How To Not Give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed What He Wants
Attorney General Eric Holder has caused an uproar in some circles over his announcement that the self-confessed "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be tried in federal court in New York City, mere blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood. To be honest, I was surprised this was even controversial, for a number of reasons most people (on either side of the issue) have largely ignored. Today I will examine two of these, and tomorrow I will take on the biggest elephant everyone seems to be missing in this particular room.
You can't have a "media circus" without a willing media
This is the most obvious point nobody (certainly nobody I've heard in the media) is making. One of the arguments against trying K.S. Mohammed in civilian court is that it would give him a "platform" to air his repugnant opinions, a "megaphone" to use to spread his odious ideas, and will put him in the center ring of a "circus" atmosphere, where he will be able to espouse his anti-American (in the most literal sense of that term) and jihadist views to a world audience. This has been brought up over and over again by people second-guessing Holder's decision.
But this ignores the most crucial part of the equation. Imagine, if you will, a gas station. A crazy guy walks up to the pump and starts spraying gasoline everywhere. Gasoline spewing all over the place, and collecting on the tarmac in great pools. A second man walks up to this mess, lights a match, and tosses it in. WHOOMP! The station explodes in a Hollywood-worthy fireball, which makes the evening news. And we all start arguing about whether a gas station should have been put in that particular location or not, since it was obviously the cause of the disaster. Or arguing whether automobiles should be legal, since they require this flammable substance to operate. Here's a hint as to what we really should be talking about: focus on the guy with the match.
Assuming that the detractors are correct, and that K.S. Mohammed is going to shout out all kinds of reprehensible things during his trial (this ignores the fact that federal judges are not usually wont to allow their courtrooms to be used in such a fashion, but let's ignore that for the moment). K.S. Mohammed is the equivalent of the guy at the gas pump, spraying this explosive stuff around (I realize my metaphor isn't perfect here, so bear with me -- the metaphor is the trial itself, and not the heinous attack which preceded it, if that helps).
But that gasoline does not catch fire by itself. There has to be a spark -- a guy who flings a match into the situation. Without a spark, it's a toxic mess to be cleaned up, but not a disaster. The arsonist, in this instance, is the media itself.
Listen closely to the way the media has (so far) presented this argument. They present it solely in passive terms, as if the entire situation is completely separate from the media themselves, and what happens is utterly out of their hands -- in other words, that nothing they do can change what is about to happen in any way. This is false, and, furthermore, is irresponsible in the extreme. Other than the few people physically present in the courtroom who actually hear K.S. Mohammed (or, more accurately, hear whatever the judge allows his translator to say in English), there simply is no "megaphone" for his views without the media as an active part of this equation.
The media is not editorless. They are not automatons, who simply have no choice but to air such ranting. They are part of the process. Indeed, to a large part, they are the process. But don't look for them to admit it any time soon.
I've heard quite a few arguments about the propriety of trying K.S. Mohammed in an "open court" on various different media outlets. Not one mentioned the editorial power of the media itself to quash his ugly views -- thereby denying him the "megaphone" they're all interested in debating.
Even assuming the media were all automatons, and had some overwhelming compulsion to air K.S. Mohammed's views, consider how such trial reporting has happened in previous cases with any similarities to this one. Due to time constraints, what would air would be a clip. Probably about ten or fifteen seconds long, if that. Every word would have to be translated into English. What you would see, as a consumer of television media, would be about three minutes of an anchor telling you what happened, complete with five or ten seconds of K.S. Mohammed ranting and raving in a foreign language. In most similar cases shown on television, translation is not even provided and the anchor merely paraphrases what is being said.
Personally, I think America is strong enough to weather seeing that. And, again, that is assuming that the media doesn't collectively make the decision to ban showing K.S. Mohammed talking altogether, which (to me, at least) would seem to be the responsible thing to do. But that's my point entirely -- what to air, how much of it to air, and what to translate is entirely up to the media. No one is going to force them to air "gavel to gavel" coverage of every single thing that comes out of his mouth. It is entirely their choice whether to do so or not. The media are metaphorically standing next to the gasoline spilling out of K.S. Mohammed's mouth, with a box of matches in their collective hands. But the choice to take a match out, light it, and cause an explosion is still entirely theirs to make.
