Relax, It’s Okay To Say Political Opponents Are Aiding The Enemy Now

• February 10, 2010

Here’s one from the “if Bush had said this” file:

Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.

This was said by John Brennan, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Personally, from a purely academic standpoint, I agree with this statement. Political infighting and inflating the threat of terrorism do play into the hands of al-Qaeda (not to mention America’s other enemies).
I have to ask though: when did statements like this become the type to only be looked at academically? When statements in this vein were made under the previous administration, they were derided as marginalizing and the province of namecallers. The idea that one could tie opposition to foreign policy to aiding the enemy was to call that opposition “traitors” and “unpatriotic”, and we were assured by the Left that this was neither fair nor accurate. “Dissent is patriotic” and all that.
I suppose I should be glad that it’s now okay to make statements like these without having them torn apart looking for offense. I base the claim that it’s now okay on the fact that there’s no front page outrage over the statement. The op-ed columns aren’t calling for Mr. Brennan to retract his statement or calling for civility from the administration. It’s a good thing that statements like these can be taken at face value without them being used as political fodder or used to call the utterer a fascist.
Can we please just remember this moment the next time someone with an (R -) after his name says something similar?

Tags: Politics

http://Array sayanything-45

Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.

Pretty hard to argue with this statement. Where the fighting words start is when we try to differentiate “politically motivated criticism” from honestly held belief and “unfounded fear-mongering” from prudent alarm raising. I’ve read politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering since the time I arrived at SA and I have no doubt that the authors believe they were expressing honestly held beliefs and engaging in prudent alarm raising…no doubt many feel the same way about stuff I’ve written.
sayanything-203

Ken,

What you say is correct. But I don’t recall that Democrats exhibited any restraint in their “politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering” when the Bush administration was unable to defend its actions for “obvious” reasons of security.

One of the most fundamental problems facing conservatives in dealing with those on the Left is that generally speaking (Mike A. is a notable exception) liberals are not contrained in their actions by the principles, morals, ethical considerations to which conservatives ascribe. Our self-imposed limits, dictated by our sense of decency, constrains us where liberals suffer from no such limitations. And in my view, that needs to change. The playing field needs to be leveled. I’m not advocating starting a fight. Only insisting that we finish it.
sayanything-45

My understanding is that there have been three terrorist convictions registered in military tribunals since 911. Even if one discounts the claims of hundreds of successful criminal prosecutions in the same period, the fact is that the courts have not experienced the hypothetical difficulties you outline.

I know we’re very far apart on the issue but I do respect your opinion and knowledge. Military tribunals have their place but they’re designed for a specific purpose and trying to shoehorn cases to fit the tribunal system is a long term loser IMO. Simply because the terrorists mean us harm doesn’t mean we’re “at war” with them any more than we’re “at war” with criminal gangs. I know that criminal gangs haven’t pulled a 911 but I believe the difference is quantitative rather than qualitative. I acknowledge that criminal gang activity is generally focused on crime for profit and that the jihadist movement calls for the defeat of the United States and the West generally but since it is practical to apprehend and detain terrorists in a much different way than it is to apprehend and detain a soldier or an illegal combatant on or near the battlefield then I think we have to carefully examine the costs and benefits of each type of judicial action carefully. The different approaches are based in tradition and the willingness to dump that tradition for little apparent reason is an example of “unfounded fear-mongering.”

IMO of course.
sayanything-42

MikeAdamson,

My position has been quite consistent.

Terrorists, as illegal combatants waging war against the United States have only two rights: the right to become dead, and the right to remain dead.

Trying such for violations of the Customary Laws of Warfare before a Military Tribunal is an internationally mandated step in granting those terrorists their two rights should they be captured by the United States. Alternatively, such illegal combatants should be confined until the cessation of hostilities.

The policy changes of the 0bama administration do not serve these ends and are less effective means of defeating (killing) terrorists.
sayanything-42

Lynn Steward, Democrat.
robert108

Mike: Al Qaeda declared war on us during the Clinton administration. Get a clue.
Trying to shoehorn war criminals into our civilian courts, while giving them the rights of our own citizens, is destructive and stupid.
Like most lefties, you think war is about “profiteering”, and you miss the real world consequences of it.
Just for a thought exercise, imagine how WWII might have gone if we had gone after the pilots who actually bombed and strafed Pearl Harbor, gave them civilian trials with full citizen rights, and had ignored the Japanese Imperial Navy and the Japanese Imperial Army.
How might that have worked out for the free world?
sayanything-43

It seems to me that if you’re agitating in the political process for a stronger response to Al Qeada, you aren’t helping them at all.
sayanything-42

Mike,

When last I checked the current iteration of Military Tribunals had a 100% conviction rate. I know of no civilian court which approaches that rate. Nor are civilian courts designed or equipped to deal with classified information and evidence.

Far better to protect the current civilian courts and their open nature from the corrosive effects of secret evidence and testimony by trying the war criminals before tribunals.

The Customary Laws of Warfare are what they are, the terrorists operate outside of them, the punishment for that is death.

Works for me.
sayanything-42

Mike,

There have not been “hundreds of successful criminal prosecutions [of terrorists]…” in the United States since September 11th, 2001. The tally is more like a dozen or less, and one of those was recently remanded to a new trial judge because the sentence of the first court was laughable.

Note also (per Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the World Trade Center Bombers [pre 9/11]) that information revealed in discover of that case did indeed find its way to al Qaeda and was factored into their subsequent operations. See also Lynn (ptui) Stewart with regard to civilian court protection of classified data, but I digress…

Trying the eunuch bomber before a military tribunal would be no great stretch. The defendants in ex Parte Quiren were apprehended in New York and Chicago, and subsequently tried before Military Tribunals (and this process was upheld by the Supreme Court). I thus hold that Richard Reid should have been tried before such a tribunal as well.

