Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, July 07, 2008
Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Willfull Blindness
by Paul Greenberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Barack Obama seems to be laboring under the considerable misimpression that this country is engaged not in a war but some kind of criminal investigation.

Sen. Obama maintains that we shouldn’t be holding all those hundreds of detainees in military custody at Guantanamo, among them Khalid Sheik Mohammed, confessed coordinator of the 9/11 attack and murderer of American journalist Daniel Pearl.

What alternative did Sen. Obama propose? Take all the captured enemy combatants at Guantanamo, lawful and/or unlawful, including the hard-core ringleaders who have not only confessed but bragged about their atrocities, and turn them over to the criminal courts of the United States — with all the privileges, rights, appeals, delaying tactics and general obfuscations appertaining thereto.

To quote this young man who would be president of the United States — and commander-in-chief of the country’s armed forces:

“And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center — we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”

How simple. And simplistic. It may be too much to hope for, but the senator would do well to have a nice, long sit-down with Andrew C. McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He was the chief prosecutor in the trial Barack Obama now cites as a model of how to conduct this war. Excuse me, this criminal proceeding.

Back in the sleepy year 1993, Mr. McCarthy and the prosecution had to overcome almost insuperable odds to obtain convictions against Omar Abdel Rahman (“The Blind Sheikh”) and the rest of the dirty dozen who attacked the World Trade Center that year — and had planned to follow up the attack by destroying a number of other New York landmarks.

To win his case, Prosecutor McCarthy was obliged to rely not on the laws of war, and what those laws have to say about unlawful combatants out of uniform who attack innocent civilians, but on a superannuated Civil War statute against “seditious conspiracy.”

The prosecution had to overcome inept investigations, legal roadblocks, threats against the judge and jurors and himself, and the widespread lack of recognition in those pre-9/11 days that this was a war, not an isolated crime.

It’s a wonder Counselor McCarthy and his team prevailed in that trial, which consumed some two years and immense effort before the defendants were finally convicted of a bombing that killed six people and injured 100 more.

Ever since that trial and ordeal, Andrew C. McCarthy has been arguing against handling the terrorist threat facing this country and the rest of the civilized world as the kind of ordinary criminal case that Sen. Obama confuses it with.

Magazines, books, forums, speeches and interviews … Mr. McCarthy has employed them all to warn that relying on civilian courts to do what military courts should endangers us all.

Lest we forget, that first criminal trial didn’t incapacitate the enemy. On the contrary, al-Qaida conducted a second attack and then the third, final, coordinated assault of September 11, 2001, that would finally topple the Twin Towers, kill thousands, and strike the Pentagon, too. It would prove the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Some incapacitation.

To quote Counselor McCarthy: “In the eight years between the World Trade Center’s (first) bombing and its destruction, the high-profile court cases that constituted the Clinton administration’s counter-terrorism strategy resulted in the convictions of exactly 29 terrorists.”

Twenty-nine. When by the count of the Clinton administration’s OWN Richard Clarke, who was supposed to be in charge of protecting this country against terrorist acts, there were at the time “perhaps over 10,000 terrorists” being trained “at the camps in Afghanistan” alone. Some incapacitation.

And this is the “strategy” Barack Obama would return to as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States. Probable result: Hundreds, if not thousands, of courtroom endurance tests as zany as the nigh-endless trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. That spectacle went on approximately forever before his life was spared. Welcome to Barack Obama’s world, or maybe Lewis Carroll’s.

They say this young senator from Illinois has a sharp learning curve. Lord knows he’ll need it if he becomes the 44th president of the United States; certainly the country would.

Recommended reading: “Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad” by Andrew C. McCarthy.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
CLOSING GUANTANAMO
I don't mind closing Guantanamo. And since the track record of released devout muslims suggest they will merely attack us again, or kill more innocents, I think the cleanest solution is to just shoot them.

agree with you, moventure,
but if they must be released, let them be moved to say, uhhh, Kennedy's compound, Al gore's TN mansion, john edwards surely has some extra rooms. Even Nancy pelosi could probably use some extra help at her winery. Since these are such misunderstood victims, let the dems support them.

SCOTUS has spoken
If we keep these people in GITMO they will get trials in U.S. courts with all that that entails, including the release of classfied data with the names of informants.