You can't have a "media circus" without a willing media. The media's unwillingness to admit this basic fact does not change it one iota.
Holder is not "giving K.S. Mohammed what he wants"
Attorney General Holder has been loudly condemned for somehow "giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed what he wants." The basis for this claim is that when K.S. Mohammed was arrested, he asked for a lawyer, and to be taken to New York City for trial. Since this is what Holder has now announced, the argument goes, Holder is playing into K.S. Mohammed's hands somehow by giving him exactly what he asked for.
But this ignores a big part of the equation, which is largely being missed due to (I suspect) cultural reasons. So far, the only one to point this out has been Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, who made the point on Fox News Sunday last weekend:
I think this debate about are we playing into the hands of terrorists -- all of these, particularly the sheikh, Mohammed, wants to be considered a holy warrior, a jihadist. And if we try him before military officers, that image of a soldier will be portrayed by the Islamic community. That's not the image we want. These are heinous murderers.
Unfortunately, he did not get a chance to expand this point, but it is exactly what I've been thinking ever since Holder announced his decision. Now, I am no expert in religion, so if I err in my understanding I ask forgiveness in advance, but the way I understand Islam is that "jihad" means "holy war." Therefore a "jihadist" is a "holy warrior." And one way (if not the best way) to get into the Islamist heaven is to become a martyr in such a holy war.
By treating K.S. Mohammed as a criminal we are denying him the status he so desperately seeks. Trying him in a military commission elevates him to "warrior" status -- which is exactly what he wants. Trying him in a civilian court underlines the fact that he allegedly was the mastermind behind a craven attack on a civilian target, which murdered thousands of innocent people (including many Muslims). And, by doing so, we are denying him the status he seeks as a holy warrior.
K.S. Mohammed, given the few options available to him, would like nothing more at this point than to be tried and put to death by the United States military. It would (in his mind) cement his status, guarantee him the martyrdom he seeks, and gain him entry to the heaven he believes in. It would also seem that way to the twisted world of Islamic jihadists worldwide.
Trying him in civilian court denies him all of that. To be honest, if we really wanted to deny him the status he seeks, we would take the death penalty off the table and bung him in prison for the rest of his life. But I can understand why the Attorney General hasn't chosen that route, given the enormity of the crime.
Prosecuting terrorism
This leads into an examination of what, exactly, do we mean when we use the word "terrorist" or "terrorism." Defining the term is fairly easy, one would think, but in reality (and in law) it isn't that simple. Start with a basic description, and you quickly find yourself confronting hairs which must be split one way or another. Such as: "Is terrorism 'war,' or is it a 'crime,' or is it possibly both -- a 'war crime'?" But that is a tricky subject which leads eventually to uncomfortable discussions of whether the Allied bombing of Dresden in World War II, or the nuclear bomb we dropped over Nagasaki actually fits into this description.
Which brings up yet another tricky question -- what is a valid military target? Terrorism, by most definitions, involves innocents as targets. In other words, terrorism involves attacking something which is not a valid military target by anyone's definition (anyone sane, that is). But this also turns out to be a briar patch. While everyone agrees the World Trade Center was not a valid military target, what about the Pentagon? If we were in a war with another nation, and they managed to destroy the Pentagon, they would not be guilty of a war crime for doing so -- because it so obviously fits the legal definition of a military target, being the headquarters for the entire United States military.
Which leads to the question -- were the attacks on New York terrorism, but the attack on the Pentagon somehow not? The answer is "of course not," but only because civilians died in the airplane which was used as a weapon. If no civilians had died in the attack, it would not be as easy to classify. This also leads to another disturbing question. Was the guy who perpetrated the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas a terrorist or not? Does it even matter whether he was shouting Islamic slogans as he murdered soldiers? They were, after all, soldiers on a military base -- again, a valid military target, by most definitions.
These are all tough questions, and I'm not even going to pretend to answer them one way or the other here. I outline them merely to show that defining what is and what is not "terrorism" is not as clear cut as it might seem. Perhaps it's like pornography -- where "you know it when you see it." Perhaps it is impossible to be objective, and all definitions of terrorism have to be considered subjective on one level or another.
Which means, ultimately, that the decision for how to legally prosecute those responsible must be (to some degree or another) a subjective decision made by one man. But since that is the subject of tomorrow's column, I will have to leave it open for now.
