Monday, January 26, 2009
|
|
What "World Opinion" Is Worth
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
3:00 PM
|
From the files of almost-too-laughable-to-believe-but-not-quite:
EU members are willing to take prisoners from Guantanamo, so long as they are certified pose no threat to their new "host" countries -- in other words, so long as it's certain they're not terrorists.
So let me get this straight: "The world" applauds Barack Obama's plan to close down Guantanamo. That means, of course, that the prisoners have to go somewhere.
That means that, according to "the world," it's A-OK -- nay, even desirable -- for Americans to have Islamic terrorists roosting within the borders of their country. But for the EU? Nah, not so much. It's not apparently enough that the US is the country who has actually caught the terrorists, thereby taking them out of world circulation. We should have to harbor them in our domestic jails, as well.
Perhaps this little episode offers President Obama an insight on just what "world opinion" is worth.
|
|
|
Do as I say, not as I do! |
|
Well, probably not.
But the entire reason we have a justice system, and all of those little checks and balances, is because our forefathers honestly believed that you can't always trust the government.
Short version: Just because the government says you are guilty of X, does not make it so, until it provides sufficient proof to a judge or jury that proves its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even shorter version: Until a judge or jury says, "Guilty", these folks are accused terrorists.
And, thanks to the government's lackadaisical efforts at building cases and general incompetence (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012401702_pf.html), we might never know how many of these people actually are guilty.
|
|
over that of a bitter ex-classmate with an axe to grin anyday.
Seems Carol hasn't gotten over being outshined by Obama when he ran the Harvard law review and all she could do is sit in a corner with ther bad hair.
Twenty years is a long time to be bitter... |
|
|
why don't you offer to house your Jihadi pals? |
|
Sure. We have plenty of prisons.
I realize how scared you must be of them-you can stop wetting your pants cause luckily there are enough real men in America who aren't afraid.
I'd be more concerned about the Bush admin's lack of centralized filing in the evidenciary process. Thanks to you and yours some of these idiots may not be prosecutable. |
|
|
of "Hope and Change" meets Grim Reality. Obama may be in for a surprise in how much Euros profess to hate what we do and stand for yet expect us to do all the dirty work for them. I certainly "hope" he wasn't that naive. |
|
Two camps have seemed to emerge in the Counter Terror arena. The Law Enforcement Approach, that terrorism needs to be dealt with as a crime, versus The Military Approach, that terrorism is a threat to national security, and all facets of US power need to brought to bare.
The Law Enforcement Approach over the last 25 years has ultimately been a failure, as seen from the original Tehran embassy seizure, the Marine Barracks, numerous Hi-Jackings, and ultimately the failing of not apprehending Bi Laden in Sudan because the State Department rendered doing such as "illegal" and that a "case" needed to be maid. Law enforcement, and the prosecution of terror suspects is all about building a "case". From a military and intelligence/special operations approach, it is about "targeting" (information, persons, assets, etc..) Al Qaeda has morphed into an organization that clearly understands the advantages and disadvantages between the two, and instructs its operatives to exploit the "justice" systems as often and as boldly as possible..initially by playing victim to an oppressive regime. Though Law enforcement is certainly one key component to an overall national CT strategy, leading with "building cases" against AQ, or its much more sinister and sophisticated and well financed bigger cousin Hezbollah, is no longer sufficient in a post 9/11 world. We would not have pursued German saboteurs as a Law Enforcement strategy, why would we do so with Jihadist Terrorists. (as a matter of fact, the FBI found several German saboteurs in 1944, and we abruptly tried them as war criminals, and shot them). It is a mistake for the new administration to think the failed Law Enforcement approach, through cases, trials, and juries, is advantages in this war against terror. |
|
the problem is that you and your commie brethren want to give those foreign illegal combatants the same civil rights as an American citizen!
You people are morons!
I don't "wet my pants" worrying about your pals, I have plenty of security against them.
Next, the commie judges will free those lowlifes onto the streets of America,....is that what you want?
And why should America care what the world thinks about us? |
|
"saying they [the terrorist prisoners] need to be tried and convicted in a court of law - not held without evidence indefinitely!"
"European Union foreign ministers, meeting in Brussels, gave a warm welcome to the new US President's decision to close the camp within a year. But most were lukewarm about the idea of taking in non-Europeans that the US does not intend to put on trial and who cannot be sent home for fear they might be mistreated."
It seems that your information is quite different from the information received by the EU foreign ministers from the Obama administration with respect to what is planned for the terrorist prisoners.
