« Dennis Miller on Nancy Pelosi's Tenure | Main | Reopening the Bush Playbook »

I Can Live With That

Well, remember all those promises Barack Obama made when he was running for president? In essence, he pledged to end the Bush model of the War On Terror and resume the Clinton model of law enforcement. Terrorists would be given fair trials, in civilian courts, with the full rights of the accused -- but don't worry, no matter what, they wouldn't ever be released.

Well, it looks like the Obama administration is looking at revising that policy, and certain key terrorists will simply be kept locked up, with no trials.

(One side point that should be brought up here: while there is a superficial resemblance between the Obama campaign and the Obama administration, they are entirely different creatures. One should not ever think to hold the administration accountable for the promises made by the campaign. Just because it's the same people saying much the same thing, they are not the same. Never forget that.)

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a few other key figures are to be "detained" indefinitely. They will not be given trials, civilian or military. They will not be granted the rights of the accused. They will not be allowed to confront their accusers. They will never face justice; they will be left in cells to rot -- possibly until they day they die of natural causes. Because the Obama administration simply can't find a way to reconcile its own promises and alleged ideals with the reality of modern terrorism.

Terrorism represents something that our system simply isn't set up to deal with. It represents a non-state organization taking on some of the roles traditionally reserved to a nation-state, and having access to weapons and means of destruction that for ages have been out of the grasp of any short of a nation-state. They combine elements of soldiers and criminals; they are waging war against us, but aren't bound by the rules of war. Meanwhile, they are committing crimes, but they lack the motives (and therefore ways of countering them) of criminals.

Plus, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was one of three Al Qaeda leaders that, as part of their interrogations, was waterboarded. Tossing them down a hole and forgetting about them avoids opening up that whole can of worms.

So, the Obama administration wants to do something that, by their own stated principles and beliefs (not to be compared to their conduct or ever actually used to hold them accountable), is probably worse than anything the Bush administration ever did with these guys?

I'm OK with that. I understand that, sometimes, ideals are a trap. That there are times when an absolute adherence to principle is a suicide game. That there are certain circumstances and people for which there is no easy answer.

To my way of thinking, the leaders of Al Qaeda have declared war against the United States (just ask them) and staunchly and fiercely refused to obey the laws of war. As such, they are utterly unprotected by any kind of legal protections or status, and are completely outside the law.

So, lock 'em up and throw away the key without benefit of trial? Sure.

The danger here is that it sets a precedent. It grants a tremendous power to the government -- to declare individuals as not entitled to Constitutional protections and act accordingly.

Which means that we, the people, need to watch this very carefully. We need to be certain that it is only used in the most extreme cases, against the worst of individuals who have committed the most heinous of acts, who have set themselves up as the equivalent of nation-states.

Three top Al Qaeda leaders so far? A good start.

It's rare for me to find a place where I can endorse the actions of the Obama administration. To my comfort, in this case it's a position they've backed themselves into, after trying pretty much every other alternative and failing. They didn't want to end up here, with me -- but here they are.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/40567.

Comments (43)

Ah, yes. That "Fierce mora... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Ah, yes. That "Fierce moral urgency of change" seems to be more like the fierce urgency of the expedient.

Wake up lefties. Barry never meant any of the crap that he promised. Sure he wants an authoritarian, socialist government, but not one that the American left will appreciate., They won't be so thankful for the police state that Barry would put in place if he could.

If he could Barry would turn the US into Venezuela. The left loves to suck up to Hugo Chavez and extol his accomplishments in Venezuela, but they don't seem to be flocking their to live under those conditions. Maybe it's the high unemployment, the crushing of press freedoms or the destruction of their industry.

Barry is in this for himself. He thinks that the world owes him to make him some exalted leader. It will be interesting to see if he accepts any removal from office.

No surprise you endorse the... (Below threshold)
galoob:

No surprise you endorse the statist authoritarian position.

I have no problems with military commissions if they are not total kangaroo courts.

Khalid Shaykh Mohammed should have been tried by military commission a long time ago, but the Bush administration dithered and fucked things up, as was its habit.

Now Obama has dithered and comes up with a solution - Not!

"the Bush administration di... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"the Bush administration dithered and fucked things"

Conveniently overlooking a certain court decision that required going to Congress for legislation.

As for the terrorist. Keeping them locked up 'forever'? No. Put them before a military tribunal. Where they found to have acted against the people and military forces of the United States. Kill them.