Instead, I will merely summarize my two key points today. The first is that the media must decide whether there will be a "media circus" at K.S. Mohammed's trial because they -- not him -- are the ones who have it in their power to either facilitate such or voluntarily ban it from the airwaves. And secondly, Attorney General Holder is not "playing into the hands" of K.S. Mohammed by denying him a military trial, he is instead refusing to give K.S. Mohammed what he wants -- a glorious warrior's death. Instead, he will be treated like any common criminal, because if the charges against him are proven in court, that is exactly what he is. Nothing more than a murderous thug. And there's no glory in that.
-- Chris Weigant
NEW! Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
This Time Zone issue is really a killer.. I am just getting ready to crash, but I could not leave this alone without stating a couple basic points.
First off, for those who have actually been there and done that, the definition of terrorism is easy.
"Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda."
You are dead on ballz accurate, CW. Under the definition of terrorism, the WTC attack would be considered an act of terrorism. But it can be logically argued that the Pentagon attack was a legitimate military target. The choice of target is the compelling argument for that attack not being terrorism.
It's like the early situation in Iraq. You have insurgents who are committing terrorism against innocent civilians. But these same insurgents are also making legitimate military attacks against Coalition forces.
In the case of the Pentagon attack (as cold and unfeeling as it may sound) the presence of civilian casualties is irrelevant to determining whether or not it is a case of terrorism. Approx 67 civilians died when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I am sure there is no doubt in anyone's mind that Pearl Harbor was not an act of terrorism.
With regards to the Fort Hood attack, the presence of civilians (2 of the dead) would also not be sufficient to designate the attack as an act of terrorism. The determining factor in the Fort Hood attacks would have to be the choice of target. (I had a real interesting discussion with regards to that here: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67749-congressman-says-ft-hood-shooter-had-connection-to-pakistan)
Many factors determine whether or not an act is terrorism or not. Choice of target is the most prevalent of these. By definition, an attack on a legitimate military target cannot be an act of terrorism. Many Israel Bashers like to point to the Irgun attack on the King David Hotel as an act of terrorism. Again, by definition, the King David Hotel was a legitimate military target and simply cannot be considered an act of terrorism. The collateral civilian damage and casualties that results is irrelevant to the determination.
It's way past my bedtime right now, so I am going to sign off. I'll address why it's utterly foolish to try and treat terrorism as a criminal matter in the morning...
Michale.....
I think this is among your best ever, Chris.
Michale -
I was pleasantly surprised to read your comment, because it seems for once we are largely on the same side of the issue, or at least viewing it through a similar lens.
I was really astonished, truth be told, that the whole Holder thing was even controversial -- this one took me by surprise, in other words, which is why I had to wait a bit and think about it before I wrote about the subject. And why my commentary is off in a bit of a different direction as the main debate people seem to be having.
I guess I should have differentiated between "civilian" as in civilians attacked deliberately, and "collateral damage" as in civilians killed in the course of a valid military action. There is a difference, and I can see your point about the civilians in Ft. Hood and on the airplane which hit the Pentagon. And in Pearl Harbor -- hadn't considered that one at all.
You also bring up another issue -- what constitutes a valid military attack when considering the attackers themselves. The fact that they may not be wearing a uniform and acting covertly works both ways, and is not always as indicative of legitimacy as it might seem. On a battlefield, these would be termed "irregulars" or perhaps even "militias" (although, seeing it from the other side, we tend to say "insurgents" or such when talking about Iraq or Afghanistan). This also leads to the grey areas of resistance fighters (like the French Resistance in WWII), spies, and even mercenaries.
As I said in the article, there are more questions some times than hard clear answers. And (not having the benefit of a West Point or Annapolis education) I am often on unsure or shaky ground when discussing such (especially historically -- we used mercenaries in the American Revolution, for instance, from France and Germany).
I don't know much except the bare bones of the King David Hotel attack, how was it a military target? What were the circumstances? Again, not challenging your statement at all, just curious, since I know little about it.
I started thinking about what does and does not constitute terrorism when reading up on the Provisional Irish Republican Army (whom the Irish call "Provos," and we Americans call "the IRA," being ignorant of the historical IRA from about 100 years ago...). The Provos, for the past 30 years or so, have crossed over the line of terrorism, and then crossed back again many times. They were guilty of bombing shopping districts in London during Christmas shopping season (trash can bombs, in sequence, to cause more damage from fleeing people), for instance, which they considered economic warfare but which just about everyone else called terrorism (and a particularly nasty version, truth be told).
