From Brian Ross, ABC News:
Large teams of newly trained suicide bombers are being sent to the United States and Europe, according to evidence contained on a new videotape obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.
A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions.
[…]
The leader of the team assigned to attack Great Britain spoke in English.
“So let me say something about why we are going, along with my team, for a suicide attack in Britain,” he said. “Whether my colleagues, companions and Muslim brothers die today or tonight, every drop of our blood will invigorate the Muslim (unintelligible).”
U.S. intelligence officials described the event as another example of “an aggressive and sophisticated propaganda campaign.”
And by “U.S. intelligence officials,” Ross presumably means those same folks who believed 911 would never happen, that Islamic terrorism was a phantom threat (cough cough Larry Johnson cough), and who, in a show of political gamesmanship, sent lazy gadfly and CIA house husband Joe Wilson off to uncover the “truth” about Saddam’s nuclear ambitions and connections to terror states.
Others take it very seriously.
“It doesn’t take too many who are willing to actually do it and be able to slip through the net and get into the United States or England and cause a lot of damage,” said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism official.
Uh oh. When last seen, Clarke was an adopted hero to the left.
His taking this whole ludicrous “global war” thing seriously might mean his open invitation to the finest salons in Manhattan and Georgetown could be revoked with extreme prejudice.
For his part, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has denied hearing anything about this report, explaining to reporters that it likely exists only in that one America that he doesn’t frequent — “unless, like, I’m craving a Big Mac or a Zagnut or something.”
(h/t Ace)
"…with extreme prejudice."Given that Lieberman’s status as an honored constitutional scholar and dignified statesman was dismantled with the change of a single letter behind his name — must credit PW — it wouldn’t surprise me.
Why does a scene from <i>Life of Brian</i> pop to mind?
Now we know why CAIR has such a bug up their collective ass about "profiling"…
If suicide bombs go off my hope is that it will happen to people I don’t care about very much. I will still feel sad and all, but I think if someone I cared about died in a suicide bombing I would no longer find working in marketing very satisfying, and I would have to make changes. I was just kidding earlier about handling change well.
Uh oh. When last seen, Clarke was an adopted hero to the left.
His taking this whole ludicrous “global war†thing seriously might mean his open invitation to the finest salons in Manhattan and Georgetown could be revoked with extreme prejudice.
Possibly. Then again, maybe we’ll discover that libs aren’t on/off toggle switches like wingers are. Me, I’m thinking, If Richard Clarke is taking this seriously, maybe I should see what it’s about — in a way that I wouldn’t if it were just a wingnut saying the sky is falling.
You check it out Christine and report back with your findings. Hopefully there’s nothing to this Islamic terror thing – I mean – people blowing themselves up and all – seems pretty dubious – but I’ll wait for your evaluation.
UH OH! Christine called people on the right, or at least whatever the right is in regards to the threat of global jihadists, WINGERS!!!! I hope you’re at least pretty! Or is that purty?
Yes. And do hurry, Christine. Currently, my toggle switch is set to full-bore ON, which means that I’m likely to deface a mosque or start randomly accosting anyone with a bushy mustache.
We wingnuts can be so very <em>judgmental</em> — and without having any of the facts, either.
A decided lack of nuance, I think that’s called.
SAVE ME FROM MYSELF, CHRISTINE! BECAUSE I’M THINKING ABOUT HAILING A TAXI JUST SO’S I CAN COMMIT A HATE CRIME!
You check it out Christine and report back with your findings. Hopefully there’s nothing to this Islamic terror thing – I mean – people blowing themselves up and all – seems pretty dubious – but I’ll wait for your evaluation.
Perfect example of the winger toggle switch at work. Either suicide bombers are lurking in the produce sections of our supermarkets or we’re on the Good Ship Lollypop. There is no middle ground.
Right, wingers?
Wouldn’t it be funny if you actually met a few and discovered that they didn’t conform to your stereotype?
Yes. And do hurry, Christine. Currently, my toggle switch is set to full-bore ON, which means that I’m likely to deface a mosque or start randomly accosting anyone with a bushy mustache.
Oh did I give you impression I was going to report back? Wonder where you got that from. You all are more than capable of coming to your own foregone conclusions without my help, aren’t you?
By "middle ground," do you mean pretending that the story might be true, while hoping at the same time that it might not be — so that if it isn’t, you get to act like you weren’t all scared and shit, but if it is, you get to rub your chin and act as though you were indeed worried, but you were prevented from acting on your concerns because the Bushies have done so much to alienate the rest of the world, and have cried wolf so often, that they’ve left us vulnerable to an attack that, tsk tsk, could have been prevented with better port security?
The bastards.
Because that kind of nuance is beyond those of us who just wanna drink our beer and watch fast cars circle around a slanted track until one of ’em wrecks and there’s, like, metal everywhere!
Wouldn’t it be funny if you actually met a few and discovered that they didn’t conform to your stereotype?
Sure would be. Near as I can tell, I’m more likely to find a terrorist lurking in the chipotle peppers.
But seriously. I’m aware there are conservatives who can think. But that’s not what PW is for, is it?And I’m here for the party.
You all are more than capable of coming to your own foregone conclusions without my help, aren’t you?
Whereas you seem to have concluded that you’re far more capable of actually sussing out the truth of the situation than any of us binary-brained wingnut toggle switches.
So, you know, little help? After all, you don’t want to see us die because we’re not quite so smart as you, right?
Plus, you love the troops and whatnot. So you’re a patriot. Which means you owe it to us to lend us the power of your intellect.
It’s the communal thing to do.
If there’s a party I’ve got like a Bananarama cd I could throw on and maybe we could order one of those trays from Subway? I think you can pick up 2-liters of Diet Coke there too but you have to remember they don’t have ice.
By "middle ground," do you mean pretending that the story might be true, while hoping at the same time that it might not be  so that if it isn’t, you get to act like you weren’t all scared and shit, but if it is, you get to rub your chin and act as though you were indeed worried, but you were prevented from acting on your concerns because the Bushies have done so much to alienate the rest of the world, and have cried wolf so often, that they’ve left us vulnerable to an attack that, tsk tsk, could have been prevented with better port security?
See what I mean? Here for the party.
But no. By middle ground I mean that we accurately locate the degree of the danger, which I assume is somewhere between "what, me worry?" and the conflagration that is now Iraq. I mean a realistic assessment of the danger and the risk so that knowledge is power and not simply a club to beat the opposing party with.
What a change that would be, eh?
But seriously. I’m aware there are conservatives who can think. But
that’s not what PW is for, is it?And I’m here for the party.
Personally? I don’t think you’ve ever bothered to find out what "PW is for," or to look into whether or not the proprietor "can think." Because otherwise, you wouldn’t be setting yourself up for such impending humiliation.
I guess we are, sure. But I don’t think any of us have, because that would be silly.
Didn’t you? Oh wait. That was just a foregone conclusion about how the left would tut-tut and remove Richard Clarke from their salon invitee lists.
By middle ground I mean that we accurately
locate the degree of the danger, which I assume is somewhere between
"what, me worry?" and the conflagration that is now Iraq. I mean a
realistic assessment of the danger and the risk so that knowledge is
power and not simply a club to beat the opposing party with.
What a change that would be, eh?
— Says the lady who comes in lobbing "wingnut" and "toggle switch" as a way to ease partisan tensions, then follows it up with the charge of an inability of those here to think. As part of the healing.
Like I said above, I believe you’ve wandered onto the wrong site. Tell me, who told you this was some typical "wingnut" echochamber? Because they’ve done you a terrible disservice, I’m afraid. As you’re sure to find out.
BECAUSE OF THE WINGERS ! AND THE CONSERVACRUDS ! AND THE REPUBLICRAPS !
Personally? I don’t think you’ve ever bothered to find out what "PW is for," or to look into whether or not the proprietor "can think." Because otherwise, you wouldn’t be setting yourself up for such impending humiliation.
Oh jeez. I’ve noticed the proprietor is capable of being gracious, writes well, is not stupid (I’ll go that far), and enjoys disporting himself for his PW audience. But hey, I don’t mean that like it’s a bad thing!
Beyond that I’m still learning.
Didn’t you? Oh wait. That was just a foregone conclusion about how the
left would tut-tut and remove Richard Clarke from their salon invitee
lists.
Or, you know, a joke. Either way. No joking matter. The threat is too darn serious to joke about.
Except when its not really a threat, but rather a ploy to get people to vote Republican.
Knowledge and power and all that.
But I’ll tell you what. Find me some left-leaning sites that are mentioning this story. And give me their take on it. I’d be interested in hearing what they have to say.
The snark I aimed their way comes from past experience dealing with antiwar commenters, who tend to take their cues from left-leaning blogs.
But I’d be willing to apologize for believing they’d throw Richard Clarke overboard the minute whatever narrative he’s pushing didn’t jibe with the one they believe needs pushing.
I’m gracious that way.
Be back in a bit. Time to read the boy his bed time stories.
"Then again, maybe we’ll discover that libs aren’t on/off toggle switches like wingers are."Like painting everybody who disagrees with you as a two-dimensional cartoon? Is that the kind of thing winger toggle switches do? Nuance, man. It’s all in the nuance.
But I’ll tell you what. Find me some left-leaning sites that are mentioning this story. And give me their take on it. I’d be interested in hearing what they have to say.
Well, it was blazoned across the front of huffingtonpost.com before I left work this afternoon, but at this point it’s still just a link to the abcnews site. I’m guessing Steve Clemons, Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum will comment fairly quickly. You probably mean, though, who on the left is taking it seriously and not discounting it? Time will tell, I suppose. But you’ve piqued my curiosity as to what the response on the left will be, so, yes, I’ll report back.
Not that you can’t find out yourself, of course, but by my reporting back there is at least the possibility I’ll have to eat some crow, which I’m sure has its appeal.
So is Brian Ross angling for an interview with a splodeydope? That would make quite a splash. Or splatter, depending.
I’m certain that Fenton Communications will handle AQ media relations but I’m curious as to which polling outfit they’ll go with. Zogby, maybe?
By middle ground I mean that we accurately locate the degree of the
danger, which I assume is somewhere between "what, me worry?" and the
conflagration that is now Iraq. I mean a realistic assessment of the
danger and the risk…I think this cost-benefit analysis type of thinking is the most pernicious aspect of a suicide bombing campaign – the non-spectacular jihad in the heartland type of deal – the idea that there are people who think that a reasonable response would be for us to have a reasoned debate and make conclusions about how we can *manage* this problem – that’s hard for me to get my head around. The first thing they will discover about managing this problem is that they will need to spend a significant amount of time formulating policy for managing those people who don’t think a cost-benefit analysis is particularly prudent.
(Tap, Tap) Is this thing on?
Either suicide bombers are lurking in the produce sections of our supermarkets or we’re on the Good Ship Lollypop. There is no middle ground.
This has to be the stupidest comment ever. Seriously, suicide bombers come with a name tag and sandwich board dontcha know Jeff, so don’t leer at the man at the apple bin! And the middle ground eh? The people who perished in the Towers I doubt were glad we didn’t profile and took the middle ground that day.
It has no appeal, Christine. I just have other things to do this evening is all. Eat crow, eat pie, eat a peach — whatever makes you happy.
I’m certain that Fenton Communications will handle AQ media relations but I’m curious as to which polling outfit they’ll go with. Zogby, maybe?
No kidding Rick – perchance they’ve had them on retainer for some time.
I’m guessing Steve Clemons, Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum will comment fairly quickly.
Don’t hold your breathe, unless you mean they will rush to question the timing or some such.
Alphie has already anticipated this problem… The idea is to come up with a terror-resistant city design, not a terror-proof one.
Tops,
The really cool thing is that if they play their cards right and wait until the immigration bill is signed they can get their Z-visas and not have to lurk in the shadows. Won’t that be grand.
Christine – Was Senator Lieberman wrong in his assessment ?
Christine make you kind of miss actus, doesn’t she?
BTW — I was digging back in the wayback and found this circa 1992 – it’s an Atlantic Monthly story on the American Diplomatic Arabists
Page 3 of 4…
Sounds fun doesn’t it? And how fitting and cute you find on page 1 – para 6
Tales From the Bazaar: As individuals, few American diplomats have been as anonymous as the members of the group known as Arabists.
The terror resistant city , as invisioned by Alphie, is right up there with balloon-fence missile shields.
No.
Good Lt.
Christine make you kind of miss actus, doesn’t she?
Isn’t that what people said about Alpee and Timmeh?
It has no appeal, Christine. I just have other things to do this evening is all. Eat crow, eat pie, eat a peach  whatever makes you happy.
Your sense of humor kind of comes and goes, doesn’t it? Fine. I think we’ve all got other things to do.
Well, I didn’t mean it literally. Just metaphorically. I mean, at least the Retarded Telephone Pole was a self-styled "Socratic." Christine is more "Marcottic." Alpo was more of this flavor. Timmuh was just, well, TIMMUH! Than again, most 9-11 Truthers are self-styled "Socratics," who are "just asking questions." What a tangled web they weave, huh? Fweh.
Your sense of humor kind of comes and goes, doesn’t it? Like the waves in the ocean. Totally.
Then, not than.
I think the spelling/grammar Nazis are pounding on my windows. Hold on.
Y’all may be asking more of "REMF" Christine than she’s capable, given her past performance here.
LT, don’t let them take you – I’d be next…
I thought Christine was going to report back on the lefty response to the story:
Well, it was blazoned across the front of huffingtonpost.com before I left work this afternoon, but at this point it’s still just a link to the abcnews site. I’m guessing Steve Clemons, Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum will comment fairly quickly. You probably mean, though, who on the left is taking it seriously and not discounting it? Time will tell, I suppose. But you’ve piqued my curiosity as to what the response on the left will be, so, yes, I’ll report back.
Of course, Memeorandum suggests that lefty blogs are avoiding this story like a tent revival. And that the HuffPo commenters are behaving with the level of childishness we’ve come to expect, minus the calls for Cheney’s death.
The nascent lefty talking point seems to be that — if true — it shows the failure of the Bush "fighting ’em there so we don’t have to fight ’em here" strategy.
No consideration of the idea that if we weren’t in Iraq, those foreign jihadis would be just as happy to pour into the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, natch.
And inasmuch as Christine thinks no thinking goes on here, I’ll note that terrorism actually decreased in the West last year.
Sorry about the lack of formatting; still getting used to the new editor.
BTW, anyone who needs to be reminded of how idiotic alpee is can check Patterico.
So that’s where it went!
Hey, looks like my first comment was eaten.
I thought Christine was going to report on the reaction of lefty blogs to this story:
Christine probably should have that crow ready. Memeorandum shows no discusssion by major lefty blogs. The HuffPo commenters tend to dismiss it or claim that it shows a failure of the "fighting ’em there so we don’t have to fight ’em here" strategy, blithely ignoring that if we were not in Iraq, the foreign jihadis would be pouring into those camps near the Afganistan-Pakistan border, and ignorant of the fact that major terror incidents decreased in the West last year.
