Written by Jeff
The decision by the Obama administration (despite Attorney General Holder’s assertions that this was his sole decision) to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and his four associates in New York City in a federal courtroom using United States criminal laws is another major mistake that this administration has made. Unlike other mistakes this one may have a security component as well as a monetary one. The alternative is to try these terrorists as war criminals in a military tribunal as has been done with many other terrorists captured in the War on Terror.
The reasons not to do this are many- and most of those are serious issues. The reasons to have the trial in New York City are few and the upside is minuscule as compared to the risks. Attorney General Holder states that having the trial in New York City shows the rest of the world that we value the rights of even the worst of terrorists (my word, not his) and that we will not tolerate the Gitmo treatment of people. He also stated that the citizens of New York City deserve to see the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks tried and convicted within blocks of his handiwork. All well and good.
There are numerous reasons not to. We have the security issue. We have the idea of giving the defense the right to all of our sources, our military secrets and the right to put our prisoner of war treatment policies on trial. Let me not be vague. This trial will sink to the level of putting George Bush and Dick Cheney on trial for their “war crimes”. We will need to name sources of information that led to the capture of these men. (In 1993 when we tried the Blind Sheik for the first World Trade bombing, his defense attorney leaked the names of confidential Iraqi sources- we later found they were killed. The attorney was later sentenced and began her jail term this week.) We will have to divulge CIA secrets and activities so the defense can counter that they were illegal.
The biggest danger (outside of the obvious danger that having these terrorists in NYC may bring other terrorists into the city to try an escape or to try to bring more terror to the city) is the media circus this trial will bring. The terrorists will have what they want; a forum to spew their view of the world and how the United States is the evil one. It gives them a chance to recruit and it makes us look weak in the eyes of our allies, and more importantly, our enemies. I have no interest in showing other countries how “nice” we can be. Let them see how tough we can be so they think twice about attempting another attack like the last one. It is no coincidence that we had no terror attacks planned during the Reagan or George W. Bush administrations. We have seen a terrorist attack early in the Obama Administration (I don’t care how they classify it. The attack on Ft. Hood was clearly a terrorist attack). It is clear to me that our enemies see this administration as weak and easy to manipulate.
President Obama, please rethink this disastrous decision.
Loading ...
Comments
113 Responses to Obama’s Continuing Errors In Judgement
Right On Jeff!
I could not agree more. This will be the media circus of the Century and the World will be laughing at how weak and pathetic the United States has become. These terrorists will not be put on trial, the American Justice System will be put on trial! All it will take is one lawyer or judge who fears “their rights were violated” or they were not “read their Miranda Rights” (even though that does not apply ) and they could be set free on a technicality. Not to mention the 80-100 million dollar cost to New York and the danger it will put every citizen in. I do not care what other Countries “think” of the U.S.! What I really care about is that we have an Attorney General who is also a Partner in the law firm Covington and Burling. What the Obama Administration doesn’t want the public to know is that that law firm represents 17 Yemini’s being held in Guantanamo Bay and has donated 3,000 pro bono hours for their defense against the U.S. Still think Khalid Sheik Mohammed will get prosecuted to the full extent of the law? I don’t!
Couldn’t have said it better myself.. and the Obama Administration keeps apologizing to other countries for our “bad behavior”……makes us look weak. This is a big mistake, let’s hope nothing happens..but they are giving the terrorists their forum for all the world to hear.
And who the heck is paying for all of this?
We might as well just post our secrets on Facebook and let everyone know what we do and who does it for us…. Freedom isn’t a right, it’s a privilege and I’m thankful for everyone who is out there trying to protect us, now if our Government would get their #@$% together!
I agree but I don’t know that they will rethink the decision. I would think Obama’s tanking approval rating numbers would send a signal but I’m not sure it does. I don’t know what to think anymore. It is so uttlerly frustrating to me. This coupled with the decision to not label Fort Hood terrorism really ticks me off.
Diane, have you never read the Constitution of the United States? Freedom IS a right. It’s one of the founding principals of this country. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person>be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Please note the use of the word liberty, which equates to freedom. Webster’s Dictionary defines liberty as “the quality or state of being free”. This concept is further defined by the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I don’t mean to seem rude, and I certainly hope that the perpetrators of 9/11 are brought to justice and suffer the maximum penalty under the law, but to make a statement that freedom is a privilege not a right is so contrary to the fundamental principlesof this country I just couldn’t let your statement stand without a challenge. That being said, I hope they fry his ass. And if there is any danger that holding his trial in a Federal Court in New York City jeopardizes his conviction, then I hope to hell they change their minds. Unfortunately, the law is the law, and he is entitled to all the same rights that we have, because (perhaps unfortunately) it says no person, not no American citizen. So he is entitled to those protections, no matter how wrong we may think it is.
I’m the lone dissenting voice, I guess. I think if we are going to pretend to be the bright shining beacon of civil liberties and fairness this is what needs to happen. I felt the same way about the suspending of habeas rights for Gitmo detainees (I was still in law school and TAing Con Law when Hamdi and Hamdan were in the courts, and think both were decided correctly). We extend these rights to even our worst enemy so as to preserve them for ourselves.
This is one that’s tough to weigh in on because I have been a definite supporter of the administration’s words about improving our image in the world by getting rid of Gitmo and giving the detainees their day in court. However, I can understand the fear that Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s day in court, right there in NYC, could make the city a target once again. I definitely don’t have the knowledge base that you have, Erin Kate, but I understand what you’re saying. It just seems like the ideal of the right to a fair trial will continue to be tough to implement in the case of terrorists.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be of life, liberty, or property, without of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The constitutuion is a sacred thing and its important that it isn’t taken out of context.
The acts perpetrated on 9/11 were an act of war Not by a nation but by individuals. It should be treated as such.
As far as freeodm being a right- it is a right for non-criminals (which is far too good a word for the monsters who perpetrated these acts). Disagree? Ask the prisoners around the country how much liberty they have on a daily basis.
Holly, are you truly suggesting that the Obama administration and the Attorney General are colluding with terrorists? That is a pretty serious accusation and would make them guilty of treason. You can’t seriously believe that?
Are you truly in favor of suspending the constitution over the issue of terrorists? Because that would put us all in terrible jeopardy. If we suspend the constitution, we are all in danger of losing the precious rights that our founding fathers and military have been fighting and dying to protect. And that would make the death of every soldier, sailor and marine that ever died for his country, for our country, a useless gesture. I hate the terrorists with a passion, I abhor what they did. But the law is the law and we absolutely must uphold it exactly, to insure our way of life continues. Their civil rights are our civil rights. If they are suspended for terrorists they are suspended for you and I. And we are then no better than any other police state in the world. Upholding our laws should not be thought of as showing the rest of the world that we are weak. It tells theworld we are a people of law, whose survival is founded on our principles, ever fixed and unchanging.
Of course I’m not against a fair trial. I believe in this case fair is a military tribunal and I’m not alone in that. Mainly bc they attacked a nation- not just individuals. Their actions resulted in war. I have several concerns 2 of the big ones are that A) key evidence could be thrown out bc of a technicality- how often does this happen? These stakes are too high. and B) government information will be disclosed that shouldnt be, regarding security.
This snippet from .realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/18/terrorists_should_face_military_tribunal_99202.html explains my feelings better than I can:
Throw into the equation that these men weren’t read their rights, were interrogated in a manner that is illegal in civilian courts, are being tried with little if any possibility of an impartial jury – and the fact that Holder all but insists they’ll be convicted – and it all adds up to a farce.
I’m all for fair- and I’m for justice.
But Sam, how can you determine that someone is a criminal or non-criminal if they are not given a (fair) trial?
I have more thoughts on this but no time to make them coherent at this point. I agree with Erin Kate. I can understand the security concerns, but some of the concern I see from the right seems to focus on the idea that trying these suspects in a criminal court increases the chances that they might be found not guilty. I don’t think that’s likely, but even if it were, I don’t have much taste for show trials.
Here’s a devil’s advocate question…
Is it even possible for the “suspected” terrorists to get a fair trial with a solely New York/American jury or an military tribunal made up of solely American citizens? I’d think that would be the first argument by any defense attorney worth his/her salt.
If 9/11 was an act of war, wouldn’t this be something that needs to be addressed by an international judicial body?
Following World War II, the International Military Tribunal was formed that conducted the Nuremberg Trials to bring the Nazis to justice. I know 9/11 was directed against the US, but certainly other countries joined us in their outrage against the terrorists (if not the debacle that has been the Iraq War). I think it would go a long way in demonstrating to the world America’s fairmindedness, and dispelling the terrorists’ anti-Western propoganda, if the terrorists were tried and convicted by “the world” for “the world”.
Is it that difficult to understand that a TERRORIST who was not a citizen of the United States attacked our country. These people were acting as if they were a Militia and their goal was to attack, terrorize, and kill as many people as they can. Much like the attack on Pearl Harbor…. Not a Timothy McVeigh….a citizen of the United States. As horrific as his CRIME was, he was given a trial in the American judicial system and afforded the RIGHTS as a citizen should. These Terrorists need to be in a Military Tribunal and judged for their actions. They were captured on foreign soil and are not citizens of the U.S. Read the first paragraph of the U.S. Constitution!!!
We are fighting a new type of WAR. These people love death as you love life. They need to be defeated. They have one goal…to kill all who are not like them. If we do not deal with them militarily and forcefully we will live a life as they do in Israel or Pakistan.
Just remember….We are the only country where people are risking their lives to come to. You don’t see people leaving everything behind to get into Cuba or Venezuela or England or France! I think our image in the world is just fine!
I don’t think Diane was implying that Obama was colluding with Terrorists. I don’t want to speak for her but I’m not sure how one read that from her post.
I have to echo those who said that there is NO POSSIBILITY of a fair trial in the United States for KSM. None. There is absolutely a case that should be heard by a military tribunal. Why on earth is KSM being tried in the U.S. and the bomber of SS Cole facing charges in a military tribunal?
This is one question Eric Holder has not been able to answer. Another question Holder fumbled all over was whether, if Bin Laden were found and captured, he too would be tried in the U.S.
Do you know that KSM wants to act as his own attorney and represent himself? That means that in the process of discovery he can see first hand U.S. intelligence secrets. This is a joke. It’s a farce as was stated earlier. If every time we capture an enemy combatant, we have to mirandize them and allow them to lawyer up, Intelligence gathering would be greatly hindered.
