Up until this moment, I've been fairly happy with President-elect Barack Obama's choices on his cabinet (even though it's littered with ex-Clintonites), and his goals for this country. However, there is one area where I couldn't disagree with his policies and appointments more. That area is National Security. Barack is setting himself up to fail big-time in this area. Let me see if I can explain it in a way that makes sense to all of you...even those on the left.The reason I'm singling out those of you on the left is because your the fraction that generally opposes overseas internment (I apologize for using the left's verbage), the Guantanamo prison camp and coerced interrogation (you'll recognize the last one by the term "torture"). I believe there is something you need to understand about human nature.
All of you will continue to be staunch supporters of Civil Rights over security...until something horrible happens to you or someone you love. With very few exceptions, as hard as it is for you to believe, if someone close to you gets killed, raped or otherwise violated, you will throw your support of rights out the window. When your child disappears and someone saw the registered child-molester down the street talking to him/her last, you will be all for torturing the living shit out of him until he tells you where your child is, whether he has your child or not. When we humans get scared, no matter the political persuasion, we don't care about rights. That's just a fact. For example, after 9/11 we all demanded action to make us safe again, and rights were not even considered. The vote on the Patriot Act was 98-1-1 with only one Democrat voting against it. Sorry Dems, but fear took precedence over rights and it will again.
Barack Obama has now caved into the left's stand on these issues and it's going to cost him dearly. For Republicans that have been looking for a way to bring down this so-far Teflon President, the answer is now merely patience. Barack has already promised to close Gitmo (although he now says it won't be within 100 days). Even though he doesn't really know what to do with the suspected terrorists once he closes it. The left wants to give them full access to our judicial system- that's going to be a disaster. Most of them have already had their rights violated in one way or another and just like someone who wasn't read their Miranda Rights, a lot of them will walk. With the removal of coerced interrogation, as supported by Obama's choice to head the CIA, ex-Bill Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, very few of them will talk at all. With their right to remain silent intact, most of them will remain so. Whether or not this will produce more or less actual actionable intelligence is going to be a mute point. The perception will be that it might have, and perception in politics is more important than reality.
Let me explain it this way; So far in the argument, the left has held the higher moral ground. Whether or not we are safer because of G.W.'s policies in the War on Terror is theoretical. Some argue that all these policies have done is inflame the people that already hate us and turn our friends against us. They also argue that we would be just as safe without these policies. That is also theoretical. Whether these policies are helping or hurting is hard to figure out. The fact that we are acting in a way that violates some people's rights, or that we are, in some instances, using extreme measures, is not theoretic. Therefore, it's the fact that we violate people's rights vs. the theoretic notion that it's the policies that have made us safe. The left wins. Now, the one thing that the Reps can point to is that we haven't been attacked since 9/11. That's a fact for their side. If we get attacked again, the argument by the Reps will be 1) We didn't get attacked on Bush's watch (fact) and 2)We did get attacked on Barack's watch (fact). No matter how theoretic the effect of each man's methods, those facts will remain. If Barack changed nothing, he would be safe. Insulated by the same policies. With the changes he's making, people would naturally come to the conclusion that it must be the policies (as that's all that has changed) that have caused us to be more vulnerable. Remember, when people get scared, the value of rights goes out the window.
I don't want to see our country get attacked and I don't want to see President Obama take the blame for something that may, or may not, be his fault. But one thing is for certain, if these changes take place and we get hit big time, the Republicans will be using that issue to propel themselves right back into the majority and into the Presidency in 2012. So, I'm giving you fair warning Barack, because I like you. Stop changing our methods against terrorism to appease your friends on the left and pacify the mamby-pambies in Europe. This may make you more popular, but it will end up being the biggest mistake of your presidency if things go wrong. H.C.
14 comments:
you make some good points. i am no fan of bush or his trampling of civil liberties but one thing i've heard almost no one consider are things that occurred during clinton's reign that i believe emboldened the terrorists to think they could get away with something the magnitude of 9/11.
the first bombing of the WTC....limp response.
attack of the USS Cole...virtually no response
bombing of our embassies in kenya and tanzania...again, a merely symbolic response that meant nothing.
so 3 times the terrorists literally got away with murder of course. hello, were these three events not acts of war? why should they not plan a far more devastating attack and carry it out? i was outraged that there was no real response to speak of to those attacks prior to 9/11.
i submit if the parties guilty of those early attacks had been dealt with decisively we'd be in a much better place today and perhaps we wouldn't have wound up in a panic situation that led to the current trampling of rights. decisions made as a result of panic are rarely sound.