<blockquote>Me, I’m thinking, If Richard Clarke is taking this seriously, maybe I should see what it’s about  in a way that I wouldn’t if it were just a wingnut saying the sky is falling.</blockquote>
Perhaps it just means that Clarke is a minimum of 5 years (actually 28 years) too late in coming to a rational conclusion. And that you are just that much later in considering it.
I am thinking that Clarke was always a Hawk and took a gamble – tip from the VIPS and Rand Beers – that Kerry would carry the day and went with it in the hopes of snagging NSA or SoS (he’d seen Wilson makes some cash with his book). If you take a look at Clarke’s PRE and then POST Kerry … they pretty much align. The “Kerry Period” almost seems like an opportunistic cash in a blip.
Which still qualifies him as an asshole though.
Still waiting on those important ACTION ALERTs from the left regarding the suicide bomb squads. Funny how those alerts appear almost instantaneously when they damage the administration. Maybe Christine can explain the difference in timing or coverage.
Meanwhile, Green Glennwald can still not comprehend that Iran may actually be working against our interests in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. All such information is based on unproven allegations of anonymous sources according to Green, who does not seem to notice in the same posts that he labels anonymously sourced second hand anti-administration as FACT. Curious thought patterns these moonbats have. Perhaps Christine could shed some light on that loony liberal logic train as well.
“Whether my colleagues, companions and Muslim brothers die today or tonight, every drop of our blood will invigorate the Muslim (unintelligible).â€Â
This could be serious. The unintelligible Muslims are generally the worst.
As for Christine: You can mock, Christine, but there are no rear echelons in a campaign of civilian terror.
Woof.
Meanwhile, Green Glennwald can still not comprehend that Iran may
actually be working against our interests in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and
Afghanistan. All such information is based on unproven allegations of
anonymous sources according to Green, who does not seem to notice in
the same posts that he labels anonymously sourced second hand
anti-administration as FACT. Curious thought patterns these moonbats
have. Perhaps Christine could shed some light on that loony liberal
logic train as well. Christine in the near future: "Pfft. That’s just more winger toggle switch. Either the information is anonymously sourced hearsay or it isn’t with you wingnuts. No comprehension that… you know… some anonymously sourced information is better than others." "The fact that the only good sort of that information bolsters my world-view is merely a sign of my ability to read between the binary selection that you wingers can only see in." "QED!"
Oh my goodness. That was a friggen mess. Reposting.
Meanwhile, Green Glennwald can still not comprehend that Iran may
actually be working against our interests in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and
Afghanistan. All such information is based on unproven allegations of
anonymous sources according to Green, who does not seem to notice in
the same posts that he labels anonymously sourced second hand
anti-administration as FACT. Curious thought patterns these moonbats
have. Perhaps Christine could shed some light on that loony liberal
logic train as well. Christine in the near future: “Pfft. That’s just more winger toggle switch. Either the information is anonymously sourced hearsay or it isn’t with you wingnuts. No comprehension that… you know… some anonymously sourced information is better than others.”
“The fact that the only good sort of that information bolsters my world-view is merely a sign of my ability to read between the binary selection that you wingers can only see in.” “QED!”
Okay, I give up on this whole commenting thing. There is no way I can get it to work.
Shorter me: Christine will just call it winger-toggle-switching, as usual, with a complete lack of irony and the usual intellectual conceits that make that line seem, to her, to be a competent and meaningful swipe.
"Dear PayPal . valued member,
Because of unusual number of invalid login attempts on you account, we had to believe that, there might be some security problems with your account.
We have decided to put an verification process to ensure your identity and your account security.
Please click on continue to the verification process and ensure your account security. It is all about your security."
Why do fraudsters have such crappy spelling and grammar? Socialists, I suppose.
forward that to spoof@paypal.com
I’ve got a big toggle switch, Christine. raaarrrr.
All of you, even you, Jeff, are missing the point. Christine is a friggin’ GENIUS!
Don’t you see? In order to establish your bona fides as an acceptable, reliable source for important information you must first embrace The Narrativetm! Once one has established one’s BushMcChimpyNeoBurtonBlood Oil credentials, even if it’s only for a part of The Narrativetm, then one’s pronouncements become worthy for thoughtful consideration by those of the "thinking" left.
What’s really, really cool about this is the fact that you can be consistently and aggregeously wrong and still wallow in the warm embrace of Christine and her toggle switchless friends. This is how someone like Larrty Johnson still has people who will listen to him or someplace like Media Matters gets quoted today. Embrace The Narrativetm and be embraced forever.
Now, like Christine, I shall go and ponder this news of dirt poor, Third World young ‘uns forced to commit icky acts of violence due to their lack of opportunity and the Economic Imperialism of America. At some point I will slot this threat into the proper perspective, weigh the potential damage and most likely conclude that only NASCAR loving country rubes will be concerned due to their cultural isolation and general lack of quality education. Plus, they simply won’t acknowledge that this, like everything else dangerous in ther world, is entirely the fault of wingnut war god wannabe chickenhawks and their worst evah(!) foreign policies.
Christine knows that The Narrativetm is the key to enlightenment! or … at least the entree to the best art shows and wine tastings.
Thought I would save you some typing time, dear!
Used to be we’d get mad when the MSM ran al-q propaganda. Now its all EVERYBODY PANIC OH NOES.
Hypothetical situation: It’s early December, folks are bundled up in their winter coats headed for the mall to do some holiday shopping. The terrorists have decided to show the entire country that it’s not just New York and the capitol region that are at risk. So they pick a low-risk, virtually impossible to defend against tactic: suicide bombers in the shopping malls. A coordinated attack. Suicide bombers simultaneously detonate themselves in malls in Chicago, Minnesota, New York and San Francisco. Perhaps even Omaha and Houston. While the body count would be low, relatively speaking, the potential economic effect would be staggering. I can envision the shopping malls turning into ghost towns overnight.Frankly, I’m surprised this hasn’t already happened. But I fear the day is coming…
See, if it were me, I’d go with almost all second-tier cities. Omaha, Charlotte, Hartford, Portland -places like that. I know AQ seems to like high-profile targets, but I think people all over the country would be a lot more terrified if they knew they weren’t safe just because they don’t live in NYC or LA.
Naw. You see, our contemporary liberal overlords will continue to preach that these acts are criminal acts rather than acts of war, and that we must pursue these invaders with dispassionate law enforcement and patient due process, bestowing upon them all protections of the Consitution. Then the Clinton appointees of District Four and liberals everywhere will bless the U.S. and praise our humanity. Treating terrorism as criminal will reduce terrorism because terrorists will see us as being so nice. It worked after the first WTC attack, didn’t it?
As most liberals say, "It’s a modern age and you simply have to suck up the occasional act of terrorism as a cost of living. The motivations for all terror are our fault, anyway, so quit complaining and raise some taxes and get on with consuming. Damn wingnuts…"
Geezer:
Thank you for prostrating yourself to THE NARRATIVETM!
I think the difference is that our toggle switches have an ON position.
"I’m likely to deface a mosque or start randomly accosting anyone with a bushy mustache"
Jeff, just make sure it isn’t Regis.
I can envision the shopping malls turning into ghost towns overnight.Frankly, I’m surprised this hasn’t already happened. But I fear the day is coming…
They’ve about missed thier chance for that. There are now enough Guard adn Reserve troops in those alls who have been overseas and learned what to watch for, I think that most of them will get picked up before they can do an optimum splodydope.
Situational awareness saves lives and you don’t have to wear a uniform.
