Are We at War -- or Not?

[PJABBER]

OP: This country is not at war. People go about their lives, do their daily things, and nothing has changed. We don't feel it, we barely notice it. The only people who are really impacted are those in the armed services. We are not a nation at war, we're a military at war.

There are many that would disagree with you, for soldiers have families. There are many who would disagree with you, for many have served out of any uniform. There are many that would disagree with you, for they know the cost of the battle and the cost of the war.

That so many do not know, means the battle is not over, nor is the war won.

******************

Visiting Maj. Nidal Hasan's Hospital
Chuck Norris
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

While the military still is reeling and recovering from the massacre at Fort Hood, my wife, Gena, and I decided to boost the morale of military personnel by visiting the cadets at West Point and the wounded warriors at Brooke Army Medical Center, at Fort Sam Houston. Little did I know that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the shooter at Fort Hood, was hospitalized there.

The day before Veterans Day, we visited West Point. We were amazed by its pristine and picturesque setting, 50 miles north of New York City on the Hudson River. It was also fascinating to learn more about the academy's history. From the day of its founding, March 16, 1802, West Point has produced some of our country's greatest leaders, including Grant and Lee, Pershing and MacArthur, Eisenhower and Patton, Schwarzkopf and Petraeus, etc.

It was inspiring to watch the cadets' unyielding commitment to develop their minds, bodies and spirits. It was also a joy to see this international Corps of Cadets take a little time even to have fun with my tough-guy image and reputation. For example, one of the senior cadets, named Taylor, had a picture of me in a frame but with his name inscribed underneath it. A French cadet with a very heavy accent spoke on behalf of other French comrades and read aloud this Chuck Norris "fact": "When an episode of 'Walker, Texas Ranger' was aired in France, the French surrendered to Chuck Norris just to be on the safe side." He then followed it up by stating, "We'll surrender if you take a photo with me and my fellow French cadets!" Of course, I obliged.

There are few words to express the awe and inspiration Gena and I felt as we spent the day with the cadets at West Point. As I sat speaking to a large group of them for about 45 minutes, I was taken aback by their resoluteness and willingness to grow. Guided by the academy's timeless motto, "Duty, Honor, Country," their passion, discipline and fortitude for building the next generation of leaders was vividly clear and renews my hope for America's future.

We were equally inspired a couple of days later, when we went out to Brooke Army Medical Center to visit with America's wounded warriors. How can one put into words the pride one feels around these brave men and women? Despite the loss of limbs or suffering from some other sacrifice in battle, their resolve and class were off the charts. They were enthusiastic and grateful about our visit, but it was my wife and I who were truly blessed and inspired by them.

Then came a moment that would have been completely surreal if it had not been a staggering reality. As we were visiting the burn unit, we discovered that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the shooter at Fort Hood who murdered 13 and wounded another 30, was being treated in the same facility. To be honest, it made me sick to my stomach and sent shivers of disgust down my spine.

If ever I have experienced a polar opposite, it was in the moment when I was thinking about how Hasan is the sheer antithesis to the character, commitment and service of all the other men and women we met at West Point and Fort Sam Houston. I was equally moved by the civic servants and military medical staff, many of whom knew victims of this assassin yet turned immediately around and became his caregivers. They are exemplary models of the patriot and Founding Father Thomas Paine, who said, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that (eventually) will reach himself."

We also visited Brooke Army Medical Center two years ago and recall meeting a young soldier by the name of David, who had just been flown in from Iraq and was in the intensive care unit suffering from burns that covered more than 90 percent of his body. Two years later, David came walking down the hospital corridor to greet us. We were overjoyed to see him again, and we could tell that he felt the same seeing us, though his gravely burned face was not able to muster even a smile. We again shared some choice, heartfelt moments with David. I couldn't help but say to him, "David, you are absolutely one of the toughest soldiers I have ever met." Even then, he tried to smile as he quipped, "Tougher than Chuck Norris?" "Yes," I replied. "You're much, much tougher than I am!"

It's in times like these that I'm also grateful for military chaplains and the work of men like retired Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell, who was burned on more than 60 percent of his body when hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 collided into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. After more than 30 surgeries, Birdwell now uses his life to bring hope to others (FaceTheFire.org). His story also is told on pages 42 and 43 in my friend Randy Alcorn's latest best-seller (which provides help for those struggling through pain and difficulty), "If God Is Good," a copy of which I will be sending to David along with Birdwell's book, "Refined by Fire." My hope is that Birdwell also drops by to visit David when his very speaking schedule takes him again by Fort Sam Houston.

