4
   

Terror - The clock is ticking...

 
 
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 03:48 pm
Despise him, respect him, or be one of the poor souls with BDS, one issue where the Bush Administration was able to run out the clock was this:

Since 2001, there was not another terrorist attack on US soil.

Now, with the Obama admin closing Gitmo and undoing many of the policies Bush put in place, how will future attacks (if any) be evaluated?

Side note: It appears Obama is going back to the Clinton strategy of treating Islamic terror as a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue in their approach to homeland security. One question I haven't heard addressed is what will happen to those being released from Gitmo?

One of the things that drove my pragmatic liberal friends in CA nuts was Jerry Brown's treatment of crime issues when Gov. His appt of Rose Bird and two other extreme left wing lawyers to the state supreme court led to their eventual recall and a law and order movement that only recently went away. Nothing angers voters like hearing about violent felons released by liberal judges, going out a few months later and victimizing yet more people.

So what happens if some of these Gitmo releasees are found to be at the center of another 9-11? Two have already found their way back to terror groups.

Who is held accountable?

Will the national press even raise the issue?
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 04:00 pm
@A Lone Voice,
The clock has been ticking for a long time and it will continue to tick.

Osama bin Laden is not in Gitmo.
Ayman al-Zawahiri is not in Gitmo.

Obama is not just swinging open the gates and sending everyone home. There
will be prosecutions. If these are not carried out in a reasonable manner, then
yeah, some bad guys are going to be back in business. As of now, I think the
prosecutions will be reasonable. We'll see.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 04:05 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Quote:
So what happens if some of these Gitmo releasees are found to be at the center of another 9-11? Two have already found their way back to terror groups.

It seems Obama didn't release anyone before he became President. That means Bush released them.

You failed to mention that Bush undid many of Clinton's policies which may have allowed future attacks, in particular one on 9/11. That is probably the strongest argument for why Obama shouldn't undo Bush's policies without examining them first.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 04:09 pm



PrezBO is hell bent on weakening this Republic and it's military.
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 04:14 pm
@H2O MAN,
I guess that's why so many in the military voted for Obama?
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 04:19 pm
@George,
Quote:

There will be prosecutions. If these are not carried out in a reasonable manner, then yeah, some bad guys are going to be back in business. As of now, I think the
prosecutions will be reasonable. We'll see.


One change is an end to the military tribunals that were taking place. One argument used in favor of those was not allowing 'national security' issues to be aired in open criminal court, as this could endanger future operations against terrorists.

Is this the case? Unfortunately, we'll only be able to measure this in hindsight...
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 04:27 pm
It is odd to me that the success or failure of a terrorist attack has become not a discussion of liberty versus security, but of whom to blame.

I'm much less concerned about a terrorist attack than I am about maintaining the integrity of our Constitution, our republic, and our moral values. How can we tell our children, "do the right thing" while we know that torture is being carried out by our government?

IMO, terrorism is a law enforcement issue. Discussing a "war on terror" gives a legitimacy to these murderers that isn't justified.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 04:31 pm
@boomerang,
It's possible that a military supported PrezBO, but it wasn't the US Military.
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 04:44 pm
@H2O MAN,
I think you're wrong.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 05:42 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Quote:
. . . One change is an end to the military tribunals that were taking place. . . .

Perhaps you meant to say "suspended pending review".
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 05:53 pm
I think the one-year deadline is just that, a deadline. The problems with the prisoners have existed for more than six years and very little effort was made to progress beyond their capture and torture.

Now the system is on the clock, forced to focus on it and figure out a solution or face having the prisoners released.

It is a carrot/stick measure. Don't want them released, then best figure out a solution our country can live with. Six years is long enough, the time of procrastination and shrugging of shoulders is over. Time for the lawyers, military and law makers to finally do something about it. The clock is indeed clicking. Justice will wait for no one.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 05:58 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
US troops donate more to Obama than McCain
Aug 14, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) " US troops, stationed both abroad and in the US, have donated more money to Democrat Barack Obama than to decorated war hero Republican John McCain, a study published Thursday showed.

The study by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group, showed that by the end of June, Obama had received six times more from soldiers stationed abroad than Vietnam war veteran McCain, who comes from a prestigious military family.

Even McCain's former rival for the Republican nomination, Ron Paul, who opposed the Iraq war, had managed to garner more funds.

Obama had received some 60,642 dollars in donations from soldiers stationed abroad, while McCain had just 10,665 dollars, the study said.

Paul, who failed early in the Republican primaries to attract as much support as McCain, was given some 45,512 dollars for his campaign.

Across all troops, Obama's campaign also attracted more funding than his rivals, bringing in some 335,000 dollars compared to 280,000 for McCain. Only in the Marine Corps is McCain leading Obama, by some 4,000 dollars


More: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5FiNnqZ7H-zKWUBX6GMFvu524Qg
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 06:47 pm
@boomerang,


Donations and votes are not the same thing and the numbers are compiled from incomplete, pre election data.
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 07:05 pm
@H2O MAN,
Yes indeed, people often donate to canidates they have no intention of supporting.

Rolling Eyes
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 07:12 pm
@boomerang,
it can happen, in canada part of some unions dues go to support the new democrat party which is a very socially liberal party, yet in some ridings where union support should be high, other candidates will get elected, basically the union uses it's members money to support candidates, but the membership vote how they want
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 07:20 pm
@djjd62,
But we're talking about the American military.

It does happen in American business' though.

Still, soldiers are not supposed to publically discuss how they voted so we'll never really know.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 07:22 pm
@boomerang,
i know, i was only sayin' is all Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 07:35 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Despise him, respect him, or be one of the poor souls with BDS, one issue where the Bush Administration was able to run out the clock was this:

Since 2001, there was not another terrorist attack on US soil.

A terrible measure of the effectiveness of a international policy that should stop terrorism at large.

A Lone Voice wrote:

Now, with the Obama admin closing Gitmo and undoing many of the policies Bush put in place, how will future attacks (if any) be evaluated?

How did we evaluate 9/11? We had a giant report created that illustrated what we knew, when we knew it, how we acted, and when we acted. The report was pretty critical of the Bush admin, but they didn't even blush.

It would be terrible if another attack was to happen, but I feel better with a president who can cultivate a stronger international effort over a totalitarian domestic effort.

A Lone Voice wrote:

Side note: It appears Obama is going back to the Clinton strategy of treating Islamic terror as a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue in their approach to homeland security. One question I haven't heard addressed is what will happen to those being released from Gitmo?

What will happen to those released is not just one answer. Those in Gitmo, fall into many categories. Those that shouldn't have ever been in there to begin with (Chinese Uighurs for example) should be released post haste. Those who should be tried, should be brought before a LEGITIMATE court.

A Lone Voice wrote:

One of the things that drove my pragmatic liberal friends in CA nuts was Jerry Brown's treatment of crime issues when Gov. His appt of Rose Bird and two other extreme left wing lawyers to the state supreme court led to their eventual recall and a law and order movement that only recently went away. Nothing angers voters like hearing about violent felons released by liberal judges, going out a few months later and victimizing yet more people.

Educate yourself. Not everyone in Gitmo is some violent criminal.

A Lone Voice wrote:

So what happens if some of these Gitmo releasees are found to be at the center of another 9-11? Two have already found their way back to terror groups.

You can't imprison people for crimes they may commit. If you have the evidence that they conspire to commit crimes sure, but if that's the case, send it to trial. Taking someone's freedom away should not be such a cavalier activity. If you ever wanted a reason to hate a country enough to fight back, imprisonment for years without a trial might be a pretty strong motivator. It might make you more prone to be recruited by people with the means to do harm.

A Lone Voice wrote:

Who is held accountable?

Those who commit the crimes.
A Lone Voice wrote:

Will the national press even raise the issue?

I can't tell you how many articles I've read on just this topic alone in the last year. I'm so sick of this conservative media victim meme...

T
K
O
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 07:38 pm
@Diest TKO,
no, we have to kill all the people who don't agree with us

you're thinking too much



Wink


0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2009 07:47 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:

It is odd to me that the success or failure of a terrorist attack has become not a discussion of liberty versus security, but of whom to blame.


Blame? No. But shouldn't those in the government who failed in their core duty be held accountable, if they end up failing? The Obama admin is making bold, overt moves and statements with their actions.

This is no longer the campaign; actions have consequences.

Quote:

I'm much less concerned about a terrorist attack than I am about maintaining the integrity of our Constitution, our republic, and our moral values. How can we tell our children, "do the right thing" while we know that torture is being carried out by our government?


Having a facility such as Gitmo on its face alone does not constitute torture, does it? Waterboarding aside... Should we treat suspected terrorists as 'enemy combatants? Were there constitutional issues with people held for years without charges or trial? Sure.

But the consequences of shutting the facility down? Who knows? Again, actions have consequences now...

Quote:

IMO, terrorism is a law enforcement issue. Discussing a "war on terror" gives a legitimacy to these murderers that isn't justified.


Why do you consider it a law enforcement issue? Usually, those who will carry out terror acts are not US citizens; why invoke aspects of constitutional protection such as self incrimination, search and seizure, etc?

I've heard this approach before from libs; why does it make sense to the progressive mind?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Terror - The clock is ticking...
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 02:40:06