I’ve speculated as to why we don’t see the kinds of coordinated mall/movie theater suicide attacks that, say, Israel sees. And I think it is this: were that to happen here, al Qaeda knows that they will be entering a hot war — one where even Democrats support a strong response, without the dithering and backstabbing.
And that’s because Americans simply won’t stand for having their everyday lives constrained. They can be manipulated by anti-war opportunists now because the threat seems so remote: the last attack here happened 6 years ago, we all did our requisite soul searching, but hey, time to Move On. Iraq? That’s so far away — and the fight is being carried out by professional soldiers — so supporting it or not is, to many people, an abstract concept.
Al Qaeda, in many ways, knows our culture enough to know that its best hope of "winning" here in the US in incrementally, by allowing our multiculturalist legislation to take form, by playing the victim card, by appealing to the guilt of the hyperpower hegemon — until one day they have weakened us sufficiently from within that it becomes more difficult to defend ourselves legally against what will, under the "right" government, count only as "criminal".
Already a Federal Court has ruled that if you’re here legally — even as a terrorist with a terrorist agenda, who set up residence here in order to carry out a terrorist attack or to aid other terrorists — you are protected by our Constitution.
So much for it not being a suicide pact, I guess.
Were I orchestrating the campaign against the west, I’d concentrate on tying the US up in legal knots of its own self-righteous making — aided by the kinds of useful idiots who pretend to concern themselves with human rights, but who in actuality are looking to appear more civilized than those who would treat the Islamic threat far more seriously (as I’ve said before, their calculus tells them that the chances of being killed in a terror attack are so small that they can afford to take the gamble, and they’d rather think themselves better than the hawks than capitulate to war-time security measures that are necessary only in theory); at the same time, I’d be concentrating on setting up cells within the US for the longterm.
Meanwhile, I’d be concentrating more on Europe, where EU-style multiculturalism is entrenched, and where immigration has given al Qaeda cover to introduce radicalized elements into western communities — "home grown" terrorists living in near-autonomous states within European countries — and launch my attacks there, with the hope that the European countries will capitulate (see, eg., Spain, whose short term capitulation will prove its long-term downfall).
The problem for al Qaeda in Europe is that, should those countries begin to turn, they’re less constitutionally constrained than are we here in the US, so the reaction could be swift and severe. So al Qaeda has to act far more quickly (remember, we’re using a clock that spans 14 centuries here, so "quickly" is relative) — in the short term winning legal battles and concessions, but in the interim term launching attacks on mass transit, outdoor markets, etc.
So if we’re to see suicide bombings of lower profile targets aimed at disrupting commerce and frightening civilians, I’d expect it to happen in Europe first. But not until the US puts into power a true paper tiger — someone who treats international terrorism as a state of affairs that we’re best off just to tolerate as a minor inconvenience, up until the time some terror group gets hold of some truly devastating weapon.
But that is comfortably in the future — so the can will be kicked down the road, so we can turn our attention to creating the kind of heavy centralized government that has proven so disastrous historically, and that is now proving to be a major problem in Europe with respect to fending off terrorism.
Of course, this is just early morning spitballing — and I’m likely to change my mind about all this any moment.
Depends on how the Rockies do against the Yankees, I guess.
"Naw. You see, our contemporary liberal overlords will continue to preach that these acts are criminal
acts rather than acts of war, and that we must pursue these
invaders with dispassionate law enforcement and patient due process,
bestowing upon them all protections of the Consitution. Then the
Clinton appointees of District Four and liberals everywhere will bless
the U.S. and praise our humanity. Treating terrorism as criminal will reduce terrorism because terrorists will see us as being so nice. It worked after the first WTC attack, didn’t it?"Geezer, you believe we should station a military force in every mall in America? If so, better start that draft. If not, then pray tell, how do you catch the bombers? Police? Border patrol? I’m no Actus, but I think that police work might catch them. Unfortunately, for your second assertion, we still haven’t adopted the " Cheney/BJTexs summary execution for all persons arrested for suspiscion of terrorism" but give it time. Until then, I suppose your President can just declare them enemy combatants and imprison them indefinitely. Ain’t democracy grand.Oh, and, if we discover they didn’t do anything worth arresting them for, we can send them to Libya, Syria, or Saudi Arabia for more imprisonment! It’s win-win.
Already a Federal Court has ruled that if you’re here legally  even as a terrorist with a terrorist agenda, who set up residence here in order to carry out a terrorist attack or to aid other terrorists  you are protected by our Constitution.
See the part where you said "even as a terrorist with a terrorist agenda, who set up residence here in order to carry out a terrorist attack or to aid other terrorists"? Who makes that determination? Who decides whether those allegations are true? That is the determination that must be reviewable by the Courts or none of us is safe.
Naw. You see, our contemporary liberal overlords will continue to preach that these acts are criminal
acts rather than acts of war, and that we must pursue these
invaders with dispassionate law enforcement and patient due process,
bestowing upon them all protections of the Constitution. If terrorists aren’t subject to habeas corpus, the terrorists have won.
Well, we made hash out of that, didn’t we?
Naw. You see, our contemporary liberal overlords will continue to preach that these acts are criminal acts rather than acts of war, and that we must pursue these invaders with dispassionate law enforcement and patient due process, bestowing upon them all protections of the Consitution.
If terrorists aren’t subject to habeas corpus, the terrorists have won.
As Wall Street Journal online or James taranto mused last week, imagine Hillary in the Oval Office and a small nuclear device kills 20,ooo people in New Yawk. In spite of the District Four ruling, Hillary suspends Habeas Corpus a la Abraham Lincoln.
Now, that may be an impeachable offense, since the Consitution probably grants such power only to the Congress. But in the angry aftermath of just that scenario, how likely will a collectivist like Hillary and her coven give up that power? If liberals then finally buy into the reality of a decades-long GWOT, might they rationalize a decades-long suspension of Habeas Corpus?
Because the courts are infallible? Because all judges are experts on terrorism? Because the NYT needs the material to sell papers? I am really not clear why a military tribunal that protects our intelligence sources is more dangerous than AQ, too bad you can’t seem to be troubled to present an actual argument.
Bin Laden believes himself to be at war with the US, Christine, and acts accordingly, so how do we insert the courts into what amount to tactical decisions without rendering ourselves stupidly vulnerable? What’s your proposed solution?
Right, Christine and timmah, because our government just randomly goes around accusing people of being illegal alien terrorists, or conspiring to aid and abet a terrorist organization.
Projection of your own paranoia does not make it reality.
Bigger JAG Corps. Much bigger… Bigger than any other branch; Infantry, MP, Ordnance or MI… ROE cards replaced with Miranda Warning cards.
Hey, its a start…
Not the govenment, JD, just Bush, Cheney and Rove riding around doing drive-by indictments.
No, Christine, you are wrong. It’s the executive branch that gets to decide, because they are protecting us from Jose Padilla types, who came here to set off a dirty bomb, I mean blow up apartment buildings, I mean "conspiracy to kidnap and murder in other countries." (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/22/padilla.case/index.html). Those folks int he administration don’t need your help, Christine. they need justice form the cop, prosecutor and jury that is the DOJ in this brave country. Although, it would be best for the world if we just shot them in the street.
Pablo, I envy your paragraphing ability. I tried "shift-enter", I tried bullet points, I turned off the HTML. Also, I’m impressed that you finally got one right. Any terrorist political advocates the use of indiscriminate violence, so the authorities will over-react, alienate large portions of a population to create the dissent necessary to achieve political goals. Al Queda seeks to piss Americans off, so they will harm Muslims, thus driving Muslims to the Al Queda side and forcing America from the Middle East. Then, since bin Laden’s greatest hatred is the Saudi royal family, Al Queda can take over Suadi Arabia.