But at some point, they wised up and realized they weren't furthering their cause any by such tactics. They then concentrated on attacking police stations and military outposts in Northern Ireland, which can indeed be seen as valid military targets. They even managed a mortar attack on 10 Downing Street (the British "White House" where the PM, Maggie Thatcher, I believe at the time, lives) -- also a valid military target to some.
Eventually they got to the point where they could cause enough disruption as an actual attack just by threatening one. They'd leave a "dud" or "fake" bomb somewhere (in London, usually), and phone it in as a real bomb threat. The subway or airport would have to shut down for hours, and be cleared. But they stopped actually setting live bombs, because by that point they didn't need to kill anyone to show that they still were capable of such attacks (see: "Dune," and the quote about "the power to destroy something...")
Now, I'm not making any apologies for the Provos, I'm just saying that when I first studied their history during the whole "Troubles" period, I first became aware of the difference in targeting, and what it meant, that's all. Attack a checkpoint between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland -- that's a valid military target. Blow up a bunch of shoppers -- that's terrorism.
And there is a difference, which not many Americans ever really think about too much. Which is why we toss around the term "terrorism" without too much thought about what it really means, at times.
As for the rest of your comments (that you were too tired to type), I suggest you wait until I post tomorrow's column, as it will be a "Part 2" to this.
Osborne -
Thanks! I finally used the #p2 hashtag when Twitting this today, so we'll see if that gets the word out better...
I'm learning... slowly...
:-)
-CW
I don't know much except the bare bones of the King David Hotel attack, how was it a military target? What were the circumstances? Again, not challenging your statement at all, just curious, since I know little about it.
At the time of the Irgun attack, the King David Hotel also housed the British Military Command Center plus a host of different political offices. It was the command center that was the focus of the attack and several other explosives were placed under some other political offices. The Irgun placed a call to the offices and to some consulates in the area, warning them of the bombs. These warnings were ignored and the hotel was badly damaged and over 90 people were killed and 40+ were injured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
As I mentioned, those that constantly bash Israel like to point to the KDH attack as an example of how Israel was formed in the aftermath of terrorist attacks.
But, as usual, if one looks past the hysteria and actually checks the facts, it is clear that the KDH attack was a legitimate military attack.
And there is a difference, which not many Americans ever really think about too much. Which is why we toss around the term "terrorism" without too much thought about what it really means, at times.
Agreed.. It's the terrorism version of a "Godwin".. As I mentioned in that discussion over at TheHill, when one starts tossing around the term "terrorism" at anything where innocent people are killed, it cheapens the term and lessens the impact when it is applied to REAL terrorist attacks. It numbs us to the term. It's like the old saying that if EVERYONE is "special", then NO ONE is "special"..
Hell, by some people's definitions, KATRINA was a terrorist attack.. :^/
As for the rest of your comments (that you were too tired to type), I suggest you wait until I post tomorrow's column, as it will be a "Part 2″ to this.
I will eagerly await your pearls of wisdom! :D
I will say, though, that the idea that we not treat KSM et al like warriors and try them militarily does have a certain amount of logic to it.
But I think the greater harm here is what this decision says about the Obama Administration. It shows that they are returning to a Pre-9/11 mindset where terrorism is a criminal matter and not a military one. And this is a VERY dangerous path to travel that will likely come back and bite Obama on the ass.
The argument that having a civilian trial will enhance the US prestige around the world is also a fallacy. Like I mentioned to Liz, it's places like Russia, Iran and Cardassia Prime where kangaroo courts of this nature are held.
The Cardassian court system is barbaric by human standards. They boast that their court is the most efficient criminal investigation system in the quadrant. In Cardassia the verdict is always known before the trial begins and it's always the same. The people demand trials. They enjoy watching justice triumph over evil every time. They find it comforting. The Cardassian Empire believes it's good for the populace to see the spectacle of justice. Trials demonstrate the futility of behavior contrary to good order; justice will be done, and lives will be reaffirmed safe and secure. · On Cardassia, all crimes are solved, all criminals are punished. To Cardassians a conviction of a criminal is a salutary experience.
http://www.freewebz.com/usspegasus/Races/Cardassian.htm
Is this the kind of court system that represents the USA?? I don't think so..