The night before we left for Brooke Army Medical Center, our 8-year-old twins drew pictures and wrote encouraging letters on their own initiative and asked us to give them to wounded warriors. Gena gave my daughter's letter to David. He reached out and received it with his two bandaged and handless arms and then read the letter (in my daughter's own writing and phonetic spelling, I might add):

Dear Solger:

I am very sorry you are hurt, but thank you for helping our contry. I'm going into military school just like you guys did. I hope you guys get better.

Your friend, Danilee

As the Scripture says, "From the mouths of children and infants, you have created perfect praise."

**************

Many think I am one tough hombre. I cried for my friends and compatriots who have died or were wounded as I read Danilee's note.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course I can rely on you and your friends for the ad hominem attacks! I would rather consider the substance, and, honestly, the validity of what is being said. And do not think that I do not recognize some of the irony. It amuses me so.

Remember when I tried to teach you how to evaluate source material? Guess it didn't work huh. If you are ever interested in learning how to construct an argument, I will honestly teach you. (I'm serious)

I'm willing to let go of the blame for you up to this point as maybe you just never learned better, but beyond this you're just being willfully ignorant. I can point you to a whole bunch of free online courses that will show you how to construct an argument, how to understand what you're reading, and how to evaluate it for bias. Your posts would be vastly improved by just a few minutes of middle school level coursework.

 

[werepossum]

Part of the problem is that on one really knows if we are at war. Nothing in the Constitution spells out exactly what declaring war entails. Is it simply Congress authorizing use of force, or do we actually have to say the magic words? And even with the magic words can a country even declare war on a tactic?

If Congress had actually passed a simple resolution stating something like "We declare that a state of war exists between the United States of America and al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups, and authorize the President to use the United States Armed Forces for this purpose" then at least we would know where we stand. But Congress is mostly lawyers, and lawyers hate to say anything that doesn't have a mile of wiggle room.

As it is, we are faced with prosecuting KSM and similar people in civil court, which is patently absurd. They should have been given military trials in reasonable time. Now we have multiple problems - use of the military in civilian law enforcement, lack of a speedy trial, lack of Miranda rights, repeated interrogation without counsel, use of techniques that are arguably torture and certainly not allowed for civilian suspects, testimony from persons will not or can not appear for cross-examination, use of information obtained without warrants. We either let these people walk - and attack us again - or we establish precedent that this kind of behavior is allowed for civilian suspects. Not to mention, can we still hold prisoners of war at all? If Kalid Sheik Mohammed deserves a civilian trial or release, why the hell would some Talibani or Iraqi draftee deserve less? Is war for the USA to become another catch-n-release program like border enforcement?

This is going to be a nightmare, but Holder and Obama will be able to use this trial and others like it to spend months if not years bashing Bush, his administration, the military, and the CIA with the full and enthusiastic support of the defense. Probably they'll gin up enough outrage to support prosecuting many of them in turn, perhaps even Bush.

 

[ebaycj]

C'mon, Lemony, the U.S. has avoided getting attacked by taking the battle against terrorists to their home hunting grounds.

It is truly sad that you believe this.

 

[Arkaign]

It is truly sad that you believe this.

It's a good thing we also took it to the Vietnamese over there as well! Otherwise we would have been fighting them in San Francisco!

 

[werepossum]

It's a good thing we also took it to the Vietnamese over there as well! Otherwise we would have been fighting them in San Francisco!

Yeah, I remember when the North Vietnamese attacked the United States in, um . . . How is this analogous again? In one situation we were fighting to preserve a partition of a country's freedom; in the other we are fighting people who directly attacked us and killed 3,000 Americans. The analogy seems a bit - nonexistent.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

You want to us to take seriously comments from Yoo? The guy you made up opinions for Bush to break the law? And who may be disbarred for misconduct in writing those opinions? You are kidding right? He has a personal interest in this, which doesn't make him reliable. And given that OPR is investigating him, that doesn't help either. What's next, quoting Cheney as objective information?

And to your original misguided post, is it so hard to try someone in court, according to our laws? Are you afraid of our laws somehow?

Good post from Glen Grenwald:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/14/terrorism/index.html

You will note that many countries have managed to try and convict terrorists over the years without their country being invaded or their entire civilization falling apart. Perhaps you don't know what you are talking about, or are trying to overstate the drama?

Spain, India, Indonesia, UK, and even Israel have no problem with trying terrorists in front of their judges and applying their countries rule of law.

So why are all the neocons afraid of it happening here? What a bunch of chickenshits.

Still waiting on jabber-blabber to explain why he is so afraid to follow many other countries lead on prosecuting terrorists in our court system. What are you afraid of?

 

[PJABBER]

Part of the problem is that on one really knows if we are at war. Nothing in the Constitution spells out exactly what declaring war entails. Is it simply Congress authorizing use of force, or do we actually have to say the magic words? And even with the magic words can a country even declare war on a tactic?

