RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Why Are Republicans So Stupid and Dishonest on Terrorism?

I am not sure who angers me more–the Republicans who insist that Barack Obama is criminalizing terrorism or the Democrats–Obama in particular–for being so inept in defending themselves from this bogus lie. The latest to push this nonsense is ditzy Senator from Maine, Susan Collins. Collins did the Republican radio address today and leveled this outrageous charge (transcript here):

President Obama recently used the phrase that ‘we are at war’ with terrorists. But unfortunately his rhetoric does not match the actions of his administration.

The Obama administration appears to have a blind spot when it comes to the War on Terrorism.

And, because of that blindness, this administration cannot see a foreign terrorist even when he stands right in front of them, fresh from an attempt to blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day.

There’s no other way to explain the irresponsible, indeed dangerous, decision on Abdulmutallab’s interrogation. There’s no other way to explain the inconceivable treatment of him as if he were a common criminal.

This charade must stop. Foreign terrorists are enemy combatants and they must be treated as such. The safety of the American people depends on it.

Actually Senator, there is another explanation and it is based in fact and history–Barack Obama was acting like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

The policy of treating terrorists as criminals originated with Ronald Reagan. It is that simple. In 1986 the issue of terrorism was hot and heavy because of the events of 1983-1985. During that period the United States was under attack worldwide. Terrorists of all stripes–radical islamists, communists, nationalists, etc.–carried out attacks in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Asia. Here’s the intro to the State Department report on International Terrorism in 1984:

The Year in Review (1984)
The pace of international terrorist activity around the world continued unabated during 1984. We recorded nearly 600 international terrorist attacks involving personal injury or property damage, representing an increase over each of the previous four years. Deaths in 1984 exceeded 300. These numbers, when viewed in the context of the past 15 years, suggest that the overall threat may again be increasing.

US citizens and interests remained a prime target of foreign terrorists around the world, followed by those of France and Israel. More than 20 percent of international terrorist incidents in 1984 involved US targets. This notwithstanding, in 1984 the United States was the victim of fewer attacks than in each of the four preceding years and suffered substantially fewer casualties than in 1983. The year 1983 was anomalous, however, because of the extraordinarily high death toll of 241 in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in October.

The major trend apparent in 1984 was the growing dominance of the Middle East as the crucible of terrorism. In 1984, nearly half of all international terrorist attacks either occurred in the Middle East or were committed elsewhere by Middle Easterners. Indeed, of the eight incidents that resulted in US fatalities last year, four occurred in the Middle East, and a fifth had a Middle Eastern connection. Among the major incidents were the truck bombing of the US Embassy Annex in East Beirut, which killed two US citizens in September, and the hijacking of a Kuwaiti Airlines flight from Kuwait to Tehran in December. Two US AID employees were murdered by the radical Lebanese Shia hijackers before the latter incident ended.

Do you understand? We had more major terrorist attacks in more countries in 1984 than in 2008. Things got worse in 1985:

The Year in Review (1985)
International terrorists had a banner year in 1985.

They carried out more attacks than in any year since the decade began; caused more casualties-especially fatalities-over that same period (329 alone occurred when an Air India jetliner was blown up in June) ; conducted a host of spectacular, publicity-grabbing events that ultimately ended in coldblooded murder; increasingly turned to business and more accessible public targets as security at official and military installations was strengthened against terrorism, and, in so doing, counted among their victims a record number of innocent bystanders; and finally, gave pause to international travelers worldwide who feared the increasingly indiscriminate nature of international terrorism.

in 1985, 782 international terrorist incidents occurred, a 30-percent increase over 1984. One-third of these incidents resulted in casualties; more than 800 persons were killed and over 1,200 were wounded.

Many of you probably do not remember what happened that year. Just imagine what would be happening today in Washington if the events of 1985 were taking place today. Here is are just seven of the 782 attacks recorded that year:

On 12 April the El Descanso restaurant outside Madrid was bombed, killing 18 Spaniards and wounding another 82 persons, including 15 Americans. Individuals claiming to represent several terrorist groups-including some West European ones-claimed responsibility, but Middle Eastern terrorists are among the prime suspects.

On 14 June Lebanese Shi’a gunmen hijacked TWA flight 847 flying from Athens to Rome and forced it to land in Beirut. The hijackers released the hostages 17 days later but killed US Navy diver Robert Stethem during the early stages of the incident.

On 3 September two grenades were thrown into the lobby of a Greek hotel in Glyfada, wounding 19 Britons. A caller to an Athens newspaper stated that the Palestinian Black September organization-a name used by the Abu Nidal Group-would stage numerous attacks in Athens if Greek authorities did not release one of its imprisoned members.

On 16 September terrorists lobbed grenades into the Cafe de Paris restaurant in Rome, wounding 38 tourists, including nine Americans. The Revolutionary Organizationof Socialist Muslims, a covername used by the Abu Nidal Group, claimed responsibility.
Mediterranean Sea.

On 7 October the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro was seized by the PLF as it departed Alexandria, Egypt, for Port Said. Before surrendering to Egyptian authorities on 9 October, the terrorists killed US tourist Leon Klinghoffer.

On 23 November an Egyptian jetliner was hijacked from Athens to Malta. The terrorists murdered several persons, including American Scarlett Rogencamp, and wounded the other Americans aboard before Egyptian commandos stormed the plane, killing some 60 remaining persons. The Arab Revolutionary Brigades, another covername used by the Abu Nidal Group, claimed responsibilityfor the hijacking jointly with the Egyptian Revolution.

On 27 December near-simultaneous machinegun and grenade attacks at the Rome and Vienna airports left more than 20 persons dead, including five Americans, and some 120 wounded, including 20 Americans. The Abu Nidal Group carried out both attacks.

1986 was a watershed year in U.S. Counter Terrorism policy. Because of a brawl on board a U.S. Government plane carrying representatives of the CIA, State Department and the FBI to Italy to assist with the operation to capture the terrorists responsible for hijacking the Achille Lauro–there was an argument over who was “in charge” of the operation–President Reagan issued a National Security Decision Direction that gave State Department the lead for international terrorism and the FBI the lead for domestic terrorism. In addition, the CIA set up the Counter Terrorism Center in February 1986 and the State Department appointed an Ambassador to be in charge of combating terrorism who reported directly to the Secretary of State. Who was that man? L. Paul Bremer aka Jerry Bremer.

Here is a speech Jerry Bremer gave in the fall of 1987, when he articulated the policy of Ronald Reagan:

Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get socieity to see them for what they are–criminals–and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.

Got it? According to Ronald Reagan’s point man for counter terrorism, TERRORISTS ARE CRIMINALS. Not my opinion. It is a fact.

Here is the complete statement of the U.S. policy (this was published in Patterns of Global Terrorism 1989, and yes, I know George H.W. Bush was President then, but this was simply a repeat of established policy):

US Counterterrorism Policy
The US Government has developed a comprehensive strategy to respond to the problem of international terrorism. The first element of our counterterrorism policy is that we do not make concessions of any kind to terrorists. We do not pay ransom, release convicted terrorists from prison, or change our policies to accommodate terrorist de- mands-such actions would only lead to more terrorism. And we vigorously encourage other countries to be firm with terrorists, for a solid in- ternational front is essential to overall success.