There are groups, today, as we write attempted to hatch schemes to attack this nation. There are reasons that attacks on American soil have been few and far between. I disagree vehemently with those who say that our legal system will suffer if KSM does not have trial here. How on earth do you figure that? He confessed to the crime and asked for excecution. Please name me one time a judge or lawyer has proceeded with holding a trial when a defendent has confessed?
There is nothing that can be said to justify this. This is a HUGE mistake. Huge.
I think President Obama will regret this decision. I think he is finding out that dealing with the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay is not as clear as he thought. I wish the Bush administration had proceeded with a military tribunal before he left office. What if the terrorists choose to be their own legal council? Are we prepared to hear their daily rants? This is a war unlike any fought before. These people are not criminals in the sense that the Constitution addresses, they are prisoners of war. Guilty of war crimes. Bringing their trials to New York will only serve to give them more of a voice and incite more radicals to jihad. It will be a circus that will make the trial of the “20th” hijacker pale in comparison.
Stu:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I’m not ever going to be able to change anyone’s mind, however here is how I see it. My thoughts on this are two-fold. I understand that these men are not citizens, and that they are terrorists. However, think of American citizens arrested in other countries. Would you want them to be jailed, or perhaps executed without first being given a trial and having the evidence presented? We want every country to extend the same rights we guarantee to those who are accused of crimes overseas, so why wouldn’t we extend those same rights to someone who is foreign and has committed a crime here? And trust me, I understand a military tribunal, but I really think the courts are the right place.
My second thought is this, and it is what I said before. We extend rights to our worst enemies in order to protect them for ourselves. Our founders thought these rights were important enough that they insisted they be included in the bill of rights before they would accept the Constitution. They wanted to make sure that those rights were applied to everyone equally, and I agree with that. If we suspend those rights, or bend those rights for one what stops us from doing it the next time? We are all for abusing or taking away the rights of another, but we get awfully angry when it happens to us.
I guess, long story short, I can boil it down to this. I’ll quote from another very famous document “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [.]” It says all men, not just the ones we like, no “except if they are criminals.” Our founders wanted to ensure that EVERYONE was guaranteed these rights.
I agree with a lot of what you say, Erin Kate. But, I’m not sure our founding fathers were as magnanimous as we sometimes make them out to be. They were also slave owners and did not believe in women’s rights. I think we should always strive to be the best America we can be, but I think that even our founding fathers might be stumped by this one
.
Caren,
I do not know how you jumped to the conclusion that I feel that President Obama and Attorney General Holder are colluding with the Terrorists! I said it was concerning that the Attorney General is a partner in a law firm that represents Terrorists! Also some of the current staff of the Attorney General’s office represented these Terrorists! Now if that doesn’t seem like a conflict of interest in a civilian trial, I don’t know what is!
Where did I say we should suspend the Constitution and give up our rights! These people are not entitled to the same rights as an American Citizen. These are not criminals, they are Terrorists that should be tried in a Military Court and not in a Civilian Court in NYC!
Erin,
Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Kenneth Bigley, Jack Hensley, Eugene Armstrong all US citizens and all beheaded because of a hate that is so irrational that we can’t even comprehend it. I think the problem with many here in the US is it’s very hard for us to understand that there are good and evil in this world. Pretty simple. Hard to understand.
Our founding Fathers fled tyranny to form a sanctuary or haven that people can come to and be protected here in this country. Our citizens are not afforded any rights in other countries for the most part. Remember the 9/11 commission stated that these people where at war with us, we were just to naive and/or politically correct to know it. We have two systems of Justice in the US….Military and Governmental….One for Terrorists and one for criminals.
By the way… the above poor souls and their families are still waiting for justice.
Not a Timothy McVeigh….a citizen of the United States. As horrific as his CRIME was, he was given a trial in the American judical system and afforded the RIGHTS as a citizen should.
I understand that this is a legal distinction; I guess I don’t understand the implication that McVeigh was somehow superior to the 9/11 terrorists. One can argue the legalities, but it’s never sat right with me that we label something a “right” and then decide that it should be given to citizens only. That sounds more like a privilege to me, not a right.
I find it hard to comprehend the morality inherent in kidnapping people on foreign soil and then holding them in prison for years without trial. Completely putting aside the question of “rights’ granted U.S. citizens, that’s unjust and unworthy of a country that loves liberty.
You don’t see people leaving everything behind to get into Cuba or Venezuela or England or France!
I don’t know about Cuba or Venezuela, but England and France certainly have huge immigrant populations.
However, think of American citizens arrested in other countries. Would you want them to be jailed, or perhaps executed without first being given a trial and having the evidence presented?
Exactly. Though I think there are unfortunately some Americans who very much believe in one rule for us and another for the other guy.
Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Kenneth Bigley, Jack Hensley, Eugene Armstrong all US citizens and all beheaded because of a hate that is so irrational that we can’t even comprehend it. I think the problem with many here in the US is it’s very hard for us to understand that there are good and evil in this world. Pretty simple. Hard to understand.
Too simple, in my book. Have you ever heard the expression, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter?” How many innocent children have died in Iraq? Do you think maybe their mothers see their killers as evil? Irrational? We may say, “oh, it’s war; that’s different.” Tell that to a mother who will never see her child grow up.
I completely reject the notion that this is a fight of good v. evil. That is far too simplistic, and simply wrong-headed IMO. I agree that terrorists are bad people, and irrational. I think part of the reason some of us can’t comprehend the hatred (a hatred I am not defending or justifying, for the record), is because every less than “good” action on the part of the U.S. is justified or downplayed. Invade a sovereign nation and kill thousands of people? Oh, WMDs; we had to protect ourselves. No WMDs? Oh, well, we thought there were and besides look at all the freedoms the Iraqis are enjoying! Except for those whose circumstances have actually gotten worse. Oh, well, best intentions, water under the bridge, etc. Remember – we’re good and they’re evil! What about Abu Ghraib? Oh, a few bad apples and the higher-ups who encouraged them. What about the various examples of people kidnapped and tortured as suspected terrorists who turned out to be innocent? Oh, well, can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Just remember, we’re the good guys!
The point I’m trying to make: maybe if you aren’t an American and don’t realize that we’re supposed to be the good guys, the innocents who must be protected from the big bad terrorists at all costs – maybe you look at the dead Iraqi children, the tortured and humiliated Abu Ghraib prisoners, the case of Abdulrahman Zeitoun, among others – and maybe it’s not so clear that it’s a fight of good against evil.
Stu, Those Americans are exactly my point. Those families have never gotten justice, and now the families of the terrorists stand the same fate. These men are horrible criminals who should be punished with the utmost severeness. But not until we have convicted them properly.
Here is the problem with these prisoners: We have never declared war in Afganistan, and the Taliban has never been recognized as a “state.” The Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows the US to declare anyone in the world an “enemy combatant” and be held under the same conditions we have been holding these terrorists. These men are not seen as military, they are “terrorists.” We were holding them in Gitmo without any rights, and that has been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court when Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was decided and Habeas Corpus rights were extended even to non-citizens. We were not giving them any rights. So if we say they are war criminals, we have to honor the Geneva Convention (but we haven’t), and if we say they are just criminals we have to give them the same rights we have here (but we haven’t). Instead, what we did (and I say “we” loosely because I agree with NOTHING that Bush did) was create a new class for these terrorists, giving them no rights, except those we have deemed appropriate (which has been nothing, since we have violated even our most basic principles of justice and fairness in torturing these prisoners in such a way that we have attempted to cover it up so no one realizes just how severe it is–scandals that come to mind are Fallujah, Abu Graib, and Bagram). We have given these people NO RIGHTS.
Also, those who are afraid this will turn into “a forum for them to spew their hate,” it won’t. We have courts that don’t allow that kind of pontificating and grandstanding. Any attempt to make it so will be stopped. The problem is this is such a heated issue, as it should be since these men killed thousands of people. But if we are going to do this, lets do it right.
Guantanamo’s Shambolic Trials
I guess, long story short, I can boil it down to this. I’ll quote from another very famous document “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [.]” It says all men, not just the ones we like, no “except if they are criminals.” Our founders wanted to ensure that EVERYONE was guaranteed these rights.
I know this has been said before but I have to chime in. Our founding fathers were largely made up of slave owners. Women were not even afforded the right to vote until my grandmotherslifetime! These men did so much for our country- I don’t mean to lessen that. But to insinuate that they would be outraged over the idea of KSM not receiving a trial in the civilian court system is absolutely absurd. Lest we forget- The man confessed. He actually wanted to be executed so he could collect his virgins. In their day I shudder to think what would have happened to him. I think the opinions of the founding fathers is far too grandiose in this instance.
I cant help but wonder- if you are against a military tribunal- why?
Again- not against a fair trial for anyone, but it shouldn’t be dealt with on this level.
The point I’m trying to make: maybe if you aren’t an American and don’t realize that we’re supposed to be the good guys, the innocents who must be protected from the big bad terrorists at all costs – maybe you look at the dead Iraqi children, the tortured and humiliated Abu Ghraib prisoners, the case of Abdulrahman Zeitoun, among others – and maybe it’s not so clear that it’s a fight of good against evil. – Jennie
Jennie,
Very well said.
America and Americans have been historically isolationist; i.e., it’s the other guys problem until it’s brought to our doorstep (think WWII, Western Europe entirely overrun, and England the only holdout and the US still dragged its feet FOR YEARS until Pearl Harbor). I was watching the new history channel special “WWII in HD” this past week, and there was mention of Roosevelt having to “gently guide” the American public into the idea of having to eventually become involved in the war. If not for Pearl Harbor, I’m not sure what would have gotten the American public convinced it couldn’t stand by and let the rest of the world suffer.
America certainly did its part in the end, and the world was grateful. But we forget that, for the most part, we did it under duress, not as generous, thoughtful benefactors.
And here we are again with trying OUR OWN WAR CRIMINALS and saying, “I want justice, I just don’t want to have to deal with it HERE.”
Countries in Western Europe have been dealing with terrorist acts for decades (think IRA bombings in England). Do you think the Irish had a reason to be pissed after centuries of British domination, or were the English completely undeserving victims? Depends on which side of the fence you stand on. The English and the Irish eventually got tired of beating the piss out of each other. How many generations are we going to give up to being “right”?
The other component I find deeply disturbing is the ignorance of US citizens, sometimes seemingly purposeful, about the people and cultures outside our borders. It really comes across that the American public just doesn’t care about the rest of the world, that “they’re different, they talk funny, they don’t believe in my God, they’re poor, so they aren’t as important as we are”. Basically, they’re always wrong and we’re always right because we’re Americans and they’re not.