If the Obama administration can offer up a way to quickly and expeditiously try suspected terrorists, closing Gitmo may in fact be a good thing. Whether it has done much to preclude terrorism on U.S. soil is up for debate. Not so contested is the question of whether or not Gitmo has given U.S. foreign policy a black eye.
The right can - and most assuredly will - make closing Gitmo an issue of national security, especially if a terrorist attack commences during Obama's tenure. Oppositely, the left would maintain that the existence of Gitmo, the suspension of habeas corpus, torture, and indefinite detention policies were the culprit in damaging our foreign standings...which in fact served as a prelude to attack.
My major concern with closing Gitmo has nothing to do with the possibility of terrorist attacks. I never bought the argument that there is a relationship between the two. Instead, what I'm most concerned about is how the U.S. will facilitate detention of suspected terrorists as they stand trial. Bringing them on U.S. soil and housing them in U.S. jails/prisons is likely to get all sorts of opposition from a host of elected officials. The "Not In My Backyard" theme will prevail, most likely motivating the feds to invest taxpayer $$$ into either expanding current prisons solely for isolating suspected terrorists or build jails for them altogether.
In a nutshell, I'm not opposed to closing Gitmo if they are pretty legitimate substitutes in place.
Meant to say "...I'm not opposed to closing Gitmo if THERE are pretty legitimate substitutes in place."
I dunno...that's a whole lot of theories & "what-ifs". Speculation of that sort is...kinda silly, no? If the U.S. were attacked tomorrow, or even 12 months ago when Bush didn't have one foot out the door, the same "We/HE didn't do enough" would be shouted from roof-tops as well, even w/ us knowing what this administration HAS done, right?
While I TOTALLY agree w/ you on your example pertaining to something happening to "your own children" (I touched base on this @ Andre's site recently, although it pertained to the death penalty), I TOTALLY disagree w/ your statement...
"When we humans get scared, no matter the political persuasion, we don't care about rights. That's just a fact. For example, after 9/11 we all demanded action to make us safe again, and rights were not even considered."
There were plenty of people...from day one...that were against this. Fortunately, people slowly came back to their senses...but unfortunately, it took 4000+ US lives & a shit-ton of ill-fated decisions for them to do so.
-n
Hey Lime,
Great points. I have said here several times that Clinton was complicit in the WTC attacks. On that point I agree with the Reps. Likewise, if we get attacked, the Democrats will try to use the same tactic that the Reps used to defend Bush, (that the attack was planned when their guy wasn't even in office). They will defend Barack even though it will be complete hypocracy on their part. The truth is; it was part Clinton's fault for not responding hard enough and it will be harder for the Dems to use that line when they already complain that Bush went TOO far. I also agree with you that it's better to avoid these attacks, but if a crime isn't committed yet the left will have a hard time seeing the crime at all. In their world, no matter how much evidence you have of planning a crime, it's only theoretic until the crime is actually committed. Thanks for your input!
Hey Dre,
You kind of lost me on this point;
"Oppositely, the left would maintain that the existence of Gitmo, the suspension of habeas corpus, torture, and indefinite detention policies were the culprit in damaging our foreign standings...which in fact served as a prelude to attack."
Are you saying that those things "in fact" served as a prelude to attack? I don't really think it's a fact. That's more like an opinion. Or are you just saying that's the position the left will take?
On Gitmo; I think the left and the left-leaning European countries have used our policies like Gitmo, internment, coerced confessions, and Abu Ghraib as a stick to beat Bush with. I doubt they would say a thing about Obama doing the exact same policies. For example; The same people who were outraged by Abu Ghraib said absolutely nothing about 100 UN officials using donated food and medicine to turn Congonese children into postitutes. They hated Bush from day one before he did anything. (Not that I'm excusing Bush, who I consider to be one of the worst presidents of all time.) I heard someone say today that closing Gitmo and moving the detainees to the U.S. mainland would invite breakout attempts. That's a good point, they have done exactly that in other countries. I say leave Gitmo right where it is. Those detainees are getting better treatment than regular U.S. prisoners. Even Michael Moore admitted that they're getting better medical coverage than most U.S. citizens. On top of that, the left fought hard to get them prayer mats and a place to pray even as they try to run religion out of our government, schools and military. Military tribunals is the most I would give them. It's a military issue, not a civilian one. Those captured in the U.S. have different rights including access to the courts.