The second element of our strategy is to make state sponsors of ter- rorism pay a price for their actions. This policy was most graphically demonstrated by the April 1986 bombing raids on terrorist support fa- cilities in Libya. But there are also political, diplomatic and economic actions, public diplomacy and sanctions that can be employed-that is, peaceful measures that can be crafted to discourage states from persisting in their support of terrorism.

Third, the US Government has developed a program of action based on practical measures. It is designed to bring terrorists to justice, to disrupt their operations, and to destroy their networks. The program includes aggressive measures, working with our friends and allies, to identify, track, apprehend, prosecute, and punish terrorists by using the rule of law. It also includes measures designed to protect US citizens abroad by strengthening security and research toward developing equipment to prevent terrorist incidents.

The final element of our counterterrorism policy is the Department of State’s Anti-Terrorism Training Assistance Program (A T A) , which gives training in antiterrorism techniques to law enforcement officials around the world. Given our country’s strong commitment to human rights, ATA promotes a thorough understanding of the importance of human rights in all aspects of law enforcement. More than 7,000 police and security personnel from nearly 60 countries have participated in this program since its inception.

Now let’s jump ahead to December 2001. It is more than three months since the terrorist attacks of 9-11. Richard Reid, someone trained by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, tries but fails to ignite a bomb on board a commercial airliner. According to the NY Times:

The man was subdued by passengers and crew members, and two doctors on board sedated him with drugs from the plane’s medical kit, the officials said.

The plane, a Boeing 767, was escorted to Logan International Airport here by two F-15 fighter jets. All 185 passengers and 12 crew members on Flight 63 were escorted safely off the plane after it landed at 12:55 p.m.

The man, who officials said is 28, was taken into custody by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He was traveling under the name of Richard Reid, and was using a falsified British passport that was issued in Belgium three weeks ago, said Thomas Kinton, interim executive director of the Massachusetts Port Authority, which runs the airport. . . .

So let me see if I understand? When George W. Bush allows the FBI to arrest a terrorist caught in the act of trying to blow up a jetliner and allows the FBI to investigate the matter and to bring the case to court, that is okay. George Bush standing tall against terrorists? Right?

But when the government headed by Barack Obama does the SAME GODDAMN THING then Barack Obama is a surrender monkey?

Sorry, but that is just pure horseshit. So I conclude where I started, why have Republicans like Susan Collins, Peter King, Rudy Giuliani and L. Paul Bremer, just to name a few, completely forgotten and rejected the policy of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and, come to think of it, George W. Bush.

When did Republicans decide the Constitution no longer applies? When did they decide to eschew all international law, especially conventions on War, Human Rights, and Torture? Collins is certainly entitled to her opinion, but she is displaying an unconscionable ignorance of what has been the longstanding policy of the United States in dealing with terrorists. Makes me long for the days when Republicans were so committed to the sanctity of the law that they impeached Bill Clinton for lying about a blow job.

  • Bronwyn

    I am having a discussion with my conscience.  For years, I wrote about the critical importance of the rule of law in embodying the conduct of the United States towards all criminals and “terrorists.” Yet, my distrust of Barack Obama led me, today, to find myself rooting for Susan Collins’ words.  As Larry points out in innumerable examples above, we have succeeded — that is an important word — succeeded in handling terrorists through the rule of law. Two great primers on this are the articles by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker and the book by Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, both of which detail the successes enjoyed by the FBI in interrogating prisoners.

    My QUESTION FOR LARRY:  Dan Coleman, the famous FBI agent written up by Jane Mayer and Lawrence Wright, succeeded in interrogating the suspects in the African embassy bombings and was able to extract key information that facilitated their convictions.  However, the interrogation by the FBI of the Underpants Bomber was abruptly cut off.  Why not have the best of both worlds?  1)  Interrogate terrorism suspects humanely, as Dan Coleman did (and developing such a rapport that he was able to get them to tell him the key facts); and 2) Try them in a court of law. In other words, why did Eric Holder suspend the FBI interrogation so early when, very surely, there was far more that the Underpants/Christmas bomber could have told the FBI?  

  • Anonymous

    The interrogation was not “cut off.”  Holder did not suspend anything.  That is a false charge.  The same procedures followed for Richard Reid were followed in this case.  Why is one bad and one good?

  • Docelder

    Seriously, they probably held the passengers to question them for longer than the 50 minutes before they told the underwear bomber it was against his interests to talk. Why not let him talk? Even if the stuff he said couldn’t be used against him in a trial? It could still be useful information for the future. The guy had explosives on the plane and tried to ignite them. it isn’t like we really needed him to talk about foreign training to prosecute him anyway. So, why not let him talk himself silly first? That part, I don’t get. Except that Holder was very interested in making sure the terrotists “rights” were protected. That is silly, he is going to have his rights whether he talked or not, and whether what he said was usable to prosecute him or not. The truth is there was a plane full of people that saw him try to do it. He probably won’t take the stand in his own trial anyway. So what? He did it.

  • tango

    I think what bothers people is the short amount of time the Underwear Bomber was interogated by the FBI when they had a chance to get get information on the terror network & possible future attacks.  They talked to Abdulmutallab less than an hour, then he went into surgery. When out of surgery and able to talk again, a new set of FBI agents was assigned and per Justice Department intervention, he was read his Miranda Rights and he clammed up. This after blabbing to the original arresting officers (Custom & Border Protection agents) and the medical personnell treating him all sorts of information 

    So uknown why the first set of FBI agents didn’t read him his rights right away before talking to him.

  • Anonymous

    There was no Guantanamo when Richard Reid was tried. Now we have a state of the art facility costing millions of dollars that was built specifically for that purpose so the mind boggles that they would close it and instead he scrunging around the US looking trying to create a suitable enviroment in which to do this. 

    I also dispute the need to award these fools the same rights reserved for American citizens.  these are not Americans they are impostors intent on harming Americans and they should be treated as such.  Besides our rule of law says “innocent until proven guilty” yet Obama and Holder are both reassuring us that they will be convicted and receive the death penalty. How do they know? Do they plan to stack the jury?

  • Larry Johnson

    You guys keep ignoring the stark fact that this case has been handled the same way as Richard Reid’s.  The law is clear and straightforward.  We faced a greater terrorist threat in 1985 and did not abandon our principles as a great nation.  Now, you guys want to surrender to fear.

  • Pingback: Why Are Republicans So Stupid and Dishonest on Terrorism? : NO QUARTER USA Cws

  • EllenD

    Thank you Larry!
    All off a sudden the presence of these few suicidal wackos who have become enamored of fundamental Islam have caused us the question our whole American legal system? We are giving them much too much power if that is what is happening.
    We were in Europe in 1986. American tourists, because they were told they were being targeted, stayed home. The State Department told all dual citizens to travel under their non-American passport.
    Maggie Thatcher made commercials pleading for Americans to vacation in Britain. We drove our car from Ireland, through the U.K., and France. Because of the Achille Lauro no Americans would go into Italy. We drove down to Naples with upgrades to Penthouses in empty five star hotels.
    In Florence we parked in a no parking zone and had our car impounded. When we finally found the police impound they demanded identification for us to get our car back.
    We showed them a California Driver’s license,
    We showed them a Canadian Passport.
    We showed them an Irish car Registration.
    The sergeant behind the desk said. “Irish car. Canadian Passport. California drivers license… and excitedly yelled WHERE DO YOU LIVE???
    My husband said “Hollywood”.
    The sergeant suddenly smiled broadly, shrugged his shoulders and said “Oh. Hollywood.” as if everything now made sense.