I would further limit the Federal Courts (civilian) to trying cases of American Citizens accused of terrorist activities, and try all foreign nationals so accused and in custody of the Armed Forces of the United States before military tribunals. Regardless, I would hold all such foreign nationals thus held until the cessation of hostilities per Geneva III.

The applicable tradition here is that War Crimes (under the Customary Laws of Warfare) are tried before Miltiary Tribunals. In U. S. Jurisprudence, the precedence precedes (1777) the Constitution (1787).
sayanything-45

The issue isn’t whether or not what Brennan said is true (at least this part of it!) but rather the fact that the people for whom he now speaks are the very same ones who engaged in far more deleterious “politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering” than anything they have had to put up with since being in office. The issue is the hypocrisy.

That “fact” is really your opinion which kind of validates my point. I saw politically motivated criticism of the Bush Administration but I saw lots of perfectly valid, honestly believed criticism as well. I think that the critics of Obama’s terrorism policy are more often than not engaging in unfounded fear mongering although those that are undoubtedly wouldn’t agree with my assessment.

The political climate is becoming too partisan and ridiculous to have serious conversations and debates about anything IMO.
Nancyf

Makes me wonder if the two Republicans here are covering up for the rest of the Crooked Republicans running Okla. into the ground…
sayanything-5371

It was Al Qaeda that stated that they were pleased with the results of the 2006 elections and that their party of preference is the democratic party. So, try to spin that. They know which party is full of useful idiot appeasers who favor a small and ineffective military.
sayanything-5371

Regardless of any legal niceties that may be desired by the left, the result of dismissals based on technicalities in civilian courts will be the summary execution of any terrorist combatants taken alive in the future.
sayanything-45

In practical terms, the civilian courts have a much better success rate prosecuting terrorists than do the military commissions. I don’t believe that we can make the rules of war fit the modern problem of terrorism without changing the essential character of our political belief structure. If I wanted to live in a martial society then I’d vote for a martial government.
robert108

Sounds like you’re trying to distract from this obvious and glaring example of Dem hypocritical double standards.
sayanything-203

A perfectly sensible aproach. Indeed, the ONLY sensible approach. As I read the Geneva Conventions, trying illegal combatants in the capturing county’s civiliian courts is illegal.
sayanything-203

I thought I recognized Mr. Brennan’s name. He is also the one who wrote this,

This administration’s efforts have disrupted dozens of terrorist plots against the homeland and been responsible for killing and capturing hundreds of hard-core terrorists, including senior leaders in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond â€” far more than in 2008.

which is no more believable than that three and a half million jobs created horsesh*t or the tediously dishonest claims of “transparency” that Team Obama regularly shovels at the public.

“Dozens” of terrorist plots against the US disrupted??? In one year??? Because the boys and girls on Team Obama are so-o-o competent???

Mr. Brennan, you are a fraud! Same as your boss!
Nancyf

Which ones?
Nancyf

Sinnin’ greedy rich men that hate GOD and his son Jesus are our enemies. Are they not? Or do U not obey GOD too?
sayanything-203

Mike,

The issue isn’t whether or not what Brennan said is true (at least this part of it!) but rather the fact that the people for whom he now speaks are the very same ones who engaged in far more deleterious “politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering” than anything they have had to put up with since being in office. The issue is the hypocrisy.

Of course, that “dozens of terrorist plots” crap is nonsense. And there have been three Islamist attacks in less than 6 months… all on American soil. And none of them prevented by Mr. Brennan and his compatriots.
sayanything-26

I don’t recall that Democrats exhibited any restraint in their “politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering” when the Bush administration was unable to defend its actions for “obvious” reasons of security.

Oh I agree, Bat. The left’s shrieking paranoia over the GWOT during the Bush years was, frankly, very embarrassing for them.

But – guess what? – that is what you get in a freewheeling democracy, and Brennan needs to realize that.

I agree with Mike A. that the critics almost always genuinely believe what they say. It is cheap rhetoric to claim, as the left often does, that critics of their policies suffer from bad faith.

The left says outrageous and childish things not because they don’t mean them, but precisely because they DO mean them. Which shows how real their petulant childishness really is.

Mike A. does not fall into that category, of course.
sayanything-1317

It’s still not ok to say it about liberals. Haven’t you learned yet? You have to play by a different set of rules.
sayanything-26

I wonder if Brennan considers the Christmas bomber plot to have been ‘disrupted’ because those panties didn’t detonate.

In all fairness though, the administration is hampered in providing details of actual disrupted plots, for obvious reasons.

And we can credit any competence here in this arena to George W. Bush, who put this apparatus together, rather than Obama.
sayanything-1317

Three problems with this logic:

1. The 3 cases you mention are the 3 cases tried. That’s 100%. NO civilian court has even half that.
2. We’re not deploying the military against gangs on foreign soil.
3. Criminal and military trials are different.
sayanything-1317

I saw very little honest criticism, but I saw a lot of lying.

And that those who jumped on Bush for everything defend Obama for doing the same things is telling of how “honest” their criticisms were.
sayanything-81

Dude. Cheney repeatedly insinuated that the dems were aiding al Qaeda. Do you have that f**king short a memory, are you pretending, or are you just plain dumb?
sayanything-277

Gee, according to the lefties, dissent is the greatest expression of patriotism. Oh wait, I get it. It’s only great when they dissent.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Relax, It’s Okay To Say Political Opponents Are Aiding The Enemy Now

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments