18
   

What Exactly Is the 'Bush Doctrine'?

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 09:17 am
@candidone1,
I am not defending Palin, totally. I have not made up my mind about Palin, as I am still in a learning curve, to sort out the nonsense of the left from that which is pertinent and accurate. I was disappointed in regard to her answer, and in general I thought she did okay in regard to foreign policy answers, not great. But as I said, I was very irritated with Gibson with his condescending interrogation that has been called an interview. And for you to claim to know what the so-called "Bush Doctrine" is - is arrogant and again a concoction, as it depends upon who you ask, and there is no official description written somewhere. Perhaps you have yours, but that doesn't make it official.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  3  
Reply Wed 17 Sep, 2008 11:32 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
Any nation supporting or harboring terrorists were also guilty of aggression, and therefore we had a right to exercise our own self defense in going after them."

The doctrine was therefore about self defense and responding to aggression, not pre-emption.


You are blurring the lines with your so-called distinction between the "Gibsonian" definition of the Bush Doctrine and what you deem to be the proper definition of the Bush Doctrine. You obviously haven't thought this through very well either.

If a nation harbors or supports terrorists, by your assessment they are guilty of aggression. This is contrary to an historical understanding of what constitutes aggression. It's been hijacked and then redefined with a neoconservative slant:

From Merriam Webster:
1: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2: the practice of making attacks or encroachments ; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3: hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

You see, "aggression" has a definitive meaning. Aggression is an act peformed by one party against another. It's not the assumption that something just might be done. It's not the existence of unsavory groups in certain countries or regions.
Harboring terrorists, or even supporting them, is not aggression, nor is it an act performed toward anyone else (unless, of course, it is bastardized or construed to mean whatever it is you want it to mean, definition be damned).

This is where the overriding notion and understanding of preemption comes into play. Although you Bushites think you have articulated a definition that frees itself from the concept of preemption, you have inescapably bound yourself to it with the above explanation.

It is quite the quantum leap to draw an equivalence between the accusation or assumption of harboring terrorists to that of an act of aggression.....it is an even grater leap to conclude that because there are state or non-state sponsored terrorists existing in a certain country or region, that that is definitively regarded as an act of aggression and therefore one that justifies war.

America "harbors" terrorists. Look at McVeigh, look at the new darling of the conservative media, Ayers, look at the myriad of domestic terrorist cases in the US, look at the CIA and the covert actions performed by the American government in foreign territories....merely having terrorists within your national border doesn't entail there is aggression, or an act of aggression being made by the nation.

If you choose to attack a country because you don't like the groups organizing within it, and have not been attacked by said country or it's people (ie: Iraq), but you think they might do something bad, then you are launching a preemptive attack on them.


JamesMorrison
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 05:47 pm
@candidone1,
Given Finn dAbuzz's discovery that the Bush Doctrine's definition, by that person who coined the phrase, consists of many points and concepts (see Post: # 3,402,697) and given Charlie Gibson asked the question: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
How would have you answered that question?

Seems only two choices presented themselves:

1. Ask for further clarification before committing to an answer (Saracuda's choice)

2. Posit towards as many points in the doctrine and perhaps miss one point which would then allow critics to decry Palin's "ignorance" or "avoidance" of the question.

Turns out Gibson's ignorance about the Doctrine was highlighted (Or, worse, he just misrepresented the Bush Doctrine). Palin's answer was proper given circumstances. Actually, we will never know if, at that point, Palin knew absolutely anything about the Bush Doctrine. Gibson was too interested in the perceived "Gotcha" moment. Had he asked the question properly he could have actually done his job that media types insist is their mandate--to uncover the truth.

So how would you have handled that question?

JM
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  4  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 08:47 pm
@candidone1,
You are really mis-representing what harboring terrorists is. It is akin to driving the get-away car or housing the bank robber, and hiding one, knowing that they are either planning to rob the bank or after they robbed the bank. To assist a terrorist is to be an accomplice, which makes you a party to the crime. That is just common sense. Furthermore, hostile governments may use terrorists as surrogates to perform their crimes. The reason for this is that they will lose a conventional war as a nation, and they know it, so they resort to civilian surrogates to blende into the population to wreak havoc and to fight their wars. So it is pretty sound reasoning to conclude that governments that support and harbor terrorists are in fact just as guilty of the acts of aggression as the actual terrorists are. Another comparison would be a hit man does the crime, but the person that hires the hitman, or the nation that financially supports terrorists, they are they true criminals.

And to say we harbored McVeigh as an example of harboring a terrorist, simply because he lived in this country, is absolute nonsense. We arrested him and eventually executed him, we didn't harbor him.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 09:07 pm
@okie,
okie, You really don't know how to reconcile what you are saying; McVeigh was prosecuted for doing the crime - not before. The legal system of the US doesn't now allow any citizen to be arbitrarily arrested and prosecuted without a fair trial for a crime that has already been committed. To say they "harbored" a terrorist goes beyond rationalization of what constitutes the legal system of the US. A suspect who has not been charged with a crime is still "innocent." The legal system can't assume he/she is guilty without a charge and legal representation.