    Funny story from an unfunny period but at least Americans weren’t panicked enough at that time to call it a “war”.

  • EllenD

    Ooops – TO question.
    Night all.

  • VinceP1974

    These Jihadists are not acting in a framework of our social contract and civilizational values.

    They seek to utterly destroy our system of government and impose their Sharia law. 

    It’s absolutely war against us.  We are absolutely stupid to think this is crime.

    This isn’t crime.. this is historical challenge of our lifetime.

    This country is getting so stupid.  And dont think the Islamists dont recongize how stupid we’re getting. In fact they’re counting on it.

    They are infiltrating our government, our military, our universities. They will do all they can to erode people’s confidence in this way of life and have Islam be the solution to the problem.

  • hattp

    Oh really LJ, typical liberal nonsense. Of course thy are criminalizing terrorism. Of course they are hanstringing the WOT, and doing so intentionally. They put us at grave danger.

    What a tool you are. You have not the faintest idea what the Democrat party is up to., They are a bunch of ANti-American, Anti-Western communists. Obama and crew are Marxist-Leninists. They hate this country. They tried to undermine the Cold War, Viet Nam, the Gulf war and the War. They indermine this war.

    They want to reduce us to a third-rate status, a province in a international socliaist tranzi order in which they rule as a permanent aristocracy. They HATE all that is good in this country. We say what the Democrat “approach” to the muslim world : 911.

    Obama flies around the world  and kow tows to any tinpot mulsim dicator in the world he can find and openly undermines isreal, and you still carry water for the Democrats?

    The reference to Reid is wholly specieous: There was nothing established for dealing with this at that point in time and he was a US citizzen to boot. It is a preposterous comaprision and support for it is wholy in the province of the nutroots.

    This absurd meme was rationally debunked the moment it the Demo agitprop machine put it out there; it is invidious of you to repeat it. You merely reflexively regurgitate Letft wing talking point like the good little useful idiot you are. What a tool.

  • Hokma

    In the Context of History.
    Apparently that is a major point you missed. Why didn’t you go back to World War II for more terror incidents?
    Under Reagan we were still involved in resolving the Cold War – maybe you issued that. Muslim terrorism was not a major issue except in regard to Jews and Israel and was compartmentalized as such.
    Under Clinton we did have the ’93 World Trade Tower bombing but who knew the extent of tis network or event the existence of a network set up to destroy the USA?
    All events up until September 11th were out of context to the current argument. After September 11 we were at war with radical Islamists – primarily Al Qaeda. It was called a war of terror although it should have been called a war against radical Islamists groups (al qaeda not the only one).
    From that point on was a game of catch up of first identifying who these people were – going after them – and then securing our borders. The Richard Reid show bomber was only about 2 months after 9/11 – we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security yet. To expect the US government go from the point it was on 9/10/01 to complete security and readiness in two months is stupid or to get there even within one year would have been extraordinary. There are many things Bush did that he should not have done like release terrorist to Yemen.
    To compare the dismissive white flag attitude Obama/Holder/Napolitano took when they took office to any former President is stupid. They dropped the term “war on terror” in favor of an “overseas contingency operation” – they declared the closing of Gitmo within a year – they slammed Bush et al for not giving these prisoners the constitutional rights we have – went around the world apologizing. What part of white flag do you not understand.
    Obama has the benefit of now decades of knowledge and experience. The difference is that he threw it in the garbage because HE knows better and HIS presence will make it all better.
    So here we are and his people bungled the looms bomber by giving him Miranda rights and have been forced to back down from their show trial in Manhattan of KSM et al.
    If Reagan knew what Obama should have known as of January 2009 that he would have put this looms bomber in Gitmo and slammed the door after interrogating him for days. And Reagan NEVER would have had a civilian trial for KSM.

  • AC

    To treat these CRIMINALS as enemy combatants legitimizes them.

  • AC

    EllenD,
    How did you travel from Ireland to the rest of the UK?

  • lark

    Republican are so stupid and dishonest about terrorism because the essence of Republicanism is the individual. In Republicanism individuals are categorized by their power. Powerful individuals are valuable and powerless individuals are useless. The category of enemy combatant renders such individuals as powerless, except for their information. Once an enemy combatant gives out her/his information, then she/he is worth less than a Haitian dead corpse.

    The objective of the Republican phylosophy is to devalue the foreign individual and raise the value of American nationals. That way they can prevent foreigners from revealing damaging information about Americans that perform illicit activity in foreign countries.

  • AC

    To treat these CRIMINALS as enemy combatants legitimizes them, and demeans true military combatants (the average soldier).

  • lark

    Democrats don’t feel the same way as Republicans about individuals. For Democrats the individual is inconsequential. What Democrats value is belonging or group membership. In the case of Abdulmutallab, for example, he belongs to various important groups, such as ‘international banker’ from his father and he is a Nigerian, which are an important oil importer.To Democrats, foreigners have equal value as Americans if they belong to groups of countries that have significance.

    UFA’a connection to Al Qaeda seems tenouos and inconsequential. Democrats have no reason to explode what will not provide a significant advantage to begin with. There is no role for Democrats for grandstanding in this case. I think the Democrats value much more the relationship with the Nigerian government than where the next Al Qaeda attack is coming from.

  • Sassy

    I remember many of the attacks that are mentioned. The one on the marine barracks in Lebanon probably brought home to me the serious possibility that they would continue to escalate.
    NQ, months ago had lengthy discussions about trials for terrorists in criminal court, weighing the security risks and costs.
    In recent days, Bloomberg, Patterson, Fienstein, Gillibrand, Lee Hamilton and Michael Hayden have spoken openly about their disagreement with Holder’s decision.
    I would appreciate some consistency on an issue that is fundamental to national security.

  • My other site

    I have a question.  Why is it going to cost $200 million to try the 9/11 people?  If so, why not just give them a military trial?  It is a “war,” isn’t it?  What does Obama just want the spectacle?  I don’t understand how these people in Washington can still be talking about figures like this when the economy is in such bad shape.  

  • My other site

    I just disagree with a lot this.  Yes, these people act outside the framework of civilized society.  Still, there’s only been on attack on our soil.  If the administration had been paying attention and if the airlines had implemented the regs given them, that incident would not have happened.  

    Street gangs operate outside the laws of civilized society, but I don’t see the feds getting their pants in a knot about those crimes, those threats.  I bet if you looked at the stats, you’d see the gangs kill way more Americans every year than 9/11.  I think, Al Quaida has political value, so all we read about in the news is Islamist terrorists.  

    Religious people are scared silly because they think it’s a religious war and the Muslims are coming to get them.  I think a little perspective would be a great thing.

  • My other site

    On the subject of WWII, it’s too bad Americans don’t pay more attention to what actually happened in Europe during WWII.  Americans clamor for war when they don’t have to fight it.  We know nothing about war.  European countries were bombed, innocents were killed, they had to go without most comforts of life and experience drastic rationing, they lost most of their young men.  That’s war.  Before Americans start rattling the war drums, they should think about what actually happens to people who are in wars.  

  • lark

    Iranians are converting to Christianity by the thousands.

  • lark

    They are infiltrating our government, our military, our universities.

    Christianity is infiltrating their countries, their common people, their children’s schools.

  • AC

    VinceP1974,
    The Nuremberg trials treated them a CRIMINALS which the were.  We occupy a firmer moral standing when we teat them as the CRIMINALS they are rather than to give them legitimacy of “prisoners of War” forget that bullshit “detainee” status–what a joke.