I think it’s a dangerous stance to take as a people and as a nation. And, considering how diverse our population has become, completely pigheaded.
Samantha, I’m against the tribunals because technically they aren’t war criminals. They are just criminals. They were not part of a military, they were not state sanctioned fighters. Further, we haven’t allowed them the rights typically given to war criminals. Instead, we have crated a new class of military tribunal without any international oversight. In doing what we have done we have already technically violated international and domestic laws. Trying them in an actual court is the only way we can bring this back to legal. Many military attorneys have criticized the way these prisoners were dealt with, and I’m not military, but I agree with them. Internationally, our policies with the 9/11 terrorists have been roundly criticized. I don’t like what our country became under the Bush regime, and I’m glad for a change.
Also, under the tribunal system the tribunal could hear “secret evidence” without that evidence being presented to the accused (and which the accused would not be given a chance to refute), they could consider evidence extracted through illegal torture methods, the tribunals could be shut down with no notice, the criminal would not be given choice to hire any attorney, and acquittal does not guarantee release.
Basically, they’re always wrong and we’re always right because we’re Americans and they’re not.
I think this is a good point, though I don’t think it’s just an American construct. Part of it is being a superpower for decades and not having to necessarily deal from a position of weakness; I think it can breed a sort of unintentional arrogance.
But even more, I was thinking last night about Stu’s point about good v. evil. I would guess that in every conflict in human history, the vast majority of the time the participants – on BOTH sides – felt that it was a conflict of good v. evil. Except, of course, each side feels that they are the force of good. (For some reason the lyrics to Bob Dylan’s “With God on Our Side” come to mind.)
I still remember reading a Vanity Fair piece years ago during the conflict in Yugoslavia; the Serbians were fairly universally seen as the aggressors and the chief committers of atrocities. The writer of the article, though, spoke to a number of Serbians in the course of the article who seemed completely unaware of this perception and had their own reasons for thinking that it was the other side who was evil. They came off as very ignorant and, yes, arrogant – willfully blind – in their views. I’ve never forgotten that story.
Sorry, I’m getting a bit far afield of the original discussion about military tribunals v. criminal courts (though I think Erin Kate is covering my POV well there). I am just enormously bothered by the view of this conflict with Islamic fanatics as being a battle of good v. evil or a new type of conflict unseen in human history and requiring new rules.
The other component I find deeply disturbing is the ignorance of US citizens, sometimes seemingly purposeful, about the people and cultures outside our borders. It really comes across that the American public just doesn’t care about the rest of the world, that “they’re different, they talk funny, they don’t believe in my God, they’re poor, so they aren’t as important as we are”. Basically, they’re always wrong and we’re always right because we’re Americans and they’re not.
This isn’t the American public that I know. I guess I’ve been blessed to be surrounded with people that do care about the world outside our borders, and just not people that care from a distance but people that act. I’m not following this line of thinking as it pertains to this situation though.
Especially this part:
Basically, they’re always wrong and we’re always right because we’re Americans and they’re not.
Maybe I’m just completely on the wrong page and I’m misunderstanding you.- maybe you arent speaking about this situation. But yes I do believe these people – meaning these terrorists/extremists ( not their country or religion as a whole)- are wrong. Their hate of us is wrong. Their beliefs about reaching “heaven” through unspeakable acts of violence are wrong. I feel no duty to respect their point of view or their right to it. It has nothing to do with being an American- but it is something I’m proud to be. I have too many family members that fought in WWII to downplay their sacrifices bc they weren’t dispatched until our country was forced into it. I think to some degree ww1 was still a little too fresh in America’s minds to get involved as a generous benefactor. Anyway, I digress….
Holly,
I’m sorry if I used the wrong word, perhaps I’m struggling a bit to understand your point. Are you then saying, that while not colluding with the terrorists. the Attorney General and the President are sympathetic to them and would therefore not prosecute them vigorously, thereby guaranteeing their acquittal? That is, by definition collusion, isn’t it? And you’re implying here that the Attorney General is guilty of that simply by reason of association with a defense attorney that works in the same firm. That’s like sayting you’re a pedophile if one of your co-workers is a pedophile, whether you know it or not. Guilt by association, as tempting as it may be, is not a legal grounds for using a military tribunal. It also seems to me you’re implying that a defense attorney only takes cases where he agrees with the actions of the defendant. Therefore all defense attorneys that represent a terrorist are sympathetic to terrorists. Do you not think that all defendants on trial in this country deserve the representation of a defense attorney, a right guaranteed by our constitution? Or is just the ones that are obviously not guilty? Guilty ones don’t deserve representation and should be summarily tried and convicted without the opportunity to present a defense. Which is exactly what happens in a military tribunal.
If we want to do this “right”, why did the Attorney General declare that they would be found guilty. Why even have a trial. President Obama and the Attorney General Holder have declared them guilty, and have stated they will not go free. Why bother with the pretense and expense. I find it hypocritical to say we are going to give them a fair trial and to announce the outcome of the trial before it begins.
Let’s forget about the constitutional argument for a moment (although I find it unbelievable that anyone believes our founding fathers meant that foreigners would be given the same rights as United States citizens) and focus on the security and costs issues. I have one question for those who believe this trial should proceed in New York City; Would you take your family to Manhattan during this trial? Not me!!! The terrorists would love nothing better than to make a statement during this trial. Haven’t the people of New York suffered enough? The Governor asked for $75 million for security and heaven help us if their is a statement attack during this circus. We have nothing to prove to other countries. They take our money, they take our security assistance and our products. We allow anyone to come to this great country without almost no questions asked. As Jack Nicholson said in ” A Few Great Men” “A simple thank you will do”. If they want to make this a federal trial, they can ship the jury and judge down to Gitmo and have the trial there. Obama simply wants to be a world leader and not a US leader. Time to stop this nonsense.
I appreciate the response to my article. The discussion has been thoughtful and polite. Let’s keep it going.
Samantha
“I cant help but wonder- if you are against a military tribunal- why?”
That is one of the easiest questions to answer in this debate. I am against a military tribunal because I am a constitutionalist, and the military tribunal is a clear violation of the constitution on many levels. I would suggest that you read Erin Kates explanation of why the military tribunals are illegal in her posts 23 and 24 above.
Further, your asking this question, in the way you asked it seems that you are implying some sort of agenda if you are opposed to a military tribunal. Like you want the terrorists to get off. The very fact that you think a military tribunal guarantees a conviction and a death penalty further reinforces my point. If conviction and death are guaranteed by a military tribunal, how in the world can you call it a fair trial? And what makes you think that the powers of a military tribunal wouldn’t be applied to any citizen of the United States? When you start ignoring or bypassing the constitution you are on a slippery slope to the kind of governments we have fought wars with, Like Iraq. Saddam Hussein tried literally millions of his countrymen in military tribunals and executed every single one. They are NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, a fair trial, they’re nothing but a kangaroo court and a violation of the constraints of the constitution. And I love the constituion, it is what stands between us and a dictatorship.
Jeffcub
“Let’s forget about the constitutional argument for a moment (although I find it unbelievable that anyone believes our founding fathers meant that foreigners would be given the same rights as United States citizens) ”
You seem to forget that our founding fathers were foreigners. My grandparents were foreigners. My next door neighbors are foreigners. This whole discussion is the constitutional argument.
Caren,
I don’t want to speak for Samantha, but maybe she genuinely wanted to know about military tribunals… Maybe we can agree to disagree. Because, as I stated before, this will not be a fair trial if the outcome has already been declared. It will be every bit a mockery and a kangaroo court as you think a military tribunal would be. The only difference will be the price tag.
The Attorney General said they would be found guilty, Wendy, because prosecuting attorneys have predicted victory at the start of every trial in the country ever since there was anyone from the press to listen to them. Nothing wrong with a little bragging. The defense attorneys said that the jury would find OJ guilty and we all know how that turned out.
Oops, that should have been prosecuting attorneys. Typing too fast.
Th OJ prosecutors did not say that even if he was found innocent, they would not let him go free.
Maybe I’m just completely on the wrong page and I’m misunderstanding you.- maybe you arent speaking about this situation. But yes I do believe these people – meaning these terrorists/extremists ( not their country or religion as a whole)- are wrong. Their hate of us is wrong. Their beliefs about reaching “heaven” through unspeakable acts of violence are wrong. I feel no duty to respect their point of view or their right to it. It has nothing to do with being an American- but it is something I’m proud to be. I have too many family members that fought in WWII to downplay their sacrifices bc they weren’t dispatched until our country was forced into it. I think to some degree ww1 was still a little too fresh in America’s minds to get involved as a generous benefactor. Anyway, I digress…. – Samantha
Actually, I’m probably the one digressing. My point wasn’t to criticize the sacrifices America has made throughout our history to ensure our freedoms and the freedoms of other nations. I actually have family members as well who have sacrificed for this country that I can trace back through military conflicts as far back as the American Revolution, and I am profoundly grateful.
And, I wasn’t trying to make it sound like I think extremist points of view, and the ensuing pointless acts of violence and terrorism, aren’t wrong or aren’t deserving of the harshest justice mankind can impose.
It worries me, though, when we Americans, who have all the advantages in the world to educate ourselves, through our government, don’t come from a place of compationate understanding of the plights of the world’s citizens. It is obvious that the poverty, lack of education and hopelessness of many parts of the world feed all to easily into propoganda of extremist political or religion jargon and helps terrorists gain recruits and sympathizers, even among our own citizens. I think we, as Americans, only compound that when we portray ourselves through our international actions as arrogant and ignorant.
I’ve witnesses a dangerous tendency (however human) to want to make the distinction between “them” and “us” in America lately. Be it in our own politics (Democrat vs. Republican) or in our place on the world stage. America IS a great country, but I feel it will be tarnished forever is we don’t add some humility and humanity to our outlook.
Cella, bless you for your comments.
Caren-
Further, your asking this question, in the way you asked it seems that you are implying some sort of agenda if you are opposed to a military tribunal. Like you want the terrorists to get off. The very fact that you think a military tribunal guarantees a conviction and a death penalty further reinforces my point.
In what way did I ask it Caren? Did my question mark look haughty? Let’s get something straight- I am in no way implying an agenda. If I thought there were an agenda- I would flat out say so. We are all of such differing opinions I genuinely wanted to know. And thank you for kindly point out Erin Kate’s responses. I had already read them. I don’t have to agree to understand them.
Thank you for participating with IW- we appreciate open discussion and I hope you will continue to be a part of it- I certainly will.