LOL!!!!eleventy!!T... (Below threshold)
Drago:

LOL!!!!eleventy!!

The NEW and IMPROVED lefty position and lefty historical record (which was just rewritten this morning in with near-perfect politburo form):

galoob:"I have no problems with military commissions if they are not total kangaroo courts."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

Hey galoob, it was just a little while ago when you and your pals were saying military commissions were absolutely out of the question and it was one of the reasons behind the lefty obambi slogan of "fierce moral urgency of change"!!! LOL

But wait, the lefty airbrushing of history gets EVEN BETTER!

galoob: "Khalid Shaykh Mohammed should have been tried by military commission a long time ago, but the Bush administration dithered and fucked things up, as was its habit."

But galoob, the LEFT HAS SUED the government to force full rights of citizenship for enemy combatants captured overseas while engaged in activities not in accord with the Geneva Convention (which is obvious, considering there aren't any terrorist groups as signatories to that agreement!!)

Now, NOW(!), now that our magical unicorn magic pixie dust-dispersing diversity hire has come to an obvious conclusion about this most obvious of situtations, it is now imperative for the minions of the left to burst forth with a "New, Approved History of What Actually Occurred and What Was Said By Whom" in order to protect the figure at the center of their cult of personality.

Absolutely predictable.

And laughable.

Since the advent of Algore's internet, the continuous attempted rewriting of history by the left has lost it's mojo.

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of basement-dwelling stalinists like galoob!

I now officially am anxious... (Below threshold)
Drago:

I now officially am anxiously awaiting for all those principled leftists (LOL, "principled leftists!") to take to the streets and the barricades to "speak truth to power" (LOL) and let obambi and li'l sheriff Joey B. know that they are now officially "War Criminals" (!) and that we are now in a moment of "Even Greater Fierce Moral Urgency of Change"!!

This is simply too rich to not enjoy to the fullest.

Wait until obambi caves on tax cuts!!

Where's that popcorn?

Got to be here somewhere.......

Conveniently overlooking... (Below threshold)
galoob:

Conveniently overlooking a certain court decision that required going to Congress for legislation.

Conveniently overlooking yourself that the court decision wouldn't have been an issue if the Bushies had not given a big FU to the law by trying to rig kangaroo courts and by not going to Congress in the first place for any variations in the UCMJ. The Bushies were arrogant pricks who didn't think the law applied to them, though.

You had military lawyers resigning and complaining that the Bushies were trying to make the trials like something under Stalin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrel_Vandeveld

Anyways, the Military Commissions Act was passed in 2006, what happened after that? Nothing.

After listening to the left... (Below threshold)
howcome:

After listening to the left bitch about GITMO and military commisions I am enjoying the ass kicking reality has given them. Theories work fine sitting around the conference table but in practice tend to fall apart. Welcome to the real reality based community.

LOL!!Hilarious!!</... (Below threshold)
Drago:

LOL!!

Hilarious!!

galoob: "Conveniently overlooking yourself that the court decision wouldn't have been an issue if the Bushies had not given a big FU to the law by trying to rig kangaroo courts and by not going to Congress in the first place for any variations in the UCMJ. The Bushies were arrogant pricks who didn't think the law applied to them, though."

Shorter galoob: please don't blame the diversity hire for his decisions and the decisions made by his administration, "It's Bushes Fault"!!!!!

Hilarious!!

I can't wait to see what galoob posts next!

Hey galoob, why aren't you protesting the war criminal obambi and his evil (though clearly incompetent) henchdude li'l sheriff joey B. policy?!!

Wait, let me guess. Since obambi's is a "person of color", is it really Western Civilization's fault for what he does?

BTW, I heard that li'l fidel in cuba is really upset about the results of the election.

Hmmmm, if I may paraphrase that paragon of logic stan2, "is there a correlation between the ideas and beliefs of the aging murderous communist dictator in Cuba and the standard-issue lefty like galoob"?

LOL!

Seriously?

"Bushes fault"?!

LOL

galoob: "You had military l... (Below threshold)
Drago:

galoob: "You had military lawyers resigning and complaining that the Bushies were trying to make the trials like something under Stalin."

Which the left, to a person, wholeheartedly supported at the time and some, (hint: Walter Duranty). Hollywood commies even made a movie whitewashing the trials. You might remember it: "Mission to Moscow".