If Congress had actually passed a simple resolution stating something like "We declare that a state of war exists between the United States of America and al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups, and authorize the President to use the United States Armed Forces for this purpose" then at least we would know where we stand. But Congress is mostly lawyers, and lawyers hate to say anything that doesn't have a mile of wiggle room.

As it is, we are faced with prosecuting KSM and similar people in civil court, which is patently absurd. They should have been given military trials in reasonable time. Now we have multiple problems - use of the military in civilian law enforcement, lack of a speedy trial, lack of Miranda rights, repeated interrogation without counsel, use of techniques that are arguably torture and certainly not allowed for civilian suspects, testimony from persons will not or can not appear for cross-examination, use of information obtained without warrants. We either let these people walk - and attack us again - or we establish precedent that this kind of behavior is allowed for civilian suspects. Not to mention, can we still hold prisoners of war at all? If Kalid Sheik Mohammed deserves a civilian trial or release, why the hell would some Talibani or Iraqi draftee deserve less? Is war for the USA to become another catch-n-release program like border enforcement?

This is going to be a nightmare, but Holder and Obama will be able to use this trial and others like it to spend months if not years bashing Bush, his administration, the military, and the CIA with the full and enthusiastic support of the defense. Probably they'll gin up enough outrage to support prosecuting many of them in turn, perhaps even Bush.

Great analysis, werepossum.

Shhh! Are there any lawyers left in the room? No? Good!

Let's consider the possible motivations for pursuing civil trials, rather than a strict recounting of the legal tangle - political, ideological and strategic.

Decisions such as this occur at many levels, but the buck stops at the President's desk and it was he who decided to pursue this course when he could have chosen other courses.

No matter the overriding motivation, we will never know for sure, we now face the consequences of the decision and can only hope it results in minimal damage.

*******************

Civil Trials for Jihadists and Obama's Third World Vision for America
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, November 17, 2009

I can think of a number of motives President Barack Obama might have for his egregious decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other high-profile al-Qaida terrorists to New York for trial in our civil courts. Regardless of which motives apply, one thing is clear: Our enemy is at war against us while we are in a suicidal, 9/10 state of denial.

I've heard at least three possible reasons for his decision, which fall into the categories of political, ideological and strategic, respectively. These motives are by no means mutually exclusive and are overlapping.

My friend Andy McCarthy, at National Review Online, emphasizes: "The decision ... is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious." Andy surmises that these proceedings will put the Bush administration on trial, giving the anti-war left, Obama's base, "its promised feast." The left's "shock troops, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights," will add each new disclosure to "the purported war-crimes case they are urging foreign courts to bring against President Bush, his subordinates, and U.S. intelligence agents." Andy's analysis is difficult to refute.

Another bright friend of mine doesn't dispute Obama's political motivations but calculates that in the end, though appeasing the hard left, his strategy will end up costing him dearly because of the national security nightmare (and public backlash) it will generate -- a scenario Andy McCarthy himself thoroughly lays out with foreboding. Given the inevitable and foreseeable blowback awaiting Obama, my other friend reasons that Obama has decided to do it because he is a true believer. That is, it's not just a matter of feeding his base. He is his base. He is a hard-left anti-war ideologue. Again, I would be hard-pressed to poke holes in this assessment.

Then we also have to consider as a motivating factor Obama's stunningly naive belief that by being solicitous toward Islam and overly kind to terrorists, we can convince them that we are good people after all and not an enemy they should attack. That Obama harbors this belief is scarcely deniable. His various statements on American foreign and domestic policy reveal his conviction that America's past behavior and attitude, up until the precise nanosecond he was inaugurated, have contributed to our unpopularity in the world and served as a terrorist-recruiting impetus throughout the world.

If we hadn't been so "arrogant, sometimes dismissive," if we hadn't initiated "wars of choice," if we hadn't been imperialistic and "unilateralist," if we hadn't avariciously consumed a disproportionate measure of the world's resources, the world wouldn't look upon us with disfavor, and maybe even Islamic terrorism itself would be but a couple of isolated footnotes in an otherwise peaceful world. Included in Obama's convoluted mindset is the notion that we are not engaged in a war, but confronted with a knotty law enforcement challenge.

Obama is Mirandizing captured Taliban on the battlefields in Afghanistan, has deliberately substituted "overseas contingency operations" for "war on terror" and "man-caused disasters" for "acts of terrorism," and refuses even to acknowledge that the "Allahu akbar"-screaming Nidal Malik Hasan was engaged in an act of Islamic jihad in the Fort Hood massacre.