But, I'll hold off on my comments (too late!! :D) until your column today..
Michale.....
CW,
When you write your KSM commentary today, one question should be upper most in your mind..
Are we at war?
Michale.....
Chris,
Excellent post. I've been a bit behind in my reading, but this is a much needed discussion.
The larger picture with regards to terrorism I think is, how do you keep terrorist organizations from growing?
One answer is to treat the terrorists as common criminals. The jihadists view this as a "holy war". But most Muslims do not see it this way.
Having spent much time in Turkey, the Muslims I met were very much against the Sept. 11 attacks. But they also understood that the U.S., after the attacks, used these for political purposes and did not focus on just the terrorists, but turned this into a war against "Islamofascism".
We expanded the enemy from a small group of criminals to the point of offending most of the Muslim world. Now this might play well here at home in a largely Christian country in terms of getting elected, but it also helps terrorist organizations recruit because it lends validity to a distrust of the West.
All the world was with us after 9/11 in terms of bringing these criminals to justice. But we lost allies when we went after the wrong folks.
By treating KS Mohammed as a criminal and showing the world that we are once again focused on bringing the terrorists to justice and not in a war against Muslims in general, we take away this recruiting card.
It's when we treat it as a war against Islam, that we accept the terrorist definition of the situation and help them recruit.
-David
David, David, David...
Where to begin... :D
We expanded the enemy from a small group of criminals
Oh come now... Are you seriously of the belief that the terrorism threat is represented by "a small group of criminals"?? Seriously??
That's like claiming the entire Soviet Army was nothing but "small group of communist thugs"...
But you DO illustrate the problem quite succinctly. The problem of treating terrorism as a LEO matter.
Law Enforcement, by definition, is a REACTIVE process. The only thing that treating terrorism as a criminal matter would accomplish is thousands and thousands of dead Americans. As 9/11 proved.
By treating KS Mohammed as a criminal and showing the world that we are once again focused on bringing the terrorists to justice and not in a war against Muslims in general, we take away this recruiting card.
A concept for which there is absolutely ZERO supporting evidence. I realize that it's a fav talking point amongst the Left. But it is a huge fallacy for which there is NOTHING to collaborate..
However, it's easy to disprove by applying the converse. Are you claiming that, had the US NOT gone about the WOT as they did, there would be NO terrorists recruited.
Of course not.
Hence, the theory is proven false.
It's when we treat it as a war against Islam, that we accept the terrorist definition of the situation and help them recruit.
NO ONE (sane anyways) is claiming that this is a war against Islam.
But it IS a war, no??
Michale.....
Michale,
I never said anything about stopping all recruiting. That's impossible. Just like preventing all terrorist attacks. Or all cyber attacks.
But I do believe we can reduce recruiting if we have a favorable view with moderate Muslims. And if the U.S. had not gone to war against Iraq using 9/11 as justification, yes, there would have been less recruiting.
I'm not saying this as a liberal. Our national intelligence organizations have said this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092301130.html
Of course our intelligence organizations are a very "liberal" group.
By not going after the terrorists and instead invading Iraq as part of the WOT, this justified the belief that we are at war with Islam. Not to mention using terms like "Islamofascism" to link terrorism to Islam in general.
No one has ever come out and claimed that we are at war with Islam, but it is a perception many hold in the Islamic community.
If we would have pursued the terrorists and only the terrorists, we would not lend credence to this argument. Everyone in the world was on our side after 9/11 until we used the trumped up WOT to invade Iraq.
I don't agree with the term WOT. But if you consider it a "war," why not use the methods that work best to fight it? Why not engage moderate Muslims and marginalize the terrorists? Why invade Iraq?
-David
So your entire complaint against the war on terrorism is the side trip we took to Iraq??
OK.. We are agreed. With regards to the war against terrorism, the Iraq mess was an unwelcome and unneeded distraction..
We agree..
Now what??
I don't agree with the term WOT. But if you consider it a "war," why not use the methods that work best to fight it?
You mean like bombing enemy strongholds and taking out leadership???
We are..
So it sure looks, smells and feels like a war to me..