Please clarify the conflicting information that you are disseminating. |
|
"I don't "wet my pants" worrying about your pals, I have plenty of security against them"
Yeah right. You're scared.
But you bring up another hilarious point about you far right girly men-you cherish the 2nd amendment and yet are so terrified of EVERYTHING!
Terrified of terrorists.
Terrified of world Opine.
Terrified of Obama.
And most of all: Terrfied of the Rule of Law.
Laws, like morals or values, mean nothing if you are willing to abandon them for politcal ideology or expedience. Thant is not the american way but certainly the way of the GOP as of late.
Seems guns can't solve any of your problems. |
|
What part of Enemy Combatants does the Obama admin not understand? They are terrorists, enemies to all who have freedom. They were caught red handed trying to KILL PEOPLE. They were not caught on American Soil, therefore they are not afforded American Constitutional Protections. They do not qualify for Geneva Convention Protections.
How about if we just house them at the White House, you know Obama's new digs and then he can be their defense attorney as well, with Michelle as his assistant counsel. They can sleep in the bedrooms adjacent to Malia and Sasha so that they are "comfortable".
Not a very well thought out plan for a POTUS who is supposed to be soooooooo intelligent.
Appeasement gets you nowhere, even with your base of uber-left-wing-loons. |
|
We had eight years of Clinton trying terrorists in a court of law. What did that lead to?
Can you say 9/11?
Here is an idea, let's put them in your backyard and you can play nice with them, then we will call the world media and invite them to come and do a nice "feel good" article on how well you and the terrorists play together. Its a photo-op moment for you. It doesn't get any better than that does it?
You know we realize that you have a really, really bad case of BDS, but that doesn't excuse ignorance nor blindness. |
|
Fwankie is a moron, you can't carry on an intelligent debate with him, or his brethren commies either for that matter!
Those commies think America OWES the world and that every dirt-bag in the world has the SAME civil rights as we do!
The sad day of reckoning is coming,...mark my words,...their little Utopia is gonna come crashing down.
Just see what happens when a nuke is set off in a city where those Stalinists live,.....the sad thing is that innocent people will suffer and die right along with those cowardly Chamberlains. |
|
LMAO,...yeah rigggghttt, your definition of "rule of law" is straight out of your little red commie play book!
Yep, I'm one of those "Bible thumpin, gun totin, angry white guys", and I ain't afeered of your sorry a** or your brethren!
Hows that grab you? |
|
Scar' they are prisoners of war. It is SOP to retain prisoners of war during the entire conflict without trial.
The only issue here is that some whiny politicians fell a need to know about things they dont really need to know about because they cant stomach the interrogation techniques of said prisoners during their incarceration.
|
|
[The Law Enforcement Approach over the last 25 years has ultimately been a failure]
With the exception of the first world trade center bombing, the Cole bombing, the London and Madrid bombings, etc.
As the Bush administration approach has brought us about 250 so captured people who may or may not be involved in terrorist activity, along with two wars (one of which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda until after we invaded) which cost trillions, inspired more anti-American sentiment amongst Muslims, elevated the Executive branch beyond Constitutional boundaries, helped de-stablized Pakistan, and probably pushed us further along toward fiscal bankruptcy.
Given the choice between the two, I'll take the former, and take my chances. |
|
Yeah, I know Fwankie is a moron and I should not have wasted my time.
I guess my common sense factor kicked in and thought I would give it the old college try anyway. My bad!
I agree with you that when we are attacked again, and we will be attacked again, I sincerely hope it is in his city so he can see the death and destruction up close and personal. I do feel sorry for the innocents that Fwankie cares nothing about in his quest to have the world love us again.
What the lefties fail to understand is the unfettered hatred these fanatics have for anything Western, and the sheer willingness to kill as many as possible.
Thank God I am a bitter clinger, I know my home is safe and so is my daughter.
Gotta go home now. See ya all tomorrow.
Bye Fwankie! |
|
|
You know the most dangerous job in the world is?...its being the #3 in AQ..lol..if it wasn't for our swift, deliberate, and absolute resolve with the terrorist we do know of, I wonder how many more "madrids, londons, et al" there may have been..and last time I checked, Madrid..london..not US territory..we see what happens if you attack the EU..they fold and surrender, aka Spain and their cowardess reaction to Madrid...7 plus years, no terrorist incident on US soil..that's a big goose egg for AQ..and every American is happy with that. |
|
"Yep, I'm one of those "Bible thumpin, gun totin, angry white guys", and I ain't afeered of your sorry a** or your brethren!"