Considering this background, Obama surely believes, as patently ludicrous as this is, that affording American citizen-level constitutional protections to the worst of the worst will have a placatory effect on Islamists and potential Islamists, reversing some of the antipathy they have toward the United States and thus enhancing our national security. Yes, I'm sure Obama's tolerance will make jihadists, who are disposed to commit man-caused disasters, think long and hard about evening the score against us for our past "wrongs."

To me, that's the crux of it. The theme that rages through all these interrelated motivations is Obama's firm belief that pre-Obama America was, on balance, not a very admirable nation. Thus, we see his obsession to wreak "transformative," catastrophic change at all levels, presto chango, making us an admirable nation overnight.

But his policies across the board are devastatingly irresponsible to the best interests of this nation, from intentionally bankrupting us while pretending to have become a deficit hawk to dismantling our defenses while painting a bull's-eye on the very heart of America for terrorist exploitation.

At this point, it has become clear that to say it's wrong to root for Obama's agenda to fail is to say it's right to root for America's failure, unless, perhaps, your worldview leads you to believe that America will succeed only by emulating a Third World nation.

 

[Arkaign]

Yeah, I remember when the North Vietnamese attacked the United States in, um . . . How is this analogous again? In one situation we were fighting to preserve a partition of a country's freedom; in the other we are fighting people who directly attacked us and killed 3,000 Americans. The analogy seems a bit - nonexistent.

True enough in some respects, but the logic of 'keeping America safe' by fighting an enemy overseas is faulty unless two things have been established :

(1)- An identifiable enemy that is dedicated and able to cause notable harm to our country

and

(2)- A credible plan of attack and the necessary budget and resources to take the enemy out where they are

Let's use those standards on Vietnam and our two current conflicts :

Vietnam. Fails #1, fails #2. Super epic fail, although I can appreciate some of the logic of the 'domino theorists' who thought that communism would continue to spread, even if it's been disproven over the decades.

Iraq. Fails #1, fails #2. All we managed to do was screw up an already screwed up country even more, with superfluous wasting of lives and money. *sigh*

Afghanistan. Passes #1, fails #2. I supported the Afghan mission utterly in the beginning, but the elephant in the room has always been the fact that our true enemy over there did not (and does not) view the Afghan/Pakistan border as anything at all. They seemlessly pour back and forth, and with no way of taking a significant boots-on-the-ground + infrastructure / stability approach on BOTH sides of the border, it's absolutely utterly unwinnable. Even if we could magically ERASE every single hostile in the entire Afghan country, the day we left the Afghans to themselves the Taliban/AQ in over the border would just pour back in.

 

[DealMonkey]

Why didn't Bush & Co figure out a way to deal with these enemy combatants during their 6+ years in which they could have put a process in place? Instead, we have these idiot jihadists in limbo ad nauseum. At least trying them in civil court will get us one step closer to dealing with them and closing down Gitmo. And the alternative seems to be letting the status quo remain quo. NOT a solution, not by any means.

 

[PJABBER]

Still waiting on jabber-blabber to explain why he is so afraid to follow many other countries lead on prosecuting terrorists in our court system. What are you afraid of?

The Illiterati continue to respond!

I already mentioned above that I, personally, do not wish the nation to undergo the travesty of a show trial and I most definitely do not want hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to fund such a project that will likely be nothing more than a propaganda show for al-Qaeda and the anti-Bush crowd, while disclosing classified and sensitive information to our enemies.

 

[DealMonkey]

Remember too, that we've tried Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called "21st hijacker") in civil court and the world didn't f'ing end, did it?

 

[PJABBER]

Remember too, that we've tried Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called "21st hijacker") in civil court and the world didn't f'ing end, did it?

Not quite the same circumstance in that Moussaoui was on American soil at the time of arrest. Thanks for the reference, though, as it brings back memories of how screwed up the "law enforcement" approach was in those days before 9/11.

From Wiki -

"...On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI and INS agents in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation. Materials itemized when he was arrested included a laptop computer, two knives, flight manuals pertaining to Boeing's 747 aircraft, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.

Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down. FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further search attempts similarly failed.

FBI watchdog Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican-Iowa, later wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller:

"If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward, agents would have found information in Moussaoui's belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian al-Qaida boss who had met with at least two other hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials."

Court proceedings

On December 11, 2001, Moussaoui was indicted by a federal grand jury in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on six felony charges: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy, conspiracy to destroy aircraft, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiracy to murder United States employees, and conspiracy to destroy property. The indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui named as unindicted co-conspirators Ramzi Bin al-Shibh and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, among others, for their role in the attack "to murder thousands of innocent people in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania."

**************

Many of us said, never again. Years later, we now have the soft and gentle touch of Obama and the One Party Congress fully lapsed into amnesia.

 

[Lemon law]

Let me put it to PJABBER in words he can perhaps understand.

