In a rare instance of critical coverage of the Obama administration on Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman about Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay: "I'm not sure if you've seen the New York Times this morning. On the front page there is an article that reveals that a terror suspect released from Guantanamo a few months ago...is now heading up Al Qaeda in Yemen. I'm wondering if this makes you less inclined Representative Harman, to support closing down the prison?"
Harman actually doubted the credibility of the usually left-wing newspaper: "Not at all. Obviously, if that allegation is true and if this fellow has now become a key Al Qaeda operative, that's shocking and disappointing." Harman went on to argue: "But there is really no justification, and there was no justification, for disappearing people in a place that was located offshore America so it was outside the reach of U.S. law. As President Obama said two days ago, there's a false choice between our safety and our values." Rodriguez then turned to Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra: "It all sounds great, but Representative Hoekstra you said yesterday that's placing 'hope ahead of reality,' right?"
One point Hoekstra made in opposition to closing Guantanamo was: "...where are these prisoners going to go in the United States? There was a good reason to move them to Guantanamo, we recognized that-" At that point, Rodriguez interrupted him to bolster his argument: "A lot of people say ‘not in my backyard.’"
At the top of the show, co-host Harry Smith actually wondered: "Honeymoon over? Republicans spar over President Obama's order to shut down Guantanamo Bay...While they battle over his economic recovery plan...Can the president deliver on his bipartisan promise?"
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
7:00AM TEASE:
HARRY SMITH: Honeymoon over? Republicans spar over President Obama's order to shut down Guantanamo Bay.
BARACK OBAMA: America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership.
SMITH: While they battle over his economic recovery plan.
JOHN BOEHNER: It looks like a bill that spends too much and spends it too late.
SMITH: Can the president deliver on his bipartisan promise?
7:02AM SEGMENT:
JULIE CHEN: But first, it promises to be another very busy day for President Obama. CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante joins us with that. Bill, good morning.
BILL PLANTE: Hey Julie. This morning the president gets up close and personal with members of the House and Senate from both parties. An important meeting, because he wants to push them on his plan to aid the ailing economy. Mr. Obama wants it known that he'll be paying very close attention to the financial crisis, getting a daily economic briefing, just as he does a national security briefing.
ROBERT GIBBS: The presidents asked that this be added each day to his schedule as the country's in the midst of an economic crisis and an economic emergency.
PLANTE: In a public gesture designed to highlight a campaign promise, Mr. Obama signed an order closing the prison at Guantanamo within a year and forbidding the so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques.'
OBAMA: Once again, America's moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership.
PLANTE: Still finding his way around the White House, the president ventured into the press briefing room for a tour and suggested that we need more healthful snacks in the vending machine. If he looked cheerful, there was a good reason, Mr. Obama got word that he'll be able to keep his Blackberry, which will have special security.
OBAMA: I won the fight, but I don't think that, you know, it's actually up and running yet.
PLANTE: Now, the president's visit to reporters came as a surprise, it seldom happens. And there's a reason the president seldom comes down into the press briefing room, and that is because when they do, we start asking them questions. Julie.
CHEN: You're going to push him away by doing that, doing your job. No, I'm just kidding there. Alright, Bill Plante outside the White House. Thanks a lot, Bill. And now let's head back to New York and Maggie.
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Julie. President Obama's decision to close Guantanamo Bay has ignited a debate, especially over the issue of where to put those prisoners. We're joined this morning by Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra and Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman. Good morning to you both.
JANE HARMAN: Good morning.
PETER HOEKSTRA: Hey, good morning.
RODRIGUEZ: I'm not sure if you've seen the New York Times this morning. On the front page there is an article that reveals that a terror suspect released from Guantanamo a few months ago, someone who said that if he was ever released he would reunite with his family and work for their furniture business, is now heading up Al Qaeda in Yemen. I'm wondering if this makes you less inclined Representative Harman, to support closing down the prison?
HARMAN: Not at all. Obviously, if that allegation is true and if this fellow has now become a key Al Qaeda operative, that's shocking and disappointing. The Saudis are ones who should worry about Al Qaeda attacks and so are the Yemenis. This fellow, I think, is a Yemeni national. But nonetheless, what it tells me is that President Obama has to proceed extremely carefully. But there is really no justification, and there was no justification, for disappearing people in a place that was located offshore America so it was outside the reach of U.S. law. As President Obama said two days ago, there's a false choice between our safety and our values. And I believe that the system that he has set up will bring some people to the U.S. for prosecution, we've already successfully prosecuted and imprisoned 145 terrorists, both U.S. nationals and foreign nationals, since 9/11 in U.S. federal prison. It will release some people, obviously, more carefully, those who committed absolutely no crimes and who were no danger. And it will send others back to their country of origin or to appropriate tribunals elsewhere in the world, where they can be tried, and if convicted, imprisoned.
RODRIGUEZ: It all sounds great, but Representative Hoekstra you said yesterday that's placing 'hope ahead of reality,' right?
HOEKSTRA: That's exactly right, I mean the executive order that was signed yesterday really is very short on specifics. Yes, we have processed about 500 people through Guantanamo, but as your -- or as the New York Times points out, that about 10% of the people that we've released out of Guantanamo, there's indications that they are back on the battlefield, they are attacking American troops. The real question that we now face is what is President Obama's strategy to confront this threat from radical jihadists? Are we going to go back to what we did in the 1990's where when we were attacked in 1993 at the World Trade Center we said, 'you know, if you attack the United States, we are going to throw the book at you and we are going to prosecute you.' And after 9/11 we found out and we recognized that that was not an effective strategy. So that's one of the questions, what is the real strategy, is it prosecution or prevention? The second thing is, where are these prisoners going to go in the United States? There was a good reason to move them to Guantanamo, we recognized that-
RODRIGUEZ: A lot of people say 'not in my backyard.'
HOEKSTRA: That's right, because we knew -- we knew that we didn't want them -- we wanted them in Guantanamo because we knew that if we put these people in the United States they would become a magnet for attacks on the homeland. So put them someplace that is safe and secure. And I think that as people start getting an indication that there going to Kansas, that they're going to California, that they're going to Illinois, or to Michigan, people are going to say 'no, why would we want them here-
HARMAN: Wait a minute-
HOEKSTRA: -and put them in a general prison population and make our hometowns a target for terrorists.
RODRIGUEZ: Okay.
HARMAN: Okay, but wait a minute-
RODRIGUEZ: We're out of time so I want to give the last word in ten seconds to Representative Harman.
HARMAN: Thank you. Most of these folks who've been successfully prosecuted are in Supermax Prison in Florence, Colorado, and that is exactly where they should be. Let's retire the fear card, let's understand that we can do both.
RODRIGUEZ: Okay.
HARMAN: We can be safe and we can protect our values.
RODRIGUEZ: Thank you so much for your time, Representatives Harman and Hoekstra, appreciate it.
HARMAN: Thank you.
HOEKSTRA: Thank you.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This harks right back to
January 23, 2009 - 15:29 ET by mvfreemanThis harks right back to the Clinton era.
Instead of seeing these people as enemy combatants who were lucky not to have gotten a bullet in the head they want to fight them in the courts instead of the battlefield.
Lawyers
January 23, 2009 - 15:35 ET by doug1950Most of them are lawyers and think they can win if they can just manipulate the law or find favor within the court system. It is kind of a myopic view of the world and frustrates the hell out of us military types who see someone with an assault rifle and an RPG as a combatant and an enemy, not some misguided criminal who was not breast fed when they were babies so they are not to blame.
You are very correct, this
January 23, 2009 - 17:04 ET by BDYou are very correct, this is the perfect example of the liberal "Soft Power" view on the world.
A person is detained in Afghanistan for being an Al Qaeda terrorist and taken to Gitmo. While there, the AQ detainee does the typical:
And the libs think that their policies on both the war and Criminal punishment WORK?
Values
January 23, 2009 - 15:38 ET by Southern voterAmazing the Dems are more worried about the well being and treatment of known terrorist committed to murder our citizens yet see nothing wrong with using our tax money to pay for abortions that murder the innocents in other countries on top of giving over $350 million tax dollars to Planned Parenthood to do the same ...President Obama and each member of congress and the Senate should have to watch an actual abortion and then talk about US values and protection of rights !!! Our country will see no internal peace or financial stability as long as we de-value life ...