  • AC

    Damn hattp, don’t you read or review what you write?  Aside from spelling errors (no big deal) what the hell is “WOT” or are we supposed to read your mind?

  • AC

    Mr Johnson, on a personal level I commend you on bringing to light that these CRIMINAL ACTS HAVE BEEN WITH US FOR SOME TIME.  I walked through Leonardo da Vinci airport shortly after the massacre-blood still on the floor. CRIMINALS, CRIMINALS, CRIMINALS plain and simple.
    Why do we (Americans) always have this need to redefine something already defined–could it be insecurity (rhetorical question)?

  • Hokma

    Once again you have no facts to support your claim.

    Americans never cl.amor for war unless we are attacked. We did not (unfortunately) get into World War II until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. We did not go to war in Afghanistan until we were attacked on September 11.

    After Vietnam this country does not clamor for war.

  • AC

    VinceP1974,
    The Nuremberg trials treated them a CRIMINALS which the were. We occupy a firmer moral standing when we treat them as the CRIMINALS they are rather than to give them the legitimacy of “Prisoners of War” forget that bullshit “detainee” status–what a joke.

  • Hokma

    It’s War On Terror – in language you may understand it is an overseas contingency strategy.

  • AC

    Damn hattp, don’t you read or review what you write? Aside from spelling errors (no big deal) what the hell is “WOT” or are we supposed to read your mind?
    As for the rest of your RANT, I suggest Lithium may help your analytical processes. Lenin and Stalin spoke of you “the useful idiot”.

  • Hokma

    You do not know what you are talking about.

    They were treated as WAR criminals – not common criminals which is what Obama/Holder want to do.

    Do you have a clue as to what the radical islamists think of us – what they have against us – what their goals are regarding us? After 9/11 what part of war do you not understand?

    The 9/11 Commission said the reason the event happened was in part due to a lack of imagination.

    People like you and Obama still have that lack of imagination. This is not a conventional war but it is a war. These are enemy combatents of a different type. Some should be regarded as POWs others are war criminals that should be tried by military tribunal and still others who are American citizens should be tried as traitors.

    The only “joke” is the continuing feckless cluelessness of people like you regarding a serious situation like this and the false bellief that our Constitution protects foreign enemy combatents. First leanr the Constitution and what the founding fathers actually believed.

  • Hokma

    From the jihadist point of view it is a religious war. Wow, where have you’ve been for the last 8 years?

  • AC

    Hokma, who the hell asked you.  And where do you get the right to make up these acronyms.  I understand written American English, and the rest of your unsolicited response is also full of it  (don’t you have an acronym for that).
    You ever heard of minding your own business?
    First we have the WORMS now we have the WHATTPRM!

  • Hokma

    “My-other-site” – from the jihadist point of view this IS a religious war. Where have you been for the past 8 years?

  • AC

    How about the Spanish American War, or when did Vietnam attack us, or for that matter World War I? Why not expand your simian brain with a little history refresher.

  • Hokma

    “Guest” – Richard Reid was a few months after 9/11. The looms bomber was 8 years after. A lot changed in the first year, let alone several years after 9/11.

    This so-called analysis by LJ is false because it is taking situations completely out of historical context.

  • Hokma

    That is a false comparison. Richard Reid was a few months after 9/11. The Christmas bomber was 8 years after. To claim that the same people then would react the same way now is a false unfounded assumption given how much has been learned and changed.

  • Yttik

    Absolutely agree, Larry Johnson. If this really is a war against us, against who we are and what we stand for, then it is self defeating to change our values to accomodate terrorists. We’re allowing terrorists to define us and manipulate us. The shoe creep for example, has now succeeded in getting millions of Americans to take off their shoes. Now we have the underwear guy and nobody even wants to go where that might lead.

    However, Obama has bungled the whole mess even more. He walked into a situation where we had enemy combatents and military tribunals set up. You can’t flip the whole system halfway thru. His desire to have a civilian  criminal trial with a guarenteed guilty verdict  isn’t justice either. That’s going thru the motions and pretending, as if American values can be faked or something. We would have been better off going forward with those military trials, because what we’re doing now has no more integrity then what we were doing before. I’m not saying the trial will be rigged, I’m saying the outcome has to be. If this guy was really a civilian we’d have to throw the case out because his rights were violated. So right there we’ve already had to change the rules. And ultimately if this guy were to found not gulity, he doesn’t go free, he goes right back where he started, to being an enemy combatent. It would be almost worse to detain somebody that has been found to be not guilty then to detain somebody who has not been tried at all. Obama has set himself up, set the country up in this dilemma.

  • Anonymous

        The way this was handled (the consideration that 15 or 50 minutes of interrogation of an individual who moments before had fissiled his groin was considered adequate) makes me think, that perhaps for legitimate reasons we are not aware of, for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab not to reveal who sent him. Maybe the bomb was designed not to explode and the plane and Detroit were never in real danger, maybe someone wanted to find out who was going to pick him up at the airport. Maybe in trying to set the thing off  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab went off script. In my eyes there is a possibility that Halder and the administration did one of the  few things that if I knew the real truth, I would respect them for doing?
     

  • dst

        The way this was handled (the consideration that 15 or 50 minutes of interrogation of an individual who moments before had fissiled his groin was considered adequate) makes me think, that perhaps for legitimate reasons we are not aware of, for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab not to reveal who sent him. Maybe the bomb was designed not to explode and the plane and Detroit were never in real danger, maybe someone wanted to find out who was going to pick him up at the airport. Maybe in trying to set the thing off  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab went off script. In my eyes there is a possibility that Halder and the administration did one of the  few things that if I knew the real truth, I would respect them for doing?
     

  • Docelder

    Does this make Bush a crusader? Moreover, does it validate Bushlet in some way? What if in some twisted way, what he did turns out to be the right thing in spite of how stupid it may look to some people right now? I always thought the way to beat radical Islam was more with culture i.e. MTV, KFC, and Levi’s and less with smart bombs. Just a ramble idea really.

  • dst

        The way this was handled (the consideration that 15 or 50 minutes of interrogation of an individual who moments before had fissiled his groin was considered adequate) makes me think, that perhaps there were legitimate reasons we are not aware of, for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab not to reveal who sent him. Maybe the bomb was designed not to explode and the plane and Detroit were never in real danger, maybe someone wanted to find out who was going to pick him up at the airport. Maybe in trying to set the thing off  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab went off script. In my eyes there is a possibility that Halder and the administration did one of the  few things that if I knew the real truth, I would respect them for doing?

  • dst

        The way this was handled (the consideration that 15 or 50 minutes of interrogation of an individual who moments before had fissiled his groin was considered adequate) makes me think, that perhaps there were legitimate reasons we are not aware of, for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab not to reveal who sent him. Maybe the bomb was designed not to explode and the plane and Detroit were never in real danger, maybe someone wanted to find out who was going to pick him up at the airport. Maybe in trying to set the thing off  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab went off script. In my eyes there is a possibility that Halder and the administration did one of the  few things that if I knew the real truth, I would respect them for doing?

  • Hokma

    AC (aka Bozo) – Regarding World War I start with the sinking of the Lusitania – the deaths of Americans on board – and the ongoing effort of German U-boats trying to sink supply ships  for Britain. Germans were operating in U.S. waters. Democrat Wilson also wanted to make the world safe for Democracy. Still it took two years after the Lusitania for the U.S. to enter the war. There was no clamor.
    Regarding the Spanish American War the U.S. declared war after the sinking of the USS Maine by Spanish officers.