By removing habeus, a basic human right, from the US legal system, we alienate the Muslim community here (which, you guys know is just a front for terrorism anyway…damn fifth columnists), harm our image abroad with Western countries (tactical win for jihadis) and fall into a propaganda trap for Al Queda in the Muslim world ("look at those hypocrites, making war on us").
Seriously, you are falling right in with their tactics, as well as possibly imprisoning innocent folks and sending them to Syria for torture (oops, sorry Mr. Arar http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/)
But, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette!
JD, the point is you don’t who makes that determination. It’s not reviewable and the person so designated does not have a right to a hearing, to counsel, or to even knowing the charges against him/her.
Have there been cases of abuse yet? Probably not, but checks and balances are here to prevent tyranny. Clement Vallandigham, Watergate, the bugging of Leftist groups in the 60’s, the entrapment/indictment agaisnt Randy Weaver, etc, an unchecked executive is a force of tyranny (see Federalist papers or anything written by Thomas Jefferson. See further the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the Sedition Act of 1918). Oppression often starts as a genuine desire to protect the public, and goes from there.
What is really fascinating about the District Four ruling is that terrorists are now safer in the United States than they are offshore.
While planning and training offshore to kill citizens of the United States, they can be killed since they are enemy combatants. If they are caught here, however, we have to house them, feed them, give them attorneys, check Mirandic validity of all evidence, and so forth. Apparently the Constitution is a suicide pact, eh?
Yes, the FBI may catch them, but the court system seems to place itself above national security interests which are not its bailiwick, according to the Constitution. By the way, if someone is planning a mass murder as a way to affect national or foreign policy, or to promote instability of the government, does that not make them an enemy combatant? Are you really that goofy?
What exactly was my second assertion, since you didn’t comprehend it? Did you learn to read in a public school system?
Bill Clinton conducted warrantless wiretapping and warrantless searches of the home and office of a non-citizen who was suspected of spying. No hue and cry was raised then about our liberties, persumably because it was a Democrat protecting the nation. It is as it was in the nation in the beginning of WWii. The ultra-left opposed lend-lease and supported Hitler since he’d signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin. Only when Hitler attacked the U.S.S.R. did the American Communist Party then support war against fascism. The left opposes the national defense unless it aids an effort to give them more power.
I wouldnt rush to crap on Clarke. He has pretty much the best bona fides on the WoT. He was the guy screaming to kill Osama when Albright and Clinton thought he was nuts; lefties dont like him too much. He saw the FUBAR nature of a prolonged occupation of Iraq and was hollering about the problems with Iran–and wrote a novel that forsaw military conflict with it.
he aint Tony Lake or Sandy Berger.
Re: death squads…..well, d’uh! Matter of time is all.
Why aren’t we bombing the "tribal areas" on a regular basis? We ain’t got no friends in there, so waste the whole area.
an unchecked executive is a force of tyranny An unchecked legislature isn’t?
I forgot that this must be viewed through the prism of “McChimpy’s Smirky Pony Ride Through History”, where the evil Neocruds shred the Constitution, torture innocents, and kill old people, minorities, and children.
Heh. I can’t see any problems at all with that approach, Major John.
Unless you are protecting the public from multi-national corporations, or global warming, or the AIDS virus, or HMOs, or drug companies, or greedy oil companies, or krazy kristians, or the patriarchy, or evil white men in power, or home educations, or unliscensed cosmetologists, hair-dressers, casket salesmen, pedicurists and tanning salons, or trans-fats, or smoke, or whateverthefuckelse the threat of the day might be.
“Oppression often starts with a genuine desire to protect the public”
Very insightful. It calls to mind all of the nanny-state legislation the eminates from the Left.
It’s not reviewable and the person so designated does not have a right to a hearing, to counsel, or to even knowing the charges against him/her.
Wow. It’s almost like being a POW or something. :::shudder:::
Who makes that determination? Who decides whether those allegations are
true? That is the determination that must be reviewable by the Courts
or none of us is safe. You might want to tell the terrorists to avoid attending Duke U. The courts will save us….! Ugh. It fascinates me to watch someone complain about government intrusion; only to then suggest more government intrusion. Federalism be damned.
timmah – During a war, I am more than comfortable with letting the military make those determinations.
I think Clarke has always been on the right side of the threat, his real problem is his personality.
He sounds and acts like Tom Clancy. His voice alone makes him hard to take seriously. He honestly sounds like a LARPer, or that chess club kid who everyone hated because he thought he was so damn smart.
He’s generally an asshole who can’t take criticsm and holds a grudge.
Because of this people don’t take him seriously but I think his toggle switch is always "on" to borrow a phrase.
I take him pretty seriously, I don’t think the odds are good that I, myself will get blown up by a suicide bomber, but I do think other people will. When I’m in an area that has been identified as a possible suicide bomber target, like an airport, bus station or Sbarros pizzarria, I’ll tend to be a little more alert. I hope our government is taking these threats extremely seriously, at least as seriously as it takes the danger my kids face from choking on small toys, or from falling from dangerously high playground equipment.
Of course, why should we worry about a handful of people getting their asses blown up when there are millions of people driving SUV’s who are causing the sea level to rise and whales to get lost and black people to get murdered in Darfur? We should be more frightened of the people who buy the new Ford Expedition EL (limited, with buttery soft leather seats, load levelling suspension, room for eight (or four big-assed car seats required by legislation for kids up to 90 pounds), and a six-speed transmission) than we should be of the terrorists.
Seriously, do you really think the Muslim world would be angry at us if we used bicycles to haul that 9100 lb trailer instead of an eight passenger truck with wood trim, navigation system, 20" inch wheels, surround sound entertainment system, and air-conditioned seats?
I think not
timmah – Would you prefer that we simply administer a double-tap in the field, allow our military to be the judge, jury, and executioner? It certainly would be cheaper.
LMC – My Expedition is my favorite car that I have ever owned. I do not drive it that often when gas prices are this high, as my Saab gets significantly better mileage, and costs about a third less to fill the tank.
One of the aims of terrorist organisations is to provoke democracies into abandoning elements of their democracy and judicial structures. Although personally I have sometimes been an advocate of the double tap as light heartedly proposed above, it has to be used very sparingly and only in order to bring home to the terrorist organisation the reality of terror. Israel has done this to good effect from time to time.
The democratic and judicial safeguards which Western democracies have in place are there for a reason and should not be abandoned casually- especially if that is one of the terrorists’ objectives.
I just don’t see how people like our trolls can’t at least see that there is a fuzzy distinction between criminal and combatant, that where we draw the line has consequences, and that we’re not evil for disagreeing with them on where that line should fall.
If the Canadian Army crosses the border and invades the US, and we capture a Canadian soldier in uniform, do we have to subject him to a criminal trial? What if he’s out of uniform? If we suspect a Canadian commando detachment is behind US lines, do we need a warrant to intercept their communications? If they’re communicating with a US citizen, can we prosecute the citizen based on the intercepted communication?
These are absurd examples, but they should raise valid legal questions for those like our trolls that take a very narrow view of national security.
furrisky – I agree with that, to a certain extent. We have a system, in war, where we can deal with these issues via military tribunals. We are in no way required to take illegal combatants into custody, and it is common practice, throughout history, to detain the illegal combatants until the conclusion of the conflict, to keep them from returning to the battlefield.
Now, in cases of people found acting as, or with, terrorists inside our borders, it is a harder question. Our judicial system is not designed to deal with national security, and like with Moussaoui, these trials become a complete circus. Sometimes you can just hope that they resist arrest.