The rights of terrorist vs the rights of law abiding citizens
January 23, 2009 - 16:22 ET by needle"[It's a]mazing the Dems are more worried about the well being and treatment of known terrorist committed to murder our citizens..."
I disagree. It is not amazing at all. This matter is salutary because it brings right to the surface just how much the Democrats hate this country.
There is also another fairly likely possibility and that is after a few weeks of hemming and hawing The Zero will announce that the closing of Gitmo is to be postponed indefinitely. This will be met with some outrage and a lot of grumbling, but then the super smart O will explain, and then it will be just matter of time before all will proclaim that this is just another proof of Obama’s extreme genius. Why? Because he did this with the blessing of the Press, whereas while this will be the same thing that Bush did, Bush did it unilaterally and especially against the wishes of the Press. In other words this will reveal just one more instance of politicizing events and issue manipulation by the Press.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Close It
January 23, 2009 - 15:50 ET by EverettPIf he does close gitmo he'll have no one to blame but himself when they all come back an start ruining more people's lives. But knowing the media thay'll find some way to spin it and make it Bush's fault.
"But knowing the
January 23, 2009 - 16:17 ET by gopsteve"But knowing the media thay'll find some way to spin it and make it Bush's fault."
That's not a joke...wait and see. They say the reason they attacked the USA was because BUSH wrongly imprisoned them.
I find it interesting that Obama
January 23, 2009 - 15:50 ET by MightyMouthThinks we should hold our values above our security. But he fails to identify which "values" he is referring to!
"Waterboarding is only torture if it leaves a mark" --MM
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Torture
January 23, 2009 - 17:44 ET by doug1950I have been waterboarded, couple of times in training. Ive been more scared riding in the car with my mother in law.
Waterboarding. Didn't Ted
January 23, 2009 - 17:50 ET by BlazerUpside down and restrained with a polyurethane fabric over your face as water is applied to simulate drowning.
Didn't Ted Kennedy invent that?
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Gallop Poll - Do not close Gitmo
January 23, 2009 - 15:52 ET by Gary HallGallop January 21, 2009
LIBERAL RAG
January 23, 2009 - 15:57 ET by MrShyThe NY Liberal Rag, formerly known as the NY Times, also just posted a big headline of the indictment of ex-senate leader Joseph Bruno, and lo and behold, wasted no time labeling him:
"Joseph L. Bruno, the former Republican leader of the New York State Senate, is accused of reaping money from companies seeking state or union business."
Yawn.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Maggie may as well start
January 23, 2009 - 16:00 ET by celatorMaggie may as well start looking for a new job. She is not following the liberal Old Media playbook, despite all that political re-education they gave her.
For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.
It's been only three days
January 23, 2009 - 16:19 ET by Atomic CrusaderIt's been only three days and history is already smiling on President Bush.
Yep, it is. So far the
January 23, 2009 - 16:22 ET by celatorYep, it is. So far the Obama administration looks like a very bad frat party. It won't get better.
For liberal Democrats and the Old Media, everything is crisis, chaos, calamity and catastrophe. That justifies stealing your property and liberties.
Just like the NY
January 23, 2009 - 16:15 ET by gopsteveJust like the NY Times....after doing so much to turn sentiment against Gitmo, it publishes that report a day or two after The One said it will close...
We are being defrauded by ostriches!
January 23, 2009 - 16:22 ET by c5thenThere are at least 61 documented cases of GTMO releasees returning to fight US troops in either Iraq, Afghanistan and/or re-joining Al Qaeda.
The best that Jane Harman can come up with is that she is "disappointed" with this terrorist? Is she Freakin' kidding!!!??
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
RE: GITMO
January 23, 2009 - 16:36 ET by Prester JohnIt would be interesting to find out what, if any, deterrent effect the mere existence of GITMO had on wannabe jihadists.
If GITMO goes away, what do potential jihadists they have to fear?
If they martyr themselves they go and enjoy their 72 virgins, if they get captured they go to federal court and get an ACLU lawyer to get them off the hook.
At least with GITMO they were looking at being locked up for a long, long time in a land far, far away.
Well Rep. Harman...what
January 23, 2009 - 16:36 ET by bassndudeWell Rep. Harman...what say we send them to Los Angeles' South Bay, so you can be really disappointed in them. Or, maybe they could migrate to Hollywood, where they would fit right in.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
The closing of Gitmo will
January 23, 2009 - 16:46 ET by dark_dsThe closing of Gitmo will eliminate the only good health care on the island
I am not surprised by him closing Gitmo .... it was one of the pillars of of his campaign ......it baffles me to no end how the left in general care so much about the treatment of these blood thirsty pigs .. these prisoners have it much better than prisoners within our own system as far as accommodations ....on our soil they will be able act like cancers within our prison system in recruiting etc... .. think of it like the Crips ... just add another gang to our prisons
AQ and others are starting to see that the paper tiger is back
Can we Kool Aid Board still... durka durka ... dark_ds said that
New
January 23, 2009 - 16:48 ET by TOENew Field Handbook:
Coerce prisoner, collect intellegence, kill prisoner.
Next;
If you are a Bible student
January 23, 2009 - 17:10 ET by ricklailIf you are a Bible student you can recall the time God told Saul to kill all the Amalekites. Who brought the head of Saul to David? It was one of those Alamekites that he was supposed to have killed. Moral of the story: Be careful or your sins will out. Moral of closing Gitmo: This whole nation will suffer from BHO's sin.
Ricky Joe the Plumber
Isn't it amazing when libs
January 23, 2009 - 20:13 ET by eaglewingz08Isn't it amazing when libs wins an issue in the polls by two points its a landslide in favor of their position, when conservatives win an issue by a net ten points, its a very close divisive question.
Good News
January 23, 2009 - 20:19 ET by clubchamp6Our wonderful Governor Ritter here just put a couple more nails in his coffin for the next election. He says he would take some of the prisoners in our Supermax Prison in Florence Colorado. That's just what I want is a terrorist in my state indoctrinating other prisoners into there terrorist world and then be released to unleash their hell. Not to mention the target this prison will have on it.
These people are over the top.
"He is who we thought he was" Dennis Green ( kinda )
Good Twilight Zone idea:
January 24, 2009 - 04:07 ET by RR GOPGood Twilight Zone idea: This guy suddenly finds himself on an airplane taken over by hijackers about to be flown into yet another building. The head hijacker gleefully brags that the Feds had him, but admitted they were unable to force him to talk and had to let him go.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
RR GOP, Twilight Zone idea...
January 24, 2009 - 04:46 ET by Michael30Yours is good, I have one to add...
Terrorist guy kills a woman and is sent to an American prison since Guantanamo is closed.
His cellmate is a mass-murderer who killed his own wife's family and tried to kill her, but failed.
The problem is that the murderer has spent the last fifteen years waiting to get out so he can finish the job and kill the wife that the terrorist has recently killed. He now has nothing, his only motivation to get out has been taken from him, from the man now in the cell with him. The murderer isn't angry that the terrorist killed his wife, he's angry because he himself wasn't able to.
Instead of "You don't love her like I do," it's about "You didn't hate her like I did."
Two psychos in a dark and locked cell for the night, with plenty of ways to kill eachother.
Mike
someone from Gitmo returns to terrorism
January 24, 2009 - 12:03 ET by nicholas nicklebyLet's just be clear on this: if someone released from Gitmo returns to (or picks up) terrorism, then the fault is with the system that let him go--which was Bush's system.
Think about it: Al-Shihri was taken into custody years ago, and released months ago (according to reports)--all of which happened under the watch of people that Bush's administration put in charge.
So, Bush's system failed--and Obama is changing that system. We can debate the merits of Obama's proposed changes (i.e., shutting down Gitmo), but the fact that someone was released from the Bush administration's prison camp can only serve as an example of what Obama needs to be careful about (and what the Bush administration was insufficiently careful about).
In fact, let's put the release of Al-Shihri into the running tally of exceptions to the idea that Bush kept us safe (as Peggy Noonan said-- http://online.wsj.co... ): Bush kept American safe except for 9/11, except for sending American soldiers into a WMD-free Iraq, except for the National Intelligence Estimate of 2006 which said that Americans were at a higher risk thanks to the global war on terrorism ( http://www.nytimes.c... ), and except for releasing Al-Shihri.