That's good to know. Obama called you people out during the campaign and won. So clearly your opine means less than a hill of beans and is no longer represented in the white house. I find this very reassuring.
And angry white guys are ALWAYS AFRIAD. Where do you think all that anger comes from? Right now its seems to be coming from the FACT that you are now politically impotent. :-) |
|
[7 plus years, no terrorist incident on US soil..that's a big goose egg for AQ..and every American is happy with that.]
The conclusion you draw does not necessarily follow from the premises you assert.
I could just as easily pull the line that after the first WTC bombing, there were no further Al Qaeda attacks on American soil, which shows that President Clinton kept us safe through the 'law enforcement' approach (as you call it.)
That conclusion is no more valid than yours.
As to the comment regarding Al Qaeda's number 3 man, assuming the government is telling the truth, does it never strike you as odd that despite seven years of military operations, despite targeting individuals, there is absolutely no shortage of people willing to take that job? Does it not even raise any questions for you as to the effectiveness of the solutions we are employing?
|
|
Dread, your assumption is that AQ (or any terrorist organization) was making concerted efforts to attack America with the same vigor and vehemance that we saw leading and after 9/11..when did UBL declare war on the US? 97-98?..so, even though the WTC was targeted in 93, the emergance and operational-ization (if you will allow me) of AQ and its sympathizers began to manifest in a global Jihad effort in the late 90s. So, I think the rebuttel is mute..one would have to assume there existed a similar level of terror coordination and intent..and I think the record and research bares it did not..so the greatest indictment to the Law Enforcement approach is the ineptitude exhibited by Clinton's white house and the state department over the decision NOT to apprehend UBL because there was, in there legal opinion, no "case..
As far as "no shortage"..just because you stir the hornets nest, it doesn't mean they aren't there to sting you..these people have developed a culture or death, hate, and Global Caliphate Domination..twice hate..10 times hate..is still hate, and no amount of "good will", fruit baskets, or "can't we just all get along" is going to change that..regardless of how "good" it makes us feel, or please our "allies"..or world opinion..(btw, I appreciate your level headed and deliberate approach..I will engage with you Dread, any time..:).. |
|
"...regarding Al Qaeda's number 3 man, assuming the government is telling the truth, does it never strike you as odd that ... there is absolutely no shortage of people willing to take that job? "
Does it ever cross your mind that if there were only 2 members of AQ left in the whole world there would still be an AQ #3. It's called "propoganda" and the fact that you are falling for it is very telling. Do you actually believe AQ is going to announce it's lost....EVER?
|
|
[(btw, I appreciate your level headed and deliberate approach..I will engage with you Dread, any time..:)..]
Likewise.
[when did UBL declare war on the US?]
I don't recall when his formal statement was made, but if I recall correctly, one of his stated reasons for doing so was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, which was a result of Gulf War I, which was 91-92.
Suffice to say that I think the point is still valid. After an initial strike in 93, it was another 8 years before Al Qaeda put together a second operation to strike in the United States. It is, at this time, premature to state that Bush has made us any safer than Clinton.
|
|
[As far as "no shortage"...]
No, I think the 99.9% of Al Qaeda followers are probably lost causes and nothing we do will ever make them happy or cause them to surrender.
Where I make a distinction is that Al Qaeda isn't even 1% of the Arab world. They are small. They rely on the forbearance and support of the local populations they hide in.
You can win these populations. And without popular or local support or even better, with the locals on our side, rooting out Al Qaeda would be easy.
Those are the people we are trying to go after. The people who see Gitmo and stories of indefinite detention and torture and look at the bloody fallout in Iraq, and hear about American missiles killing 5-10 civilians to get 1 terrorist, and they start to believe the Al Qaeda propaganda about Americans being hostile invaders making war on all Muslims.
Regardless of our intentions, regardless of who struck first, they see this and the propaganda of our enemy starts to take root.
Which is why symbolism is important. We need to wear the white hat, even if it means taking the long hard road. Because if we can win those people, then Al Qaeda is doomed. |
|
Thanks...