Given the fact that we are stuck in two quagmires, we can continue to think in your your logical terms, or we can realize that getting out of those quagmires without a total loss requires some better logic you seem clueless about.

 

[werepossum]

Why didn't Bush & Co figure out a way to deal with these enemy combatants during their 6+ years in which they could have put a process in place? Instead, we have these idiot jihadists in limbo ad nauseum. At least trying them in civil court will get us one step closer to dealing with them and closing down Gitmo. And the alternative seems to be letting the status quo remain quo. NOT a solution, not by any means.

I think they believed that SCOTUS, having once dodged the issue, would continue to dodge it. Also I think they saw an advantage in having the terrorists as perpetual detainees; it eliminates the possibility of them receiving a sentence other than death or life imprisonment, and it keeps them available and qualified for repeated interrogation as you learn new information and thus new questions to ask. Certainly this was a major screw-up of the Bush administration.

Either these people had to be ruled prisoners of war (and thus entitled to Geneva convention protections even though neither side is a signatory - but not subject to trial except under UN jurisdiction for specific crimes), or ruled as non-uniformed and unlawful combatants (and thus entitled to no Geneva convention protections, but still entitled to a reasonably speedy military trial or tribunal under wartime conventions), or ruled civilian criminals (and thus entitled to be immediately turned over to civilian authorities for civilian trial.) By intentionally keeping their status undetermined, Bush et al set the course for SCOTUS to step in and define their status.

Oftimes attempting to eat your cake and have it too just results in inedible cake.

Moussaoui was arrested by civilian authorities; turning him over to military justice would have required defining al Qaeda as a military belligerent. Although Moussaoui himself could still have been prosecuted militarily and put to death, Bush was (I'm guessing) unwilling to be boxed into a corner by defining the role of al Qaeda and its fighters. And thus, he set the stage for SCOTUS to define it.

 

[Arkaign]

Remember too, that we've tried Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called "21st hijacker") in civil court and the world didn't f'ing end, did it?

Also, we tried the douchenozzle Timothy McVeigh for his parts in the OKC mass murder terrorist attack, and he was convicted and put to death.

I think we play into the hands of the AQ/Jihad types when we even indirectly elevate them to the status of something to be at 'war' with. They are not warriors. They are cowards, they are murderers, they are criminals, and they have totally lost the plot. What's more, they're pretty damned impotent in comparison to the absolutely immense threats we've faced against peace in the past century : Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the communist expansion era of the Soviets and Chinese from the '50s into the '80s. Both in real terms and in measured risk, the grandest dreams of these criminals and murderers such as KSM are absolutely pathetic in comparison. The real threats have murdered hundreds of millions, and could well have killed billions (global thermonuclear war with USSR would undoubtedly have done so), while these pissant jackoffs can't even eclipse a minor natural disaster, or a week's worth of cancer victims. I'm not discounting the horror and tragedy of losing anyone to cold-blooded murderers such as these, but let's not give them the honor of calling them anything like a real combatant, lawful or otherwise. They are scum criminal murderers, and should be hunted down, tried, convicted, and executed for their crimes.

 

[werepossum]

True enough in some respects, but the logic of 'keeping America safe' by fighting an enemy overseas is faulty unless two things have been established :

(1)- An identifiable enemy that is dedicated and able to cause notable harm to our country

and

(2)- A credible plan of attack and the necessary budget and resources to take the enemy out where they are

Let's use those standards on Vietnam and our two current conflicts :

Vietnam. Fails #1, fails #2. Super epic fail, although I can appreciate some of the logic of the 'domino theorists' who thought that communism would continue to spread, even if it's been disproven over the decades.

Iraq. Fails #1, fails #2. All we managed to do was screw up an already screwed up country even more, with superfluous wasting of lives and money. *sigh*

Afghanistan. Passes #1, fails #2. I supported the Afghan mission utterly in the beginning, but the elephant in the room has always been the fact that our true enemy over there did not (and does not) view the Afghan/Pakistan border as anything at all. They seemlessly pour back and forth, and with no way of taking a significant boots-on-the-ground + infrastructure / stability approach on BOTH sides of the border, it's absolutely utterly unwinnable. Even if we could magically ERASE every single hostile in the entire Afghan country, the day we left the Afghans to themselves the Taliban/AQ in over the border would just pour back in.

Viet Nam was I think an honest attempt to preserve freedom for some little brown men. In the end, not enough little brown men cared a rat's ass which group of corrupt politicians took their rice for it to succeed. I don't think that Viet Nam ever presented any real threat to the USA because communism, like any form of slavery, is inherently limiting in production.* It is arguable that the wealth diverted from Viet Nam to Red China or the USSR strengthened our main threats, but I doubt either has even to date received anything like what they expended to take it.