So, you see, it's obvious that Bush was doing nothing remotely close to what a "Stalin" would do, because if he did, your side would have supported it!!! History says so! (at least, the history that your comrades have been unable to "rewrite")

But hang in there galoob!!! Hope yet springs eternal for you and your side!

How do I know that?

Because obambi told us so! The last election was not a referendum on obambi (according to obambi). Nope. It was just a generalized, no-one really singled-out, ho-hum election.

Hang in ther galoob.

You have to. Otherwise your current "friends" might label you a trotskyite....and we know what those famous leftists of yesteryear did to him, don't we?

Let's see, 'Bush's actions ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Let's see, 'Bush's actions were ILLEGAL'....so we're right back where we where when 'Bush's actions were illegal'.............

Yeah, your Obamassiah is a real legal wiz ain't he?

And that fountain of legal acumen, Holder, still can't decide what to do.

Stalin?Are you ser... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Stalin?

Are you serious?

The left adores stalin. I work with a bunch of lefties hat think Stalin was great. If they could the would elect him. They are right in there with the lefty goons who think we should make Barry a dictator (but just until he gets done what he needs to get done and then we can go back to whatever it is they think we have).

What the left is too immature to realize is that they are advocating for a government every bit as repressive, if not more so, than the worst of the soviet era. The problem is that they have this childlike belief that because they are on the left they won't be affected by the repression. They think that because they are on the left they won't have to stand in the bread lines. They won't have to wait for substandard health care. They won't be victims of an unaccountable bureaucracy.

The truth is that in the authoritarian world they advocate we are all going to be with the government's boot on our necks. They think that Barry reserves that just for BP and other corporate enemies. The boot is for all of us.

Speaking of Barry's "promis... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Speaking of Barry's "promises"....in other news today, 111 waivers have now been granted to companies to AVOID certain provisions of ObamaCare.

Some advice for galoob- "be... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Some advice for galoob- "be careful".

You wouldn't want to be labeled "disloyal" to obambi.

Wassat? You don't know why you might be considered disloyal to "The Won"?

I suggest you read todays online edition of The Hill and refer to Rep. Cleaver's warning to Sen McCaskill about any "missteps" (where "misstep" is defined as anything which might signal less than "lockstep" agreement with the diversity hire).

Stalinist indeed! LOL

Poor galoob. I say somethin... (Below threshold)

Poor galoob. I say something positive about Obama, and it sends him into such brainlock that he has to fall back on "blame Bush!!!!"

Obama made this a key point of his campaign, and he's had almost two years to do something. Anything. On this, on Guantanamo, on a bunch of things.

And he ain't.

Which I'm fine with. He was wrong in his campaigning, and reality is finally sinking in.

But not with galoob.

Why am I not surprised?

J.

The problem of course it is... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

The problem of course it is unconstitutional- to deny a person, any person even if tortured, a trial, civilian, or military -we haven't declared war. The President oath, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.", Obama should now amend with the important caveat, except when it could be a unpopular decision involving terrorist suspects.

America and Obama are not so exceptional afer all. As Glenn Greenwald states

The whole point of having a Constitution is that the Government is barred from doing certain things (e.g., depriving someone of liberty without due process of law) even when majorities demand it.

It is still not ultimately a country, when the most difficult chips come down, a country run not always by the rule of law, but a country where normally the tough decisons are punted for the next administration or Congress to deal with at. As I have said before Obama is "a safe pair of hands", for the establishment and conservatives not for liberals, anticipated, when he wouldn't permit investigations of abuses of power by the previous adminsitration.

crickmore: "As I have said ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

crickmore: "As I have said before Obama is "a safe pair of hands", for the establishment and conservatives not for liberals, anticipated, when he wouldn't permit investigations of abuses of power by the previous adminsitration."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.....

Seriously.

Isn't the left just "precious" right now?

Maybe, just maybe, "no, we can't". Or maybe, just maybe, crick and his pals really aren't "the ones we've been waiting for".

Also, how is it that non-citizen enemy combatants engaging in terrorist activities on battlefields distant from the US are suddenly have to have all the rights of an American citizen.

While simultaneously, the diversity hire and his admin are quite content to provide waivers to states who just can't quite make the deadlines to endure American servicemembers overseas get their ballots in time to vote?