P.S. Thanks Wendy
Wendy, the comments about not letting him go free pertained to the fact that he is, after all, an illegal alien, and will be detained until he can be deported. Of course, it may be hard to find anyone who will take him and there may some interest in trying him for his other crimes by other countries. He is responsible for starting a couple of wars and the devastation of an entire region. He has much to answer for, and we aren’t the only country that’s interested in his facing judgement.
Cella-
I understand what you’re saying, I just dont feel that it applies in this situation.
And by the way- I know we can disagree and still be friends
Thats why IW is great.
Besides- we always agree about the Gosselins!
Cella,
I agree that we should try to be less divided. I think respect for differing opinions has been lost somewhere along the way. I have a different opinion about your theory of poverty and lack of education leading to terrorism. Osama bin Laden came from one of Saudi Arabia’s most wealthy families. The 9/11 hijackers were neither poor or uneducated. I believe the United States has always led the way in helping the world. No, we are in no way perfect. I do not believe it should be “our way or the highway.” Yes, America has a history of arrogance, but it also has a history of unprecidented compassion.
BTW Jeffcub–
I don’t think I’ve seen a non-Gosselin thread get this much traffic! Great job!
Samantha, if I misunderstood your question and was consequently snippy, I do apologize most sincerely.
Cella, bless you for your comments. – Caren
Thanks, Caren. That’s really sweet. I hope we’re all “blessed” with the ability to hear each other.
Cella-
I understand what you’re saying, I just dont feel that it applies in this situation.
And by the way- I know we can disagree and still be friends Thats why IW is great.
Besides- we always agree about the Gosselins! – Samantha
Yes, Samantha, that’ll never change.
I can see where it sounds like I’m making some sweeping statements about American politics, cultural attitudes and foreign policy as a whole, and this was a very specific discussion. And I know on some level we can’t be responsible for all the evils of the world. I guess I’d just like for us, as a nation, to realize that we don’t inhabit this world in a vacuum.
I guess I’d just like for us, as a nation, to realize that we don’t inhabit this world in a vacuum.–Cella
This is something we can agree on
. Hope you have a great weekend!
Cella,
I agree that we should try to be less divided. I think respect for differing opinions has been lost somewhere along the way. I have a different opinion about your theory of poverty and lack of education leading to terrorism. Osama bin Laden came from one of Saudi Arabia’s most wealthy families. The 9/11 hijackers were neither poor or uneducated. I believe the United States has always led the way in helping the world. No, we are in no way perfect. I do not believe it should be “our way or the highway.” Yes, America has a history of arrogance, but it also has a history of unprecidented compassion. – Wendy
I see your point. I do agree that there are, and have been, illogical, irrational, and, yes, even evil actions carried out by well educated, wealthy people throughout history. And that that fact shows there is a strong element of emotion or blind hatred behind ideologies of terrorists. There is always a certain level of blind faith or self-imposed ignorance in fanaticism. My point was, on a grass roots level, these extremist ideologies would fail completely if the terrorists’ propoganda about the Western world was balanced with education, a broader view of the world.
My concern is that, in our rush to achieve justice or to safeguard our way of life, that we as a country have been too willing to borrow some of the tactics of the illogical and the irrational and, too, are blinded by our hatred. I sat there trembling in my living room on the morning of 9/11 watching the towers fall. But, what scares me more, is the thought that my beloved country will not rise to show the world our love of justice as well as our might in dealing with our enemies.
This is something we can agree on . Hope you have a great weekend!
We were writing at the same time. Have a good one, Wendy!
If poverty and despair and lack of education can cause people to become terrorists then during the depression why didn’t we create them?
We have all these great things here because we created them. We have generation after generation that tries to get better.
Been re-reading the posts here and there is a common thread. It seems that most people take what others say and jump to wild conclusions. Why is it people feel they know what I mean?
This IS as simple as good and evil. Do you believe that there are no evil people in the world ? All we need to do is look in our own back yard to see evil people.
I too know people who think others…. talk funny so we don’t like them…. they are poor, I don’t like them….. they don’t believe in my God …so I don’t like them. So Islam can’t be practiced in the United States ? We don’t send countless products and hundreds of millions of dollars all over the World ? WE give more aid and help to others than any other Country in th World! You have a very poor image of America. You feel guilty about America, I don’t! Maybe because we are not perfect you feel a need to think we are Arrogant??
I do believe that we have rights that are our rights….American citizens rights…and yes that does make us different. These rights did not appear until this Country was formed. I for one thank God for this Country.
I find it curious that somehow we created more terrorists by going to Iraq. It seems to me we have been attacked throughout the world before 9/11….maybe those don’t count?? The statement of …Freedom Fighters ?? This is by far one of the worst statements yet. To compare those who choose to kill by any means women and children. To try and do the most horrific damage to us and their own people….Mothers who applaud their children blowing themselves up to kill innocents. If you can’t see the difference in this then I understand how you can’t see good and evil.
Just some rambling thoughts.
If poverty and despair and lack of education can cause people to become terrorists then during the depression why didn’t we create them? – Stu
That’s taking a pretty simplistic view of the point I was trying to make…a point I think I expounded upon pretty thoroughly, along with having already acknowledged bad deeds done by people of wealth and education.
Also, I wasn’t aware that Americans stopped being educated during The Great Depression. I’ll have to go back and get a refund on my college degree, if that’s the case.
And, I guess you’ve been out of touch, “we” have created home grown terrorists out of blue-blooded Americans in the country — Oklahoma City ring a bell? Let’s just say I don’t think their life choices were join Mensa or blow up a day care center.
I think it’s been proven time and time again throughout history that extreme ideologies only survive in an atomosphere of fear, ignorance, bias and hatred. Education, religious and cultural freedoms are usually the antidote.
This IS as simple as good and evil. – Stu
I don’t think there are any wild conclusions that can be made about this statement. It’s an opinion you’re certainly entitled to, but it ignores a myriad of factors, IMO.
You have a very poor image of America. You feel guilty about America, I don’t! Maybe because we are not perfect you feel a need to think we are Arrogant?? – Stu
And one of those rights that are so unique to this country is being able, if not encouraged, to keep my country, my government, in check by pointing out fault where I find it. Our Founding Fathers set a very high standard for this country. I’d will continue to hold my country to this high standard.
I have to say, Stu, that I do agree that there is evil in the world. A lot of evil. But we will not eliminate evil by abrogating the constitution. We will only descend to the same level as these evil ideocrats. I do think the terrorists are at best easily led dupes of mad and evil leaders (Osama Bib Laden and his ilk) and at worst sadistic evil butchers. But that does not relieve us of the responsibility to live by the law. Evil as they may be, they should not be squashed like bugs. It is a moral imperative that we retain our system of law or we will lose everything.
There is great temptation to react to the emotions these people have stirred in us. That’s why the law is so important. We cannot and should not react based on our anger and fear, but use the law as our guide to behave rationally and in a controlled manner, lest we get carried away.
Cella,
Here is an article from the NY Times (can’t get more liberal than that) that responds to your post about terrorists lacking education and freedom (many of them were educated right here in the U.S )
We examined the educational backgrounds of 75 terrorists behind some of the most significant recent terrorist attacks against Westerners. We found that a majority of them are college-educated, often in technical subjects like engineering. In the four attacks for which the most complete information about the perpetrators’ educational levels is available – the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the 9/11 attacks, and the Bali bombings in 2002 – 53 percent of the terrorists had either attended college or had received a college degree. As a point of reference, only 52 percent of Americans have been to college. The terrorists in our study thus appear, on average, to be as well educated as many Americans.
There is no excuse for their behavior except that they are so “brainwashed by their religious beliefs” that they are 100% committed to killing others and even themselves in the name of their religion. No amount of “understanding” or “tolerance” is going to change them.
53 percent of the terrorists had either attended college or had received a college degree. – Holly
Well, these numbers you cited speak to my point as well. What about the other 47 percent?
Again, I was making some broad points about how fanaticism takes root in the hearts and minds of people, and that the lack of education, knowledge, insight about the world in general can feed extremist ideologies. I was not drawing a line that says, education good, lack of education evil.
No amount of “understanding” or “tolerance” is going to change them. – Holly
You didn’t differential this statement from the statistical information about it, so I’m not sure if these are your words or if you were quoting an editorial piece.
Regardless, I’ll gladly wear the “liberal” title if it means not giving up the ideals of “understanding” and “tolerance” for my friends as well as my enemies.
You didn’t differential this statement from the statistical information about …
Sorry. Meant to type differentiate and above.
Cella, I was just getting ready to ask Holly for a link to that article. I wasn’t sure if her last paragraph was all from the article or partly her opinion. I’ve been enjoying the debate (I think it could be called that…different points of view, respectful and informed arguments in most cases).
Here is the link to the article I quoted from the NY Times. I am not a Democrat or a Republican, I am an Independent. I am very liberal on some issues and more conservative on others. I could vote for a Libertarian or a Green Party candidate if their ideas made sense and they used common sense! The reason I put this article in my post is because I believe in facts and this theory that the reason there are terrorists is because they are poor, uneducated, abused people is simply not true, and this study proves that. They were on average better educated then most Americans! These people are religious fanatics who want to kill in the name of their religion. They are no different from the religious fanatics who target and kill Abortion Doctors! They cannot be reasoned with and they do not deserve tolerance. Why would anyone want to show “tolerance” for these animals! Many of these groups target women and children. They target the Madrassas because they don’t want girls becoming educated. They blow up outdoor cafes where teenagers and families are eating. I have no tolerance for that.
Re: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, that was one crazy man and not a “terrorist movement”. He was not being recruited to join “like-minded” people and repeat those horrible events over and over around the World. Just like Buford Furrow who shot up the Jewish Community Center in Southern CA was an Anti-Semetic mentally ill person and thankfully not part of a “terrorist movement”. Let’s use some common sense here.
nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/14bergen.html
If “tolerance” means “Its ok to kill thousands of our citizens. We’re sorry you don’t like us.” Then count me out. Call me a bigot.
I wonder if the same people who are citing the constitution to argue their points also supported things like the stimulus package the bailouts of Fanny and Freddy, a single payer healthcare system, etc. Now I digress…
I think war is an abhorrent, horrible thing. I wish there was no such thing as evil in this world and that acts of violence didn’t occur. Unfortunately, we live in a world where they do and no human being can change that. When an attack occurs on our nation, it is the duty of the United States per the constitution to protect it’s citizens.