Instead we should release those that were not actually involved in killing back to their home countries and execute the rest.

My Question to BHO
Exactly what will you do with those convicted terrorists in our prisons, when AlQuieda takes a bunch of Americans hostage and threatens to behead them one by one until we infidels releas their brothers in arms we are holding as political prisoners?

jd

Pigs' Blood
Yeah, execute them using bullets previously bathed in pigs' blood. As to the "torture" ? quite simple, bathe these bastards in pigs' blood, they will "sing" better than any canary!
The stupid decision by SCOTUS will only stimulate killing islamo=fascists in the battle fields rather than arresting them.

Criminal matter?? Dangerous
What really troubles me about wanting to 'try' these jamokes as criminals is that we have to first let them commit a crime. The job of a policeman on a homicide case is to draw a chalk out-line.

Preemption is much better, and on their turf- better yet.

Criminal matter?? Dangerous
What really troubles me about wanting to 'try' these jamokes as criminals is that we have to first let them commit a crime. The job of a policeman on a homicide case is to draw a chalk out-line.

Preemption is much better, and on their turf- better yet.

Another disadvantage
One of the "rights" granted defendants like the blind shiek is to be provided legal counsel.One of the civil rights advocates who represented him was convicted of passing forbidden correspondence from her client. She was sentenced by another lib judge who gave her just over 2 yrs in spite of sentencing guidelines that recommended much longer incarceration. These are the people who are supposed to keep us safe from terrorists? I wouldn't trust any of them to protect a bucket of sh*t.

The easy solution
Take no prisoners.
We wasted 2 years with a trial of Saddam, anyone wanting to assist us would be stupid to do so as long as there was any possibility that his regime would come back. After all, there was ramsey clarke assisting in his defense.

While we were proving to the world what nice lawyerly folks we were, the al-qaida types got a foothold in Iraq that they never should have gotten.

Obama and his ilk are dangerous people, any lawyer who cannot see that trying these animals in our courts would endanger our national security assets and place people at grave risk are either too stupid to be placed in power or they have an agenda. I believe obama has an agenda to bring this country down, to make us like the Europeans with their socialism and loss of freedom and to lose our pre-eminence as leader of the free world so the UN can take over.
Elitists like him think we are all stupid and must be led by the more "enlightened", they think they are smarter than the framers, what they don't have is the guts to properly defend this land against the islamists.

I believe the common sense of the American people will give these traitors the biggest set-back they have ever seen in Nov.

Too many of our people have either served in the military or have had family members who did so,they will not hand this country over to a marxist clown like obambi when we have a genuine American hero running.

Context
The issue for all Americans is that if you're involved in a war that has no end - then what do you do with the combatants you capture in that war? In a "normal" war, one side surrenders, and then those captured are generally released and go home. In this war, there is no surrender, and even if there were, many of those we capture cannot be sent home because they have no home that they can be sent to. They may have a "nationality", but they abandoned that nationality and the country they come from isn't about to take them back.

The issue then, is that whenever we capture someone - they, for all intents and purposes, can never be released - meaning, they will be in some prison that we create, whether at Guantanamo or elsewhere - until they die.

The only reason we don't have more prisoners in Guantanamo right now is that we are holding far more in prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thus, the war without end means prison without end for those captured - and we have to foot the bill.

And, there is no solution, other, than to take no prisoners.

Dear SeaWolf your post at #9 . . .
. . . DITTO!!! Take NO prisoners!!

O'Vomit is a snake and a jackass . . . what can you expect from a viper with a pea brain who hates white America!

Jana Martin
Oklahoma City, OK
!


Vice -- saw your post at #3 . . .
. . . yes . . .how many beheadings of innocent captives do we have to see on the internet before Americans (and Jackass O'Vomit) wake up and realize that the Jihadists aren't kidding around??? The stupidity and/or naviete of mainstream America (aka Liberals) is beyond my comprehension.

SeaWolf said it, "Take no prisoners," and I'll add, "Give no quarter."

Best Regards to you and Mrs. Vic!

Jana Martin
Oklahoma City, OK

Oops -- #12 should read Dear "VIC"
. . . not "Vice . . . sorry, mega typo!

Regards -- J.