Shorter version: full rights for foreign terrorists, not so much full rights for American servicemembers.........(of course, we remember how the left denigrates our servicemembers and calls them murderers simply carpet bombing innocents from the sky)

Hey crick, while we're at it, why don't we just let the foreign terrorists vote? After all, obambi and his pals happily accepted anonymous contributions from the Gaza Strip and other hotbeds of terrorism. Surely allowing these terrorists to vote is not such a leap for you guys.

"Surely allowing these terr... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Surely allowing these terrorists to vote is not such a leap for you guys."

Drago, please, don't give these idiots any ideas.
Next thing ya know, the whole reason for the terrorists actions is 'they can't vote, (sob)!.'

Drago, it is a slippery slo... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Drago, it is a slippery slope. I could say with with your logic, why bother giving any men, however horrible, rights to a trial wherever captured or arrested. Where do you draw the line? Presently they are only suspects. And don't you have to try them to pronounce them "guilty or not" and as the Supreme Court as already ruled military tribunals unacceptable to these men, because they weren't found on a battlefield and we didn't declare war. You probably prefer a Roman Colisseum style justice for any captured. Even they had the crowd decide the verdict and sentence.

If this Drago character was... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

If this Drago character wasn't such a hilarious, over-the-top caricature of a mouthfoaming nutjob, I might address his silly points, but since I don't intend to be held responsible for what every zealot on "the left" ever wrote, I won't get tangled up with him.

Instead I'll take this opportunity to once again chastise Jim M for his insistence that he, and only he, understands "lefties" better than they understand themselves. And that he must explain their thought processes to the rest of us.

What really makes this amusing is Jim's statement that he works with "a bunch of lefties that think Stalin was great."

Really? Do you really? You work with more than one person who has said to you, "I think Stalin was great."????

To quote one of your buddies here from another thread, "It's not that I don't believe you, Jim. It's that I don't believe you."

crickmore: "Drago, it is a ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

crickmore: "Drago, it is a slippery slope."

Yawn.


crickmore: "I could say with with your logic, why bother giving any men, however horrible, rights to a trial wherever captured or arrested."

Um, because per the Constitution, Constitutional rights need only apply to United States citizens or peoples on actual US territory. And certainly not terrorists acting as enemy combatants engaged against US troops abroad. (but there's the tricky part for the left: because, after all, to a lefty, if these terrorists are fighting against the US, how bad can they really be?)

Crickmore: "Where do you draw the line?"

See above

Crickmore: "Presently they are only suspects.

Um, no. They are foreign terrorists, in a non-Geneva Convention status, engaged in crimes against humanity on foreign battlefields. I realize that to you, that simply makes them potential democrat party donors and voters, but to everyone else, we don't much care for them or extending the full rights of US citizens to them.

Crickmore: "And don't you have to try them to pronounce them "guilty or not" and as the Supreme Court as already ruled military tribunals unacceptable to these men, because they weren't found on a battlefield and we didn't declare war."

And there it is. If a terrorist walks into a bazaar in Afghanistan with bomb and blows up everyone in sight, to little crickmore, he's just an innocent.

Further, what do you believe is meant by an "Authorization to Use Military Force"?

If you're Hillary, then, after the fact, when your pandering to the far left crazies, (like crickmore and galoob), then you simply say "I had no idea that when I voted in the affirmative for the Authorization to Use Military Force that it would lead to an authorization to use military force. (behold, the mind and iron-clad logic of the left)

crickmore: "You probably prefer a Roman Colisseum style justice for any captured. Even they had the crowd decide the verdict and sentence."

Yes, and you prefer that there be a Lubyanka prison in the US where you could simply put all conservatives who are considered too "anti-revolutionary", eh?

BTW, still waiting to hear from the left about how disappointed they are in the their pal Castro having ordered lobotomies performed on homosexuals in Cuba.

Nope. Not a word. That was perfectly acceptable. And remains so. And will always be so. Because, like crickmore here, the left doesn't believe in principles. Their "principles" are simply the talking points of the day towards obtaining greater power.

Nothing more.

Else we would already be seeing more protests against the now, almost uniform continuation of Bush war on terror policies authorized by obambi and sheriff joe.

bruce: "If this Drago chara... (Below threshold)
Drago:

bruce: "If this Drago character wasn't such a hilarious, over-the-top caricature of a mouthfoaming nutjob, I might address his silly points, but since I don't intend to be held responsible for what every zealot on "the left" ever wrote, I won't get tangled up with him."

Considering the dubious "quality" of your posts bruce, I do believe your chosen course of responsive action is indeed the most prudent one for you.