There is no way for any legal system to assume anyone will commit a crime without evidence.

A preemptive attack on a sovereign country is a international crime if they have done no harm to us. To make assumptions about future terrorist activity is not justification for us to go into a country and start a war (such as the Bush "shock and awe" attack on Iraq).

As stated earlier by someone on this thread, we have terrorists (both home grown and immigrants) within the borders of almost every country on this planet; no different than criminals in our own back yard.

"If you're not with us, you're against us" is about the most insane rhetoric that came out of Bush's mouth. He was responsible for alienating most of our former allies to the point we became the laughing stock in Europe and including those in the Middle East.

Bush doesn't believe in diplomacy; he thinks he has the answers for the world's problems. Any fool would realize that the US represents only five percent of the world population, and we don't have the means or the treasure to fix it without international cooperation.

I'm waiting for the day Bush leaves the white house for good.

okie
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 09:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
ci, even Democrats acknowledge the Taliban harbored and supported the terror network that attacked us, so when we took out the Taliban, it was not considered to be a pre-emptive attack, it was a response to the hostilities against us, and the Taliban was in part responsible for that attack.

Your discussion of the legal system is nonsense. We didn't go to Pearl Harbor and take fingerprints, and then go round up a bunch of Japanese and try them in a court before we responded to that attack.

And Bush is absolutely correct, you either oppose the evils of terrorism, or you don't, and to this day a number of nations and liberals cannot face reality, that the problem does exist, and that there is a day of reckoning to be faced. Ci, you seem to buy into the idea that oh well, terrorists exist and always will, just a criminal problem. I don't see why civil societies and free nations that believe in decency need to accept such liberal gobbldygook.

See where liberal logic has taken us, folks. Good grief, some of the reasoning I see on this forum is bizarro indeed.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 09:23 pm
@okie,
okie, What were your grades in History courses? I had to ask, because the Taliban were Saudis who lived in Afghanistan. You are locked into false information, and no matter how many times this fact is repeated.

As for Pearl Harbor, it was the Japanese from Japan who attacked - not Japanese Americans. As a matter of fact, the US Army, the 442nd Combat Team/100th Battalion was the most decorated unit during WWII- with the most Presidential citations.

Your brain is too tiny to accept rational reasoning about "terrorists and terrorism," and how best to defeat them. The US alone cannot defeat it.

That's the "liberal" view.

0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 10:01 pm
@okie,
I misrepresented nothing okie.
First you massacred the notion of what constituted "aggression" and now you are tweaking the definition of "harboring".
I dealt with aggression above and so I'll now deal with the notion of "harboring" since you seem to have released the former from your argument.

I agree that having a terrorist group/cell/organization within a non-ally's borders is unsettling, especially since 9/11....but remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The mujahideen are a prime example.

But to work from your statement of guilt by association...you miss the mark by a country mile. Guilt by association is a great way to target close-proximity crimes like shoplifting and other thefts. It is not so great when it comes to crimes invented by the US, like "harboring terrorists" (18 U.S.C. §§ 2331), because identifying and bringing to justice the terrorist is a much more arduous, hazardous and dangerous task to all other innocents in the proximity. So, guilt by association, although practical in close proximity crimes, is not practical with international, more complex, higher level crimes.

Quote:
Harboring Terrorists
To convict an individual for harboring terrorists, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant must be harboring or concealing an individual;
that individual must have committed, is about to commit, certain violent acts;
the defendant must know, or have grounds to believe, that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, those certain violent acts.

The punishment for harboring terrorists is a fine, imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both.


http://www.terrorismcrimes.com/

I have to get to bed now, but I'll come back later.

I'll leave you with this perspective on the Bush Doctrine, one that you presumably have read, and will certainly disagree, but one that is articulated in a way that I agree 100%:

Quote:
What is the Bush imperial strategy?

Chomsky: It has two components. One is that we declare that we have the right to carry out offensive military actions against countries we regard as a security threat because they have weapons of mass destruction. Many criticized it, not so much because they disagreed but because they thought the brazenness was ultimately a threat to the United States and therefore shouldn't be done that way. Even Madeleine Albright, in an article in Foreign Affairs, pointed out, quite accurately, that this is not the kind of thing you do. Of course, every President has that doctrine, but you don't advertise it. You keep it in your pocket, and you use it when you want to. So this is just kind of stupid and dangerous.

The most interesting comment, perhaps, was Kissinger's. He described it as a revolutionary new doctrine in international affairs which, of course, tears up the whole Westphalian system from the early seventeenth century. It's a good doctrine, he said, but added that we have to understand that it is not in the national interest for this doctrine to be universalized. That's a nice way of saying the doctrine is for us, not for anyone else. We will use force whenever we like against anyone we regard as a potential threat, and maybe we will delegate that right to clients, but it's not for others.