Yet another demonstration...
...of what a fool Obambi is.What's truly astonishing beyond belief is how this empty suit has so many lefties beliving his nonsense.

Dear Jana:
How many more beheadings ?

Oh,...maybe another 2,500 yrs worth before it finally sinks into the pea brains of the Dem-o-RATS.

You see,they're kinda looow & sloooooooow in the mental capabilities dept.

Greenberg is right
The Soviets and Chinese never had these problems, they simply set up Kangaroo courts and used torture to get confessions regardless of guilt of innocence. Why should we be weak and try to only kill the guilty?

Obviously I am being sarcastic with the comparisons to the communists, but it is certainly apropos given that it has just come out that the techniques used at Gitmo were based on a memo draw up by the Air Force to explain how the communist chinese were able to get false confessions from captured American pilots. That is to say they were not even methods designed to get at the truth. And we knew, because our captured pilots confessed to nonsense, that these techniques were useless at getting at the truth.

So how moronic do you have to be to sit at home and feel brave because you are advocating killing people who may or may not be guilty of being anti-American. (And we now know that many of the people sent to Gitmo were guilty of nothing. One was sent there because he has been a friend of a man who later became a suicide bomber. Except that when the prisoner finally got a lawyer, the lawyer found the man that had supposedly killed himself living peacefully in the suburbs of Germany. Oops)>

The 30 released prisoners that rejoined the fight turns out to be a canard as well. It turns out that "rejoining the fight" does not require actually taking up arms against us. A couple of people on the list got there by writing an op-ed for a newspaper alleging tprture at Gitmo. (That is to say for publicly telling the truth.) Since the people who made the list didn't want the truth told, that made that qualified as rejoining the fight against us.

Dear BillyBob . . .
. . . you said THAT right!!

Best regards -- Jana

What?
Should we allow nine men and women to decide how this country defends itself against an enemy in time of war?
Bush should have the guts of a true Commander in Chief and tell the SCOTUS, "You may be the supreme law of the land here in the United states, but the constitution gives the President the preogative of fighting wars, so mind your own business and let me get on with mine."

Agree with Greenberg.
As one who has not been especially shy in lampasting Bush on Iraq, allow me to say on the larger issue of the threat Islam extremism poses to our beloved nation, Greenberg's analysis is spot-on.

For hardened extremists, there must be some mechanism available besides the civilian law, with its deference to the rights of the accused, its "discovery" requirements, etc.

Who is better qualified than Andrew McCarthy to opine on this subject?

Obama is hopelessly ignorant on this issue.

I am sure McCain, for all his warts, is not as ignorant.

But, some much more sophisticated and detailed vetting process must be established whereby our investigators can differentiate between the truly crazed zealots who obsess with destroying our Beloved Republic, and those whom certain interests, individuals, or parties ACCUSE as being Al Qaida operatives out of personal motives that have nothing to do with terrorism.

I suspect some prisoners at gitmo, maybe only a few, simply are there due to some personal vendetta or accusation from a malcontent.

It is a very difficult vetting process.

But Greenberg is right. Turning these folks over to the civilian courts is insane.


Lol Lon
Sounds like Lon has a spare bedroom.

As it is, anyone with half a brain knows that only the worst of the worst are sent to Gitmo ( if that wasn't the case before, it has been for a while ). Those at Club Gitmo has been screened before being sent there. Any others, are usually kept in theatre, or sent to their countries of origin.

Lon is working with typical liberal relativism. You know, like comparing Baruch Goldstein's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein ) one act to the tens's of thousands committed by Muslims.

Oh, and next time, put some links in. Also, take your head out and breath, Al Qaeda and Co. use the Western Media for PROPAGANDA . . . so I'd take any op ed from most unacredited Muslims with a grain of salt.

ab

Redlac's 09:12, and Lon's 10:24
Redlac, good summation. Either take no prisoners or send them to nations that are not prone to observe civil niceties(rendition). But that only makes the Muslim world hate us even more.

Lon, you do bring up some crucial issues. I also attempted to deal with these subjects in my less than enlightening manner.

Vetting process must be much more sophisticated, requiring detailed knowledge of the customs and language of those persons whom we suspect.