  • Patience

    Some thoughts:

    Have any of you read about the security measures planned for lower Manhattan once the KSM trial started?  They sound like the description of a war zone.  And who knows how long the trial will last?  For those who think criminal trials in civil court are the way to go, all I can say is I wouldn’t want them to take place where I live.  You’re more than welcome to have them in your hometown, thank you very much.

    A lot’s changed since those events in the 80s (e.g., successful attacks on US soil) that Larry described.  Where is it written in stone that treatment of terrorist incidents must remain static?

    Once and for all, the Nuremburg Trials were military tribunals.  It’s not correct to cite them as a precedent and excuse to have criminal trials in US civil courts.

    Another, broader point – should the administration of GWB be the standard by which the Obama administration governs?  

  • AC

    Hokma,
    This is your quote that I responded to “Americans never cl.amor for war unless we are attacked.”
    Now you want to change the subject and include other data such as The Lusitania, which was a British ship. I don’t play this game of constantly moving the rhetorical goal posts in order to justify your feeble intellect.
    Who’s the Bozo! 

  • Tricia

    Thanks for this trip backwards in time.  I have never seen it all pasted together.  VERY interesting and enlightening.

  • blogforce one

    Yeah, Larry, that was then, this is now. The exponential increase in threats funded by oil money has changed the parameters of the equation completely. The threat is broad and military in scope. This now requires a military solution.This military solution has to include military tribunals as well as enabling our allies in this battle to counter the threats on their own soil and nip them in the bud.  The diplomatic approach which should be in tandem requires massive broad support for nascent democratic leaders to be supported with equal fervor, especially in Iran as well as Saudi Arabia and Syria and Lebanon. Pakistan is a major problem that must be dealt with ASAP. Civilian trials are expensive and inadequate to deal with these rapacious murderers who have no respect for our Constitution or our way of life. Try them in Guantanamo!

  • Jillie

    so, what you’re saying larry, is that we can’t learn from history.  we must continue to adhere to tactics that have failed because ‘he did it, too.’

    yes, these people are criminals..they committed criminal acts.  but to what end, for what purpose?  typical criminals are driven by power, money, greed, jealousy.  what was the desired result of this criminal activity?  fear, terror, the universal acceptance of islam and their prophet.  i don’t think it is hyperbole to say that these ‘criminals’ want to end life for us as we know it.

    we treat them differently because their objectives were and are different.  maybe before, we dismissed them.  we thought them not much of a threat.  maybe now, we are finally beginning to understand the scope of that threat and what we must do to stop them.

  • truthtelling007

    AC, Hokma’s sense of history is beneath the skills of even my 10yr old. She can tell you about the reason Master Sun Tzu warned about giving your enemy more credit than they deserve. She does it every day with girls in school who tried to be bullies. Because of how we’ve raised her she knows not to make her enemy bigger than it is. To bad much older adults don’t know this basic lesson.

    Master Sun Tzu was clear that when your enemy is an amorphous disconnected body you haven’t to apply the appropriate remedy. You don’t go them with large armies. It won’t work.

    You also don’t make them heros or martyrs back home. And that is exactly what these morons who claim to be the toughest among us are doing. We are making these criminals into Generals, Heroes, and Saints. (sorry, I love the Saints).

  • Hokma

    Apparently reading is a skill you have not mastered yet.

    How many Americans were on the Lusitania? And how many German U-Boats were on the east cost of the United States?

  • Yttik

    Gibbs was on TV saying he is certain this terrorist will be tried, convicted, and executed. He practically guaranteed it. You can’t say something like that or you undermine our justice system even worse then Bush did! At least Bush kept our civilian court system separate and protected. Bush drew a line in the sand between enemy combatents and US citizens, which is a good thing, since he wasn’t plannning to afford combatents the same rights as US citizens.

    I don’t feel safer about civil rights, about the US Constitution, under Obama, now I feel less safe. He’s blurring the line between enemy combatents and civilian criminals. Instead of bringing integrity and American values into trying and convicting terrorists, he’s giving the appearance of bringing enemy combatents, Guantanamo, and legal limbo, into our civilain justice system.

    I disagree with Bush, but if you’re going to not afford a group of people civil rights, for goodness sakes draw a firm line in the sand between them and US citizens. What precedents do we set if we allow a civilian trials to ignore speedy trial rights, enhanced interrogations, etc ec?

  • Hokma

    “truthtelling007″ – what are you talking about? You are strange.

  • EllenD

    OOps again – you’re very right AC – that’s what I get for doing this at midnight. Ireland is a republic joined with the UK only by geography and through the EU.

  • EllenD

    Agree with you AC. The Allies brought in JUDGES to try the Nuremberg Criminals, they weren’t tried by the Military.

  • Docelder

    I realize I am advocating treating domestic “terrorists” differently. But I think in practice, it isn’t so differently. I think it is common for law enforcement to push the limits on cases that are not in the public eye. The main difference here isn’t just the terrorism, but the notariety of the case.

  • donroy

    I agree with VinceP1974.   Although there was a good amount of terrorism in 1985, most of those stats were for world wide terrrorism, not just terrorism against the U.S.  That said, this is not the good ole days of 1985.   And right after the 2001 attempted Reid bombing, we had not yet committed uniformed troops to fight.  Once soldiers and marines were deployed it then became an actual “war” on terror.  During World War II, if German or Japanese agents had been caught trying to destroy facilities in the U.S. or kill American civilians there would have been some summary proceeding and they would likely have been executed within a few days.  They would not have been granted them the very rights of the U.S. citizens they were trying to kill. 

    All this nonsense about giving rights to those who want to destroy us worries me.  While no war is a good war, if we ever get into major war, like World War II, I can see enemy POWs getting trials and being released on the basis of what we are seeing now.  These guys are worse than the normal uniformed POWs of war.  They are criminals, criminal soldiers. They are at war with us and do not follow the law of war.   The International law of war applies here, not the law of the U.S.

  • Sassy

    Patience, I like your style and the points you made.
    The protests from the apartment complexes and nearby business owners have been loud and long.
    Considering that N.Y is the most liberal state in the union, their resistance speaks volumes.

  • EllenD

    Richard Reid was British.

  • TeakWoodKite

    LJ, from a historical perspective what percentage of “attacks” were borne by proxy by nation states?

  • AnnieCarmel

    I look at the cumulative effect of decades of trying them as common cirminals.  How’s that working out for us?  Time for a change in congress and a change in the way we deal with these cretins.

  • EllenD

    Regarding the Spanish American War the U.S. declared war after the sinking of the USS Maine by Spanish officers.

    “Remember the Maine” but mostly for the dubious claims made by William Randolph Hearst in drumming up a war.

  • Larry Johnson

    Most of it is nation state.  Still true today.  Al Qaeda, for example, continues to enjoy defacto support from rogue elements in both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.  We like to maintain the fiction that they are just lone actors and have no state support, but the fact is that part of Pakistan’s ISI has been a longtime booster and enabler of AQ.

  • Larry Johnson

    You are a fucking moron.  We had US troops on the ground in Afghanistan fighting AQ in October 2001, two months before Reid’s attempt.  I have no patience with such stupidity.