Lest your be further exposed and hilarious vacuity of your positions be more amply illustrated.

Press on brave little warrior. Press on.

Garand: "Drago, please, don... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Garand: "Drago, please, don't give these idiots any ideas.
Next thing ya know, the whole reason for the terrorists actions is 'they can't vote, (sob)!.'"

Garand, I kid you not, just yesterday there was a link on a popluar blog to the statement of a female muslim academic who actually tried to make the case that muslim "honor killings" was actually a reasonable result of the muslim response to Western Civilization.

I. Kid. You. Not.

Once again, there is nothing any entity/force on Earth can do that the left will not, in some hilarious and demented way, lay at the feet of the West/US/Israel/Western Civ.

Nothing.

bruce:"To quote one of your... (Below threshold)
Drago:

bruce:"To quote one of your buddies here from another thread, "It's not that I don't believe you, Jim. It's that I don't believe you.""

Hmmm, bruce's point is well taken Jim.

I mean, where on Earth would anyone get the idea that the left, ever, then or now, would ever support a stalin.....or Kim il Sung.....or Fidel Castro......or Che....or Ho Chi Minh.....or the Khmer Rouge.....or Daniel Ortega......or Maurice Bishop......or Hugo Chavez..... (you get the idea)

bruce #19): "Instead I'll t... (Below threshold)
Drago:

bruce #19): "Instead I'll take this opportunity to once again chastise Jim M for his insistence that he, and only he, understands "lefties" better than they understand themselves. And that he must explain their thought processes to the rest of us."

crickmore (#18):"You probably prefer a Roman Colisseum style justice for any captured."

brucie chastisement of crickmore (for the sake of consistency and iron-clad priciples) in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1,...........

Miitary commissions might ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Miitary commissions might do but as Judge Andrew Napolitano points out in an LA Times op-ed, military tribunals are only legal with a declaration of war by Congress, not because Bush is the wartime commander-in-chief. That is what the Supreme Cout ruled, High Court Rejects Detainee Tribunals
5 to 3 Ruling Curbs President's Claim Of Wartime Power

This is what Justice Holmes called "the costs of civilzation".

You should be in good mood Drago like Jay Tea. But eventually someone will have to deal with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Wasn't he the one who was waterboarded 183 times in one month? Doesn't sound like a very effective form of interrogation, just torture which is why no one wants to try him. It would be a public relations disaster for the US. Hard to believe since he was allegedly the mastermind of 9/11. You would think many of the public would like to see him in court?

crickmore: "But eventually ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

crickmore: "But eventually someone will have to deal with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."

Hilarious!

The only "dealing with KSM" your side will allow is his eventual release, a book deal, talk show appearances all followed up with tenured faculty position at Berkeley.

crickmore: "Wasn't he the one who was waterboarded 183 times in one month? Doesn't sound like a very effective form of interrogation, just torture which is why no one wants to try him."

He does not deserve a trial.

I realize that his role as a mastermind in the murder of thousands of Americans (aka "little Eichmans" to lefties like you), means he should already have been executed.

But he won't be.

Because of you and your pals.

You won't be happy until he's a ward boss getting out the democrat vote in Dearborn.

crickmore: "It would be a public relations disaster for the US."

Not possible, since you and every other lefty told us that electing the diversity hire to the Presidency already took care of that.

Unless you were lying then. Or perhaps now. Which is it, I wonder...

crickmore: "Hard to believe since he was allegedly the mastermind of 9/11. You would think many of the public would like to see him in court?"

Yes steve, "many".....non-leftists. Unfortunately, the left would not like to see him in court. The left thinks we are to blame.

"Allegedly".

Hilarious!

Of course, to the left, it is a revealed truth that Bush I worked with Reagan and the Ayatollah to keep the hostages in place until after Reagan was elected and it is another revealed truth on the left that Bush II was "MIHOP"/"LIHOP" kind of guy.

But a terrorist who actually conspires in the actual murder of thousands of Americans? "Allegedly"

Behold, the mind of the left.

Even more hilarious--... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Even more hilarious--

crickmore: "Miitary commissions might do but as Judge Andrew Napolitano points out in an LA Times op-ed, military tribunals are only legal with a declaration of war by Congress, not because Bush is the wartime commander-in-chief."

Uh, then it can't be true.

You see, Judge Napolitano works for "faux" news. And the left has lectured us ad nauseum that everything on fox news is to be ignored, disregarded, looked down upon.