The "Dove" Obama will not react in time
The Presidency is so far over Obamas head but his blind worshipers don't worry about that. They have been beguiled by his "Can Do" Hope message and believe he is their saviour, who will rise to the correctness/protection re-quired. All the great Americans, with a proven foreign/service track record but the duped and/or naive Obamigans trust a Rookie! He has no military or Commander in Chief type back-ground, unless you consider his work on the Chicago streets, wow! Which I hear are still just as disadvantaged and crime ridden, after all his involvement?! The important standards for Leadership, indeed have been ignored and of no worth to his gullible followers. God help America, ex democrat!

THE NINE ELEVEN COMMISSION
Relatives of victems being brought before micraphones to lamment the lack of preparedness.

Is Obama for more commissions or use of more covert coercion with respect to potential suspects?

Maybe he actually believe he could have done a better job with Arafat than Bill Clinton?

Obama isn't ready for prime time
And all the detainees should be shipped off ot returned to Egypt and Algeria and the Sudan yadda, where the rights of individuals are foremost to the ruling gov'ts.

Author misrepresents his case
It's a shame that Town Hall columnists can't make their cases without misrepresenting both the facts and the core issues.

The core issue is a moral one. Is our humanity connected in anyway to the humanity of our enemies, i.e., how sacred is life anyway?

We all have the choice not to take another human life even though we forfeit our own life by that choice. If we justify taking another human life in self defense then our own life is more important than the stricture against taking another human life.

We are certainly justified in taking another human life in defense of our family's lives when the danger is visible and immediate. But what of the situation where our enemy may (not absolutely certainly) take the lives of our family in the future? Are we justified in preempting our enemy's life on the basis of a possibility?

And, who decides what is or is not murder? Can the president of the United States make this finding?

Look at the invasion of Panama. United States troops killed (or murdered?) about 2000 Pamamanian citizens in pursuit of a man who is still alive and living relatively well for being in prison. The president of the United States said this was not murder. The president of the United States said these deaths were justified.

These are the moral issues which underlie our treatment of the people at Guantanamo.

SHOULD BUSH CLOSE GITMO?

ABCNEWS-President Bush will soon decide whether to close Guantanamo Bay as a prison for al-Qaeda suspects, sources tell ABC News. High-level discussions among top advisers have escalated in the past week, with the most senior administration officials in continuous talks about the future of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay–and how it will be dramatically changed and/or closed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling that gave detainees there access to federal courts.

Sources have confirmed that President Bush is expected to be briefed on these pressing GTMO issues–and may reach a decision on the future of the naval base as a prison for al Qaeda suspects–before he leaves for the G8 on Saturday. An announcement, however, is not expected before he leaves the country.

High-level administration officials say the Court’s decision dramatically changes the legal landscape–and raises questions about whether the government has solid evidence to present to federal judges to justify ongoing detentions.

read more

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/should-bush-close- gitmo

Anthony
Sorry to hear about your missing half a brain. If that is the cause of your assuming that anyone at Gitmo must be the worst of the worst, I guess it is understandable.

But there is no other reason to think that that is the case. It is true that a few of the worst of the worst have been sent to Gitmo. But those are largely the ones that could be convicted in a criminal court without too much difficulty. (The idea that it is a problem that bin Laden being caught might have access to habeas corpus is rather absurd given his large number of non-coerced public confessions).

There remain Xiguhrs at Guantanamo bay who are there because we don't know where to send them without offending the Chinese. And the fact that the evidence against the others has never been tested in a serious venus means we have no idea how many of them are guilty, nevertheless the worst of the worst. I have no doubt they have all confessed by now, and to anything we wanted them to. But since we used techniques designed to get false confessions, that is not particularly significant.

I also suspect that even those prisoners who were not anti-american when we picked them up probably are by now. That is another problem. But abusing people and arguing that they should remain in captivity because who wants to live near people who have been abused is a pretty twisted notion of justice.

Trials in US Court for illegal....
combatants? If this becomes reality the courts will have the authority to release those found "innocent" in the streets of America. We are in a fight that may never end. If so we still need to do our utmost to protect ourselves. One thing we need understand about the incarceration in Guantanamo is that making a prisoner uncomfortable is not torture. The nature of an intelligence interrogation is not to torture or to obtain a confession but to obtain usable intelligence information. How do our current enemies treat captured American prisoners? The interrogate and then kill them. These people want to defeat us and then kill us. This is something that will happen unless we have the guts to protect ourselves and defeat our enemies.

