NoaIzumiYour Child has a One in 80,000 chance of Dying in a Terrorist Attack! Panic Now!
January 29th 2009 20:49
Found another juicy one by Kyle-Anne Shiver in the American Thinker (the AT has been a Godsend for this blog)
Barry, Honey, Can We Talk About Gitmo?, by Kyle-Anne Shiver
“denying non-citizens the Constitutional rights of citizens”
Kyle-Anne, sweetheart, this isn’t the Roman Empire. Most of the Constitution applies to anyone on US soil, citizen or not. The Bill of Rights doesn’t even contain the word “citizen”. The only constitutional rights specific to American citizens are the right to vote and the right to hold national public office. No one has a problem with denying Gitmo detainees the right to run for a Senate seat.
“He (Lincoln) suspended Habeas Corpus for United States citizens (during the Civil War)"
He did, although the Supreme Court said he needed the consent of Congress (see Ex Parte Merryman). Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in the cases of Rebellion or Invasion, but the War on Terror doesn’t meet this requirement. In the Civil War, an enemy army of over a million men was on US soil with the resources of a third of the country behind them. In the Second World War, we were fighting on two fronts against two of the strongest military powers in the world at the time, one of which might have launched an invasion of the United States, if things had gone a little differently, and in fact had plans for it.
Al Qaeda terrorists, on the other hand, are essentially a loosely organized, worldwide resistance group. They have no nation, no industrial base, no air force, no navy, no heavy weapons, and maybe ten thousand troops total, at most. They’re a threat to American lives and property, but the Confederacy and the Third Reich were a threat to America’s very existence. The level of menace needed to justify extreme measures is simply not present in this case.
“When you told Jake Tapper of ABC News last June, that prosecuting individual terrorists in U.S. Courts worked just fine after the 1993 WTC bombings and that we ought to pursue this policy for all terrorists, I broke out in a cold sweat and grabbed for my babies"
She broke into a cold sweat; I guess that proves it! Candidate Obama was wrong, end of story. Perhaps someone should remind her that almost all of the conspirators involved in that bombing, including the mastermind, were caught and currently reside in federal prison.
As for the claimed intelligence breaches as a result of the trial: A) I’d feel better about the claim if it came from somewhere other than an opinion piece with no backup. “The editorial board of the Washington Times said so” does not count as proof. B) It’s common practice to blame the attack on Al-Qaeda, but the case for that is purely circumstantial. It’s entirely possible that “the evil Bin Laden” (who was on a different continent from the known plotters when this was being planned, and thanks for letting us know he’s evil) had nothing to do with the plot. C) If the court system is inadequate for a task, wouldn’t modifying some of the rules for special cases be a less radical solution than throwing it out all together? (Assuming that hasn’t already been done, of course. The trials were fifteen years ago.)
“a threat that even as I write you, breeds like a deadly virus among our very own citizenry.”
We have home-grown terrorists in this country, fair enough. However, the groups are isolated from each other and certainly not controlled from Al-Qaeda Central, according to the reference she herself cites.
Really Long Link (pdf file)
“Al-Qaeda has provided the inspiration for homegrown radicalization and terrorism; direct command and control by al-Qaeda has been the exception, rather than the rule among the case studies reviewed in this study.” (italics mine)
“In the immediate aftermath of September 11, the United States military and law enforcement captured, killed, or scattered much of al-Qaeda’s core leadership—eliminating its sanctuary and training camps in Afghanistan. As a result, the threat from the central core of al-Qaeda was significantly diminished.”
“Although a few may have received training in al-Qaeda camps, the great majority did not. While al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for each attack after the fact, these attacks were not under the command and control of al-Qaeda central, nor were they specifically funded by al-Qaeda central. Rather, they were conducted by local al-Qaeda inspired affiliate organizations or by local residents/citizens, who utilized al-Qaeda as their ideological inspiration.”
So, there are terrorist cells, but they’re unsupported and uncoordinated. Again, the home-grown terrorists may be able to do some damage (although they’ve done a piss-poor job so far, mostly due to their own incompetence), but they are in no way a threat to the nation.
“Once you actually bring those terrorists to American soil and house them close to our neighborhoods and our innocent school children”
The author is a resident of Georgia; does the state of Georgia typically put maximum security prisons near neighborhoods and schools? I’ll grant that some groups may be inspired to raise their cred by busting out an Al Qaeda bigwig (in fact, I’d like to see them try, considering the security that’s going to be on the known Al Qaeda members), but I’m not sure I understand the Beslan reference. Why would the hostage-taking tactic all of a sudden be effective (or perceived to be effective) because the prisoners had a change of address? Federal custody is federal custody. The perpetrators would have to talk to the same guys no matter where the detainees were. And might I remind everyone that the Beslan action was a failure for the terrorists? They achieved none of their goals, and almost all of them were killed. So why would American terrorists look at an almost universally unsuccessful tactic and think it was a great idea?
Of course, I know why Shiver brings up the Beslan tragedy, it’s the same reason she mentions “the children” half of a dozen times. Al Qaeda has only one really effective weapon, fear, and it’s a shame that the author feels the need to help them spread it.