(And you'll notice, I didn't mention the anthrax attacks--surely that falls under the umbrella of terrorism?--and I didn't mention his response to Katrina, because I know that's a hot-button topic around here. But just ask yourself: if Bush could end his vacation abruptly and try to involve the federal government in the internal workings of the state in regards to the Terri Schiavo case, why couldn't he try to involve the federal government in the internal workings of the state in regards to Katrina?)
Nice try Nick
January 24, 2009 - 12:11 ET by cocodrieI hope you didn't hurt your back with all that twisting. You should post that in the joke thread.
Jesus Loves You
ha, I only hurt my back shoveling snow
January 24, 2009 - 12:34 ET by nicholas nicklebyHey coco,
If you can refute any of my argument, please do so.
Squeers swung down out
January 24, 2009 - 13:10 ET by choselife3xOf the trees, whooping loudly and flinging his feces at the crowd.
Let's see....where to start...
1. Bush bent over backwards to do things the Democrat way and let some terrorists go instead of shooting them all..FAIL. But Nancy and Harry were happy.
2. 'Americans were at higher risk BECAUSE of the war on terror'
And our alternative is to ask them nicely not to hurt us? FAIL. Go back to school and study logic, Squeers.
3. Who died in the 'anthrax attacks'?
4. The President is prohibited by Constitutional law from sending in the military unless the State requests. EPIC FAIL for SQUEERS.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Blackberries
January 24, 2009 - 13:13 ET by sherylsimsCareful there girl, Blackberries weren't designed to make that many good points in one post. Yer gonna sprain a thumb.
ah, much better
January 24, 2009 - 13:40 ET by nicholas nicklebySee Coco, that's how a refutation is done. Or at least, attempted.
1. Could you provide some evidence that suggests that the Democrats want the detainees from Gitmo released? From what I understand, the standard line from the Democrats is that they want the detainees processed--which means that some people (like the Chinese Muslims--the Uighurs) held there would be released, since they clearly are not terror threats (and since, in the case of the Uighurs, their release has been ordered by a federal court ( http://www.cnn.com/2... ), and that some people, who might be terror threats, would be kept locked up. Of course, you may have noticed that the torture that some of these suspects have undergone have made it harder to deal with them legally ( http://www.guardian.... ).
See, chose, here's where you're wrong: not everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist--they are terror suspects. Some of them should be released, and some of them shouldn't be. They need to be processed so that the ones who are prone to terror (like al-Shihri) don't get released. The fact that Bush's Gitmo released him is a fail for him--and for us.
Again, if you can provide some evidence that Reid and Pelosi have argued that the prisoners in Gitmo should be released without review, I'd be very interested in that.
2. Do you see where you go wrong here? You assume that the only options are a) bombing people and b) asking them nicely. There are, in fact, a range of other options.
So, the question here is, how do we make the world safer for us? Certainly, asking people nicely is not the way to do it--you and I (Allah be praised) agree on that. So, does attacking other countries make us safer? According to the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate report, no.
(You can argue that point if you want, but this is something which many people agree with: if you bomb someone's house/family/school/business, you actually give them less things to live for--thereby increasing the chances that people who have nothing to live for will engage in deadly combat and suicide missions.)
So, my point is that the previous use of our military has not made us safer--and that's not been disproven by your point that we can't just ask people to be nice. (They're two separate points, you see. You might want to be a little more careful in your logic, chose.)
3) Who died in the Anthrax attacks of 2001? Robert Stevens, photojournalist; Thomas Morris, Joseph Curseen, postal workers; Kathy Nguyen, hospital worker; Ottile Lundgren, widow of a prominent judge. That's 5 people who died; a further 17 were hospitalized.
4) Katrina is a huge argument that we've had on these boards for a while, and I don't disagree with you that NOLA and LA politicians screwed up. All I'm saying is that we can compare Bush's response to the Schiavo case (flying back to DC to sign an act in order to interfere with a state's ruling) with his response to the Katrina crisis, which was to have a cake with Sen. McCain on his birthday. I'm not saying that Bush was legally required to do something for NOLA, only that he exerted himself more to save Schiavo then he did to help NOLA.
And that, Coco, is how a refutation is really done. Squeers FTW.
Hellooooooooo Nick
January 24, 2009 - 21:55 ET by cocodrieDon't bother trying to tell me about Katrina. Our local DEMOCRAT leaders were totally useless and incompetent. The only real help we received was from the federal government courtesy of PRESIDENT BUSH.
I hope you feel properly refuted.
Jesus Loves You
coco, please read again.
January 24, 2009 - 22:14 ET by nicholas nicklebyhi coco,
my refutations were to ChoseLife3x's points, but I welcome your input. However, just to be clear, some of the things I said were responding to her post, not yours, so:
1) you didn't say that Dems want the Gitmo prisoners released, but CL3x implied that, so I was responding to her. See, her point was that al-Shihri and other terrorists who were released from Gitmo were released because of Democrats pressuring Bush--so I did what any sensible person would, I asked for evidence. And I'll do so again--what evidence do you have that the ACLU was involved in getting people released from Gitmo?
2) Please read this point again: I didn't say we have to talk nicely to people--I only pointed out two things which I think are true, and which we can argue about: a) that it's a false choice between talking nice and playing tough--there's more options out there; b) playing tough has a way of radicalizing moderates--which leads to the old (2003) joke about how powerful a US bomb is: so powerful that one blast can create 1000 suicide bombers.
3) I didn't say the Anthrax cases have to do with Gitmo--I pointed out was that Bush has not kept us safe, as demonstrated by the 5 people killed and 17 hospitalized by anthrax. (And if sending anthrax through the mail isn't terrorism, then what's your definition? I mean, wasn't the Unabomber a terrorist, and he did practically the same thing.)
4) Please reread what I wrote: I didn't say anything about whether or not it was right to let Terri Schiavo die and I didn't say anything trying to excuse the giant mistakes made by the LA democrats. All I pointed out was that when there was one life on the line, Bush flew home--and when there were thousands of lives on the line, Bush didn't do anything (at first) except say "Heckuva job, Brownie." Seriously--some of the people in NOLA also died because they didn't have appropriate food and water--that just makes it worse that Bush didn't try to act faster. I mean, the Florida courts didn't ask Bush to intervene in the Schiavo case, but he did anyway.
you didn't say that Dems
January 24, 2009 - 22:33 ET by BDyou didn't say that Dems want the Gitmo prisoners released, but CL3x implied that, so I was responding to her. See, her point was that al-Shihri and other terrorists who were released from Gitmo were released because of Democrats pressuring Bush--so I did what any sensible person would, I asked for evidence. And I'll do so again--what evidence do you have that the ACLU was involved in getting people released from Gitmo?
a) that it's a false choice between talking nice and playing tough--there's more options out there;
b) playing tough has a way of radicalizing moderates--which leads to the old (2003) joke about how powerful a US bomb is: so powerful that one blast can create 1000 suicide bombers.
3) I didn't say the Anthrax cases have to do with Gitmo--I pointed out was that Bush has not kept us safe, as demonstrated by the 5 people killed and 17 hospitalized by anthrax. (And if sending anthrax through the mail isn't terrorism, then what's your definition? I mean, wasn't the Unabomber a terrorist, and he did practically the same thing.)
force is not always military
January 25, 2009 - 15:16 ET by nicholas nicklebyI'm only going to deal with two of the things that BD said here, because they're going to be important moving forward.
(Okay, only two, but first as for Domestic vs. Islamic-based terrorism, I wasn't comparing them, I was pointing out that Bush has not kept us safe from terrorism, as people have claimed. If you wanted to say he's kept us safe from Islamic-based terrorism, then we could talk about US deaths in Iraq, not to mention the recent attack in Mumbai, connected as it was to our good ally, Pakistan.)
But the two issues I really want to address are the idea that the Arabic mind only can understand force. First, BD, I didn't know you were so deeply versed in the Arabic mind. (For the sake of this argument, I'll assume you were talking about a cultural mindset, and not making a racist claim about Arabs.) Given the recent Israeli invasion of Gaza, I guess you would assume that, since the Israelis showed overwhelming force, the Gazans have been cowed--taught who the boss is. And yet, from what I hear (both from the news and my Israeli cousins), nothing has really changed--or rather, things have changed for the worse. So, since you think that the Arabic mind only responds to force, and yet force did not work in Gaza, what's your explanation.