All of that being said….on Sept 11, 2001 our nation was attacked. The attack was a coordinated effort led by Al Quaida/the Taliban to destroy America. That the terrorists were not wearing army uniforms when they hit the towers does not make it any less an act of war. The debate over whether the incident was an act of war and whether the nation should go to war was resolved in 2001 with overwhelming Bipartisan support.
KSM was the mastermind of that attack. He’s guilty. He confessed. He said he planned it from a-z. All of this talk about military tribunals not being fair or being unethical is all interesting. It’s something we as a nation should discuss further but right now it is not relevant to the topic at hand.
The arguments for having the trial in the U.S., though well thought out, fail to take into account the fact that the man confessed and asked to be put to death. Let me ask again, when in the history of America has a trial been held after the defendant pleads guilty?
I concur with the point that KSM should have been dealt with years ago. That it has not occurred yet is one of many items of a list of grievances that I have with the Bush administration. If this man is acquitted and sent to another country, he will indubitably hook up with a terror cell and plan another attack. If that happens, the blood of the innocents will be on the hands of both George W. Bush and Barrack Obama.
If he is given a civilian trial, under our laws he would have to be released. Remember a few months ago w hen the pan am terrorist was released and got a heroes welcome? Are you really ok with that happening in our country? Are you willing to face a family member of a 9/11 victim when that happens?
Hey Holly,
I don’t know if it’s just me but that link didn’t work for me. Could you try again? Thanks so much!
I believe I fixed the link.
I find it curious that people find some statements too simplistic…..these must be the educated people. Some things are very simple. You don’t like the word evil ? Call it what you want. These people deserve to be tried, convicted and put to death. Pretty simple.
I can’t believe that religion was said to be a unifier in the world….you’re kidding! Our current problem is with idiots that have taken Islam, a religion and are using it to justify killing innocents. Catholics have done it, Christians have done it and so on.
What tolerance and understanding do” animals” who are willing to kill your children deserve? Your friends deserve tolerance and understanding, these killers do not!
I want our Country held to a higher standard, and it is. There are aberrations, but they are few compared to what we as Americans do for the World.
If we want to do this “right”, why did the Attorney General declare that they would be found guilty. Why even have a trial. President Obama and the Attorney General Holder have declared them guilty, and have stated they will not go free. Why bother with the pretense and expense. I find it hypocritical to say we are going to give them a fair trial and to announce the outcome of the trial before it begins.
Well, I think the Atty General’s words were simply rather typical prosecution posturing. Plenty of times prosecutors will make statements in public about the guilt of individuals charged with crimes. I actually don’t think Obama should’ve said that publicly, myself. It does give the impression that we’re not planning on letting justice run its course.
When an attack occurs on our nation, it is the duty of the United States per the constitution to protect it’s citizens.
All of that being said….on Sept 11, 2001 our nation was attacked. The attack was a coordinated effort led by Al Quaida/the Taliban to destroy America.
And the US responded by attacking Iraq, a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.
And the US responded by attacking Iraq, a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.–Jennie
I agree with you on this. I always thought that Iraq was a mistake and a distraction from Afghanistan.
I agree that we shouldn’t have been in Iraq as well but the U.S did not enter Iraq until 2003. We responded to Afghanistan in October of 2009. So to state that the U.S responded to 9/11 by attacking Iraq is also a bit simplistic and inaccurate.
I meant to say October of 2001. I apologize. Typo.
Since I’m the one that asked for the link, Holly, I wanted to say thanks. The statistics for that study came from 75 terrorists involved in major attacks on the West, and it really doesn’t surprise me. The 9/11 attacks were horrifyingly brilliant, led by people who could have been sitting next to us at one point in our educational lives.
However, that article was talking about terrorists the writer thought we needed to worry about, with the “means” to actually attack us. That may have been true so far, but the “poverty, lack of education, and hopelessness” Cella mentioned is definitely producing terrorists…suicide bombers as an example. Imagine an army of those people being funded and led by more well-educated terrorists. In my opinion, the U.S. has to try to regain our reputation in the world as a reasonable and fair nation, or the sheer amount of hatred towards us will eventually overcome the barriers that keep those that hate us away.
Even with that said, though, I am still concerned about the logistics of the trial.
I think there is a misunderstanding in this discussion–and it is tolerance. I don’t think anyone is saying “let’s be a kinder, gentler country and tolerate what they did because they have different religion and ideas.” I don’t want tolerance for these men–I want us to not violate international and domestic laws in bringing justice to our entire country. I want this to be done in such a way that we really can hold our heads high and say that despite the crippling effects of the attack we behaved in a manner that was right, and civilized. We didn’t stoop to another level and throw out all of our ideals, we clung to them and triumphed.
This was not an act of war, it was an act of terrorism; it is a terrible, unthinkable act of terrorism but an act of terrorism none the less. We are currently not engaged in any declared war, and these men are not military men with actions sanctioned by a recognized government. We cannot call it an act of war, because it was not perpetrated by a recognized state. Also if we call it an act of war, we have to abide by the Geneva Conventions, and we haven’t. The Bush administration created a class outside of any laws, outside of our own laws and outside of international law to bring these men to “justice.” But it isn’t justice, it is exactly what we accuse others of doing: holding people for years without telling them what they did wrong, torturing them to get information, giving trials where evidence is kept secret, put on witnesses that they are not allowed to confront. I want justice, but not at any price: I want it done in the just manner we proclaim is the best manner–in a proper and fair way.
My law school has two programs, one is an LLM program for Democratic Governance. Basically lawyers from nations with transitional governments (like many former Soviet Bloc countries) come to our school, study our government, the constitution, and our judicial system in the hopes of going back to their own countries and helping set up governments and judicial systems like our own. The other is a cooperative program with a Saudi Arabian university in which 30 students are selected to come to the US and study our prison system so they can aid in the setting up and running of a similar system. We want them to model their systems on ours because our system is supposed to be so good. But how can we claim that with the way we have handled this?
In my opinion, the U.S. has to try to regain our reputation in the world as a reasonable and fair nation, or the sheer amount of hatred towards us will eventually overcome the barriers that keep those that hate us away
The 9/11 attacks occurred 9 months into Bush’s administration and had been in the making for years under the Clinton administration. The hatred exists towards this country regardless of our policies and who is in office. The hatred exists towards this country regardless of our reputation. We must always be aware of that and take proper measures to protect ourselves against this hatred.
The attack on Iraq, which was ledby us was also approved by most Deomcrats and Republicans…..and the almighty UN. Remeber there was a stack of evidence that Iraq was breaking all the sanctions that were set up against them. Now whether you agree with us going there that’s open for debate.
Terrorists hate us not because they are hungry or they can’t read…they hate us because of their religion! They are commanded to kill all Infidels to earn their place in Heaven. They are also deeply fueled by their hatred of the Jews. This has gone on for thousands of years and is ingrained in their culture. No amount of “understanding” or “tolerance” is going to change this. Just look at the bombings in London where they have gone overboard to accept the Muslim culture! It made no difference to those fanatics who still planned many bomb attacks. The same is true for Spain. This is taught to them from the time they are babies and is never going to change! We were fighting this hatred back in the days of our Founding Fathers. Our merchant ships were being attacked by Muslims and we formed the Marines and sent them to the African Coast to defend our ships.
When you say education would change this , that seems logical, but these are not logical people! Hard to understand but these are Fanatics! I don’t care how they live, it’s their way, all I care about is that we are protected from them and we are safe.
The 9/11 attacks occurred 9 months into Bush’s administration and had been in the making for years under the Clinton administration. The hatred exists towards this country regardless of our policies and who is in office. The hatred exists towards this country regardless of our reputation. We must always be aware of that and take proper measures to protect ourselves against this hatred. – Pam
Okay, I guess I participated heavily in going far afield from the topic of this blog post. I’ll wrap my participation here.
Can I just point out that the title subject of this blog post may have been drawn along internal American political lines, but I’ve certainly not criticised any political point of view, whether conservative, liberal or in the middle in any of my posts. I hold this country, and its citizens, to a pretty high standard…and I care about them both enough to speak out when I see something I think is wrong, even if it’s an unpopular view.
I will say I understand there is a strong fanatical compotent to Islamic terrorism (and I use this term because I’ve heard many moderate Muslims using this term in trying to differentiate between their religion and culture and the extremist/politically motivated branch of their culture that is actually participating in Jihad, or the “religious” war), that will find any excuse to use terrorism against the West.
Unfortunately, to say the US and the West haven’t given people who live in the Middle East reason to question our behavior before 9/11 is having a short memory. The CIAs involvement in internal politics in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq…really most of the Middle East and Africa (South America is another discussion) …to protect US oil interests, to fight the Russians clandestinely during the Cold War, and to protect Israel, and the The Gulf War are a few examples. There’s been a lot of the US getting involved in the Middle East, both openly and clandestinely, and then cutting and running when our interests were met or we’d had enough, and leaving the people of that region to pick up the pieces.
It is under those circumstances that the modern form of Jihadists were born, and when the more radical form of Islam gained popularity and power from a groundswell of these people thinking that adopting Western culture had been their downfall and wanting to return to the earlier traditions of their culture and religion.
You’re right. At this point there may be a level of hatred that would automatically negate anything America tried to do to improve its international image. We’ve gotten to this point, and there may never be a point where we don’t have to worry about terrorism in the future, and we should protect ourselves.
I’ll finish up with stating that I think it’s a mistake to forget our own mistakes and our own responsiblities in how the platform of world politics looks today. Yes, we have a faction of people who are hell bent on blaming western culture for all the evils in the world. I just don’t want us to descend to their level and start to feel that ensuring our own safety and way of live would be justified by using any means necessary and ignoring the priciples that make the US unique and strong.
Stu, you are misinformed about muslims, the Koran and the history of the relationship between muslims and jews. At one time I planned on becoming a minister and a pre-requisite to entering the seminary was to take comparative religion, among other things. This required me to study Islam and the Koran. The Koran does not command muslims to kill infidels. It simply does not. And most muslims do not condone the acts of the terrorists. On the contrary, they despise them and want them stopped. The Koran actually talks about the people of the book (old testament) as being one with the people of Islam. There is, in point of fact, a large part of the old testament embeddedin the Koran. By the way, the term muslim does not refer to followers of Islam, it is racial not religious. I worked with a man who was born in Bethlehem, considered himself muslim and was a Christian. There are probably not too many Christian Muslim, but they do exist.
