Comments on: Why Are Republicans So Stupid and Dishonest on Terrorism?

By: Zachary Alex Stern

Zachary Alex Stern — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 20:22:00 +0000

Brilliant man.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:33:02 +0000

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.

By: The President’s War « noot

The President’s War « noot — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:31:38 +0000

[...] also notes this post from Larry Johnson, which details how international terrorism was worse in the 1980s than it is [...]

By: Hokma

Hokma — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:35:07 +0000

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.

By: Hokma

Hokma — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:33:50 +0000

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.

By: Docelder

Docelder — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:41:33 +0000

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.

By: lark

lark — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:39:00 +0000

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

By: lark

lark — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:32:18 +0000

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.

By: Docelder

Docelder — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:13:59 +0000

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.

By: FLDemFem

FLDemFem — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:12:49 +0000

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.

By: Retired

Retired — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:03:59 +0000

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.

By: AC

AC — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:41:33 +0000

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?

By: AC

AC — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:39:01 +0000

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?

By: FLDemFem

FLDemFem — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:32:40 +0000

Try reading the entire document. Slowly and carefully.

By: FLDemFem

FLDemFem — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 17:28:02 +0000

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.