My concern for Barack is how it's going to play out if he makes these changes and then we get attacked. If I were to pick a side on that one, I would choose the Republican side, the Democrats are going to lose because fear prevails. Thanks for your comments.
Hey Nic,
First point;
No, it wouldn't be the same for the reasons that I stated in my response to Lime. Clinton didn't go far enough and the complaint by the Democrats is that Bush went TOO FAR. It's going to be harder to blame Bush because we haven't been attacked on his watch since 9/11 and it's going to look like the terrorist were waiting until he left and that Obama's less draconian policies didn't keep us as safe.
Second point;
Thanks. As a good father, I'm not suprised you see my point. It's our instinct.
Third point;
You are, of course, correct. There was an element of people who kept their heads. Unfortunately, they were a small minority and they will be again, which is my main point. Thanks for your thoughts!
"Are you saying that those things "in fact" served as a prelude to attack? I don't really think it's a fact. That's more like an opinion. Or are you just saying that's the position the left will take?"
The latter. I'm saying that's the position the left would take should an attack ever happen. If the country was attacked again, they would say that the existence of Gitmo contributed to anti-American sentiment; which then led to the said attack.
"On Gitmo; I think the left and the left-leaning European countries have used our policies like Gitmo, internment, coerced confessions, and Abu Ghraib as a stick to beat Bush with. I doubt they would say a thing about Obama doing the exact same policies."
The anti-Bush sentiment regarding Gitmo comes on the heels of Bush and his crew blatantly thumbing their noses at the Geneva convention and at any attempts to maintain decency and integrity during this so-called "War on Terror." More than any president I can recall, Bush used 9/11 and the Iraq conflict to strip citizens of their rights, detain "suspects" with no rights whatsoever, and trample on the both national rights assurances (via the Constitution) and international rights assurances. That's why people hate Gitmo. At it's best, Gitmo is good way to isolate suspected terrorists as they await 'their day in court.' At it's worst, Gitmo was Bush's playground for torture, inhumanity, and rights violations.
Hey Dre,
Well, I have to say, you made the left's talking points on the issue. I'm not going to debate them with you because, as I said, it's the higher moral ground for now. Everyone likes to be on the side of protecting rights and when you make any issue a "rights" issue, much like the Gay Marriage issue, it's hard to oppose it and not sound like your against rights. Which is why people use that tact even when it doesn't apply (Although I do think this IS a rights issue). I would disagree though, that people who fight without uniform and blend back and forth with the civilians are covered by the Geneva Convention. I'll leave your comments as the last word since I think you covered that point of view very well. Good thoughts!
"Essentially, we have shaken the belief the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don't need it and it is causing us far more damage than any good we get for it."
- Colin Powell
On rare occasions, Hippie, opposition to Gitmo isn't just a left thing.
Hey Dre,
I'm not too sure Gen. Powell counts as "right" I would put him down as a moderate. But I think your correct that a far smaller fraction of people on the right or moderate are outraged as well. Also, you seem to believe it's a fact that Bush's actions and policies have diminished our country's standing overseas. I have seen a lot of nation cherry-picking by the left on this subject. Until recently, our standing with Russia was far better than it was under Clinton, the Breakaway Republics also liked Bush as they were big fans of both Reagan and Bush Sr. due to the destruction of the Soviet Union, add to that Kuwait and Israel which both liked Bush better than Clinton. You get the press you look for. I often wonder if Bush's lack of popularity in Europe is because of his actions or because of the left-leaning international press like CSPAN, BBC, and Al Jazerra. If they weren't constantly running the Abu Graib Scandal throughout Europe would we even be having this conversation? You yourself write pieces on the power of the press and how it portrays black people, but you then deny it could have the same effect on G.W.? I'm just askin'. Bush certainly didn't help his own cause, but I'd be willing to bet Abu Graib would have been a small story if it was done by the U.N. officials.