Q: And the other part?
Chomsky: It says states that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and will be treated as such.

How does that one work? What are the states that harbor terrorists? Let's put aside harboring leaders of states who are terrorists. If we count that, it reduces to absurdity in no time. So let's talk about the kind of terrorists whom they regard as terrorists, what I call subnational terrorists, like those in Al Qaeda and Hamas. What states harbor them?

Just to give a little background, the U.S. launched a terrorist war against Cuba in 1959. It picked up rapidly under Kennedy, with Operation Mongoose--a major escalation that actually came close to leading to nuclear war. And all through the 1970s, terrorist actions against Cuba were being carried out from U.S. territory, in violation of U.S. law and, of course, international law. The U.S. was harboring the terrorists, and quite serious ones.

There is Orlando Bosch, for example, whom the FBI accuses of thirty serious terrorist acts, including participation in the destruction of the Cubana airliner in which seventy-three people were killed back in 1976. The Justice Department wanted him deported. It said he's a threat to the security of the United States. George Bush I, at the request of his son Jeb, gave Bosch a Presidential pardon. He's sitting happily in Miami, and we're harboring a person whom the Justice Department regards as a dangerous terrorist, a threat to the security of the U.S.

Here's another example: The Venezuelan government is now asking for extradition of two military officers who were accused of participation in bombing attacks in Caracas and then just fled the country. These military officers participated in a coup, which, for a couple of days, overthrew the government. The U.S. openly supported the coup, and, according to British journalists, was involved in instigating it. The officers are now pleading for political asylum in the U.S.

Or take, say, Emmanuel Constant, whose death squads killed maybe 4,000 or 5,000 Haitians [during the early 1990s while he was on the payroll of the CIA]. Today, he is living happily in Queens because the U.S. refused to even respond to requests from Aristide for extradition.

So who is harboring terrorists? If the most important revolutionary part of the Bush Doctrine is that states that harbor terrorists are terrorist states, what do we conclude from that? We conclude exactly what Kissinger was kind enough to say: These doctrines are unilateral. They are not intended as doctrines of international law or doctrines of international affairs. They are doctrines that grant the U.S. the right to use force and violence and to harbor terrorists, but not anyone else.



candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Sep, 2008 10:07 pm
@okie,
The war on terror will be waged in the same manner as the War on Drugs, and, likely, with the same result.
It's not a defeatist attitude okie, it's a realistic one. You can spend billions, even trillions chasing this down....but in the process, you are building it up as the cycle is self perpetuating.

....and, BTW, there was unanimous and international support for striking against the Taliban. Iraq does not and never has equalled the Taliban. That was where you lost the support of the Democrats and nearly the entire international community. You continue to lose support by making claims like "when we took out the Taliban..."
They have not been "taken out"...if they have been, tell that to the tens of thousands still fighting in Afghanistan.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 12:17 am
@candidone1,
When you start quoting Chomsky, what little credibility you had just went out the window. You are hopelessly lost in your own intellectual confusion, when you don't understand simple things like harboring criminals or being an assessory to a criminal, or that of hiring a hitman. And the comparisons with that of criminals are for illustrative purposes only, as acts of war cannot be solved in criminal courts I don't think. I have pretty much lost any interest in debating with anyone so hopelessly illogical and blinded by partisanship.
candidone1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 09:37 am
@okie,
What little credibility I had?
Okie....you are the one who has consistently toed the republican party line for the entire time I've been a member of A2K...you've supported, to my recollection, nearly every flawed policy that came from the Bush administration and that have contributed to the deplorable state America now finds herself in.
I am confident enough in my position and my opinions that I can embrace a brief statement from Chomsky, or Coulter for that matter, as long as it's consistent with my beliefs, without it compromising them.
Rest assured, with you departing from this discussion merely because I briefly quoted Chomsky, it is hardly my credibility that can be called into question.


okie
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 09:02 pm
@candidone1,
Again, not correct, you obviously have not followed my posts on a2k very well, as I have repeatedly disagreed with Bush on more than one issue. I am a fiscal conservative, and therefore what I advocate has in no way contributed to the financial mess we are in. I favored Iraq, but I am ready to get out of there, and I don't think that expenditure explains the mess we are in. Throughout my adult life for the last few decades, liberals have led the charge to have government create more and more programs, more spending. The only time in my adult life that we have come close to any semblance of balancing the budget was during a Republican led Congress in the 90's.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Sep, 2008 09:19 pm
"bush doctrine" is an oxymoron.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 12:29 am
@okie,
Then I apologize okie....for some reason or another, for better or worse, I seem to confuse "okie" with another (to remain nameless) right leaning A2K member.
It's an honest mistake...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/19/2019 at 11:49:13