I’m still trying to figure out why there is apparently a 24-hour delay on my comments posting since the upgrade. Maybe I shoulda paid the ‘Dillo his squeeze after all, huh?
I would have thought that about 9/11. It did happen that way. For about three weeks.
no, it’s not
Being a contrarian is expected, timmah. But it would help to point out which position you are disagreeing with.
Because the courts are infallible? Because all judges are experts on terrorism? Because the NYT needs the material to sell papers? I am really not clear why a military tribunal that protects our intelligence sources is more dangerous than AQ, too bad you can’t seem to be troubled to present an actual argument.
More dangerous than Al Qaeda? I didn’t say that, and I don’t think that. Too bad you have to make up stuff and say I said it rather than address what I do say.
My problem with the MCA is that the determination that puts an individual into the military tribunal process is not reviewable. It should be. Further, making that determination reviewable doesn’t dispense with the military tribunal process. It just makes that initial determination reviewable.
And do I think the courts are infallible? No. I do not. But I’m not willing to say, "Oh well, just let the boob (or whoever happens to be President at the time) decide then." I’m shocked that anyone who loves this country could think otherwise.
You see, folks. Either agree with Christine, or clearly you do not love this country, or at least not as much as her. Nice.
Christine – Do you think that the honorable men and women in the US military are just randomly pulling people off of the battlefield ?
Reviewable by whom? A public court? How do you protect your intelligence sources if it were so?
Why?
Which compromises the secrecy that is the whole rationale for a military tribunal.
I am shocked that you and timmy have such a ridiculously juvenile view of the President, the State Department, the Military and the Intelligence community, that you think all this happens at the whims of one man.
Well, not really shocked, mildly amused would probably be more accurate.
we’ll discover that libs aren’t on/off toggle switches like wingers are
Because the Left never views anything in a binary fashion.
You probably mean, though, who on the left is taking it seriously and not discounting it? Time will tell, I suppose. But you’ve piqued my curiosity as to what the response on the left will be, so, yes, I’ll report back.
And the results of your findings were … ?
But I’m not willing to say, "Oh well, just let the boob (or whoever happens to be President at the time) decide then." I’m shocked that anyone who loves this country could think otherwise.
Bow to your moral better, sheeple.
Does anyone care to share the rest of Christine’s "arguments" now, so we can dispense with the inevitable moonbattery? Warforoil. Illegal war. Shrub is dumb, but tricked some damn smart Dems into going along with their prior convictions, based on a practically unanimous intelligence assessment from the world community. Shred the Constitution. Stripping people of their civil rights. Blah, blah, blah …
Bow to your moral better, sheeple. Does anyone care to share the rest of Christine’s "arguments" now, so we can dispense with the inevitable moonbattery? Warforoil. Illegal war. Shrub is dumb, but tricked some damn smart Dems into going along with their prior convictions, based on a practically unanimous intelligence assessment from the world community. Shred the Constitution. Stripping people of their civil rights. Blah, blah, blah …
Can we cut through the fluff? What is your objection to judicial review for the initial determination of whether one is a terrorist?
Quite simple – that is not what our legal system is designed to handle. Were that the case, Major John’s battallion would have gone to Afghanistan with a battallion full of lawyers, rather than soldiers.
It’s a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Can we cut through the fluff? What is your objection to judicial review for the initial determination of whether one is a terrorist?
Because the circumstances inherent in a war make it impossible to provide the luxury of a full criminal judicial review, and anything less than a full criminal judicial review is open to the same criticisms inherent in the current military tribunal system.
Quite simple – that is not what our legal system is designed to handle. Were that the case, Major John’s battallion would have gone to Afghanistan with a battallion full of lawyers, rather than soldiers.
But then, we aren’t talking about foreign soil, are we? That’s an entirely different matter.
And, to make sure I’m clear on your position, if someone who’s not a terrorist gets swept up into the military tribunal process, that’s simply a regrettable cost of being at war? Or do you not think such a thing could happen?
What if someone who is innocent gets swept up in our civil court system? Is that just a regrettable cost of having a police force and a legal system? And why won’t you address the issue I keep raising about protecting intelligence sources? Why does the publics need to know override the need for an effective counterterrorism intelligence gathering operation?
Sure, there maybe people taken from the battlefield that are not terrorists, and yes, that is a regrettable part of being at war. I do not see how these people should ever be able to avail themselves of our judicial processes, and you have not provided us with anything substantive to make me reconsider.
As BMoe points out, it is not at all uncommon for innocents to get swept into the civil court system, and as with the Duke boys indicted for being privileged white males, it is not unheard of for innocents to get drug into the criminal system.
We have alternatives to removing these people from the battlefield, Christine. We can let them go, and pray that they do not choose to join, or resume, active combat against us, potentially endangering the lives of the troops, or we can remove these people permanently, rather than bothering with taking them into custody.
What if someone who is innocent gets swept up in our civil court system?
What?! That’s the writ of habeas corpus you’re talking about, whether you realize it or not. Which is where this all began, isn’t it?
And why won’t you address the issue I keep raising about protecting intelligence sources? Why does the publics need to know override the need for an effective counterterrorism intelligence gathering operation?
Because I missed it. To address it now: IMO, you’re putting the cart before the horse. Personally, I don’t think this question weighs into deciding whether the initial determination is reviewable. Rather, once one decides that it is, the system of review is then designed to protect the integrity of the intelligence — and that includes sources.
To sum up: I think the Great Writ is just that: the Great Writ, the very bedrock of our brilliantly and beautifully designed system of justice and the foundation of all our other rights.
And, to make sure I’m clear on your position, if someone who’s not a terrorist gets swept up into the military tribunal process, that’s simply a regrettable cost of being at war? Or do you not think such a thing could happen?
Yes, it’s a regrettable cost of being at war. It might be different if we were facing uniformed enemy combatants, who take risks by following the rules of war regarding wearing a distinguishing uniform. But we’re facing an enemy that does not follow those rules, and such is ultimately responsible for civilians getting swept up into the military tribunal process, or killed.
If a criminal gunman takes a hostage, and in the ensuing stand-off a police sniper shoots the hostage unintentionally, the criminal gunman is ultimately responsible for the hostage being injured.
P.S. You keep referring to the battlefield. Since this thread is about suicide bombers being sent to the U.S., I’m operating under the assumption that this particular side issue we’re talking about here is fallout from the al-Marri decision, which concerns someone who was in the U.S. legally and who got put in the military tribunal process when Bush declared him an "enemy combatant." That is the determination I’m talking about that should be reviewable.
I, anyway, am not talking about people captured on a battlefield or on foreign soil.
Yes, it’s a regrettable cost of being at war. … If a criminal gunman takes a hostage, and in the ensuing stand-off a police sniper shoots the hostage unintentionally, the criminal gunman is ultimately responsible for the hostage being injured.
Fascinating analogy. Your willingness to excuse the government for actions it has under its control – e.g., whether to review a determination of whether an individual is a terrorist – by comparing them to actions by law enforcement in the heat of battle is mind-boggling to me. I can see comparing the actual sweeping someone up to injuries incurred in a hostage situation, but the supposedly measured determinations taken thereafter? No can see.
BTW, what is the deal with this new setup? My comment entry section is chopped off on the left. Anyone else having that problem?
I’ve never understood the hard-on people have for the al-Marri case. He wasn’t in the country legally, since he lied on his visa application to get here. Secondly, his job was to commit credit-card fraud to build up cash to support attacks; he was committing credit-card fraud when he was initially arrested.
He was acting in the furtherance of the murder of civilians at the behest of the declared enemies of the US. He’s an unlawful enemy combatant. He should have been stood up against a wall and shot a long time ago.