However, During that time we saw some extraodinary terrorist activity in the form of Khobar Towers (scores killed), US Emassies in Tanzinia and Kenya (hundreds killed)...The Cole, among others...these were international targets, but clearly aimed at Americans and American intersets..(and Technically, Embassies are US sovriegn territory)..I think UBL made his famous Declaration of War angainst the US in either 96-97.. |
|
|
Ok..I think we are getting places..I agree we need to take White Hat position..I think the greatest concern , for me, in the execution of the GWOT has been a poor Information Campaign..though I would say our media has the right to call it when we "screw it up (i.e. civilian collateral causulities)..but rarely..rarely do we see the likes of NBC,NY Times, etc talk about the incredible achievements with recontruction, and the conditions hard fought to set those conditions right. Also, having spent several years in the US Military, I can tell you no other country goes through the intelligence or the methodology to ensure the lowest possible civilian casualities than our military..and the enemy knows all too well it can score political and porpaganda points when civilians or killed or injured, which is why they operate in schools, hospitals, Mosques, and private homes, often with out the neighbors or people aware..it is a tenacious enemy with unscrupulous tactics to win small, but effective media points. My other great diappointment is our media plays to the enemy continually... |
|
But the problem with adding these incidents is that we were discussing attacks on US soil.
If we're going to include all foreign terrorist or related incidents against American targets, then the Bush record is no more pristine than the Clinton legacy.
It might actually be worse as Iraq inspired many nationals to engage in irregular attacks against US citizens in Iraq. |
|
Believe me, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the grunts and the leathernecks who go out into the middle of this mess daily and are put in situations where it's impossible sometimes to tell an enemy from a civilian.
I just don't think we should put them into that position to begin with, if we can help it.
I think they're doing the best damn job they can do, but fourth gen. warfare is messy for that very reason and every civilian that ends up dead becomes the next poster boy for the jihadist recruiters, especially to their family members.
Which is why I support the lighter approach of treating terrorism as a criminal act most of the time. I think in most cases, it should be a law enforcement issue, but I don't think saying that means that we need to cut out the intel community or the military entirely.
There are certain high priority targets or people we may want in dangerous areas that require their use.
But I don't think our primary response to terrorist attacks should be overwhelming military force or invading nations, like we've done under Bush. |
|
|
It is so fickle and so fleating. That does not mean we should not consider the positions of countries were are dealing with, there can be times our policies are potentially very destructive to our relationships with nations. I am not talking about serious issues between countries. But "world opinion" is generally nonsense and some make believe crap generated by journalists. |
|
I can say with conviction, I agree with about 90% of what you said (mark this day TH-ers..:))
However, this is a much more sophisticated enemy, in a much larger role. It is not interested in territory or resources (ie. WWII), it is a global agenda, bent on complete submission to a Jihadist ideology. As I said, I think we need to take a military approach and hone in on certain Law Enforcement skills when necessary..perhaps we are looking through the same cone, and both are convinced we see the "bigger picture"..I can rest on that..
However, your statement about "not invading" other countries implies you think our military intervention into Afghanistan was then improper? I might need some help with that one. |
|
you're right on one thing,...the Whore hou...er white house does not represent me nor do I care.
I may be marginalized now,.but the day of reckoning is coming for you and your kind, pinko, so just keep on crowing, I doubt your holy messiah ever finishing 4 years at the rate he's going now,....we'll end up impeaching that worthless empty suit before it's over.
|
|
I love how every single one of your predictions and rants have turned out WRONG. And when you say you don't care you're LYING!!!!!!!!
Since you clearly ae no longer an American or patriot I will be more than happy to buy you a first class ticket to any country you want-the caveat is you can never come back. You've already left America mentally-let me help you the rest of the way? Trust me; we don't need you and you won't be missed. :-)
|
|
|
you can take the worlds opinion add 5 bucks and get a coffee at starbucks.National interest trumps world opinion everytime. The problem with the liberals is this, they seem to think it takes a trial to prove the people captured on the battlefeild terrorist.The standard used tobe this . If you were not in uniform and taking up arms on the battlefield you were shot. perhaps it should be revisited . |
|
[However, your statement about "not invading" other countries implies you think our military intervention into Afghanistan was then improper? I might need some help with that one.]
I think military strikes after 9/11 were appropriate, though there were other options that could have been taken which might have been better.
I freely admit that I am conflicted on what to do about Afghanistan currently.
Since then, however, it's been almost a litany of mistakes in official policy. From diverting attention to Iraq and not finishing the job with the personnel required (which allowed the Taliban to regroup), to then staying in the country (which is a mistake made by other great powers previously and which will likely bite us in the a** as well), to alienating Afghani citizens with drug war policy and air strikes that take out civilians. |
|
|
Why try to reason with anyone so blind to their own hypocrisy? |
|
is hypocricy and ignorance supreme,...he thinks communism is patriotic!
What a moron! |
|
|
|