Iraq I think is a clear victory for us. It now has some form of democracy, and Hussein is no longer a symbol that the USA can be resisted and beaten. (UBL remains such a symbol, but a symbol ruling a country is much more potent than one hiding in caves.) Whether it's a Pyrrhic victory - ask me in ten or twenty years.

Afghanistan - some battles have to be fought. We could have hunkered down, locked down our borders, and ignored the attack, but neither party is willing to even consider that possibility. Had we ignored such a high profile, successful attack we would have lost all respect in Muslim lands, leading to an huge increase in attacks. (What leader is going to go against the Islamic terrorists - who will attempt to kill you if crossed - to protect an infidel giant that they know will not attack them in return?) To achieve lasting victory we have to build an Afghan government strong enough to withstand the terrorists, something similar to Pakistan probably, though even more Islamic in nature. That's a daunting task in a country that has never known a strong central government. We have one big advantage though - the Taliban has to rely on bases in Pakistan. Moving back and forth they are quite vulnerable if we have the right intel assets and enough forces and striking power. If we truly can't win in Afghanistan, though, we need to give up any semblance of being a world power, much less a superpower, and just stay home, lock the doors, and shut the hell up while we wait for China to rule the world.

* Until the Chicomms learned to combine communism with some form of at least crony capitalism; that seems to be working pretty well for them, as long as there remains capitalist sheep to be shorn.

 

[Arkaign]

Werepossom, although I may not agree with all of your positions, I certainly commend you for stating them with clarity and an obviously reasonable amount of logic and thought. It's a breath of fresh air in here.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

The Illiterati continue to respond!

I already mentioned above that I, personally, do not wish the nation to undergo the travesty of a show trial and I most definitely do not want hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to fund such a project that will likely be nothing more than a propaganda show for al-Qaeda and the anti-Bush crowd, while disclosing classified and sensitive information to our enemies.

So you are afraid then? Do you somehow feel the law only applies to some people?

So if I arrest you and lock you up forever, you are OK with that, since I will simply decide you don't need a trial, since I "know" you are guilty? Is that how it works in this country now? Really?

And would you like to show some proof (as in real proof, not talking-head BS) that trying them in civilian court would disclose "classified" info? Otherwise I call bullshit on you and your attempt to ignore the laws of this country. Put up or shut up. It's a free country. Look it up and learn what free means.

 

[werepossum]

Werepossom, although I may not agree with all of your positions, I certainly commend you for stating them with clarity and an obviously reasonable amount of logic and thought. It's a breath of fresh air in here.

Why thank you. I'm trying not to break bad on people simply because they irritate me, and I've found that by placing those people who most annoy me on ignore, I can be more fair and reasonable towards those with whom I simply disagree. And anyone who agreed with all my positions would scare me! LOL

Now I think I'll say goodnight before I post anything stupid and make you take it back.

 

[Ozoned]

Let's see, we have about 3/4 of the worlds population of Muslims in a permanent state of destabilization with our foreign policy.

I would have to say that we are at war.

 

[PJABBER]

Let me put it to PJABBER in words he can perhaps understand.

Given the fact that we are stuck in two quagmires, we can continue to think in your your logical terms, or we can realize that getting out of those quagmires without a total loss requires some better logic you seem clueless about.

Which quagmires are those? Are you still channeling Vietnam?

Nothing is a total loss. Iraq is set for a substantial draw down as proposed by the Bush team. In fact, mucho bad guys and lotsa wannabee bad guys that traveled to Iraq were killed with pretty good efficiency and minimal collateral damage and absolutely nothing to show for their futile efforts, so, believe it or not, the world is safer. Even better, the Iraqis now have a chance to make themselves into a viable and peaceable country, something they had no chance for under Saddam.

Afghanistan, to my mind, is a lot like Africa. Ain't nothing good going to happen there anytime soon. Make or don't make an effort, it will be a resource pit for a long time if we go down that road. I think it would be great place to limit involvement to just Special Forces and a close support air wing and a NATO reaction brigade or two. Afghanistan can be fought as either as a nation building exercise (I do not believe the current Democrat government has the cojones or the long term will power to do it right) or as a special operators' playground. Or as something in between, which will likely get us nowhere fast.

While the sabre rattling going on in Venezuela is problematic, along with a totally inept diplomatic effort there and throughout the rest of the world for that matter, militarily the US needs to keep a focus on West and Southwest Asia.

I am worried about Pakistan cause they have nukes and they have to maintain their military on two geographically difficult fronts, which is never a good thing for a poor country. If India would let Pakistan get a breather, then the beloved patriot resources can be shifted to the badlands. I don't believe this is likely, nor do I think line troops are particularly good at the kind of operations that would root out indigenous and migratory Taliban or al-Qaeda, so the next best thing is to keep pressuring for joint special operations even if conducted in secret concert.