If you are a jihadi, and planning or waging war against the US, and acting in defiance of the Geneva Conventions, then you should have zero opportunity to avail yourself of our judicial system. You are taking actions most closely approximately war, and your fate should lie in the hands of those that conduct war, the US military, who I trust a great deal more than the judicial system.
Al-Marri is precisely the type of situation that has no place in our Court system.
Why not just let the military tribunal make the initial review?
Actually I’ve thought of that and I’m not totally averse to it. To protect citizens who might get swept up, I think the court that reviews that determination needs to be established under Art. III of the Constitution and not under the UCMJ or any other Act of Congress. But — and maybe Major John could speak to this — I’m picturing there might be a way to make it a separate court with special protections set up for intelligence. Ya gotta be careful about separation of powers concerns, so I don’t know. But with sufficient creativity, maybe there’s a way.
Al-Marri is precisely the type of situation that has no place in our Court system.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
If you are a jihadi, and planning or waging war against the US, and acting in defiance of the Geneva Conventions, then you should have zero opportunity to avail yourself of our judicial system. You are taking actions most closely approximately war, and your fate should lie in the hands of those that conduct war, the US military, who I trust a great deal more than the judicial system.
If you take your beginning premise — "if you are a jihadi, and planning or waging war against the US, and acting in defiance of the Geneva Conventions" — as true, then everything that follows is fine. I don’t disagree. It’s the determination that the beginning premise is true that I think absolutely must be reviewable.
That determination, Christine, is best handled by those that understand the underlying actions. What, in your opinion, makes the US judicial system the appropriate mechanism, rather the the US military tribunals? Why would an act of war be given the benefits of our judicial system? Are you planning on paying for counsel for the jihadis?
Maybe John "Silk Pony" Edwards can make a new career out of representing the hordes of wrongly captured illegal combatants, and jihadis.
Our left side was atrophied long ago.
What, in your opinion, makes the US judicial system the appropriate mechanism, rather the the US military tribunals?
The U.S. Constitution.
Christine, the US Constitution does not require that such determinations be made by Art III courts rather than UCMJ courts.
Christine,Although I can’t speak for others, I can
speak to my strong concern about those activities which muddy the
distinction between civilian and combatant. And in some respects,
I see some of your concern about the risk of a true innocent getting
swept up in this mix and irrevocably being incorrectly ‘assgined’ the
status of combatant as deriving from the same set of basic concerns.
By way of background, the Geneva Conventions – as a whole – are
intended, in large measure, to differentiate between those who fight
and those on whose behalf war is fought. They don’t have a
particularly strong philosophical basis as some sort of self-evident
moral truth. Rather, a great deal of the movtivation behind the
conventions stems from three things: first, western countries (on
average) tend to fight much, much more violent and all-encomapssingly
butal wars than do other cultures; second, the only two things that
serve as hard limits to battlefield conduct are capability and threat
of retaliation; third, uniforms help reduce the dangers of friendly
fire incidents. So, quite some time ago, the west started
establishing a habit of leaving non-combatant civilians out of harms
way as much as possible (one can imagine the carnage that would have
accompanied WWII had the invading armies razed captured cities as the Romans had done to Carthage
would have resulted in a Europe of less than fraction of its current
population). Throughout much of time – including a great portion
of the twentieth century, this agreement to leave the fighting to
soldiers, although spelled out in the form of legal agreements, was
enforced on a practical level by the individual soldiers on the ground
(after the Battle of the Bulge, it became extraordinarily difficult to be "captured" by the 101st Airborne without getting shot in the process). So,
at least on a practical level, a means of establishing an enforcement
mechanism, and consequent assignment of penalties and deterrence, had
been established – more or less – for quite some time, and thus the
distinction between military and civilian was better defined and
allowed to evolve to meet their own ends relatively well. However,
we are now faced with an enemy that knows that the west is far more
likely to punish one of its own soldiers for a misstep than it is to
prosecute an enemy combatant – perhaps the gentlemen who amuse
themselves by videotaping the decapitation of thier prisoners – for any
one of a number of violations of the Laws of Land Warfare. By
directing effort at the interface of the civilian and military sphere,
our opponents have found an area in which they have an inesacapable
asymmetric advantage. In it’s 1998 fatwa, Al Qaeda notes:
So, we must ask ourselves how we can mitigate this advantage,
and the extent to which this advantage, if left unchecked, becomes
problematic. While I don’t have a comprehensive answer to these
questions, I do have some thoughts about some of the potential problems
that we face, especially if decisions are made without clearly
considering the precedents that will be created.
I am a bit uncomfortable with the notion that a terrorist who
seeks to shoot US civilians in a shopping mall is accorded a higher
degree of legal sanction than one who is firing on US soldiers in
Afghanistan.The prospect of opening up enemy combatants to civil
criminal charges could, at least to my mind, open up the possibility of
our soldiers being prosecuted under the civil laws of another combatant
country, which, in turn would mean that we will have granted, by
precedent, the right to execute captured American soldiers on the
grounds of attempted murder, assault on government officials, and
fomenting a state of insurrection.The standards of proof in a civilian court are, at least on a philosophical level, predicated on the idea that it is "better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted", yet, when you’re talking about something like, let’s say, nuclear terrorism regular suicide bombers, I’m not sure how comfortable I am with the proposition of letting 10 bombers go free to avoid one greengrocer from being detained.Additionally, I am more than a bit confused about how someone who is captured overseas would be subject to the rulings of a US civil court. Clearly, this opens up a Pandora’s Box of issues on jurisdiction and legal authority. If a Yemeni gentleman is captured in Afghanistan, sent to a EPW camp somewhere and then is found to be a terrorist by a US civilian court, by what earthly rationale can we be, effectively, arresting Yemeni citizens in a third country for violation of US law? Would US soldiers then have to be deputized under Afghani law? Are we anywhere near certain that we want to legally turn all of our soldiers into police? If we do, how do we reconcile warfighting requirements and rules of engagment with provisions regarding the deadly use of force that apply to police? In any case, these are a few of the things that, in addition to the strong comments made elsewhere, that animate much of my profound hesitation at the practical implementation of an idea that might be otherwise well intentioned in concept. Best regards, BRD
Crap. My apologies, everyone. It looked OK on preview.
…which means the U.S., in this hypothetical, is the battlefield.
Fascinating analogy. Your willingness to excuse the government for
actions it has under its control – e.g., whether to review a
determination of whether an individual is a terrorist – by comparing
them to actions by law enforcement in the heat of battle is
mind-boggling to me. I can see comparing the actual sweeping someone up
to injuries incurred in a hostage situation, but the supposedly
measured determinations taken thereafter? No can see. You asked a question: "what happens if a noncombatant gets swept up into the military tribunal process?", with no qualifications. I answered your question. In modern insurgent warfare, where is the battle line? Suppose we have a terrorist shooting up a shopping mall. If he’s taken down from behind by a dozen cops, is that in the heat of battle? Can we then label him an enemy combatant?
Christine, I don’t know if it has been answered to your satisfaction elsewhere, but if you take a look at the 1998 Al Qaeda fatwa, as far as Al Qaeda is concerned everyone is a combatant and everyplace is a battlefield. So long as a place contains American (or allied) civilian or military, it’s a place where all Muslims have an obligation to kill. In our adherence to the Geneva Convention, Al Qaeda’s rejection of same, and our consequent embrace of this asymmetrical disadvantage, we have ceded the ability to define what is and is not a battlefield. Cheers, BRD
“Al-Marri is precisely the type of situation that has no place in our Court system.”