So, this being the case, why in the HELL are we taking the enemy into the heart of our largest city, giving them rights that Americans have fought and died over for 200+ years and trying them in a civilian court??
Can you even BEGIN to understand the can of worms that will be opened??
Counting appeals and such, this thing can drag on for a decade or more. How will the government address change of venue demands?? Evidentiary demands?? Chain of custody issues?? Subpoenaing every soldier, sailor, airmen, marine, CIA analyst that had even the slightest contact with the scumbags?? Violations of the Sixth Amendment?? Violations of the Fourth Amendment?? Violations of the Fifth Amendment?? Any first year pre-law student would be able to get all the charges against their clients dropped in a New York minute.
And Obama and Holder are out there GUARANTEEING convictions! Shit, that alone right there would guarantee a dismissal of all charges, in a REAL court setting.
All of this, simply to appease the Hysterical Left and provide ANOTHER venue to blame the Bush Administration.
I wonder how ya'all will feel when the terrorist scumbags walk.. I bet ya'all be SOOOOOO proud of your country that "justice" was done, right??
And what about all the other hundreds of terrorist scumbags that are facing military tribunals. Shouldn't they have their rights and their day in civilian courts as well??
Do ya'all really comprehend the magnitude of the screw up here??
Let's look at the PROs and CONs of the situation.
CON- A decade or more of a trial circus that makes the OJ hysteria downright tame and low key by comparison.
CON- Allied intelligence agencies will refuse to provide the US with actionable intel, for fear it will be aired in open court.
CON- Our own intelligence capabilities will be crippled by the exposure to the very terrorists that we are trying to put away.
CON- The propaganda coup by our enemies who holds up the US and it's kangaroo courts for ridicule to the rest of the world.
CON- The totally perverse and disgusting idea of giving American rights to brutal and pathetic animals who would just as soon slit your throat as look at you.
PRO- The Hysterical Left will be able to slam and attack the Bush Administration for a decade or longer, totally oblivious to the fact that they are weakening their own country..
That last one is actually a CON, but I know ya'all will look at it as a PRO..
Once again, I have to ask...
Whose side are ya'all on?? Why this illogical and irrational insistence on making things harder for our US intelligence agencies to protect us and making it infinitely easier for terrorists to kill us??
Why??? Is the Hysterical Left sooo important that this Administration would risk ANOTHER 9/11??
Personally, I don't think so...
But I guess I am in the minority here.. No shock there, eh?? :D
Michale.....
Look at it this way, people..
If we do things my way and I would be wrong, what's the worse that could happen??
Scumbag terrorists get hanged... No muss, no fuss...
"..We dance, we kiss, we smooze, we carry on, we go home happy.."
-Hades, HERCULES
But what if we do things YA'ALLS way and *I* am right??
What's the worst that could happen?? Hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans could be killed. Intelligence assets are brought down, compromised and are useless for decades. Our allies quit sharing vitally needed intel with us and our counter terrorism efforts are rendered completely ineffective for years...
So, here you have two "worst case" scenarios..
Now, I axe ya?? Which one is actually a very bad scenario and which one is not such a big deal??
Seriously...
I am also constrained to point out that FDR choose my way in 1942 and it seemed to work out just fine for all concerned..
Michale.....
Did not know that you felt that way about Iraq, Michale. Guess I assumed you felt it was a valid part of the war on terror.
I still think it's a good move on the part of the Obama administration to downplay the term "war on terror" though. It may not be the best political move. But in terms of helping to isolate terrorists from Muslims and limit terrorism, it's the right move.
Regardless, this is a move that may very well not help Obama politically. Same w/ the trial. So I feel he is acting on principle and not politics and I respect him for that.
As far as the cons you mentioned, well, I guess we'll see.
Hysterical left? Are you calling the NIC the hysterical left? I really have no idea who you're talking about here.
As for FDR ... FDR?!
Now here I'm really confused. I thought he was a weak liberal who was the start of socialism in this country :)? But he did something right? Are you sure you have your revisionist history correct?
Ok. Kidding aside. This may be stating the obvious, but there's some pretty big differences between WWII and the so-called WOT. Having a country like Japan directly attack you is a pretty clear definition of war. Having another country (Germany) declare war on you probably means you're at war. I think you're well aware of this so am not going to go into detail. Terrorism is much more complex. Do you really think these are the same?