So, you'll have to do better than that steve.

Steve, that's a hell of a l... (Below threshold)

Steve, that's a hell of a lot of waterboarding. That's like six times a day.

Until you actually read the report, and the 183 total is "number of pours." That's like describing a beating by the number of punches thrown.

It's more like this:

"Hey, KSM, wanna talk?" Splash. "How about now?" Splash. "OK, how about now?" Splash. "Now? OK, take him back to his cell until this afternoon."

Woo hoo. I just tortured him three times.

J.

Watching the agonies of the... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Watching the agonies of the leftists trying to twist their positions around to suit reality is small compensation for the incompetent, stupid, arrogant Administration they sold us.

How stupid and gullible were the people who EVER believed the empty suit Obama was qualified anyway? Heck, the guy had no convincing argument to be reelected to the Senate, much less higher office.

But the leftists hated America enough to do this to us. Never forget it.

One day, we'll return some patriot to power and Mohammed will be dealt with. Not with the hero's parade these leftists want to give him, though.

These were more than just s... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

These were more than just splashes. According to the May 30, 2005 Bradbury Justice memo, the original report of this amount of waterboarding came from the CIA's Inspector General Report, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003.

I don't really care who someone works for, it is the argument itself. For the time being, I will accept judge Napollitan is perhaps making the war argument too strong in pleading his case, in this grey area. We are in somewhat uncharted waters, another reason for Obama punting. Hey, but it has been over nine years since 9/11, you would think we could have some sort of trial with the ringleader /mastermind (you know) like in the interests of closure which everyone talks of, for the victims and country.


How is that GITMO closing w... (Below threshold)
retired military:

How is that GITMO closing working for you Creekmore?

Obama is president of the U... (Below threshold)
John:

Obama is president of the United States he is commander in cheif he is the final authority over the GITMO facility. If he were not a political coward he would fulfil his promise to close GITMO and give the terrorist there trials in US courts. At this point it's not Bush's issue anymore it's Obama's he's making a fool of himself.

crickmore: "I don't really ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

crickmore: "I don't really care who someone works for, it is the argument itself."

Then you are sole lefty exception to the alinskyite rules that the left has been playing by since the late 1960's.

beyond parody:cric... (Below threshold)
Drago:

beyond parody:

crickmore: " Hey, but it has been over nine years since 9/11, you would think we could have some sort of trial with the ringleader /mastermind (you know) like in the interests of closure which everyone talks of, for the victims and country.

"..in the interests of closure..."

Seriously now. "closure".

There is no closure steve. Because the battle is ongoing.

And your side, to a large degree, is objectively on their side.

The modern left has finally found a religion it can get behind.

The reason?

The same reason the left has been an active and vocal defender of every regime that has aligned itself against the free West.

Hey steve, a significant percentage of radical islamist supremecists want you to submit or die.

An even more significant percentage of a very large muslim population around the world quietly supports them.

An even more disturbingly significant percentage of this very large muslim population around the world is neutral on the matter.

Unfortunately, an all too small percentage of the muslim world is actively engaged in attempting to modernize the radical islam so it can leave the intellectual confines of the 6th century.

But hey, go ahead, lapse into Dr Phil mode in your quixotic quest for "closure".

Best of luck with that.

"..in the interests of clos... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"..in the interests of closure..."

So your Obamassiah CANCELS the sentencing of KSM after he already pled guilty. BECAUSE HE WANTED A SHOW TRIAL.

Hmmmm...........

Just like Barry's DOJ CANCELED the Black Panther case.

Maybe THE ONE isn't interested in "closure".

Dear Drago,"The sa... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Dear Drago,

"The same reason the left has been an active and vocal defender of every regime that has aligned itself against the free West."

What happens when the "free West" takes the side of an authoritarian regime instead of siding with democracy? The problem with your argument is that the "west" doesn't always side with "freedom" per se. See Guatemala 1954 for Exhibit A. And didn't THAT choice lead to some fantastic consequences--aka 40 something years of violence in Guatemala. Ya, that was a great plan, wasn't it? So now what, Drago?

But to your credit I agree with you that far too many people are way too willing to give folks like Chavez and Castro a free pass because they are on "the left." I have had my share of run-ins with people who laud communism yet conveniently forget about the details of Stalin's actions. Either that or they're just ignorant about history, which is never as ideologically clear cut as the polemics would have us all believe. News flash: violent repression happens all across the political spectrum--see Pinochet for one side, Castro for the other.