  • EllenD

    I like you, AC. You seem to be able to see the country from the point of view of someone who has left it from time to time.
    I recommend that view to everyone.

  • raging

    I would hope that our intelligence has alot more info on al Qaeda since Richard Reid set his shoes on fire 12/21/2001, & can adapt their approach accordingly. as to the rest of your argument, when was the US attacked INSIDE the country on a scale as on 9/11? Pearl Harbor 1942? we weren’t at war with al Qaeda factions in Iraq in 2001. their level of sophistication wasn’t what is now since Reid set his shoes on fire.
    it’s not unreasonable to expect a president to adapt to circumstances & new information. that’s his job, whether he be black or white or inexperienced. some of us were looking forward to something better than Bush. not “no worse than”.

  • Larry Johnson

    You really do not know what the hell you are talking about.  An “exponential increase?”  BULLSHIT!!  Please give me the list of actual terrorist attacks against US targets in the last year.  Attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan do not count because those are war zones.  Please give me the list of attacks in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America.  Good luck brain surgeon.

  • Larry Johnson

    No Moron, you are the one who did not learn a goddamn thing from history.  Blind Sheikh?  In jail, no attacks.  Ramsi Yousef?  Ditto.  Your ignorance on these matters is breathtaking.

  • EllenD

    The GOOD OLD DAYS of 1985? Are you nuts? Americans abroad were killed just for being Americans!
    The World Trade Center was not the only terrorist attack after that – I drove through Oklahoma City right after the bombing and was stopped for having a car with foreign plates because they hadn’t determined yet that the terrorist was domestic.
    Now people are suggesting that if you are an American you get tried in an American court but if you are foreign you get tried by the military for the same act?
    Do you know what that will do to the rights in other countries of Americans living abroad?
    If 911 hadn’t been used politically to drum up a permanent state of irrational fear in a lot of people we wouldn’t be having these assertions that Larry, quite rightly, describes as “stupid”.
    This is the land of the free and the home of the BRAVE, not the scared.

  • Pingback: Obama and civil rights « Later On

  • Hokma

    LJ – You argue that the jailing of Omar Abdel Rahman neutralized him?
    Don’t start calling people morons until you know your facts are right.
    It could be for another blog the effects of the putting this man and his followers through a public and well publicized 9 month trial. Whatever followers he had prior were made exponentially greater by the end of his trial and appeals.
    Islamist organizations used the trial as propaganda to show that the U.S. was putting Islam on trial. In ‘97, a year after Abdel Rahman was in jail his Egyptian terror organization (al-Gama’at al-Islamia) issued a statement declaring “all American interests legitimate targets” for “legitimate jihad” until the release of all those convicted terrorists, beginning with their beloved leader.
    Abdel Rahman’s lawyer (Lynne Stewart) issued a statement pressuring U.S. officials to release him because of his ill health. Gama’at issued a warning that if anything bad happened to the sheikh, the group would “target . . . all of those Americans who participated in subjecting his life to danger.” The organization promised to do everything in its power to free Abdel Rahman.
    On Nov. 17, 1997, as 58 tourists visited an archeological site in Luxor, Egypt, they were murdered by 6 Gama’at murderers. They were shot and stabbed them to death. The torso of one victim was slit so the terrorists could insert in it a leaflet demanding the release of the Blind Sheikh. Similar leaflets were scattered about the carnage.
    Immediately after 9/11, bin Laden explained to the media that his war on America had been justified by a fatwa issued from prison by the Blind Sheik. Abdel Rahman had issued a decree urging Muslims to fight for his release and that “Muslims everywhere should dismember their nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, provoke their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships,…shoot down their planes, and kill them on land, at sea, and in the air. Kill them wherever you find them.”
    I would not regard Abdul Rahman’s civil trial successful and without consequences.

  • SWPAnnA

    …precedent and all things considered, I still don’t get why nobody had a problem with Reagan choosing the former director of the CIA as his running mate and potential successor.  It has always been an American’s “given” that a CIA Agent has a license to kill.  We look the other way at what they may have done, how their budgets are determined, do they really have 007 types in their mix and how many are DOUBLE Agents?  (My suspician:  ALL of them.)

  • My other site

    That’s not what I mean.  People in our family thing it’s “the end times.”  So they think we should bankrupt the country, send every man to war etc. because we’re fighting to make way for the second coming.

    It’s not religious.  You know these are just people who want to be violent so they operate under the guise of religion.

    Street gangs say they have to kill people because someone “disrespected them.”  Not about that at all; they just want to hurt someone.

  • My other site

    Docelder; how could it be right when he invaded the wrong country?  The terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt.  Not one of them was from Iraq, but Iraq had a dictator who insulted Bush I (or so Dubya thought) and they had a potful of oil.  Huge mistake.

    If he was going after the countries that sheltered terrorists, why did he choose Iraq when most all the Middle East is doing that?

  • My other site

    I never said we clamored for WWII, so you don’t know what you’re talking about.  I’m referring to people in this country who think if we don’t go over and obliterate the Middle East we’re toast.  They don’t think about what the soldiers are really experiencing and what is the real gain. That’s my point.  We sit around here in comfort and relative security while these young people in the military keep going back to these god awful places over and over again.  I’m just saying people shouldn’t be so quick on the trigger.

  • My other site

    We actually got into WWI when Wilson learned that Mexico was treating with Germany to let the Nazis march through Mexico to enter the U. S. in exchange for our dividing U. S. territory once the Germans controlled us.  That is what got us into that war.

  • EllenD

    The blind sheik was quoted above as exhorting “Muslims everywhere should dismember their nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy,”

    Wall Street and the banks are Muslim?

    Look, Larry, intelligence services, the State Department all know how Al Quaida is being financed. I trust them all to know what has to be done about that at the International level, which is far above mine.

    My level is the young male idiots that get conned into putting explosives next to their private parts and are on my plane. Fortunately they seem to be incompetent, but I am not about to dismantle the American legal system because I am afraid of them.
    It’s enough of a sacrifice for me to go through crazy stuff to fly these days. I did that last weekend and am not looking forward to a repeat experience.

  • Hokma

    “MYS” – Read any book on Islamic jihad and you won’t have to get far to know that with them it is about religion. An archaeic form of orthodox Islam is what drives their lives and they believe heir mission is to irradicate nonbelievers at any cost including the cost pf their own life. This is not a war between defined nations – it is a war between two different cultures or civilizations where geographic borders are irrelevant.

    Obama and his people do not have this right. If we do not irradicate this radical form of Islam and/or the people involved in it, then they will irradicate us. They’ve said so and have acted on it.

  • Pingback: Nostalgia for Bush/Cheney radicalism | TheWorldPolitics

  • Bethany Gibbons

                                    With all due respect, Larry, I said threats, Not Actual attacks. I am not privy to the number of threats that have been thwarted, nor should I be privy to such classified info, But according to public statements emanating from the White house America has thwarted well over one hundred attacks, As for Actual attacks on Us soil there have been three so far on The present administrations watch. IMHO The Obama admin, cannot be held to blame for the recent spate of attacks. Maj. Hassan was a sleeper and Abdul Mutallab was one who “slipped through the cracks” so to speak.  Ovewrwhelming public opinion favors military tribunals and taking into account the sheer cost and the logistical nughtmare that will insue from domestic civilian trials preclude them as a realistic option at this point in time. In the future, perhaps, but not now.