I've said this a few times, because I believe it, and because I think it's a concept that any Vietnam-era person should understand: you don't win hearts and minds by blowing up chests and skulls. You win hearts and minds by showing the benefits that are available.
And that brings us to the second issue--what lies between trying to talk nice and trying to bomb people: it's a concept which has sometimes been called smart power, and it involves all the other avenues of power that aren't killing people. For instance, think about this: let's say we had a scholarship that enabled more people to go to secular schools in Arabic countries instead of religious madrassas--wouldn't that cut into the supply of possible recruits? (After all, terrorism, like many other not-very-well-thought-out ideologies, works well when people are indoctrinated young.) Now, let's further imagine: let's say someone was suffering from some easily treated medical condition and US or US-trained doctors helped--wouldn't that person likely be grateful? Wouldn't his family likely be grateful?
(This, by the way, is not merely a hypothetical situation. You may have heard the story of how US liaison officers are giving out Viagra to elderly chiefs in Afghanistan--which has helped to, let's say, firm up support for the US among those chiefs.)
Now, these are ways to use US power (technology, education, money) in ways that help to win hearts and minds.
(There is another way, which was actually a part of the CIA's techniques during the Cold War--to make Hollywood movies more enticing to the Third World, the CIA actually had Hollywood studios put in more minority characters into their films. That's another type of smart power--our cultural industry. Seriously: send some blue jeans and some Rolling Stones, and we'd be winning a lot of hearts and minds--not to mention swiveling hips.)
Okay, only two, but first
January 25, 2009 - 22:11 ET by BDOkay, only two, but first as for Domestic vs. Islamic-based terrorism, I wasn't comparing them, I was pointing out that Bush has not kept us safe from terrorism, as people have claimed. If you wanted to say he's kept us safe from Islamic-based terrorism, then we could talk about US deaths in Iraq, not to mention the recent attack in Mumbai, connected as it was to our good ally, Pakistan.)
But the two issues I really want to address are the idea that the Arabic mind only can understand force. First, BD, I didn't know you were so deeply versed in the Arabic mind.
For the sake of this argument, I'll assume you were talking about a cultural mindset, and not making a racist claim about Arabs.)
I guess you would assume that, since the Israelis showed overwhelming force, the Gazans have been cowed--taught who the boss is.
I've said this a few times, because I believe it, and because I think it's a concept that any Vietnam-era person should understand: you don't win hearts and minds by blowing up chests and skulls.
You win hearts and minds by showing the benefits that are available.
And that brings us to the second issue--what lies between trying to talk nice and trying to bomb people: it's a concept which has sometimes been called smart power, and it involves all the other avenues of power that aren't killing people.
For instance, think about this: let's say we had a scholarship that enabled more people to go to secular schools in Arabic countries instead of religious madrassas--wouldn't that cut into the supply of possible recruits?
Now, let's further imagine: let's say someone was suffering from some easily treated medical condition and US or US-trained doctors helped--wouldn't that person likely be grateful? Wouldn't his family likely be grateful?
There is another way, which was actually a part of the CIA's techniques during the Cold War--to make Hollywood movies more enticing to the Third World
Seriously: send some blue jeans and some Rolling Stones, and we'd be winning a lot of hearts and minds--not to mention swiveling hips.)
we may disagree on this...
January 26, 2009 - 16:07 ET by nicholas nickleby...but I don't think you have to choose between the Stick and the Carrot method of persuasion--because you're not dealing with a homogeneous group of people who all believe one thing.
I mean, there are people who belong to terrorist organizations--people who won't ever be won over in any way--they're the people who you approach with a stick. Then there are the people who like you--they should get the carrot. (In effect, I'm agreeing with your example of Basilan--the combination of Stick and Carrot, or Hard and Soft power.)
(Also, instead of "soft power," I think the new phrase is going to be "smart power"--which I prefer because it doesn't preclude military intervention.)
(Also, as for the Hollywood comment, I wasn't saying "Hollywood needs to show the bright side of the War on Terror," I was merely pointing out one historical use of non-military power. I'm not going to say what they should do now, only using this as an example of what the US government has done in the past to exploit our cultural production. It might not work now to do that, but there might be other methods of non-military smart power--like, as I said last time, giving viagra to local chiefs. I know you like your historical comparisons, but you haven't yet attacked that present-day practice of shoring up support for American forces.)
...but I don't think you
January 26, 2009 - 16:45 ET by BD...but I don't think you have to choose between the Stick and the Carrot method of persuasion--because you're not dealing with a homogeneous group of people who all believe one thing.
Also, instead of "soft power," I think the new phrase is going to be "smart power"--which I prefer because it doesn't preclude military intervention.)
Also, as for the Hollywood comment, I wasn't saying "Hollywood needs to show the bright side of the War on Terror," I was merely pointing out one historical use of non-military power. I'm not going to say what they should do now, only using this as an example of what the US government has done in the past to exploit our cultural production.
It might not work now to do that, but there might be other methods of non-military smart power--like, as I said last time, giving viagra to local chiefs.
I know you like your historical comparisons, but you haven't yet attacked that present-day practice of shoring up support for American forces.)
i think we agree in general (though I'm sure once we started in
January 26, 2009 - 18:43 ET by nicholas nickleby...to talk particulars, there'd be some more arguing).
But I want to stress this again: when some of the commenters here say that we have to choose between dropping bombs and talking nice, they're missing a) the whole range of other options (e.g., MEDCAPs and other civic action projects/programs), and b) the fact that we can both bomb some people and entice other people with benefits.
I don't want to misrepresent your position--and maybe if we started to talk about percentages of military vs. non-military power, we'd get into an argument--but I think we agree on this issue broadly.
It is the left in society
January 27, 2009 - 09:37 ET by BDIt is the left in society who mis-addresses the situation. They make th efalse assumption tht for the past eight years we have ONLY been dropping bombs which is patently not the case.
By saying "We need to use soft power, not military action" obviously misses that fact.
pr is part of the problem
January 28, 2009 - 18:44 ET by nicholas nicklebyYou're right that there needs to be more PR from the military about its humanitarian actions, but we also need more smart power in the form of hospitals and schools as well as medical CAPS and engineering CAPS. As I said, we may disagree about proportions of military/non-military power.
(As well as gestures like Obama appearing on Al Arabiya. But time will tell.)
Regarding the PR from the
January 29, 2009 - 12:18 ET by BDRegarding the PR from the military, the Pentagon set up an agency to do just that - get our story out immedialely after 9/11 called Information warfare.
It was announced by the DOD and the next thing you knew the MSM had an extreme Hissy fit. "You can't do that, that is our job, to tell your story."
The DOD then sheepishly caved in.
I ask you, has the MSM told our story adequately? My answer is hell no!
Nick
January 24, 2009 - 22:43 ET by cocodrieIt is not the federal government's job or responsibility to provide us with food and water.
If you can prevent crime or solve crimes in an instant, you should get into the crime fighting business.
The things you say President Bush should have done are impossible.
Planes came in with food and water as soon as the airport was useable. Helicopters were here the same day of Katrina, airlifting people to safety. You are totally misinformed as to what went on here. I witnessed it all first hand whereas you get your misinformation from your Bush hating sources.
Will you be posting any hateful rants about Obama? I don't think so because your hateful left-wing extremist sites won't print any.
And yes, I am a right-wing extremist and part of the radical religious right.
Jesus Loves You
compare Schiavo to Katrina
January 25, 2009 - 15:19 ET by nicholas nicklebyCoco, just to be clear, I support your religious freedom and your political freedom, and I appreciate your perspective on NOLA.
But you have to admit that there's a difference between these two cases:
NOLA in trouble--Bush sharing cake with McCain.
Terri Schiavo in trouble--Bush interrupts his vacation in Texas to sign a bill having to do just with this case.
I'm not arguing that the feds didn't do enough--but we can easily see a difference: in one case, Bush flew home to enact a law which only had to do with Terri Schiavo; in the other, he ate cake.
Nonesense NN
January 26, 2009 - 09:25 ET by general companyBlanco did not ask for disaster releif (via State of Emergency) for almost 3 days. Even still you had the Coast Gaurd doing rescues and National Gaurd arriving and being told by the State Police they could not enter the city. I was also here, and you dont know what you are talking about,,,again!!