I am very worried about Iran. I am watching the Israelis and I am watching the Iranians prepare for war. This is not hitting the front pages of your local paper. You have to read the specialized military and geostrategy publications to get an idea of just how resources are being built up on both sides. There is just no way out in sight. Everyone knows this, no one wants to do anything about it. When this shit hits the fan, you will see a definite shift in priorities. Unfortunately, I can't see that our National Command Authority has given this much thought at all, so it will be an ad hoc cluster. At best, we might choose to not get in the way of the Israelis. At worst, we take them on to "keep the peace."

 

[PJABBER]

So you are afraid then? Do you somehow feel the law only applies to some people?

So if I arrest you and lock you up forever, you are OK with that, since I will simply decide you don't need a trial, since I "know" you are guilty? Is that how it works in this country now? Really?

And would you like to show some proof (as in real proof, not talking-head BS) that trying them in civilian court would disclose "classified" info? Otherwise I call bullshit on you and your attempt to ignore the laws of this country. Put up or shut up. It's a free country. Look it up and learn what free means.

First, those arrested in this country go through the U.S. justice system. Those detained in the course of overseas operations, military and covert, are subject to different rules. You can't see the distinction?

Second, I have not advocated for indefinite detention. Team Bush should have done something different, they didn't and now we have Team Obama re-writing the rule book. Results to come later.

Third, former U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, who is also a former Southern District judge, told the Associated Press yesterday, "The Justice Department claims that our courts are well suited to the task. Based on my experience trying such cases and what I saw as attorney general, they aren't."

Mr. Mukasey, now at Debevoise & Plimpton, presided over the 1995 multi-defendant trial of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy in connection with a plot to blow up New York City landmarks, one of several major terrorism trials held in lower Manhattan.

At a speech before the Federalist Society on Friday, Mr. Mukasey derided Mr. Holder's decision, saying his plan "creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and circus for those being tried."

And Mr. Mukasey said in a recent column in The Wall Street Journal that, because of the requirement that the government disclose the identity of all known co-conspirators, regardless of whether they are charged, Osama bin Laden learned during the Rahman trial "not only that the government was aware of him, but also who else the government was aware of."

As quoted in a previous post above, Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law and Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law said,

"When the Clinton administration prosecuted the blind cleric, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and nine co-defendants in federal court in New York for their roles in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, much less was known about al-Qaeda and the risks of using ordinary criminal process for terror suspects. Part of the legacy of that trial was the disclosure of information to the lawyers for the defendants that wound up promptly in the hands of al-Qaeda members who eventually would plan and execute the next attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The information, which revealed some of what our government knew about international terrorism and how we knew it, helped shield some of the terror enterprise's deadly planning from those trying earnestly to monitor and stop terrorism. No one will ever know how to apportion responsibility, but there should be no doubt that this was one of many contributing factors to the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent lives in the horrific attacks of 9/11."

And finally, we have this breaking story today updating us on the case of Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of providing material support (through a press conference and allowing access by her translator) to a terrorist conspiracy to kill persons outside of the United States and conspiring to defraud the U.S. government when acting as counsel to Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric who was convicted in 1996 of plotting terrorist attacks against various sites in the New York City area. Specifically, she was accused, in a federal grand jury indictment, of passing Rahman's blessing for a resumption of terrorist operations to his fundamentalist Muslim terrorist cell in Egypt after cell members inquired whether they should continue to honor a ceasefire that was in place against the Egyptian government. The material support charges were dismissed in the summer of 2003, but in November 2003 Stewart was re-indicted on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism. She was convicted on these charges.

Jurors also convicted one-time paralegal Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Arabic interpreter Mohamed Yousry on the three counts naming them.

The government's case against Stewart, Yousry and Sattar revolved around meetings in a Minnesota prison with Rahman in 2000 and 2001. After Rahman's conviction, Stewart visited him about three times a year.

Rahman was kept in solitary confinement and denied visitors, except for his lawyer and immediate family, who did not visit from overseas.

Stewart had signed an agreement with the Bureau of Prisons to abide by restrictions that prohibited disclosure of their conversations and distribution of messages from Rahman to third parties. But on at least one occasion, she appeared to flout those rules.

During the trial, prosecutors played surveillance tape of a two-day May 2000 visit by Stewart to show she provided cover for Yousry as he relayed Islamic Group messages to Rahman, including a Sattar letter seeking guidance on whether the group should continue a "cease-fire" of terrorist activities against Egypt's government.

Prosecutors said Stewart tried to distract prison guards to cover conversations between Yousry and Rahman.