A modest proposal
For P.L. and Lon and all the others so concerned about the "innocents" at Gitmo, I have a modest proposal.

The government should set up a system whereby anyone who wants a prisoner released can act as a "proxy." Each proxy would sign an agreement to be responsible for a prisoner, assigned at random, for the remainder of the prisoner's life. If that prisoner ever lifts his hand against America or Americans again, the proxy pays the forfeit. In this case, the forfeit of the proxy's own life.

Oh, you don't WANT to bet your own life on the behavior of the "innocents?" Then how in good conscience can you ask US troops to do exactly that?

Proud Liberal blathers:
"The core issue is a moral one. Is our humanity connected in anyway to the humanity of our enemies, i.e., how sacred is life anyway?

We all have the choice not to take another human life even though we forfeit our own life by that choice. If we justify taking another human life in self defense then our own life is more important than the stricture against taking another human life."

When are you going to apply that to abortions? As usual, the lefty is morally confused. Taking a babies' life is a sacred right, while taking terrorist prisoners of war is an outrage. By the way, we treat them a hell of a lot better than they treat ours. Liberal logic and morality - you keep it.

The criminal justice system
isn't even all that great at dealing with the criminals it was designed to handle, on what basis do we assume it'd do a good job at a much more difficult task that it wasn't designed for?

........
---The tragic part of this administration is that like a lot of "tough people wantabees" it has adopted the tactics of our enemies.

Robert-----

Simpleton, when someone shoots at you and you shoot back it's not “adopting the enemies tactics” you intellectual midget. Let me know once our troops start beheading captives, gouging out their eyes or setting them on fire. That's not to say I'd object to those things but until it happens -and not just happens but becomes policy- then your delusional drivel will have some merit.

We need a good 527
We really need a good 527 AD on this topic!!
Obama praised Clinton's handling of the first World Trade Center- How would he handle a suicide bomber?? You just can't put a blown up body on trial. Before they let any of those prisoners out, they should of implanted a tracking device in them. We could of been led right to their battlefield or even Osama himself!! Terrorist have used our own freedoms against us- Gitmo is a military issue--Not a Civil Issue- Obama wants more Pork Barrel Spending for his Attorney friends--plain and simple. We need a good 527 Ad that shows maybe Nick Bergs beheaders being captured and then tried Obama's way- in US courts--sent to prison for life- where he gets religious freedom, 3 meals a day, a bed, showers, and able to recruit- very popular in prisons today. I think most Americans would prefer the Military's approach much better- Make them talk and then make them pay for thier crimes with a military tribunal. Military combatants need the same as above- if they are released they need TRACKING DEVICES.

Doc Liberty
I wouldn't sign such a proxy on the assumption that you will never act against the interests of the country. Does your argument mean that you should be sent to Gitmo? I'm sorry, but if your position requires an argument that stupid it is time to rethink your position.

Proud liberal
Where is Mr. Obama on holding Cheney Bush accountable? You imply and others of the left have accused Cheney and Bush of having committed a crime.

Though I totally support the actions because they seemed far better than the ill conceived no fly zone, throw billion dollar missile stategy of the prior administration, I believe most in the law.

It was a lie to say the administrations actions were criminal. The democrats were wrong about democracy being posible in Iraq.

If I'm wrong why isn't the leader of the opposition calling for accountability instead of going with the flow?

Reply to Proud Liberal
Proud Liberal asked: "But what of the situation where our enemy may (not absolutely certainly) take the lives of our family in the future? Are we justified in preempting our enemy's life on the basis of a possibility?"

Cleverly worded to get the answer you desire. Preemptive war is JUSTIFIED in a world with WMD. We cannot wait to be attacked before responding when there is a reasonable chance that the enemy has WMD. I sincerely hope that you understand that. Even Obama understands that. He, himself has stated clearly that allowing Iran to obtain nukes is "clearly unacceptable." That means he is willing to use force to prevent it (Unless, of course, he is switches his position... Again.

Obama Switching position
If Obama feels feels that switching his position on ANYTHING that will help him in the election or in politics or power, he will switch position gladly and rapidly.n
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.