-David
p.s. I thought we were past the accusations that we were aiding the terrorists. This is really beneath you. Especially when we both have the same end goal - reduced risk of terrorism. So I see us on the same side with different opinions of how best to accomplish this goal.
Did not know that you felt that way about Iraq, Michale. Guess I assumed you felt it was a valid part of the war on terror.
It undeniably became part of that when IRAQ AQ showed up. But initially, it was simply a successful campaign to rid the world of a nasty psychotic scumbag. I really don't have a problem with that and no one else should either..
But, we are agreed. It was an unnecessary distraction.
I still think it's a good move on the part of the Obama administration to downplay the term "war on terror" though. It may not be the best political move. But in terms of helping to isolate terrorists from Muslims and limit terrorism, it's the right move.
I disagree. It's nothing but political correctness. It's a new label on the same old thing. Just like his "unclenched" fist to Iran and North Korea..
Obama is trying to mold the problems into what HE wants them to be. Problems that can easily solved over "beer summits"..
Obama is finding out just how impossible it is.
Regardless, this is a move that may very well not help Obama politically. Same w/ the trial. So I feel he is acting on principle and not politics and I respect him for that.
But that's just it. He is NOT acting out of principle. If he were acting out of principle, he would have done what FDR did in 1942, politics be damned..
In this case, Obama IS acting out of politics. He is throwing his base another bone. His base has been getting an awful lot of bones lately.. One has to wonder why....
Hysterical left? Are you calling the NIC the hysterical left? I really have no idea who you're talking about here.
In this case, the "Hysterical Left" is anyone who thinks that it's perfectly OK for enemy combatants who were captured on the field of battle to be tried in civilian courts under civilian charges. Were the suspects Mirandized on the battlefield? Did the troops who "arrested" the suspects have probable cause? A search warrant? Was all the evidence at the arrest preserved?? Witnesses noted??
It's WTF bonkers to think that you can try enemy combatants from the battlefield in a civilian court following all the rules and procedures that are set up.
Let's fact facts. They ONLY reason the Hysterical Left wants these terrorists to see the inside of a civilian court is so that the Hysterical Left can have another crack at the Bush Administration.
That's it... Period.. And that, frankly sucks..
Now here I'm really confused. I thought he was a weak liberal who was the start of socialism in this country :)? But he did something right? Are you sure you have your revisionist history correct?
You know me.. I call a spade a spade.. FDR may have been a lot of things, but he was a wartime president that made a lot of very hard, very tough decisions. Most were right. Some were wrong.
Giving scumbag saboteurs who had invaded our lands a quick trial and an even quicker death was one of the right ones..
But at least FDR actually *MADE* decisions. He didn't fiddle fart or around or dither trying to appease his base, while American soldiers are in harms way.
Obama could do a LOT worse than emulating FDR.. But that would piss off his base.. While CANDIDATE OBAMA didn't have any problem with that, PRESIDENT OBAMA can't seem to decide to take a crap unless he clears it with his base...
Ok. Kidding aside. This may be stating the obvious, but there's some pretty big differences between WWII and the so-called WOT. Having a country like Japan directly attack you is a pretty clear definition of war. Having another country (Germany) declare war on you probably means you're at war. I think you're well aware of this so am not going to go into detail. Terrorism is much more complex. Do you really think these are the same?
No, they are NOT the same. But they are similar enough that the same response works for both. We were attacked on 7 Dec 1941 and we were attacked on 11 Sep 2001. One attack came from a country and one attack came from a ideological group.
"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."
-Commander Spock
So, you seem to be of the opinion that this should be handled as a civilian criminal matter.
So tell me, why are we sending out predator drones and killing AL Qaeda operatives? Did they have a trial?? Were the found guilty in a court of law and sentenced to death? No??
Then why are we bombing them?
We are bombing them because this is a war. Period.
I think we can all agree on that. The evidence is too overwhelming to discount.
So, since we are all agreed that this is a war, then why the calls for civilian trials??
Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed nearly as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
Pearl Harbor killed over 67 innocent civilians. Do you think that the pilots of the bombers and fighters should have been taken to the US, given American Constitutional Rights and tried in civilian courts? What about their commanders??