If anyone’s wondering where I got the number cited in the title from:
Really Long Link
Your children are actually in far greater danger from a car accident than a terrorist attack. Perhaps Ms. Shiver will suggest sending drunk drivers to Gitmo next time?
Barry, Honey, Can We Talk About Gitmo?, by Kyle-Anne Shiver
“denying non-citizens the Constitutional rights of citizens”
Kyle-Anne, sweetheart, this isn’t the Roman Empire. Most of the Constitution applies to anyone on US soil, citizen or not. The Bill of Rights doesn’t even contain the word “citizen”. The only constitutional rights specific to American citizens are the right to vote and the right to hold national public office. No one has a problem with denying Gitmo detainees the right to run for a Senate seat.
“He (Lincoln) suspended Habeas Corpus for United States citizens (during the Civil War)"
He did, although the Supreme Court said he needed the consent of Congress (see Ex Parte Merryman). Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in the cases of Rebellion or Invasion, but the War on Terror doesn’t meet this requirement. In the Civil War, an enemy army of over a million men was on US soil with the resources of a third of the country behind them. In the Second World War, we were fighting on two fronts against two of the strongest military powers in the world at the time, one of which might have launched an invasion of the United States, if things had gone a little differently, and in fact had plans for it.
Al Qaeda terrorists, on the other hand, are essentially a loosely organized, worldwide resistance group. They have no nation, no industrial base, no air force, no navy, no heavy weapons, and maybe ten thousand troops total, at most. They’re a threat to American lives and property, but the Confederacy and the Third Reich were a threat to America’s very existence. The level of menace needed to justify extreme measures is simply not present in this case.
“When you told Jake Tapper of ABC News last June, that prosecuting individual terrorists in U.S. Courts worked just fine after the 1993 WTC bombings and that we ought to pursue this policy for all terrorists, I broke out in a cold sweat and grabbed for my babies"
She broke into a cold sweat; I guess that proves it! Candidate Obama was wrong, end of story. Perhaps someone should remind her that almost all of the conspirators involved in that bombing, including the mastermind, were caught and currently reside in federal prison.
As for the claimed intelligence breaches as a result of the trial: A) I’d feel better about the claim if it came from somewhere other than an opinion piece with no backup. “The editorial board of the Washington Times said so” does not count as proof. B) It’s common practice to blame the attack on Al-Qaeda, but the case for that is purely circumstantial. It’s entirely possible that “the evil Bin Laden” (who was on a different continent from the known plotters when this was being planned, and thanks for letting us know he’s evil) had nothing to do with the plot. C) If the court system is inadequate for a task, wouldn’t modifying some of the rules for special cases be a less radical solution than throwing it out all together? (Assuming that hasn’t already been done, of course. The trials were fifteen years ago.)
“a threat that even as I write you, breeds like a deadly virus among our very own citizenry.”
We have home-grown terrorists in this country, fair enough. However, the groups are isolated from each other and certainly not controlled from Al-Qaeda Central, according to the reference she herself cites.
Really Long Link (pdf file)
“Al-Qaeda has provided the inspiration for homegrown radicalization and terrorism; direct command and control by al-Qaeda has been the exception, rather than the rule among the case studies reviewed in this study.” (italics mine)
“In the immediate aftermath of September 11, the United States military and law enforcement captured, killed, or scattered much of al-Qaeda’s core leadership—eliminating its sanctuary and training camps in Afghanistan. As a result, the threat from the central core of al-Qaeda was significantly diminished.”
“Although a few may have received training in al-Qaeda camps, the great majority did not. While al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for each attack after the fact, these attacks were not under the command and control of al-Qaeda central, nor were they specifically funded by al-Qaeda central. Rather, they were conducted by local al-Qaeda inspired affiliate organizations or by local residents/citizens, who utilized al-Qaeda as their ideological inspiration.”
So, there are terrorist cells, but they’re unsupported and uncoordinated. Again, the home-grown terrorists may be able to do some damage (although they’ve done a piss-poor job so far, mostly due to their own incompetence), but they are in no way a threat to the nation.
“Once you actually bring those terrorists to American soil and house them close to our neighborhoods and our innocent school children”
The author is a resident of Georgia; does the state of Georgia typically put maximum security prisons near neighborhoods and schools? I’ll grant that some groups may be inspired to raise their cred by busting out an Al Qaeda bigwig (in fact, I’d like to see them try, considering the security that’s going to be on the known Al Qaeda members), but I’m not sure I understand the Beslan reference. Why would the hostage-taking tactic all of a sudden be effective (or perceived to be effective) because the prisoners had a change of address? Federal custody is federal custody. The perpetrators would have to talk to the same guys no matter where the detainees were. And might I remind everyone that the Beslan action was a failure for the terrorists? They achieved none of their goals, and almost all of them were killed. So why would American terrorists look at an almost universally unsuccessful tactic and think it was a great idea?
Of course, I know why Shiver brings up the Beslan tragedy, it’s the same reason she mentions “the children” half of a dozen times. Al Qaeda has only one really effective weapon, fear, and it’s a shame that the author feels the need to help them spread it.
If anyone’s wondering where I got the number cited in the title from:
Really Long Link
Your children are actually in far greater danger from a car accident than a terrorist attack. Perhaps Ms. Shiver will suggest sending drunk drivers to Gitmo next time?
| 48 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