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
It is worse than that. It
January 26, 2009 - 09:37 ET by BDIt is worse than that. It was the local populous that failed at Katrina.
They actively decided not to evacuate and then left each other behind after the crisis began.
All the federal assitance in the world could not fix that.
Welfare kills.
democRATS and Katrina
January 26, 2009 - 09:50 ET by Sergeant ROCKNew Orleans is run by democRATS in a state run by democRATS. 99% of the blame rest solely upon the state and local governments. The same governments that saw fit to divert money away from levies, among other things.
THIS.. is what the democRATS have planned for the U.S. as a whole. It's a working(?) model of their dream.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Dont paint all of us with that brush.
January 26, 2009 - 11:44 ET by general companyNew Orleans is run by democRATS in a state run by democRATS.
The first part is correct, but other then Blanco sneeking in as Govenor after Foster retired, we have been pretty Red for the last 15 yrs or so.
Unfortunatly our Dems seem to get us the most attention, Jefferson, Nagin and Blanco more resently. But I do agree that most of the fault of Katrina lies within the State, and old media over exaggerating. 400 dead in the Super Dome, Riots, Shootings that never happend. Reports like this, most likely contributed to some of the uglyness that did take place.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Hey Nick
January 24, 2009 - 18:11 ET by UpNorth"Bush kept American safe except for 9/11, except for sending American soldiers into a WMD-free Iraq" 9-11 was developed, planned and set in motion on Clinton's watch, and do you perhaps, recall 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium, found in Iraq, and transported out of that country to Canada? Or another way of describing it, "weapons-grade uranium. Ring any bells? Not to mention Sarin found in 155mm artillery shells?
Nah, nothing to see here, move along. I wish I could develop selective memory like the libs have.
i've got a good memory
January 24, 2009 - 19:22 ET by nicholas nicklebydo you remember Condi Rice saying that her team at the State Department ignored security threat warnings labeled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US," and reports that terrorists were working on using commercial jets as weapons?
As for the tons of yellowcake, do you mean the tons of yellowcake that were in the Tuwaitha facility, which were purchased sometime in the 80s, and which have been monitored by the International Atomic Energy Commision since that time? Oh gosh, that must mean that, in fact, Saddam had yellocake for 20 years! It's a good thing that yellowcake isn't weapons-grade uranium. (Yellowcake is a stage before processing into uranium for nuclear reactors or (after further processing) into enriched uranium for weapons. So, you're close, but you're not right.)
See, UpNorth, I've got a pretty good memory--I even remember my chemistry!
Condi Rice
January 24, 2009 - 20:39 ET by doug1950wasn't at the State Dept. when 9/11 happened. Colin Powell was.
thanks for the correction
January 24, 2009 - 20:51 ET by nicholas nicklebyIt was Condi Rice, who was National Security Advisor, who gave testimony to the commission that included the information on the President's Daily Brief titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" (August 6, 2001)--and I had to look that date up.
You've got a good memory
January 24, 2009 - 20:44 ET by Free StinkerYou've got a good memory except for this:
New York Times – Saddam was 1 year away from building nuclear bomb
"Gov. Palin has been subjected to one of the most massive and dishonest pile-on smear attacks in the history of liberal media." -- Lowell Ponte
that's what I love about conservatives online!
January 24, 2009 - 21:06 ET by nicholas nicklebyThat's what I love about arguing with people here: when I say Saddam had no WMDs, someone says they had weapons-grade uranium. When I point out that yellowcake is not weapons-grade uranium, someone else pipes up to say, "well, yeah, he didn't have nukes, but he could get them, in, like, a year."
See, Free Stinker, you're just reinforcing my point that Saddam had no WMDs at the time of the US-Allied invasion.
This is what I love about Liberals on-line
January 24, 2009 - 21:10 ET by Free StinkerThis is what I love about Liberals on-line . . .
So, Nicky, can you make the Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX gas, go away?
no, I can't
January 24, 2009 - 22:31 ET by nicholas nicklebybut then again, in his state of the union in 2003, Bush didn't say "oh, no, Saddam has sought mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and VX gas."
Yes, you're right, WMD=NBC--Nuclear, biological, or chemical. But the bill of goods sold to the US people was Nuclear--and there weren't any nukes.
(Also, as for the potential terror threats of most chemical gases, since the Tokyo Sarin attack, the authorities have been a lot more careful. It would, I think, be harder for someone to get Sarin from Iraq to the US, than it was for Aum Shinrikyo to move their Sarin to Tokyo from... was it Russia? The point being, delivery of chemical and biological weapons is a serious problem, but unless someone infects themselves (suicide patient zero), much less threatening to the mainland US than nukes--which may be why Bush's famous 16 words involved nuclear material rather than biological or chemical.)
[Edit: As further research indicates, weren't most of these reports of deadly toxins wildly overstated? Wasn't most of this material actually from the Iran-Iraq war?]
Nonsense. Once again you
January 24, 2009 - 22:36 ET by BDNonsense. Once again you miss the other 15 rationale for the resumption of hostilities. Your assumption follows the poorly educated press of dubious mental flexibility which assumed only one rationale was in evidence.
As far as the deadly toxins
January 24, 2009 - 22:51 ET by Trix RabbitAs far as the deadly toxins being "wildly overstated" - not necessarily so.
http://www.jcpa.org/...
The Iraqi biological weapons program was the most
secretive of all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts. Indeed,
Iraq only acknowledged this capability in August 1995 after the
defection of Lt. General Hussein Kamel to Jordan. UNSCOM's former
Executive Chairman, Richard Butler, recently noted in the New York Times
(October 18, 2001) that biological weapons were closest to Saddam
Hussein's heart "because it was in this area that his resistance to our
work reached its height." Nonetheless, UN inspectors were able to
discern significant details about Iraq's biological efforts.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
Truth is
January 24, 2009 - 21:43 ET by doug1950we did not know exactly what he did or didn't have as the UN played footsies with him for years, meanwhile he was shooting missiles at our aircraft on a regular basis. If we threw out that one thing that he had or might be developing WMD we still had more than ample reason and justification to go into Iraq and drag his smelly butt out of that spider hole. He had been trying to develop WMD, we knew he had the means and the intent. The prudent thing to do was not wait until there was a mushroom cloud over someone's city before doing something. Bush got accused of not connecting the dots but when he did everything he could afterwards to avoid another 9/11 and to connect the dots he was raked over the coals for it. You can't have it both ways.
connecting the dots
January 24, 2009 - 22:26 ET by nicholas nicklebyhere's the thing doug: when you don't connect the dots, and the dots are "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" and "terrorists investigate using commercial airliners as missiles"--well, then you're not very good at connecting dots.
but when several intelligence agencies are telling you that Iraq does not have nuclear capabilities, but you still announce to the nation that Iraq tried to buy nuclear materials--well, then you're not very good at connecting dots either.
See, I'm not being inconsistent--the Bush administration was not very good at connecting dots. I'm not saying that I could have done better--but then again, it's not my job. (On the other hand, it was Condi Rice's job.)
If that were true
January 24, 2009 - 23:17 ET by doug1950but, dang near every intell agency in the world, including ex President Clinton, the FBI, British intell, etc. were saying he did have a WMD program and with the piss poor UN inspectors program we did not know for sure what he did or didn't have. As I said earlier, that was not the only reason we had for going after Saddam. There was enough doubt or concern about all of it to be proactive. Clinton had ample opportunity and time to take Bin Laden and refused to do anything about it. You ignored the part about Bush trying to implement programs that would allow us to connect those damn dots and got slammed for it. Yet to date there have not been any more attacks on US soil.
the piss poor UN and IAEA inspectors...
January 25, 2009 - 14:25 ET by nicholas nickleby...were right--just about everything he had was accounted for (like that yellowcake).
Bush's administration that connected the dots were wrong.
You can try to argue that Bush was right (when he wasn't) and that his 16 words in the State of the Union were correct (when they weren't), but the result of the conservatives arguing against reality is that the conservative base will shrink.
The British report saying
January 25, 2009 - 15:07 ET by BDThe British report saying that Saddam had inquired about aquiring Yellow Cake Uranium was "ACCURATE." Saddam DID inquire.