And yet, that is where the military “captured” him. In a jail cell. So much for questioning their field decisions.
Does it make a really loud whoooshing sound when the point goes flying over your head like that?
From the al-Marri decision:
Uhh… the "bravo" would be my commentary, of course. Not Judge Motz’.
I am glad you are excited, but I cannot see how Toth even remotely resembles this case. Perhaps you could explain?
Your quotation, Christine, does not go so far as your claim for it. The court is not saying that the Constitution requires what you say it does, the court said that the President didn’t have the powers to effect the detention <b>without Congressional authorization</b>. Which is a different thing. Congress does specifically have the powers under the Constitution, Art I sec. 9, to decide that such detentions are permissable.
It is my understanding that Al-Massri was not a legal alien, as he had material misrepresentations on his visa application. I think that represents a substantial difference between the case you quoted from.
It is frankly scary that a federal judge is willing to define who our opponents are. If somebody is planning or carrying out an act of war, in violation of Geneva, and they are an illegal alien, I still do not understand how they should be afforded the legal protections of our legal sytem.
It seems like a bullshit ruling to me, some judge trying to make a name for himself or pander, whatever. We have 200 fucking years of legal precedents of locking up suspicious aliens, the War of 1812, War Between the States, Spanish American, WWI, WWII, not alot of legal challenges I don’t think because we weren’t a nation of coddled idiots with retarded self-preservation mechanisms. I don’t see this stinker standing up on appeal. If it does I fear we may be fucked.
I am glad you are excited, but I cannot see how Toth even remotely resembles this case. Perhaps you could explain?
As I’m sure you know, case law may be (and often is) cited for legal principles even in cases distinguishable on their facts. That can prove to be a mistake if the factual differences indicate a different outcome under the case law cited. But all that means is that you can’t be a stupid dick about what you’re doing.
In Toth, the lower court found an ex-serviceman was constitutionally subject to trial by court-martial under a federal statute. The decision was reversed because the U.S. Supreme Court found the statute unconstitutional and that Congress exceeded its power in authorizing such a trial, as the statute encroached upon the jurisdiction of federal courts to provide civilians the benefit of constitutional safeguards afforded by Article III.
See the principle there? Shining like a beacon on a hill? Even an ex-serviceman can’t be hauled into military court because, as a civilian, he is afforded certain protections under our Constitution that prohibit that.
Are there factual distinctions? Yes. Toth was an ex-serviceman, al-Marri an individual who was declared an enemy combatant. In Toth, there was a federal statute that provided for Toth being subject to court martial, while in al-Marri, the 4th Circuit panel found that al-Marri wasn’t within the class of persons for whom Congress authorized military detention under the MCA.
But none of this changes the basic principle articulated in Toth. Or, put another way, the principle applies and the differing facts don’t dictate a different outcome.
Perhaps, though, you have other differences in mind that would dictate a different outcome. So rather than me guess at what you might have in mind, why don’t you just shout it right out?
It is my understanding that Al-Massri was not a legal alien, as he had material misrepresentations on his visa application. I think that represents a substantial difference between the case you quoted from.
The Court said he was residing here legally. If you want to discuss the opinion, that’s a given. Otherwise you’re talking about what is effectively a different case.
Your quotation, Christine, does not go so far as your claim for it. The court is not saying that the Constitution requires what you say it does, the court said that the President didn’t have the powers to effect the detention without Congressional authorization. Which is a different thing. Congress does specifically have the powers under the Constitution, Art I sec. 9, to decide that such detentions are permissible.
Habeas corpus has not been suspended for the class of persons to which al-Marri belongs, and martial law has not been declared. Yet, anyhoo.
So it is your contention that the citizenship of the person involved has absolutely nothing to do with what rights they are afforded? A citizen of a country we are at war with, as an example, is afforded exactly the same Constitutional rights as a citizen of the United States? And that is stated somewhere in the Constitution?
This case seems much more on point to me.
“And that is stated somewhere in the Constitution?”
Not much in the constitutional text seems be limited by citizenship. Searching for the word “citizen” in the constitution can be illustrative. But its lack shouldn’t be all that guides you. Some of hte language is quite clear. For example, the sixth amendment right to a lawyer and a jury trial says that it is a requirement of “all criminal prosecutions.” Pretty clear text that it doesn’t depend on citizenship. That wouldn’t be “all.”
How about letting a Supreme Court decision guide me? Follow the link in the post right before yours, shine, and read the quote in the post inself. Then think about it hard before you post again and maybe you won’t look like such a fucking idiot. Maybe, but I doubt it.
The court was wrong. It happens.
"
How about letting a Supreme Court decision guide me? " I suppose between 9 robed men and the constitutional text, the choice is clear. But I don’t think the constitution would apply to foreign people captured in a foreign country — ie, the facts that Eisenstrager was dealing with. From the case you cite:"But, in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the
Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien’s presence
within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to
act. In the pioneer case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court said of the
Fourteenth Amendment, "These provisions are universal in their
application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction,
without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality;
. . . ." (Italics supplied.) 118
U.S. 356, 369. And in The Japanese Immigrant Case, the Court held its processes
available to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become
subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its
population, although alleged to be illegally here."189
U.S. 86, 101."
BMoe – Well said.
shine – How would “all criminal prosecutions” be applicable to enemy combatants and illegal alien combatants? They are not being charged with disturbing the peace.
The case directly related to enemy aliens on foreign soil, but addressed the issue of resident aliens in its decision and references.
The nine robed men are sanctioned by the Constitution, pinhead. You don’t have to choose between them.
boy that text box makes things a mess. Let me know if you want a repost. JD: i’m not saying that the 6th amendment forces these guys to have criminal prosecutions. I’m just using it as an example of how a lot of our constitution is immigration-status neutral. Given a criminal prosecution, it must have certain features, without any regard to the immigration status of the defendant.
"Courts will entertain his plea for freedom from Executive custody only to ascertain the existence of a state of war and whether he is an alien enemy"
So the courts do make determinations as to whether there is a state of war and who is an alien enemy. Seems allright by me.
We aren’t talking about criminal prosecutions, shine, that is the damn point. We are talking about national defense in time of war.
"The nine robed men are sanctioned by the Constitution, pinhead. You don’t have to choose between them. " Some people say that some decisions, like Roe v. Wade, have no basis in the constitutional text. So there are at least some people who do choose. Pinheads? who knows. "We aren’t talking about criminal prosecutions, shine, that is the damn
point. We are talking about national defense in time of war. "And the court in Eisenstrager is talking about how it gets to hear cases, and gets to determine whether there is this war and whether the person suing is an enemy alien.
and gets to determine whether there is this war I don’t recall that power being granted to the judiciary.
Shine, According to the methodology you propose, how would one deal with a soldier from an invading country? Once they land on the beach, do they cease to be enemy soldiers, but rather become criminals – not based on what they’ve done, but, as I see your argument, where they happened to do it? BRD
"Shine, According to the methodology you propose, how would one deal with a soldier from an invading country? "
I really haven’t proposed a methodology, but I think Eisenstrager answers your question. Nothing problematic with the quotes in comments 148, 150 and 152. Is there?
Shine, I am by no means a legal scholar, but I wonder if any of the current discussion makes note of any precedents about the way in which Soviet nationals in the US, accused of espionage, were handled.
How were they handled? How were their legal challenges handled?
It seems to me shine and Christina have both basically agreed with the system in place, they just have problems with Bush and Rove and them driving around, arresting people at random and locking them up forever without a trial, which, if they agree to go along with reality, I think I can agree to be opposed to their mass hallucinations.
Looking for even more good content on internet security and identity theft prevention tips then have a look here