Nor has there been centuries of hatred between Muslims and Jews. The current discord was started when the state of Israel was formed and Palestinians were pushed off the land that is now Israel. The hows and whys of that are very complicated and not germane to this topic, so we can set that aside for now.
The leaders of Al Quaida and the Taliban are mad men who have recruited others to their cause with inflammatory rhetoric and promises that are not part of the Koran. The followers are either ignorant of the Koran, or don’t care, because they like the concepts that are being espoused. Why they have these views is anyone’s guess. Why did Hitler have the views he did? Especially when you consider that he was half Jewish. The current tension in the middle east is not anti-Semitism, it’s about land and power. Come to think of it, it’s probably land and power that motivates Al Quaida and the Taliban.
Since you seem to be a man who wishes arguments to be presented precisely, I thought I’d let you know that you are entirely incorrect in those statements.
Having said all I know or feel to be true on this thread I too am going to withdraw. Bless you all for this discussion, at least I know there are people in this country who are involved and do care, whatever their views. I hope you all vote.
Well, since my short little posts take me ridiculous amounts of time to try to articulate my thoughts, I’m going back to reading what others might have left to say. I sincerely appreciate having the opportunity to read the different viewpoints…I’m sure I’ve never had a face-to-face conversation to match it.
Caren,
I find it interesting that you choose to attack my post and then you have chosen to run and hide. The misinformed person is you! Where in my post did I say ANYTHING about the Koran ? Where did I say the Koran commanded that people be killed ? This seems to be a typical response that when you don’t agree you seem to make connections that are not there.
By the way my sentence was not clear about Muslims and Jews. I did not mean that the hatred went on for thousands of years between them. I meant the fanatical hatred has been around for that long.
Also in my posts I have been clear to state “fanatical Muslims” or Terrorists. To imply that I am not making a distinction between Muslims and ” Fanatical Muslims” is disingenuous and just plain wrong. Although I would like to hear a louder condemnation of the violence from the larger Muslim Community,of course I am not talking about most Muslims!
I think you are misinformed about what motivates the Taliban and Al-Queda. It is the killing of Jews, Westerners, and even those in their own Country who they perceive as Infidels. This is definitely fueled by a “hijacked” religion.
So to state that the U.S responded to 9/11 by attacking Iraq is also a bit simplistic and inaccurate.
I really don’t agree. There were explicit and implicit attempts by the Bush administration to connect Iraq to 9/11 that went on for years. They were successful, because even after the administration admitted that no such links existed, there was a significant portion of the public that believed that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11. Hey, even Jon Gosselin, in an episode of J&K+8 a year or two ago, made a reference that implied he believed that Iraq was behind 9/11. It was a pervasive lie that a lot of conservatives believed, and many continue to believe.
I remember the study about the education levels of 9/11 hijackers. I’m not sure if I believed before that their religious extremism had a root in poverty, but I certainly never thought that this fully explained why these men became terrorists. I don’t know enough about human psychology or the individuals involved to really understand those who join al Qaeda or similar groups. I do think that once one gets to a certain point in their fanatic adherence to a belief they really lose touch with their humanity. There is a line that a person crosses when they say, “I believe X so strongly that I have the right to kill for that belief”. The 9/11 highjackers crossed that line, John Brown crossed that line, the man who killed the doctor who performed late-term abortions a couple of years ago crossed that line. It’s not thinking I can really understand, but I’m about a hair away from being a pacifist, so that may be why.
And one of those rights that are so unique to this country is being able, if not encouraged, to keep my country, my government, in check by pointing out fault where I find it. Our Founding Fathers set a very high standard for this country. I’d will continue to hold my country to this high standard.
ITA. I liken it to the parent who defends their child no matter what, thinks that their child is the best kid in the world and could never do anything wrong v. the parent who holds their child responsible for their behavior, who expects the best of them and criticizes them when they fall short. I’ve known self-proclaimed liberals who really do act like they hate America, but the latter example is more in line with what I think of as typically liberal thinking.
As for tolerance, I don’t see anyone saying that we have to tolerate terrorism. We do need to tolerate different beliefs to a degree, or we simply alienate those people who hold those beliefs.
Re: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, that was one crazy man and not a “terrorist movement”. He was not being recruited to join “like-minded” people and repeat those horrible events over and over around the World.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that McVeigh acted alone. Others were convicted for their involvement in the bombing, and there may have been further ties that were never uncovered. He certainly had some ties to right-wing and white supremacist groups.
Terrorists hate us not because they are hungry or they can’t read…they hate us because of their religion! They are commanded to kill all Infidels to earn their place in Heaven. They are also deeply fueled by their hatred of the Jews.
Muslim terrorists are no more motivated by religion than the Spanish Inquisitionists were. Religion is the excuse people give for their behavior. Religion never killed anyone, and if all religions were wiped from the earth, human beings would find another excuse.
This has gone on for thousands of years and is ingrained in their culture. No amount of “understanding” or ”tolerance” is going to change this.
I agree that the problem is more cultural than religious, but I’m uncomfortable with the across the board labeling of “their” culture (who are “they”?). There are many Muslims in the world, across a number of cultures. Most Muslims are not terrorists.
Just look at the bombings in London where they have gone overboard to accept the Muslim culture! It made no difference to those fanatics who still planned many bomb attacks. The same is true for Spain.
I don’t know enough about the place of Muslims in those societies to speak at length, but I don’t agree that English society has necessarily gone “overboard” in accepting Muslim culture. I think there are tensions there, as well as in Spain, France and other parts of Europe. There appear to be problems with assimilation that I think are complex. I’d also again point out: many Muslims in England and Spain, most of them not terrorists.
This is taught to them from the time they are babies and is never going to change!
Again, who are “they”? What is your solution? Kill ‘em all? I feel like you are speaking of Muslims as if they are not even human beings.
We were fighting this hatred back in the days of our Founding Fathers. Our merchant ships were being attacked by Muslims and we formed the Marines and sent them to the African Coast to defend our ships.
Weren’t they pirates? Can you give me a little background on why you’re framing that conflict in religious terms? At the same time, Europeans and Americans were kidnapping Africans and bringing them over as slaves, and part of their justification was that their victims weren’t Christian. Is Christianity to blame for that?
Caren and Cella, I’m sorry to hear that you are stepping out of the discussion – I’ve enjoyed both your contributions and am impressed with the breadth of your knowledge.
Here’s to your point Jeff…….
By KAREN MATTHEWS, Associated Press Writer Karen Matthews, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 2 mins ago
NEW YORK – The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.
Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”
Jennie,
I think you need to re-read my post! This is what I said:
Also in my posts I have been clear to state “fanatical Muslims” or Terrorists. To imply that I am not making a distinction between Muslims and ” Fanatical Muslims” is disingenuous and just plain wrong. Although I would like to hear a louder condemnation of the violence from the larger Muslim Community,of course I am not talking about most Muslims!
When I said they have been taught this from the” time they are babies” I am only talking about these “radical extremists groups” like the Taliban, Al Queda, The PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah etc.
I don’t know what is so hard to understand! A handful of very evil people are acting in the name of their religion. I would no more blame all Muslims for these acts than I would blame all Evangelical Christians for bombing abortion clinics! I don’t know how much clearer I can be. You are reading something into my posts that is not there.
The problem is so many of you think the issues are so complex and intellectual. Something that you can discuss philosophically in a coffee shop or college lecture hall. It is simple, these Terrorists want to kill people who don’t think like them!
Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”
I doubt that the somewhat rigid nature of a criminal trial will allow for much editorializing, but to the degree that the defendants are allowed to “explain what happened and why they did it” – why is this something to fear? If we can agree that there is no justification for the terrorists’ actions, then what does it matter what they say? If they manage to convince anyone else, well, such people would have to be quite susceptible to start with, wouldn’t they?
When I said they have been taught this from the” time they are babies” I am only talking about these “radical extremists groups” like the Taliban, Al Queda, The PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah etc.
Okay, but you still don’t offer a solution – do you propose to kill them in their cradles since as you say, “it is never going to change”? Is it only Muslim extremists that concern you, since they are presumably the greatest threat to the US? Because there are certainly other extremists and terrorist groups in the world.
I don’t know what is so hard to understand! A handful of very evil people are acting in the name of their religion. I would no more blame all Muslims for these acts than I would blame all Evangelical Christians for bombing abortion clinics! I don’t know how much clearer I can be. You are reading something into my posts that is not there.
I think you’re mistaking disagreement with a lack of understanding. You can state you opinion as fact and append as many exclamation points as you want, but people may still disagree with you. That’s kind of the point of a discussion board.
The problem is so many of you think the issues are so complex and intellectual. Something that you can discuss philosophically in a coffee shop or college lecture hall. It is simple, these Terrorists want to kill people who don’t think like them!
I don’t think approaching an issue with nuanced thinking is a “problem”. I’m not sure what coffee shops and college lecture halls have to do with it. If I can return to the original subject of the post, I would argue that whatever terrorists want (and I agree, killing infidels appears to be high on the list for most of them), we should not change our ideals or values in dealing with them. The 9/11 suspects are criminals, they are not soldiers working for any government and fighting any declared war; they should be tried in criminal court.
I do not fear anything they have to say. What I don’t want are Terrorists to have an open forum no matter how limited, to spew their hatred and have their ilk think they are heroes of some sort. Since when should we be open to do what “guilty” Terrorists …their words….want.
I guarantee you don’t want to hear my solutions. If you really read my posts and want to hear me…I often stated Terrorists without “Muslim” being attatched to the word.
I dont know where I said my statements were fact. They are my opinion which I think is right. Just like you think your opinion is right. No one is going to change anyone’s mind, I understand that.
Criminals ? That’s where you and I disagree. They attacked the United States. They belong to Al Queda, which is an organized multi- layered group throughout the World. They have military camps all over the world. They are being captured on fields of battle. They need to be punished in a Military Court. Just my opinion!!!!!!!!
Stu said: Criminals ? That’s where you and I disagree. They attacked the United States. They belong to Al Queda, which is an organized multi- layered group throughout the World. They have military camps all over the world. They are being captured on fields of battle. They need to be punished in a Military Court. Just my opinion!!!!!!!!
Stu, if you are ok with trying this in a Military Tribunal are you okay with doing this under the rules of Military Prisoners (i.e. with international oversight) and under the rules of the Geneva Conventions? Because that isn’t what was intended by these military tribunals. They were contra to the Geneva Convention Rules.