Rahman's captivity in the United States had become a rallying point for Islamic militants around the world, including al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Lawyer in terrorism case ordered to prison
Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:29pm EST

By Christine Kearney

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court upheld on Tuesday a disbarred New York lawyer's conviction on charges of supporting terrorism by helping an imprisoned blind Egyptian cleric smuggle messages to militant followers, ordered her to prison and told a judge to consider a longer sentence.

The three-judge panel described the 28-month prison sentence given by the trial judge to civil rights lawyer Lynne Stewart, 70, following her 2005 conviction as "strikingly low" and not matching "the seriousness of her criminal conduct."

The appeals court ordered the trial judge to think about lengthening the sentence, noting that the judge had declined to consider whether Stewart committed perjury when she testified at her trial.

Stewart was sentenced to prison in October 2006 for helping her client, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, contact the Islamic Group, which the U.S. government lists as a terrorist organization. Stewart had been free on bail while appealing her conviction.

Abdel-Rahman was convicted in 1995 of conspiring to attack the United Nations and other New York City landmarks, following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The twin towers of the World Trade Center were later toppled in the 2001 attacks on the United States carried out by the group al Qaeda.

'I AM NO CRIMINAL'

"I will go on fighting," a smiling Stewart told reporters after the appeals court's decision. "This is a case that is bigger than just me, personally. I am no criminal."

During her trial, prosecutors said messages Stewart passed on behalf of Abdel-Rahman could have incited violence in Egypt, while Stewart said she was zealously representing her client and had been targeted because of her political beliefs.

Prosecutors had complained to the appeals court that her sentence was too lenient.

Stewart's sentence was handed down by U.S. District Judge John Koeltl, who cited her long service as a defense attorney for the poor and unpopular, her age and that she had suffered from cancer as reasons for her relatively short sentence.

The appeals court said Koeltl should have considered whether Stewart was telling the truth when she testified during the trial she was unaware of all of the special restrictions placed on her in communicating messages from her client.

"We think that whether Stewart lied under oath at her trial is directly relevant to whether her sentence was appropriate," the panel of judges said in the written opinion.

Evidence in the case against Stewart included a call the lawyer made to a Reuters correspondent in Egypt in which she read a statement issued by the cleric saying he had withdrawn his support for the Islamic Group's ceasefire in Egypt.

In its nearly 200-page ruling, the U.S. second circuit appeals court ordered Stewart to begin serving her sentence.

Stewart could have been sentenced to more than 15 years in prison after being convicted on charges of supporting terrorism. Prosecutors had sought up to 30 years.

Stewart was tried along with Mohamed Yousry, an Arabic language translator working for her, and New York postal worker Ahmed Sattar.

Sattar was sentenced to 24 years in prison and Yousry to 20 months. The appeals court also said the trial judge could reconsider the sentences of those two men as well.

Stewart said she was not sure when she would have to report to prison but hoped to delay her incarceration until after upcoming surgery. "Visit me in jail," she urged her supporters before stepping away.

 

[Lemon law]

PJABBER still misses the point, given that the situation is bad already, job one is to not make a bad situation worse.

We can perhaps start with the dubious PJABBER contention of, "I am watching the Iranians prepare for war." Not really in evidence when all Iran is doing is working with the IAEA to implement a peace time electrical generation program.

Dubious assumption like that seem to be the unquestioning basis of PJABBER thinking. As for Pakistan, PJABBER seems to grossly underestimate how much the Nato Afghan occupation has destabilized Pakistan while grossly overestimating the extent of Iraqi political stability.

And of course the world view of PJABBER and the now thankfully gone GWB&co is just one way of looking at the world, the problem implicit is that it can become a self fulfilling prophesy. And when we note the previous stinking thinking of GWB&co has been an epic failure, it becomes even more compelling to adopt new ways of looking at the world by questioning previous assumptions.

 

[PJABBER]

PJABBER still misses the point, given that the situation is bad already, job one is to not make a bad situation worse.

We can perhaps start with the dubious PJABBER contention of, "I am watching the Iranians prepare for war." Not really in evidence when all Iran is doing is working with the IAEA to implement a peace time electrical generation program.

Dubious assumption like that seem to be the unquestioning basis of PJABBER thinking. As for Pakistan, PJABBER seems to grossly underestimate how much the Nato Afghan occupation has destabilized Pakistan while grossly overestimating the extent of Iraqi political stability.

And of course the world view of PJABBER and the now thankfully gone GWB&co is just one way of looking at the world, the problem implicit is that it can become a self fulfilling prophesy. And when we note the previous stinking thinking of GWB&co has been an epic failure, it becomes even more compelling to adopt new ways of looking at the world by questioning previous assumptions.

Our resident Islamist propagandist and apologist has spoken! Allahu Akbar!