Live with it.
is it "clear and present inquiry"? no-"clear and present danger"
January 25, 2009 - 15:25 ET by nicholas nicklebySaddam also probably had dreams were he had multiple heads and could breathe fire--but that doesn't make it so, and it doesn't provide a rationale for war. Inquiry is not a casus belli--possession is.
Saddam also probably had
January 25, 2009 - 21:59 ET by BDSaddam also probably had dreams were he had multiple heads and could breathe fire--but that doesn't make it so,
and it doesn't provide a rationale for war. Inquiry is not a casus belli--possession is.
Gee, a report saying
January 24, 2009 - 22:12 ET by BDGee, a report saying someone wants to hurt us. How novel.
Regarding liberal fixation with WMD when it was only one of sixteen rationale for the resumption of hostilities. But you fixate on it.
rationales for war
January 24, 2009 - 22:30 ET by nicholas nicklebysorry, BD, I've forgotten the other 15 reasons. I remember WMDs--particularly the nukes that weren't there and chemical and biological weapons that were mostly degraded (since they were from the Iran-Iraq war); I remember connections with Al-Qaeda--that didn't exist.
What were the other reasons? And how many of them turned out to be true?
Before the war the
January 25, 2009 - 00:01 ET by BDBefore the war the president presented the US point of view twice, once to a joint session at the capital, the other time to the UN.
I will summarize and combine several into one:
1.) Saddam had put a bounty on the heads of US aircrew patrolling the no fly zone. - true. He had ordered US aricraft engaged repeatedly by his ADA network. VERY TRUE!
2.) Saddam had not followed through on his requirements to provide data on the captive Kuwaitis. - True.
3.) Saddam had attacked his own population in the north - hence the northern no fly zone and south - hence south no fly zone. True.
4.) Saddam had fostered a culture of sucide terrorism in middle east by paying a bounty of $40,000 to the family of every successful suicide bomber to attack a western target. True
5.) Saddam had plotted the assasination of a former US president. -true.
6.) Saddam had sought WMD. True.
7.) Saddam was not cooperating with UN Personnel as required by the armistice. True.
8.) Saddam had kept weaponry not in accordance with the terms of the Armistice. VERY TRUE.
I think you get the point.
THe fact that you can only remember WMD is telling.
WMD was the bill of goods we were sold
January 25, 2009 - 14:30 ET by nicholas nicklebyI push the WMD angle because that's the angle Bush pushed. Remember, it wasn't 16 words in the State of the Union about how Saddam was a danger to his own citizens--many leaders are a danger to their own citizens, but that's not the rubric we use to decide whether or not we invade a sovereign nation. The rubric that we tend to use for acting with force is the old "clear and present danger"--which Saddam didn't represent.
For instance, ask yourself this: you say that the culture of suicide terrorism was fostered by Saddam--so, how many Iraqi suicide bombers were there and how many Americans did they kill before the US invasion? Now, how many Iraqi suicide bombers have there been and how many Americans have they killed after the US invasion?
(And remember, weren't most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudis and Egyptians?)
Good evening Nick
January 25, 2009 - 14:39 ET by cocodrieWMDs was the bill of goods sold to the public by the left-wing extremist old media. Your questions are all nonsensical.
Are you possessed by the WMD demon?
Jesus Loves You
I push the WMD angle
January 25, 2009 - 15:24 ET by BDI push the WMD angle because that's the angle Bush pushed.
Remember, it wasn't 16 words in the State of the Union about how Saddam was a danger to his own citizens--
but that's not the rubric we use to decide whether or not we invade a sovereign nation.
The rubric that we tend to use for acting with force is the old "clear and present danger"--which Saddam didn't represent.
For instance, ask yourself this: you say that the culture of suicide terrorism was fostered by Saddam--so, how many Iraqi suicide bombers were there and how many Americans did they kill before the US invasion?
Let's just be clear on
January 24, 2009 - 22:06 ET by BDLet's just be clear on this: if someone released from Gitmo returns to (or picks up) terrorism, then the fault is with the system that let him go--which was Bush's system.
Think about it: Al-Shihri was taken into custody years ago, and released months ago (according to reports)--all of which happened under the watch of people that Bush's administration put in charge.
So, Bush's system failed--and Obama is changing that system.
We can debate the merits of Obama's proposed changes (i.e., shutting down Gitmo), but the fact that someone was released from the Bush administration's prison camp can only serve as an example of what Obama needs to be careful about (and what the Bush administration was insufficiently careful about).
In fact, let's put the release of Al-Shihri into the running tally of exceptions to the idea that Bush kept us safe
Bush kept American safe except for 9/11,
except for sending American soldiers into a WMD-free Iraq,
except for the National Intelligence Estimate of 2006 which said that Americans were at a higher risk thanks to the global war on terrorism
(And you'll notice, I didn't mention the anthrax attacks--surely that falls under the umbrella of terrorism?
I didn't mention his response to Katrina
American Carol not a documentary
January 24, 2009 - 22:49 ET by nicholas nicklebyThere's a lot there to respond to BD, but can we agree that not everyone at Gitmo should be at Gitmo? Some of them are not combatants and never were--like the Uighurs. Can we agree that there might be some people there who shouldn't be in prison?
Now, how should we deal with those people who are there? Some of them are guilty of crimes punishable under international law, and some of them aren't. Now you say the ACLU wants them released from Gitmo, and you make it sound like the ACLU wants these prisoners released back into the battlegrounds, with their guns. Except that's not what they want--they want these people processed. Did you know that there have been 2 trials at Gitmo in all this time--out of the approximately 250 people who are there? Gosh, at this rate, I'm sure Gitmo can go through those remaining in only, oh, 1500 years.
Nobody is saying that prisoners should be released--the ACLU wants these people processed according to the rule of law--our law.
Now, as for the "no global terrorist on American soil," that's true for now, but if something were to happen tomorrow, would you blame Bush for it the same way you blame Clinton for 9/11? So Bush was president for 8 months and it's still Clinton's fault--how many months would it be before it's Obama's fault if something were to happen? Come on, fess up: are you really going to blame Bush if something were to happen in September?
There's a lot there to
January 25, 2009 - 00:34 ET by BDThere's a lot there to respond to BD, but can we agree that not everyone at Gitmo should be at Gitmo?
Some of them are not combatants
Can we agree that there might be some people there who shouldn't be in prison?
Now you say the ACLU wants them released from Gitmo, and you make it sound like the ACLU wants these prisoners released back into the battlegrounds, with their guns.
Did you know that there have been 2 trials at Gitmo in all this time--out of the approximately 250 people who are there?
Nobody is saying that prisoners should be released--
the ACLU wants these people processed according to the rule of law--our law.
would you blame Bush for it the same way you blame Clinton for 9/11?
Come on, fess up: are you really going to blame Bush if something were to happen in September?
You seem to be behind the times
January 25, 2009 - 14:43 ET by nicholas nicklebyBD, not everyone at Gitmo was an enemy combatant or provided succor to enemy combatants. There are 17 ethnic Uighurs (Chinese Muslims) who are refugees from fighting in Afghanistan and they were cleared of any charge in 2004.
You might also be interested to learn--if you believe it (it's from WaPo)--that there are several people at Gitmo, who have been there for years, who have no files opened on them: http://www.washingto... .
Let's be clear: I agree with you that some people should probably be in prison at minimum, but they have to be the right people--do we agree on that? That's why they need to be processed--files need to be compiled, charges levied, trials held, and guilty people punished.
Or put it this way: you think that everyone caught fighting out of uniform should be executed--but imagine this scenario: US forces capture someone running away from them. Now, are these enemy combatants who have ditched their weapons or are these refugees who simply thought it was better to be away from the fighting? Is it better to lock up/execute everyone we find in Afghanistan--potential allies along with enemies?
Nick your questions are total nonsense.
January 25, 2009 - 14:59 ET by cocodrieNick your questions are total nonsense. Are you possessed by the Gitmo demon also?
Jesus Loves You
BD, not everyone at Gitmo
January 25, 2009 - 15:39 ET by BDBD, not everyone at Gitmo was an enemy combatant or provided succor to enemy combatants. There are 17 ethnic Uighurs (Chinese Muslims) who are refugees from fighting in Afghanistan and they were cleared of any charge in 2004.
