful or paranoid?
I don’t think you have clue one as to what liberals believe. I don’t think you care to know. You just cling to your own sad perception of your side’s moral superiority, because you can’t marshall facts to support your policy positions.
kevin47 // Feb 4, 2010 at 12:30 pm
“Our military leaders pretty much all agree, for example, that the perception that the US was unjustly detaining and torturing innocents in Iraq made life more dangerous for US soldiers over there.”
And that perception existed largely outside of reality. Terrorist groups and their Middle Eastern media will paint Americans as murders, irrespective of our efforts to the contrary.
“Third, the most obscene error that the right makes imo is the presumption that everyone who has been rounded up is a terrorist, and thus deserving of the worst we can mete out. This has been so disproven that anyone who makes the claim should be ashamed … yet it still seems to be a first presumption by many.”
Let’s see: you’ve got an”imo”, assertions of “presumption” that somehow mutates into a “claim”. On top of that, you throw in a nebulously defined “worst we can mete out”. Then you put in some ellipses, the presence of which apparently allows you revert to calling it a “presumption”, which only “seems” to be the case amongst “anyone” on “the right”.
You need a hedge trimmer. Allow me.
What is the “worst we can mete out”?
Who, specifically, is making the presumption that detainees deserve whatever that is?
Who, specifically, is outright “claiming” this to be so?
If you are going to accuse Republicans (and our military) of being murdering, torturing thugs, you might as well be bold in your assertions.
LFC // Feb 4, 2010 at 2:07 pm
For an informed take on Miranda Rights, and why they are meaningless in the undie bomber case, read this.
balconesfault // Feb 5, 2010 at 10:36 am
Kevin: Terrorist groups and their Middle Eastern media will paint Americans as murders, irrespective of our efforts to the contrary.
You believe that terrorist groups possess any media outside the internet? Start naming names, please.
That said – terrorist groups will paint Americans as murderers. Extremists are extremists. However, their ability to attract more to their extremist position was enhanced when America discarded human rights not only for expediency, but in many cases seemingly because there was simply no voice of conscience present to say “stop”.
What is the “worst we can mete out”?
For starters, this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/24/cia-report-unauthorised-techniques-threats
An internal CIA report published yesterday reveals a host of incidents in which its interrogators went far beyond acceptable bounds, including threatening an al-Qaida leader that his children would be killed and hinting to another suspect that his mother would be raped in front of him.
Who, specifically, is making the presumption that detainees deserve whatever that is?
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905260062
Fox News Channel’s Ralph Peters: GTMO detainees “aren’t human any more, they’re monsters, and… monsters deserve to die”
balconesfault // Feb 5, 2010 at 10:43 am
LFC: For an informed take on Miranda Rights, and why they are meaningless in the undie bomber case, read this.
That is a great point – and I have a hard time understanding why every law enforcement officer at every level wouldn’t have that drilled into them.
If you have hard physical evidence that someone has committed a crime, then Miranda is superfluous.
On the other hand I can see why all levels of Prosecutors – from the Justice Department down to your local DA – would blanche at this idea. Because they know there is some number of cases where the evidence that the arresting officer thought was ironclad could end up being picked apart by a defense attorney, and so they want the door left open to further statements that could be used to be convict.
So it’s a tough call.