Just a general question for... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Just a general question for those of you who are talking about the rule of law, human rights, and such:

So where do our ideals begin and end? Do they stop at our borders? Are "all men created equal," or was that just a nice sounding phrase?

Also, if we just drop the rule of law when it's inconvenient, what happens when we grab the wrong person? What happens when someone is misidentified? What happens when people abuse their position of power?

I think it's a very slippery slope when we start talking about ditching ideals about law and rights. Why? Because that opens up room for all kinds of corruption and abuse of power. As I see it, the true goal is to avoid completely losing our humanity in all of this.

Ryan a........Alinsky would... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Ryan a........Alinsky would be proud of you.

GarandFan,For what... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

GarandFan,

For what?

Pointing out the fact that the "west" doesn't always side with "freedom"?

Or pointing out that some fools on the left make excuses for the likes of Chavez and Castro?

Or was it my question about rights and law?

If you have a point, make it. But if all you have are regurgitated points that you borrow from TV, save em because I really don't care about starting little political bickering matches. I am definitely always willing and open to listening to different points of view--I am not all that interested in low level internet trash talk. It's really not all that interesting, if you ask me. You've seen me around here--and you know that I am willing to be respectful and listen. Feel free to do the same.

"If you have a point, make ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"If you have a point, make it."

#4 Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

Sounds simple. Even Alinsky knew that every rule probably had an exception somewhere. But the exception was not to be allowed.

The "rule of law" sounds fine. Until it's applied in a way you don't approve. What is your option then? Change the law? What IF the courts back the law. Revolt? If you revolt, are you not then casting aside 'the rule of law'?

Do you take umbrage with the "Dred Scott Decision"? Why? It was 'the rule of law'.

See where I'm going? We live in an imperfect world. And NEWS FLASH! it never will be perfect. We muddle along as best we can. Fall down. Get up.

There was a time when "outlaw" meant just that. You were "outside the law". Back to the original thread. Far as I'm concerned, the terrorists are 'outside the law'. When captured, kill them.

GarandFan:"The "ru... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

GarandFan:

"The "rule of law" sounds fine. Until it's applied in a way you don't approve. What is your option then? Change the law? What IF the courts back the law. Revolt? If you revolt, are you not then casting aside 'the rule of law'?"

Good point. Laws are created and maintained by groups of people in positions of power. Just because something is law by no means guarantees that it's fair, just, or morally right. Yet another reason why any democracy needs an active, participating populace.

"See where I'm going? We live in an imperfect world. And NEWS FLASH! it never will be perfect. We muddle along as best we can. Fall down. Get up."

I completely agree. But that doesn't mean that we should just call upon certain ideals only when they're convenient. Yes, idealism has its limits--but that doesn't mean we need to ditch basic principles in the face of danger. No need to let fear completely distort our historic reliance on liberty, equality, and justice.

"There was a time when "outlaw" meant just that. You were "outside the law". Back to the original thread. Far as I'm concerned, the terrorists are 'outside the law'. When captured, kill them."

Ok, so they're outside the law, and you think they should all be captured and shot. Fine. So if there is no systemic process in place, what keep this system from corruption? Do you really think that summary executions are the best way to go? What happens when innocent people are captured, and there is no recourse? Tough sh*t for them? It sounds like you are pushing for some form of "wild west" model, where there basically is no law. Yes, terrorists are "outlaws," to say the least. But then, so are domestic terrorists and murderers that commit crimes within our borders--and they are still subject to our system of justice, law, and punishment. There are reasons why we have this system in place, and I think that creating exceptions--especially based upon fear--sets a bad precedent.

"Ok, so they're outside the... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Ok, so they're outside the law, and you think they should all be captured and shot. Fine. So if there is no systemic process in place, what keep this system from corruption?"

There was a system put in place. But our "Constitutional Scholar" and the ACLU felt it was not 'enough'. (See Alinksy)

Of course they have yet to outline what is "enough". They enjoy moving the goal post.

Drago, I don't buy closure,... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Drago, I don't buy closure, even more than other cliche vogue word iconic; it's just that people love to use with it it suits their point of view. The topic all seems depressing, keep someone in limbo, because his crime his too heinous, or his rights were violated-he was extensively tortured or any combination thereof. This from a country that pushed for the Nuremburg trials against the reservations of our European allies ie the British who wanted more restricted trials.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy