Who's Serious in the War on Terror
This piece in the LA Times reveals yet more about which party is serious about the war on terror -- and which party isn't.
The issue, of course, is what protections suspected and/or captured terrorists are entitled to when it comes time for them to be prosecuted. As the article points out:
The [Bush administration] lawyers said the government must be able to use evidence and testimony gathered through coercion and hearsay and did not want to provide captives with lawyers before interrogating them for intelligence purposes.
And that's really the nub of the issue. After all, do we really want every terrorist that comes to trial to be given access to US secrets -- like Jose Padilla is (because he, at least, is an American citizen)?
Showcasing their customary lack of seriousness about the issue, Democrats responded as follows:
Democrats called such evidentiary concerns "red herrings," insisting that no member of Congress had suggested imposing police-like duties on soldiers in battle, such as reading detainees their Miranda rights.
How ridiculous. How unserious. For having to offer Miranda warnings and saddling soldiers with police-like duties is, indeed, a logical reductio ad absurdum of the issue, but it's not the nub of the problem (which focuses both on how to procure evidence to prosecute terrorists, and how to prosecute without revealing to the accused our military secrets). The fact that Democrats seize on the most absurd scenario to undermine a debate about a very serious and troublesome issue shows that they're not engaging in an effort to figure out how best to win the war on terror. They're simply trying to score political points.
What a surprise.
The issue, of course, is what protections suspected and/or captured terrorists are entitled to when it comes time for them to be prosecuted. As the article points out:
The [Bush administration] lawyers said the government must be able to use evidence and testimony gathered through coercion and hearsay and did not want to provide captives with lawyers before interrogating them for intelligence purposes.
And that's really the nub of the issue. After all, do we really want every terrorist that comes to trial to be given access to US secrets -- like Jose Padilla is (because he, at least, is an American citizen)?
Showcasing their customary lack of seriousness about the issue, Democrats responded as follows:
Democrats called such evidentiary concerns "red herrings," insisting that no member of Congress had suggested imposing police-like duties on soldiers in battle, such as reading detainees their Miranda rights.
How ridiculous. How unserious. For having to offer Miranda warnings and saddling soldiers with police-like duties is, indeed, a logical reductio ad absurdum of the issue, but it's not the nub of the problem (which focuses both on how to procure evidence to prosecute terrorists, and how to prosecute without revealing to the accused our military secrets). The fact that Democrats seize on the most absurd scenario to undermine a debate about a very serious and troublesome issue shows that they're not engaging in an effort to figure out how best to win the war on terror. They're simply trying to score political points.
What a surprise.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:36 PM
9 Comments:
No. Carol is simply pointing out the obvious. Since shortly after 9/11 the Democrats have placed a higher priority on their own political advantage than on winning the war against an enemy that seriously wants to destroy us.
I would argue, Ditto, that President Bush IS making America AND the world safer.
Some simply can't tolerate the difficult work it takes to accomplish the task. Others cannot stand for anyone other than themselves to get credit for getting the job done.
Actually, I'll ammend that sentiment. Bush only has a couple of years left in his administration. It's not likely he will still be in office when the job gets done. But he is getting the job started - It's about time! It will take other administrations to complete the task.
That's why it's critically important to keep the Democrats out of power for the next several administrations. They have proven themselves unwilling and/or unable to take national defense seriously.
recruit jihadists and Iraq has become their training grounds.
Also their burial ground.
Out of curiosity, how many US troops are still in Afghanistan?
Some people here might find this article interesting. It's long, but worthwhile.
http://tinyurl.com/gywsc
(I'll answer my own question from above: more than 18,000.)
(See CENTCOM.mil)
Suek:
Great article!
Ditto:
Your posts are the answer to Carol's question:
Blind hatred for the existing U.S. administration.
Lack of understanding and respect for the difficulties of war.
Fast and loose handling of the facts.
The characteristics of your posts epitomize the Democratic Party since shortly after 9/11.
JR Dunn was the editor of the International Military Encyclopedia for twelve years.
18,000 wasn't enough. Taliban and Al-Qaeda are stronger now than in 2001.
Exactly how are they stronger? Do you mean numerically? Or some other metric?
They once were the government of Afghanistan... and now they are not.
The poppy crop is nothing new. Michael Yon's had some articles about it over at his place, too.
The 20-to-1 kill ratio sounds about what I'd expect. Should they continue to mass in greater numbers, it makes them juicier targets for AC-130s and such, though, which will drive that ratio higher still.
McCaffery's presumption that the Taliban are planning to wait us out is not surprising. I imagine that is what any number of Baath-party holdovers or Muqtada al-Sadr might be hoping in Iraq, too.
Post a Comment
<< Home