You might also be interested to learn--if you believe it (it's from WaPo)--that there are several people at Gitmo, who have been there for years, who have no files opened on them: http://www.washingto... .
Let's be clear: I agree with you that some people should probably be in prison at minimum, but they have to be the right people--do we agree on that?
Or put it this way: you think that everyone caught fighting out of uniform should be executed--but imagine this scenario: US forces capture someone running away from them. Now, are these enemy combatants who have ditched their weapons or are these refugees who simply thought it was better to be away from the fighting?
Is it better to lock up/execute everyone we find in Afghanistan--potential allies along with enemies?
what we need files for
January 26, 2009 - 16:14 ET by nicholas nicklebyBD,
About the Uighurs at Gitmo, you say:
My analysis says they were enroute to join the Jihad.
But that's exactly the sort of info we need in the files in order to make the right decision about whom to let go and whom to keep incarcerated and whom to execute. Think about this: you said that Bush only let al-Shihri go because of left-wing pressure to release some of the inmates--but why did they let al-Shihri go rather than some other inmate? That's the kind of decision-making that you need files for.
(And I don't care if they didn't have files on Ritter after WWII, they probably also didn't use cellphones then either--by which I mean that the cases and contexts are totally different. If we want to show people how great democracy and the rule of law is, we have to practice on our enemies what we preach to our friends. Do you disagree? We may have some different beliefs at the foundation of our arguments, but I've enjoyed this debate, and I'd like to hear your opinion on how we can inject democratic rule into the Mideast by disappearing people and not charging them. I don't think we can, but I'm curious as to what you might have to say.)
But that's exactly the sort
January 26, 2009 - 17:08 ET by BDBut that's exactly the sort of info we need in the files in order to make the right decision about whom to let go and whom to keep incarcerated and whom to execute.
Think about this: you said that Bush only let al-Shihri go because of left-wing pressure to release some of the inmates--but why did they let al-Shihri go rather than some other inmate?
That's the kind of decision-making that you need files for.
(And I don't care if they didn't have files on Ritter after WWII, they probably also didn't use cellphones then either--by which I mean that the cases and contexts are totally different.
If we want to show people how great democracy and the rule of law is, we have to practice on our enemies what we preach to our friends.
I'd like to hear your opinion on how we can inject democratic rule into the Mideast by disappearing people and not charging them.
files and Japan's democracy
January 26, 2009 - 19:08 ET by nicholas nicklebyBD,
If the military commission reviewing the detainees has the information, then why do the incoming agents say that the files are in complete disarray and in some cases don't exist?
http://www.washingto...
(The money quote from that article might be this one:
Several former Bush administration officials agreed that the files are
incomplete and that no single government entity was charged with
pulling together all the facts and the range of options for each
prisoner.
Now, if the reviewing officers reviewed all the information on a detainee, where did it go?)
As for the democracies of countries that were beaten in WWII, first, I think the cases are different since our biggest threat now is actually probably a non-state actor. (I would argue that here the issue is largely PR, which I think we would agree on, though we might parcel out the blame differently.)
But second--and I bring this up not as conclusive proof, but only as an interesting historical fact--several of the post-WWII democracies had help from a man named Roger Nash Baldwin: Macarthur invited Roger Baldwin to Japan in '47 to help build a democratic and civil society that respects the rule of law, and Baldwin was later invited by Germany and Austria to do similar work.
Who was Roger Baldwin? One of the founders of the ACLU. (Now, don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that Japan is a democracy because there is a JCLU, which Baldwin helped found. I just want to offer an anecdote to indicate that maybe the ACLU is not the enemy of democracy and the enemy of America that some conservatives paint it as.)
If the military commission
January 27, 2009 - 09:56 ET by BDIf the military commission reviewing the detainees has the information, then why do the incoming agents say that the files are in complete disarray and in some cases don't exist?
Now, if the reviewing officers reviewed all the information on a detainee, where did it go?)
Several former Bush administration officials agreed that the files are incomplete and that no single government entity was charged with pulling together all the facts and the range of options for each prisoner.
As for the democracies of countries that were beaten in WWII, first, I think the cases are different since our biggest threat now is actually probably a non-state actor.
But second--and I bring this up not as conclusive proof, but only as an interesting historical fact--several of the post-WWII democracies had help from a man named Roger Nash Baldwin: Macarthur invited Roger Baldwin to Japan in '47 to help build a democratic and civil society that respects the rule of law, and Baldwin was later invited by Germany and Austria to do similar work.
Who was Roger Baldwin? One of the founders of the ACLU. (Now, don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that Japan is a democracy because there is a JCLU, which Baldwin helped found. I just want to offer an anecdote to indicate that maybe the ACLU is not the enemy of democracy and the enemy of America that some conservatives paint it as.)
the files do not exist, and the ACLU fights for America
January 28, 2009 - 18:57 ET by nicholas nicklebyI think we disagree on the facts about the Gitmo files sufficiently to lay out the difference:
You seem to be arguing that someone somewhere has the information; I am arguing that the information does not exist in a useable fashion--a position which is based on the articles I've read, which have included quotes from officials of the Bush administration who have stated that the files do not exist. But this is purely a factual argument--either the files exist or they don't--so there's no reason for us to keep arguing about it: more facts will probably come out about this, and we'll see.
We have a more interesting--because less factual and more opinion-based--argument here about the ACLU. However, since it's our opinions, there's very little chance that we're going to convince each other: you see the ACLU as putting soldiers into harm's way, whereas I see the ACLU as fighting for the ideals that America was founded on--freedoms of speech, religion, and limited government power. I know we're going to disagree about the role of the ACLU, but I have to point out that they would fight for your rights if Obama's administration was trying to limit your freedoms.
→ Right nickleby
January 28, 2009 - 19:09 ET by Cool ArrowAclu fights for American ideals.
The check's in the mail
I'll still love you in the morning
This is just a cold sore
All true.
Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country - Khalil Gibran
You seem to be arguing that
January 29, 2009 - 12:29 ET by BDYou seem to be arguing that someone somewhere has the information;
I am arguing that the information does not exist in a useable fashion--a position which is based on the articles I've read,which have included quotes from officials of the Bush administration who have stated that the files do not exist.
I see the ACLU as fighting for the ideals that America was founded on--freedoms of speech, religion, and limited government power.
but I have to point out that they would fight for your rights if Obama's administration was trying to limit your freedoms.
By the way, I reviewed my
January 25, 2009 - 00:27 ET by BDBy the way, I reviewed my comments from above in comparison to your points and you only have an option to attack me on THIS?
I must be getting good at this to only have to clean up this little "THe ACLU wants to process them crap."
well
January 25, 2009 - 14:47 ET by nicholas nicklebyI was focusing on the main issue, which is the closing of Gitmo and the processing of the prisoners. If you wanted to continue arguing Katrina and anthrax and Clinton's culpability for 9/11, we could, but I thought it would be more useful to move on. I mean, Bush clearly did not keep American safe, considering only the number of Americans killed in Iraq because of poor planning and a failure to recognize how things would really be--remember when Cheney told us that we would be greeted as liberators and other people said our troops would be home in 6 weeks or so? Yeah, those are Americans that Bush's administration failed to keep safe. (Of course, Bush did keep the rest of us safe from Saddam's imaginary nukes--but then he also kept us safe from Saddam's imaginary dragons and those terrorist unicorns. Bush kept us safe from a lot of things that didn't exist.)
Nonsense. US policy has
January 25, 2009 - 15:43 ET by BDNonsense.
US policy has been injecting democracy into the arabic world which will be far more efective at destroying radiacal islamic fascism than all the "USAID" and peace corps projects from here til the end of time.
I hate to say it, but casualties are inevitable when fighting a war. And I count several as friends.
You seem to simply view those of us in the miltary as "Victims". We do not see ourselves that way and call for you to stop.
nicholas, its time for you to go help wash Osama's camels
January 25, 2009 - 01:04 ET by R D HelmAfter all, we here @ NB, being the compassionate types that we are, would not want to see an interruption in your income stream. :-^)
BTW-Just how much is Osama and his turban-sporting illiterate goons paying you, you enemy-coddling f*ck?
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
The last time I
January 25, 2009 - 01:06 ET by cocodrieThe last time I saw 'em they were in the Camel-lot.