In World War II, eight German saboteurs landed on an American shore on June 17, 1942, buried their uniforms, and attempted to blend into our society. They were captured. The man who now is an icon for the Democratic Party President Franklin Roosevelt, convened a **SECRET** military tribunal just two weeks later on July 2. The men were immediately convicted and sentenced to death. Two sentences were commuted because they had led U.S. agents to the other six. Those six were executed on August 8. In fact, FDR ordered them executed before the Supreme Court handed down a final opinion in their case, in Ex parte Quirin.
p.s. I thought we were past the accusations that we were aiding the terrorists. This is really beneath you. Especially when we both have the same end goal - reduced risk of terrorism. So I see us on the same side with different opinions of how best to accomplish this goal.
You cannot see how forcing these civilian trials for wartime acts doesn't aid the terrorists??
I have listed a dozen reasons why.
I have a feeling these is more in the newest commentary. I'll expand up there...
Michale.....
Michale,
Would you quit helping to recruit terrorists by playing their game and insisting this is a war? :)
WWII was a war.
-David
If this isn't a war, then you are supporting a President and a political Party that is arbitrarily bombing and killing thousands and thousands of "innocent" people.
How can you sleep at night??
Michale.....
Sorry, forgot to add the :D at the end of that...
My bust... :D
Michale.....
The referee awards a point to Michale.
Though, this trumped up WOT has gotten us into 2 other wars, or at this point occupations. I'm assuming these are the bombings you're referring to.
But there's alot that makes me uncomfortable about these occupations. We either need to invest in actually rebuilding these countries or we should get the 'eff out. (Maybe I'm oversimplifying here, but have to run in a second.)
To the best of my knowledge, though, we are not bombing these people because they attacked us on 9/11.
-David
To the best of my knowledge, though, we are not bombing these people because they attacked us on 9/11.
We are apparently talking about two different conflicts. I am referring to the daily Predator attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan against Al Qaeda targets.
If it is Iraq you are referring to, I thought we had settled that issue...???
Michale.....
We are apparently talking about two different conflicts. I am referring to the daily Predator attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan against Al Qaeda targets.
The missile attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan seem to be more about the conflict in Afghanistan than 9/11. The folks who have fled to the mountains and neighboring Pakistan have orchestrated attacks in Afghanistan.
What they seem to be doing is a 2-pronged strategy- trying to just take out the militants to stabilize Afghanistan, and, at the same time win over moderate Muslims.
However, this seems to have more to do with our occupation than 9/11.
David
However, this seems to have more to do with our occupation than 9/11.
I am constrained to point out that our "occupation" of Afghanistan is a direct result of 9/11..
In other words, we are fighting the terrorists (and their supporters) in Afghanistan because of their attacks of 9/11.
Now, if it's not a war, then why are we bombing and killing "innocent" people??
Since you gave me a good read on that Glenn Greenwald piece, allow me to return the favor..
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116268
I know, I know...
"WND/Pat Buchanan propaganda"... :D
If I can read Greenwald and give him a fair shake, you can surely do the same with WND and Buchanan... :D
Michale.....
Michale,
Not going to get into: should we have invaded Afghanistan?
The situation, regardless, is that we're in Afghanistan. Nothing I've seen about the drone attacks says that the folks we're bombing were part of the 9/11 attack. Except that we sometimes label them Al-qaeda, or terrorists. Everything I've seen seems to link this to the occupation.
Now I haven't addressed if I believe it's right to target these folks with drone planes.
That's a good question I think you and Buchanan raise. Why are we bombing people?
I think the current administration and the powers that be (CIA) feel this is necessary to help stabilize the country and achieve success in Afghanistan.
So I don't think it's as simple as are we at war or aren't we at war. Buchanan wants people to see things this way, but I feel the current administration sees things as more complex.
We're in this thing, like it or not, let's try to stabilize the country so we can get the 'eff out of there.
It's a helluva problem though. On many fronts. A problem I think Buchanan oversimplifies with his question about war.
What I find most interesting is that within the article there's an ad for a book titled "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamicize America".
There's a broad audience of folks who seem to want us to go to war against Islam. I'm glad you're not part of this crowd, Michale.
And I'm glad the current administration does not see us at war. I still, however, have many reservations and doubts about our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and how we can realistically wind these down.
Those are my thoughts for now. There's more, but I must get back to work :)
-David