"I'm not too sure Gen. Powell counts as "right" I would put him down as a moderate."
Even when he was openly defiant to some of Bush's policies abroad, Colin Powell's initial work with the administration (along with his many years of work with Bush, Sr. and Reagan) pretty much cemented his 'rightness'. Publicly making mincemeat of McPalin was more of a referendum on extreme right antics than it was a shift into being a Moderate.
"Until recently, our standing with Russia was far better than it was under Clinton, the Breakaway Republics also liked Bush as they were big fans of both Reagan and Bush Sr. due to the destruction of the Soviet Union, add to that Kuwait and Israel which both liked Bush better than Clinton."
I think this becomes somewhat of moot point, unless the countries which disliked Clinton were driven to the point of potential conflict with. Unless it was hidden from the public as the coverup of all coverups, certain countries not liking Clinton as much as Bush never posed any immediate threat; certainly not the extent of the so-called "War on Terror". One of the reasons people have mythicized Reagan was because of the impression that he single-handed quelled potential conflicts with Russia. But that was the last real time - until the recent conflict in Georgia, that is - that Russia was really in the news. Perhaps that's from poor coverage. Perhaps that's from Russia not making much noise. I dunno.
The same can possibly be said of Israel and Kuwait.
Simply put: These countries don't like Clinton as much as Bush? So what...? They don't like Clinton and they're willing to rumble with the U.S. because of it? Major problem.
"I often wonder if Bush's lack of popularity in Europe is because of his actions or because of the left-leaning international press like CSPAN, BBC, and Al Jazerra."
I don't think these media outlets are as "left-leaning" as they are left-subscribing. Many folks on the left are fed up with the [mis]representation of facts by the MSM (while admittedly, other snobby leftists subscribe to these outlets simply as some sort pseudo-intellectual attempt to look down on the "uninformed masses"). When I think 'liberal leaning', CNN, MSNBC (extremely liberal), the Huff Po, Talking Points Memo, and the NYT all come to mind. CSPAN and the BBC don't.
"If they weren't constantly running the Abu Graib Scandal throughout Europe would we even be having this conversation?"
I think so. Again, I think media coverage is often predicated on how certain events shape the country's state of affairs. Being at war with two prevalent Middle Eastern nations is a lightning rod for all stories involving that region. Sorry, I don't make up the rules here.
"...but I'd be willing to bet Abu Graib would have been a small story if it was done by the U.N. officials."
To the contrary, I think it would be a large story. For one, a UN-sponsored Abu Graib would put to rest the notions that the UN is a do-nothing coalition in the war on terror. Secondly, the right wing media would either (1) praise the UN for finally torturing 'them A-rab terrorists'. Finally, the left would be assaulting the UN as much as they did Bush and his crew over the years.
I get your ultimate point about Bush being criticized far more than most other presidents. But I'm not sure so that he wasn't at least partially deserving of it.
Sorry Hippie, I had a bunch of scattered thoughts in my initial response. Here are some typo corrections:
(1) Second response, first sentence should read: "I think this becomes somewhat of moot point, unless the countries which disliked Clinton were driven to the point of potential conflict with us.
(2) Fifth response, third sentence should read: "Secondly, the right wing media would praise the UN for finally torturing 'them A-rab terrorists'." I originally had a second point, but I took it out. Forget to fix the rest of the sentence.
Sorry for the typos. They make it hard to communicate a point.
Hey Dre,
My only point is that you don't hear the kind of things that I pointed out and the question is; Why not? I agree that the countries I pointed out aren't as willing to throw down with us, but it does destroy the myth that "everyone overseas hates us" that is propagated by the media in their rabid effort to get Bush. I'm just trying to bring everyone back to reality. On your point about Abu Ghraib. I think my point about the U.N. abusing children in the Congo (which I'm willing to bet most everyone here wouldn't know a thing about if I hadn't told them) proves my point. However, I'll admit that argument is completely theoretic on both our sides though as we really don't KNOW how the press would have handled it. As far as Bush deserving it...ABSOLUTELY! But it doesn't give us the right to change the facts just to pile on. Again, thanks for your side! Getting both sides out there is what I'm really all about.
Post a Comment