  • Anonymous

    “My Other Site” -

    “We actually got into WWI when Wilson learned that Mexico was treating with Germany to let the Nazis march through Mexico to enter the U. S. in exchange for our dividing U. S. territory once the Germans controlled us.”

    There were no Nazis in World War I.

  • Hokma

    My Other Site – you said:
    “We actually got into WWI when Wilson learned that Mexico was treating with Germany to let the Nazis march through Mexico to enter the U. S. in exchange for our dividing U. S. territory once the Germans controlled us.”  

    There were no Nazis in World War I

  • Hokma

    You still have not shown the slighest evidence that the United States has a history of being “quick to pull the trigger” – not even in Vietnam or in Iraq. It is a myth perpetrated by the feckless peaceniks on the left for decades.

  • Pingback: Drasties - Dutch on the World - World on the Dutch

  • Jazzman

    History does not matter unfortunately…. What the republicans are banking on is the stupidity and apathy of many American Voters who have an attention span of a two years old trying to watch the discovery channel and whoes history only goes back to the last 24 hour news cycle…..

    sad just sda…..

  • armymom

    I find it rather funny that you would accuse voters of “an attention span of a two year old” and then you do something silly like um… I don’t know, mispell “sad”. lol ;)

    As an ex dem now, I wouldn’t vote for a democrat if they were running for a dog catcher position. You see, I don’t have a short attention span….. I remember very well how they have acted this past election cycle and how they continue to act as though everyone who doesn’t agree with them on policy is ignorant. Keep it up, it will win you many voters.

  • Sandy

    LJ, yours is typical liberal behavior.  Donroy gives his opinion. I happen to agree and believe he made some valid points.  You happen not to agree, so you use an expletive and call him a childish name. 

  • whoframedrudy

    I’m mainly concerned about a WMD attack.  I still think a WMD attack in NYC is the most likely cause of my death.

    If you want to see the Constitution get fried, just let them get in here with a chemical weapon. We see on gay marriage, if the people are angry enough, they can and will strip fundamental freedoms out of the Constitution.  That’s nothing compared to the wave of fear we’ll see if al Qaida hits with a WMD.  You won’t even be able to hold a peace march.

    But I think even the Court’s liberal wing knows the Bill of Rights can only withstand so much political pressure.  Stopping al Qaida is essential to protecting the Constitution.

    As I understand current law, it’s not unconstitutional for Obama to declare the Christmas Day bomber an unlawful combatant.  He has the authority to do that, subject to a habeas petition that wouldn’t get far.  He’s just choosing not to do it.

  • Jazzman

    Well I am sure perfect people like you never make mistakes…. I said many voters not all and the majority of voters do not engage until a few weeks and even days before election day. Maybe you and some others are different but the truth is your in the minority…and that is very unfortunate….

  • AC

    Jazzman, I agree and may I add the neo-Democrats to your postulation.

  • Babs

    When my kids were teen-agers, one piece of advice I kept drilling into them constantly was that if they wanted to stay out of trouble, use good judgment by never intentionally putting yourself in harm’s way. I cannot understand the judgment of an administration that insists on holding these trials on American soil when Camp Justice at GITMO has all the facilities needed for a trial, and is a venue that would not put any of our citizens in harm’s way. Add to that the $200M Obama has put in the budget for the security needed for a trial in the U.S., a number that was the estimate for NYCity for just one year, and the judgment seems even more puzzling. Ulterior motive? What?

  • AC

    The Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution to prevent our government from abusing its inherent power and preserving our freedoms.

  • AC

    The Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution to prevent our government from abusing its inherent police power thereby preserving our rights/freedoms.

  • Jazzman

    AC

    Totally!

  • Jillie

    mr. johnson, exactly where in the great, non-military judicial system you so fervently admire does it state that defendants, before their trials, will automatically be found guilty and put to death. 

    that’s not a republican talking..that’s the democratic administration talking.

    and if, in your bizarro world, you can justify the desire to continue giving constitutionally guaranteed rights to terrorists funded by foreign nation-states determined to murder hundreds of innocent american men, women, and children with the express purpose of impressing and recruiting others to do the same, then you, sir, are the moron, not i.

  • Pingback: Stumblers.Net › Nostalgia for Bush/Cheney radicalism

  • TeakWoodKite

    Humble thanks.

    The next logical question for me to reconcile an act of war by a nation state via proxy and the “asymmetrical” nature of the proxy.

    Does the United States expend national treasure and resourses to nuetralize the baker or the flour maker? Or is it fear that prevents action?

    Rebuplicans are all liars, and Democrats are too chickenshit to tell the truth.
    -mysanehalf on the way to Lowes today.

  • TeakWoodKite

    The next logical question for me is, how to reconcile an act of war by a nation state via proxy and the “asymmetrical” nature of the proxy portrayed as an “unrelated”  enemy and not addressed the underlying at by the state.

    Pakistan is as good an example as any, in that the ISI factions that perpetuates the production of arms and drugs maybe the same one feeding us target data. Tricky.
     
    Does the United States expend national treasure and resourses to nuetralize the baker or the flour maker? Or is it fear that prevents action? 
     
    Rebuplicans are all liars, and Democrats are too chickenshit to tell the truth
    -mysanehalf on the way to Lowes today

  • whoframedrudy

    You’re right.  And the Bill of Rights was in effect when liberal FDR threw an entire race of Americans into detention camps in wartime.  ’We The People’ put the Bill of Rights in and ‘We The People’ — myself excluded — could amend it again.  Or just elect Giuliani and let him pack the court with Alitos.

    The Constitution is not some mystic document with magical powers.  It is a tragic reality but civil liberties would not survive a WMD attack.  If that happens, you and I can express our outrage and vote against Genghis Khan when he wins the White House by 50-state landslide.

    My point is that if you really care about the Constitution, then you have to take the threat of terrorism seriously.

  • TeakWoodKite

    Humble thanks.

    Then why is it the US is more concerned with the bread maker than the flour maker? Pakistan is as good example as any. The ISI faction that facilitating the arms and drugs may be the same ones that are feeding target data to the missiles we fire. Tricky thing to weed out.

    “Republicans are liars, and Democrats are to chicken-shit to tell the truth.”
    -my sanehalf on the way to Lowe’s, this afternoon. 

  • Larry Johnson

    You are a moron and an asshole.  A fascist to boot.

  • Jillie

    that’s ms. asshole to you.  (one forgets these conventions in bizarro world)

  • Hokma

    It preserves OUR rights not the rights of non-Americans and in particularly war enemies.

    Obama and Holder and the loone left argument about giving Miranda rights to enemy soldiers is contrary to all American history.

  • Hokma

    “AC” – It preserves OUR rights not the rights of non-Americans and in particularly war enemies. 
     
    Obama and Holder and the loone left argument about giving Miranda rights to enemy soldiers is contrary to all American history.

  • Hokma

    The Constitution does not protect foreign enemies – only American citizens.

  • FLDemFem

    The Constitution protects all PERSONS on American soil, or in American sovereign territory such as embassies, military bases, etc. The only places you find the word “citizen” in the Constitution are where the qualifications for voting and holding office are set out. So as long as you are a human being, no matter what your nationality, if you are on US territory, the Constitution protects you. Read it again and see.