I’ll reiterate that I think my sticking point is criminal v. war criminal. Regardless of where they are found and what they are doing we are not engaged in a war. They may train like a military, but they are not state sanctioned. Unless and until we actually declare war, I’m going to say that we can’t really say they are war criminals. I think through this entire discussion Jennie’s point and my point is let’s bring these men to justice without violating domestic and international laws (which we claim in the cornerstone of this great nation). Let’s either claim they are prisoners of war and work within the bounds of international law with international oversight (not these US controlled and ridiculously unjust military tribunals), or let’s do this the way any criminal would be tried in the criminal courts. I favor criminal courts because I don’t think these are war criminals, but rather mass murders.
I’m a little late to the game here, but what a great discussion, everyone. Generally, I agree with the points Erin Kate, Jennie, and Caren have made.
I did want to address the concern raised here (and in other places) about the fear that we’ll look “weak” to the rest of the world for having an open trial. I lived overseas for almost three years, and got to know people from countries in Europe, East Asia, and the Southern Hemisphere. I’ve also worked or been friends with with people from the Middle East and the Indian continent.
From what I’ve heard from this diverse, international sample of voices, the negative view of the United States comes from the perception that we are too *strong*–economically and militarily–not “weak.” That we are a superpower that acts with impunity, and/or that wants to force others to accept our ways. Having an open trial will show good faith to the world. For example, by showing evidence that proves guilt, rather than the U.S. government saying “we have secret evidence that we can’t share, but just trust us.” (I think most Americans–especially those on both the far right and far left–would normally never trust the government just because it told us to.) And the idea that our nation is strong and independent and that we don’t need to make friends with other countries simply makes no sense in today’s world: We want other nations to join our fight against terrorism, for example, and they’re going to be a lot more willing to ally with us if they feel we are just.
Finally, I live in NYC, and from what I can tell, the general population is not overly-frightened to have the trial here. Personally, I think this venue skews in favor of the prosecution; if this were any other criminal trial, I think the defense would argue voraciously to have it moved elsewhere. (I admit, my first reaction to the news was that this could become a kangaroo court that could end up making us look unjust and fascist, not just and democratic.) If the terrorists are wrong, then why fear what they may say in court? When ignorant and/or insane people–for example, racial superemicists–are allowed to speak publicly, the public always ends up mocking them. This will happen here in New York, and I’m sure the rest of the country too.
The strange thing to me is that it seems like considering them war criminals rather than just criminals actually gives them legitimacy. I find it hard to believe that it’s a stand some people would be taking if it didn’t suit their purposes re a military v. a criminal court.
I did not write this article to wander into the Iraq war issue, but I have always felt that it is wrong to question the attack on Iraq. First of all, Osama and his cohorts have no country. Under the belief that we don’t attack COUNTRIES that had nothing to do with 9/11, we would never attack anyone from Al Qaeda as they have no country!
I have always felt that the correct response to 9/11 (if we could not find the perpetrators directly) was to pick the biggest problem country in the Middle East (Iraq at that time) and blow them up. It’s like being bullied on the playground. Pick out the biggest guy in the group and punch him in the nose! This is what we did. And no one responded for 8 years. And now they are at it again (Ft. Hood). Why do you think Osama was touting Obama during the campaign? They love Democrats. They love the idea that Ft. Hood was called a ‘Tragedy” and not what is was: A Terrorist act. More to come, I am afraid.
Wow, Jeff, I’m not even sure how to respond to that. I think that is a dangerous approach to international relations.
It is a dangerous approach to playground relations also.
My sense of morality is much stronger than my fear of terrorists. To become indiscriminate killers as Jeff suggests is to be no better than Osama bin Laden, et al.
As for bin Laden “loving” Democrats, I have to say his opinion means nothing to me. I would not base any decisions on what bin Laden thinks or how we appear to him or whether we appear “weak”. Ever. I think the whole concept of the U.S. appearing weak is a rather unsophisticated and simplistic one, anyway.
You can’t fight Terrorists with theory and words. I love the people who want us to worry about ” if we are liked in the World”, 0r whether we are “‘sophisticated or not, and once again that word “simplistic”. I wonder how these conversations would have gone during WWII ? We killed untold amounts of people; men, women, and children. Was it necessary…yes….do you want to do it….no.
I was just listening to one of the Lawyers who is working on the defense team for these Terrorists. At the end of the give and take he was asked if he would be happy if they got off. He answered YES. Oh yeah …Lawyers have morals.
Stu, another one I’m not sure how to respond to. I’m pretty sure I have morals. Also, WWII was an entirely different issue. They are not remotely comparable.
Jeff,
I agree the killings at Fort Hood were a Terrorist Act and I don’t know why people are afraid to say that. To his credit Carl Levin is investigating the emails that were sent by Hasan and wants to have an investigation even though President Obama does not. Levin who is very a very liberal Democrat considers Hasan’s killing of 13 people and wounding 30 a “terrorist act”. This was a horrible tragedy that could have been avoided.
My first comment on this thread which I am reading and thinking about…
Yes, lawyers are like everyone else. Some good, some bad. Let’s be fair.
Erin
Death is Death.
It’s also easy to respond…. I even think the Lawyer said he would be “Happy” Now that would be hard to respond to. I’ll have to see the interview again to be sure he said that.
Ann,
I’ll agree with you on that. It just seems lawyers like to hide behind words and deal in a hypothetical world.
Lawyers play an important role in our society; I’m sure if you were accused of a crime you would want a lawyer who would defend you vigorously and who would be “happy” to see you acquited. Not only the innocent get legal representation, after all.
Furthermore, I wouldn’t take too seriously what a lawyer says in the media about his client – that’s essentially PR. What, you expect him to say, “Oh, God, don’t let this guy off – he’ll kill us all!”?
I’m not sure what you mean by fighting terrorists with “theory and words” – it’s all theory and words here on a message board. For instance, some people, in theory and using words, are pretty blase (to the point of callousness) about the deaths of innocent people, as long as those innocent people aren’t Americans.
My point was not about whether “we” (Americans?) are sophisticated or not, but that saying the U.S. might appear “weak” is an unsophisticated and simplistic argument. It’s like saying that terrorists are “mean” or that al Qaeda is “crazy”. These just aren’t words that really capture the complexity of international relations at a high level.
For instance, some people, in theory and using words, are pretty blase (to the point of callousness) about the deaths of innocent people, as long as those innocent people aren’t Americans.
I think quite possibly the same can be said for some people in theory and using words , that are pretty blase in their thoughts on the complexity of international relations to the point of risking everyone’s safety including other countries.
Everyone in this discussion cares about human life. Remarks that insinuate that others don’t just because they believe differently are callous.
Pam,
I totally agree with you. I think President Obama is showing a perfect example of “theory vs action” while still trying to make a decision on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan! While he his “deciding and discussing” and getting the opinion of all his “advisors”, more and more innocent young men and women are dying there because they don’t have the military support they need. Make a decision, send the troops or pull out completely but don’t leave those poor soldiers there as “sitting ducks” out numbered by the Insurgents. Leadership is about making decisions, and I hate indecision, especially when lives are at stake!
To tell you the truth…if someone I knew …family member or not and they were a murderer I would want them prosecuted and convicted for the crime they did.
Words and action are two different things. There are a lot of debates about what is proper and how we should look to the world. Then there are those who have to act…do the dirty work that most of us won’t.
If this was handled in Military court we would not have Lawyers on TV saying they would be Happy if there client was acquitted.
To state that …For instance, some people, in theory and using words, are pretty blase (to the point of callousness) about the deaths of innocent people, as long as those innocent people aren’t Americans.
Who said that ?? This is exactly what I meant when the debate can’t be intelligent… the conversation jumps to global thinking and statements that you wish were said but in fact never happened. I have found that throughout this thread. Statements being rebutted by quoting things that never were said.
Jeff’s post #83 - I have always felt that the correct response to 9/11 (if we could not find the perpetrators directly) was to pick the biggest problem country in the Middle East (Iraq at that time) and blow them up.
IMO could be an example of that callousness, Holly.
Who said that ?? – Holly
Here you go….
I have always felt that the correct response to 9/11 (if we could not find the perpetrators directly) was to pick the biggest problem country in the Middle East (Iraq at that time) and blow them up – Jeff
Jeff, with as much respect as I can muster after reading this statement, I’m glad you, and those who think like you, are not the one making these decisions for our country any longer. This is probably one of the most cold and callous things I’ve ever read or heard someone say about how to respond to 9/11. IMO, it’s no better than comments made by terrorsists about ridding the world of infidels.
This is what I meant about not descending to their level. Any good points you’re trying to make are lost on me when they are tainted with this kind of blatant lack of humanity.
Sorry …It was Stu who made those last statements not Holly.
I feel just as Jeff does. If we go to war, to fight…remember the 9/11 commission said these people were at war with us and we did not even know it…. We need to do it all the way. Go to win and destroy the enemy. We can’t send troops to fight a politically correct war. It seems this is what we have evolved into. Turn it over to the military let them do there job and leave them alone. Or don’t go.
What you call callous is simply the dirty deed of war. I also don’t believe in the innocent statements. A country..neighborhood…whatever…that harbors terrorists/criminals is just as complicit as the terrorist themselves.
Stu, I’m slightly confused about whose statements are whose, but I’m glad we’re moving on. Cleansing breaths before I post usually help me moderate what I say, but I still manage to irk people sometimes. That’s the nature of opinions, and there have been many stated here that have made me think, and that’s a good thing.
Provoking thought is what you hope for. I never think of changing minds…just to get people to think and understand that other people have valid points too.
I think quite possibly the same can be said for some people in theory and using words , that are pretty blase in their thoughts on the complexity of international relations to the point of risking everyone’s safety including other countries.
You may be right. I come at it from this point of view: I have no say in the actions of Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. I can disapprove of their actions but their actions are not being done in my name. The U.S. government acts in my name, and so I do have a greater concern over their actions and whether they are moral and appropriate.
Everyone in this discussion cares about human life. Remarks that insinuate that others don’t just because they believe differently are callous.
I don’t doubt that we all care about human life. But when Jeff posts the following:
I have always felt that the correct response to 9/11 (if we could not find the perpetrators directly) was to pick the biggest problem country in the Middle East (Iraq at that time) and blow them up.
…he is advocating terrorism. Thus the issue becomes not those who will engage in terrorism v. those who won’t; it’s an issue of who’s being terrorized. You’ve lost the moral high ground entirely. We are not longer concerned with being better or more moral than Osama bin Laden, we’re just concerned with being better at killing and terrorizing.
While he his “deciding and discussing” and getting the opinion of all his “advisors”, more and more innocent young men and women are dying there because they don’t have the military support they need.