Jesus Loves You
coco,
January 25, 2009 - 01:24 ET by R D HelmROFL!
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
have you stopped being such a racist about Arabs yet?
January 25, 2009 - 14:57 ET by nicholas nicklebyhi dave,
I really enjoyed the other thread where someone said something totally racist, and everyone--including you--called him out on it. It made me wonder if you've stopped being such a racist about Arabs--or are you still calling them--what was it?--the "7th century illiterate horde"? Anyway, here's hoping you will stop being such a racist some day, if you haven't yet--I really believe you could.
[Slightly edited after I reread that post and the response to it.]
Sorry, Nicholas, but I don't give a damn if the Islamists are...
January 26, 2009 - 21:00 ET by R D Helm...green with pink polka-dots covering them from head to toe, or lilly-white from the ground up.
The fact remains that, intellectually, they are stuck in the 7th Century, and as such are not sufficiently sophisticated to exist peacefully in a civilized environment.
That is not a racist observation, but a cultural one.
Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism all have their violent pasts, yet they were all able to mature.
Why, after over fourteen centuries, have the Islamists been unable to do likewise?
I am asserting that it is due to the fact that Islam is not actually a religion, but an oppressive, totalitarian political movement, which is exactly what it was intended to be by its child-molesting, murderous founder.
I also find it curious (and not a little amusing) that you lefties, who claim to be so much more advanced in your thinking than the rest of us knuckle-dragging cave-dwellers, and who rail against religious fundamentalism ad nasueam, while claiming to champion the rights of women and children, have embraced the bass-ackward, primitive Islamists with open arms.
I already know why this is. The question is, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit it?
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -While there is still time.
I couldn't have said this
January 26, 2009 - 21:24 ET by NL207I couldn't have said this any better.
Dave 1: Nickleby 0.
so, you hate a political movement
January 26, 2009 - 22:43 ET by nicholas nicklebyDave,
My apologies then for calling you a racist, since you don't hate Arabs, just Muslims--Arab, white, black, Asian, it doesn't make a difference to you. Presumably, if there are any Inuit Muslims, I assume you hate them also.
For the record, I think it's fine to dislike and oppose political movements, particularly totalitarian ones--but what you've never really explained is why you don't think Islam is legitimate. What's your criteria for a legitimate religion and why isn't Islam a legitimate religion?
As for your argument that Muslims aren't sufficiently sophistocated to coexist peacefully, that leaves you with quite a historical and contemporary problem: if Muslims can't live civilly with people, then:
Why was Al-Andalus a center of learning where Jews, Christians and Muslims got along (remember, it was only after the Christian Reconquista that the Jews and Muslims were forced to convert or expelled from Spain--how do you explain that?);
Why was Baghdad in the Middle Ages a center of learning open to scholars of all faiths? (last time we argued this, you seemed to agree with this point but countered that Islam now doesn't foster education or peaceful coexistence--which means that you can't explain my next point, which is);
How can Indonesia have a flourishing democracy with respect for all religions written into their Constitution since it's a Muslim majority country?
Can you explain those 3 points according to your argument that Islam is a murderous and backwards ideology?
And still more importantly, can you tell us why Islam isn't a real religion?
Now, to switch gears, you raise a good point in your final paragraphs about the inconsistency of some liberals--they want religious tolerance, let's say, but not so much for Christians; or they want women's rights here, but religious tolerance abroad. I'll admit, there are some people who take such positions, sometimes not seeing the inconsistency (and sometimes because they do the so-American thing of rooting for whomever they perceive as the underdog). So, that's true, there is sometimes a double-standard (or a failure to see who is really the underdog in some situations).
But I'm a little more consistent. We've never talked about this, so you have no way of knowing, but generally speaking, this is the way I feel: I like religious tolerance--but once a religion starts encroaching on someone's civil liberties, that religion has got to be taught that its boundaries end in the political public sphere.
So, I think you give Islam short-shrift by thinking of it as an ideology that cannot coexist with other religions--which is particularly disturbing since the logical end of your position might be mass conversion or genocide--but I may agree with you on this: when Islamic fundamentalists say that women can't go to school, then I get mad. (Similarly, when people here argue that abortion shouldn't be legal for religious reasons, then I also think they're bringing religion into the political sphere, where it doesn't belong.)
(For the record, I don't mind when people say "Merry Christmas" to me, even though I'm not Christian--that's not political public sphere in the same way that banning abortion or limiting a women's ability to get an education.)
The criticisms are premature...
January 24, 2009 - 12:37 ET by JRJ08There were many other options on handling these prisoners without creating the first American gulag. We sit on our high 'moral' horse, condemning the behavior of others while we're doing things this country would never have considered doing prior to the Bush presidency. Gitmo was a boil on the nose of the country and it needed to be lanced. Before we start attacking its closure using an example of someone who was released under the Bush administration, let's wait and see how it's handled by a president who has some brains and competent people around him.
Hi Jr
January 24, 2009 - 12:42 ET by shawn228Long time no see, I hope all is well. As you know I have never been a huge fan of President Bush, but to keep this country safe for 7 years with many people wanting to destroy our country was not a simple feat.
Excuse me for saying so, but I believe you have taken your safety and way of life for granted.
He had my vote
ya see shawn
January 24, 2009 - 12:55 ET by porpoiseboybush keeping america safe is "not a simple feat", but doprah ruling morning tv is "AMAZING". kind of says alot when you start putting recent statements back to back, doesn't it? seems it would make more sense if your descriptions were reversed.
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
ppb
January 24, 2009 - 13:01 ET by shawn228I really don't see the point of you bringing up something I said in another thread to make a comparision.Oprah has nothing to do with Gitmo
I was complimenting President Bush and you have to downplay it, just to make me look bad. Grow up will you?
He had my vote
yawn....
January 24, 2009 - 13:05 ET by porpoiseboyshawn...quit being such a baby. in less than 5mins on one post you are lauding doprah with words like amazing and then in your words ,"complimenting" bush with much less flattering language. doesn't matter if they were different threads....you are still the same person aren't you? btw, your "compliment" of bush was also tempered by your usual obligitory "even though i really don't like bush" caveat which lessens it's effect even more.
dude, you're the one who has some growing up to do.
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
PPB
January 24, 2009 - 13:13 ET by shawn228It is a fact that I have not been a big supporter of this President and I am acknowledging something that he accomplished.
Your just trying to get attention and making a name for yourself by trying to start an argument that is not needed.
If you want to bring up other threads that is fine. How about the one when you were practically in tears when I said its a steroetype republicans drive pickups. Your iddy biddy feelings were so hurt that you had to whine and wihne and have not gotten over it since.
Please ppb, we don't need any this today, no one really wins in a flame war, just knock it off
He had my vote
really jrj08?
January 24, 2009 - 12:46 ET by porpoiseboy>>We sit on our high 'moral' horse, condemning the behavior of others while we're doing things this country would never have considered doing prior to the Bush presidency. <<
how's your math? wasn't lincoln ( bho's "model" ) b4 bush? well.....
In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason" Ben Franklin
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
Right!
January 24, 2009 - 14:35 ET by doug1950Reading an excellent book about the War of Northern Aggression.
Lincoln jailed over 13,000 political prisoners, dissenters. Little known fact you won't find in any revisionist history books.
'A president who has some brains'
January 24, 2009 - 12:53 ET by choselife3xOoh, JRJ is privy to Obama's test scores! Awesome! Please share your exclusive information with the rest of the class.
'Doing things this country would've never considered doing before'
You're right, we used to shoot out of uniform enemy combatants. Then, in the Clinton era, we shipped them off to Egypt to have their body parts ripped off.
Sounds good to me. Hell, why should we just imprison some and waterboard three?
Bad, BAD Bush.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Well if he has the test
January 24, 2009 - 12:59 ET by sherylsimsWell if he has the test scores then he is the ONLY one, because those are sealed up tight with the birth certificate. We only get to GUESS at whether he is intelligent based on his actions. So far I am not giving him an A+
Who
January 24, 2009 - 21:45 ET by doug1950might that be?
The "first" American gulag???
January 25, 2009 - 01:05 ET by RESTLESS 1The Japanese interred during WW2 would find that comment interesting.
Of course, you are nothing but a drive by troll, but I would like to see where you get the idea that illegal enemy combatants are afforded any rights under our Constitution.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008