  • armymom

    Minority my ass. Please show me your data that shows that the country is happy with this administration and the democrats that are leaping off the cliff with them. Did I say I trust republicans, hell no. But I sure hell do not trust the democrats anymore. This past presidential election cycle was more than enough to wake me up. Are you still sleeping? Or you care more about “talking points” from your side to be lulled into a coma? Either way, it doesn’t help this country. I am wide awake and arming myself more and more each day with facts. As are many many people I know. This administration has woke up a lot of people.  And quite frankly, democrats are absolutely no better than those they pretend are worse.

    And I never said I was perfect, far from it, but you evidently don’t comprehend very well either or you would have seen my wink ;)

  • FLDemFem

    Hokma, he was wrong about the Nazis, but right about Germany and Mexico. The Zimmerman Telegram was the kickstarter to our entry into WWI. Here is the link to the information on the Zimmerman Telegram in the National Archives. Perhaps you should study more history, you seem to have several gaps in your knowledge base.

  • lark

    I guess it protects you, I agree, it will probably do. Hopefully. And it does so many people. But to get the protection of the Constitution you have to fight it in court. And that costs a lot of money and it usually takes years and years and years.

    What I don’t understand about the protections of our Constitution is that those in government service swore to uphold it and protect it. Then so many times they come out an do whatever they feel and feels good and the citizen then has to invoque it through their legal represeantation.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if those that are sworn to uphold it would uphold it ahead of time before committing to act in unconstitutional ways. That to me would be really really nice.

  • lark

    I am just saying that with reference to the Homeland Security departmet, etc. not about everyday life. I feel well protected by the Constitution in my everyday life.

  • FLDemFem

    lark, the Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND, and you don’t have to “fight it in court” to get the protections. Why don’t you try reading past the title and see what the Constitution actually SAYS??

  • lark

    I keep telling you that I read the title of it and I know what it says.

  • lark

    I keep telling you that I read the title of it and I know what it says. And I read the outline or table of contents and I am well informed.

  • lark

    FLDemFem if you know so much about the Constitution, why don’t you please write an article in this blog about this case:

    http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-train-threat-story-012910,0,2597275.story

  • Docelder

    I wonder where we are going with the constitution now? We have a “constitutional scholar” in charge who feels qualified to berate SCOTUS and his knowledge extends well past the areas of our constitution and into areas as diverse as college sports. I wonder where we are off to here. The constitution as I understood it, doesn’t really “give” us rights as much as it “recognized” that we were born from a creator as already possessing those rights. Once we adopt “science” as our god and once science debunks religion i.e. the same way science said glaciers were melting… (no need to be right just to be totalitarian about it) but once a creator is debunked by science we will thereby lose all our rights recognized as being granted by a creator under the constitution… will we not? Oddly, corporations will still have theirs, being granted by amendment but what about us?

  • FLDemFem

    AC, you will like this little pic..fits hattp to a T.. O:-)

  • FLDemFem

    AC, you will like this little pic.. fits hattp to a T.. O:-)

  • FLDemFem

    Send them to FL, we have a nice little law that says you can shoot someone if you feel threatened, courtesy of Jeb Bush. So send them down here and we will shoot them for you. No muss, no fuss.

  • FLDemFem

    Hokma, Iraq was not involved in 9/11, Bush had a personal grudge against Saddam, something about Saddam wanting to kill his daddy. Saddam was a secular head of state and did not support Al Queda in any way and did not even allow them in the country. Once the US invaded and toppled Saddam, Al Queda found a new haven and many more supporters. Saddam was no threat and in fact was a balancing factor in the Middle East against the theocracies who support the terror groups. So yeah, we were quick to pull the trigger on Iraq, and for all the wrong reasons. My educated guess is that a lot of the billions of dollars that went missing in Iraq ended up financing Al Queda.  Meanwhile, we kiss up to the Saudis who had the majority, 17 of 19, number of hijackers involved in 9/11. And several of the Saudi charities that finance Al Queda are still operating in the US. That is not only stupid, it’s suicidal.

  • FLDemFem

    Try reading the entire document. Slowly and carefully.

  • AC

    AnnieCarmel,
    This is not a snark or an attack of you but where does this term “common criminal” come from, and what does it mean?  I’ve read considerable Criminal Law and I haven’t ever seen this term.  It boggles the mind.
    Moreover since you sate it: What are the cumulative effects?

  • AC

    AnnieCarmel,
    This is not a snark or an attack of you but where does this term “common criminal” come from, and what does it mean? I’ve read considerable Criminal Law and I’ve never seen this term. It boggles the mind. 
    Moreover since you state it: What are the cumulative effects?

  • Retired

    Actually, I am far less worried about prosecuting individuals caught in terrorist acts than I am with the current trend of trying to characterize, at least initially, such persons as lone wolves acting on their own.  The idea that the underwear bomber somehow built his own Fruit of the Booms and then boarded an aircraft of his own accord should have been dismissed during the first few minutes of his interrgation.  Yet days after the incident, we still had political operatives trying to make the case that the kid was a lone operator.
    While we shouldn’t overestimate the threat of Al Qaeda-inspired “jihadi” terrorism (I use this term for lack of a better one off hand), we shouldn’t underestimate it, either.  The threat is sufficient that all assets of the United States–military, law enforcement, intelligence, civil–should bring their skills and resources to bear to deal with it in appropriate proportion.  It would be nice if our allies did the same, but we must be prepared to do what is necessary to protect ourselves unilaterally in the event that they do not. 

  • FLDemFem

    What’s to write? The man broke the law, it is against the law to make terroristic threats. What does that have to do with his Constitutional rights?? He broke the law and was arrested. End of story.

  • Docelder

    On thinking about this, the guy boarded the plane wearing the explodong diaper in Amsterdam. We should send him back to them, with the express agreement that they will try him there. Maybe that would set a more realistic tone for standards in their future airport screening as well. The rest of the world needs to take it’s share of the responsibility, especially when they are so judgmental of how we are trying to do it, often by ourselves.

  • lark

    Fantastic. FANTASTIC FANTASTIC. You see, you see, you know, that goes with my paradigm that most of the best solutions to our problems do not need to cost us a penny – or mostly a few pennies. But nooooo, because foreigners don’t know anything. Only Americans have what it takes.

  • lark

    He broke the law and was arrested. End of story.

  • Docelder

    We shouldn’t get attached to how they rule, or how they punish him either. We just trust them to do it, as it originated in their jurisdiction. If we want to show the world how different we are, do this one thing. At the same time, they can shoulder some responsibility themselves. It is win-win all the way around.

  • Hokma

    INstead of being a moron why don’t you show where in American war history any administration gave enemy combatants rights under the constitution. Get an education first. Really. Also read the Federalist Papers and learn the meaning of the constitution. This is a tired ignorant mantra from the looney left.

  • Hokma

    FLDEMFEM – INstead of being a moron why don’t you show where in American war history any administration gave enemy combatants rights under the constitution. Get an education first. Really. Also read the Federalist Papers and learn the meaning of the constitution. This is a tired ignorant mantra from the looney left.

  • Pingback: The President’s War « noot

  • Patrick

    In my opinion, foreign terrorists have NO right to remain silent. All terrorists are guilty til determined otherwise. Also the government should appoint pretend lawyers to obtain a false plea bargin to make the detainee believe he will be released, that way the authorities can extract information. Once the info is obtained, execute the terrorist captive anyways by use of bullets soaked in pig blood if he is Islamic in order to assure he is spending an eternity in hell.

  • http://facebook.com/zacharyalexstern Zachary Alex Stern

    Brilliant man.