Can I ask why you use quotes in the above paragraph? It seems the implication is that strong leaders do not need to listen to advisors or reach any kind of consensus with experts (such as military leaders) – they should just make a decision, quickly and unilaterally. I disagree. Better to delay than to make the wrong decision, IMO. There is no strength in ignorance.
Who said that ?? This is exactly what I meant when the debate can’t be intelligent… the conversation jumps to global thinking and statements that you wish were said but in fact never happened. I have found that throughout this thread. Statements being rebutted by quoting things that never were said.
Yes, this was in response to Jeff’s statement. He strongly indicates (perhaps facetiously, to give him the benefit of the doubt) that he’s okay with indiscriminate killing as long as those being indiscriminating killed are Middle Eastern and not American.
What you call callous is simply the dirty deed of war. I also don’t believe in the innocent statements. A country..neighborhood…whatever…that harbors terrorists/criminals is just as complicit as the terrorist themselves.
Including children? Babies? Women who have no choice but to submit? I disagree.
In any case, I think we’re just approaching this from different perspectives. If I’m understanding you and Jeff correctly, you don’t have a moral problem with terrorism. Thus Osama bin Laden is not someone you feel the need to behave in a more morally correct manner than – just someone you need to beat. I feel differently, again because as a U.S. citizen I feel some responsibility for the morality of my country’s actions (a responsibility I don’t feel for the terrorist’s actions). Some of it may also be the difference between male and female thinking, though I know there are some women on the thread that agree with you.
In any case, I appreciate your contributions here, Stu, and everyone who has participated.
The responsibility of the commander in chief is to protect Americans, not anyone else. When Harry Truman made the decision to kill millions of Japanese, he did it to protect the lives of only thousands (probably) of Americans. But his job (and the jobs of Presidents Bush and Obama) was, and is, to protect Americans. I did not mean to suggest that we blow up civilians for the fun of it or for revenge, but when you do not have specific details of where the bad guys are and you have a country (Iran, Yemen?) that harbor and assist terrorists that want to destroy Americans, I have no problem with a Commander in Chief that makes a decision to attack one of these rogue countries to save American lives. On the contrary, I would be upset if he didn’t. It was well documented that our people had Osama in their gunsights and Bill Clinton would not give approval for the hit. This is unacceptable. The left always argues that a life is a life and an Iraqi should be treated the same as an American. This is the dangerous foreign policy. We live in times where we cannot think this way any longer. We must decide if this is the way we will live. Unlimited foreign student visas with no tracking of those “students”, no true border control to the south, no profiling (even though we know who the enemies are). If this is the way we are to live, let’s not blame the administration when another 9/11 happens or we have another Ft. Hood.
But Jeff, you specifically suggested Iraq even though they were not harboring terrorists at the time (and in fact Hussein did not get along with bin Laden and other Muslim extremists). The point, at least the point that I got from what you wrote, was not to catch “bad guys” but to terrorize the entire region.
If we wanted to go after countries that harbor (and produce!) terrorists, we might look at Saudi Arabia, but of course the Bushies are best friends with the SA royal family, so that might be awkward. And bad for some people’s bank accounts.
I agree that one responsibility of the commander in chief is to protect Americans, but you must agree that this is leavened by some…common sense? Humanity? Are you okay with killing 100 non-Americans (innocent or non-innocent) to save one American? How about a thousand? A million? Are there any limits, any points at which you would say the cost is too high and something simply isn’t morally right? Or does being commander-in-chief supersede considerations of morality?
If we wanted to go after countries that harbor (and produce!) terrorists, we might look at Saudi Arabia, but of course the Bushies are best friends with the SA royal family
Lets be intellectually honest here…..So are the Clintons.
I agree that one responsibility of the commander in chief is to protect Americans, but you must agree that this is leavened by some…common sense? Humanity? Are you okay with killing 100 non-Americans (innocent or non-innocent) to save one American? How about a thousand? A million? Are there any limits, any points at which you would say the cost is too high and something simply isn’t morally right? Or does being commander-in-chief supersede considerations of morality?
I’m OK with killing any amount to protect Americans first. You stop when they stop. I am sorry how crude that is but it is the only language some understand.
I have always felt that the correct response to 9/11 (if we could not find the perpetrators directly) was to pick the biggest problem country in the Middle East (Iraq at that time) and blow them up.
…he is advocating terrorism.
There is something terribly wrong when you equate what Jeff said to terrorism. Call it what you want but our civilians were blown up. It’s simple to me we must respond quickly and bigger. If you think that is terrorism…Wow.
War is never pretty. I, again, am not advocating killing innocent civilians without reason (unlike the terrorists). I am saying there is collateral damage. It HAS to be our policy to protect Americans at the expense of other people. The Israelis have always had the policy to never allow kidnappers to escape. If they have to kill their own people to keep this policy they do. They do not have problems with hostages. Sometimes the threat of indiscriminate retaliation assures our safety. Sometimes it is not enough. If we respond to terrorism with an appropriate response we will begin our road to being safe from terror. A response to a terrorist act is not terrorism, it is an appropriate response.
I’ve read that there are two forms of jihad. One is a ‘spiritual struggle’, the other is ‘violent war in the name of Allah’.
I would say that hijacking commercial airliners and purposely slamming them into buildings and killing thousands of innocents is the other ‘violent war in the name of Allah’ jihad.
I just don’t see how that can be considered an act of ‘spiritual struggle’.
I don’t know what the answer is. I only know I don’t want terrorist in my back yard anymore.
No one can weigh one life as more valuable than another, but we all do it.
If my loved one is on the scale with a terrorist, I pick my loved one’s life as more valuable, and I’d bet my bottom dollar that anyone here saying otherwise is only fooling themselves, because they are not fooling me.
There are people who are willing to to save a DOG who is drowning over a human. No wonder they don’t want to kill terrorists.
Oh and by the way I love my dog but she is going to the bottom of the lake if there is a person drowning…except if it is a terrorist !
Terrorist( Muslim fanatics or another) have lack of humanity and they have one agenda to kill everyone who doesn’t think like them and will go through every length to get the job done. Like it not they will keep coming until they succeed. We just can’t sit back and feel sorry or accept life as something it’s not. Why should we give compassion to terrorists and allow them to have a trial among our peers? These terrorists think different than the average American and will keep fighting until the whole western world is destroyed. These people hate the way of life we are living and they will not hesitate to kill any one of us if they have a chance too. So yes, a military tribunal somewhere else and not just that give no trial and hang them. Let the world know we’re not going to accept this way of life and if you get caught trying to murder our citzens then this is what’s going to happen to your ass!!!
I have really enjoyed this discussion. I want to say something about Jeff’s and Jennie’s remarks about “blowing up Iraq.”
I really doubt Jeff thinks it’s OK to blow up an entire country (even though he phrased it that way.) I think he means we should do just what America did: attack. There is a difference between blowing up a country indiscriminately and the way America has conducted the war in Iraq. At least, there is from the information my nephew shared.
He spent 15 months in Iraq, and even though he wasn’t raised to kill other human beings, he did, and doesn’t regret it. He had no problem shooting back when he or other Americans were shot at. He spoke very highly of the Iraqi farmers who cooperated with American. He had a lot of respect for the Iraqi men who were being trained by or working alongside the American troops to one day take over the job of protecting the community. He was tremendously compassionate about the Iraqi women and young girls who were treated as second-class citizens. He felt what he was doing there helped them most of all. He had complete disdain for the other foreigners in the country shooting at Americans and terrorizing the Iraqi people there. He never once bombed indiscrimnately. He and his fellow soldiers killed men who were shooting at them or attacking the Iraqi people. He arrested those he could and shot or called in bombs for those he couldn’t.
I just don’t want this discussion to impugn what he did there as indiscriminate bombing. It is very targeted warfare, designed to reduce the collateral damage, sometimes at the risk to American lives.
Another thing: we went to war after the Secretary of State scared the pants off many of us about mobile nuclear vans in Iraq or something like that. That information was incorrect. I supported the war out of fear of another, bigger 9/11 happening here, but it turns out Saddam’s bunkers and nuclear/biological warfare capabilities were not what we believed. Iraq wasn’t behind 9/11 (and I never believed it was.) I now think it was a mistake to have gone in there in the first place; the gains are not worth the cost in lives. But Iraq WAS harboring terrorists. The US destroyed training camps there.
I don’t know whether Jeff meant reducing the country to rubble or not …but I believe that we went to Iraq to fight a war. We need to do whatever it takes to accomplish that. The UN and the world { for the most part ] thought Iraq was a danger. They had opportunity after opportunity to prevent the attack from happening. They didn’t.
Your Nephew is a hero Ann.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone…..even you liberals !!
Well said, Ann.
I have had three nephews deployed there in the past three years, one came back with stress related disorders and is very anti-America now (he also is very anti-Muslim), the other two are much like your nephew, Ann. They met many Iraqis who thanked them as they walked the streets and told them they felt safe with their presence, they also told them that they were now free to run businesses, go to school, shop where they pleased, all of them just so grateful for the everyday freedoms that we take for granted.
They too were forced to kill or be killed. It’s war. It’s not pretty.
I don’t know what the true reason is that we went to war there, I don’t think the average American is privy to that, but I don’t see how it was all bad when there are so many people so grateful. I have not read many of those stories of grateful Iraqis in our newspapers here at home though. I have read how they hate us and want us out of there.
While I consider myself to be somewhat conservative in my beliefs, I do not affiliate myself with the Republican Party, I believe that both Republican and Democrat alike have an agenda and I trust neither. The mainstream media shoves whatever crap they want us to believe down our throats. No one looks out for us. We must be our own guardians and do our own fact-checking.
Again, I don’t know what the answer is, but if my freedoms are endangered, and my everday way of life is endangered, I expect my government to do something about it. And I don’t accept that my way of life should be put on the line for the sake of looking to the world like we are such a benevolent country. I’m sick of terrorist cells living only blocks away from me. I’m sick of being nervous every time I see a suitcase or a backpack left for a moment by it’s owner, afraid that it may be exploding. If we have to invade other countries to root out the cause of my way of life being threatened, then I have no problem with that. If hunting terrorists down in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or wherever they may be plotting more hate, death, and destruction means that you can prevent another 9/11, I’m for it.
If anyone is going to equate my views with the views of a terrorist, so be it.
They are very brave, I know that. Happy Thansgiving to everyone on the thread. Eileen, thank your nephew for their service. Nice to hear from you