Skip to main content

View Diary: Schoolhouse Rock, the sequel (134 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the whole idea that fighting terrorism is a "war" (21+ / 0-)

    is what led to this whole mess.  We would have been far better off if we'd have treated "terrorism" like other civilized nations have done--as a law enforcement issue, not a military issue. When the UK took on the IRA, or when Spain took on the ETA, they managed to do it without invading anybody and without destroying their democracy. That's because they treated terrorism as a criminal matter, to be dealt with under existing criminal law.

    WE were the only ones to go all gung-ho and try to make a military campaign out of it.

    It was a stupid idea right from the start. And both parties are to blame for it.

    •  Bush proclaimed the War on Terra (12+ / 0-)

      to acquire war powers. I expected the Hope guy would end the national nightmare -- alas here we are ...

      There's enough on this planet for everyone's needs but not for everyone's greed. ~ Gandhi

      by CitizenOfEarth on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 08:17:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  everything Bush did in the war on terror was (9+ / 0-)

        already being done by Clinton.  Extraordinary rendition started under Clinton.  Warrantless wiretaps started under Clinton. Anti-Terrorism laws authorizing deportation without trial based on secret evidence, started under Clinton. The PATRIOT Act itself was entirely made up of proposals that were dropped from the 1996 Clinton anti-terrorism bills.

        The national security state has been bipartisan for 20 years.

        •  I'd like to see the evidence that warrantless (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming, PSzymeczek, PhilJD, TimmyB

          wiretaps started under Clinton.

          I'm also unaware that torture by American agencies occurred under Clinton.

          And some changes in quantity are so extreme that they amount to a change in quality.  Which is what I'd say about extraordinary rendition.  Even though that was still a most unfortunate precedent under Clinton.

          The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

          by lysias on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 09:25:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  here's some evidence (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            US wire-tapped UK's princess Diana

            US using rendition and black-sites to torture for information on AQ in the 90s, as per Bob Woodward

  's Civil Liberties section has a whole page of links of things we started under Bill Clinton that weren't well known until Bush.

            I can't find evidence that US citizens tortured people on US soil under President Clinton - that seems to have been a new thing under Bush. Clinton used US proxies operating under US direction to torture people to serve US purposes, and did it on foreign soil. Its up to everyone as an individual to determine how much of a difference that makes, I suppose - but to me, it seems like a silly distinction.

            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

            by efraker on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:44:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  FISA prohibited warrantless wiretapping (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              of U.S. nationals (until FISA was changed in 2008).  Princess Diana was not a U.S. national.

              So, while it's true that there was warrantless wiretapping under Clinton (as I presume there had been under previous presidents), it's not true (as far as I know) that there was warrantless wiretapping violating FISA.  That had to wait for Bush (there is evidence that it started within weeks of Bush's inauguration, months before 9/11).

              The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

              by lysias on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:38:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Wired has quite a bit of information (0+ / 0-)

            on wiretapping, I found this from an older article.

            When asked to defend their anti-privacy policies on wiretapping and cryptography, representatives of the Clinton administration invariably invoke the moral justification of the holy Status Quo.

            When digital telephony legislation sailed through Congress in 1994 and was signed into law, we were told that the purpose of the legislation was to maintain law enforcement's ability to wiretap telephones.

            Whose Status Quo?
          •  others have already provided the links (0+ / 0-)

            The only new thing Bush did was Americanize the torture.  Clinton sent everyone overseas to be tortured. Dubya decided that we Americans could do a batter job of it ourselves, and stopped the outsourcing.

    •  big difference between AQ vs. IRA or ETA (0+ / 0-)

      ETA and the IRA were both operating in European nations. Usually within the same nation that they were attacking.

      Imagine the FBI trying to meaningfully investigate in a nation like Taliban-era Afghanistan. They have nothing like proper jurisdiction, all the cooperation they can get would be from threats they can't follow through on, or offers of aide that we won't provide (as the Afghani know better than most).

      Maybe it would have worked, but it would have taken years to disrupt AQ in Afghanistan, which is meaningless because AQ is more an attitude than an organization. Saying your terror-cell is AQ affiliated is more like saying your band is punk than it is like saying your band is signed to a label. People 'affiliate' themselves with AQ all the time who have never even spoken with a member of the group that OBL formed.

      "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

      by efraker on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 01:26:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not so (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Most of the IRA's support (political, monetary and military) came from the US. The Brits knew that, griped about it, but weren't stupid enough to either invade or bomb the US over it. They handled it as a criminal matter, not as a military matter.

        As for the Taliban, we all seem to forget that the Taliban indicated that it was willing to extradite Bin Laden for a trial (and even went so far as to get a ruling from a Muslim religious court that Bin Laden could be extradited under Islamic law because he had violated the responsibilities of hospitality), provided the US first produced some evidence against Bin Laden to show that he did it (a routine request that is made in extradition courts every day). The US refused.

        As for Al Qaeda, you are entirely correct that it is just a name, that lots of people have now adopted that name who were still pooping their diapers back when 9-11 was planned, and that the US's attempts to end the use of a name, by military force, are beyond stupid.

        •  we did give them evidence (0+ / 0-)

          Link. The reason they didn't give him up is because they said he was their guest, and they were following the pashtun honor code. They said they couldn't ethically release him to them without a promise of his safety, and we wouldn't promise not to execute him. We tripped ourselves up with our commitment to the death penalty.

          Are you suggesting that UK law enforcement officers seeking criminals in the US is comparable to US LEOs seeking criminals along the Afghan/Pakistan border? Do you really think there are comparable difficulties for UK LEOs trying to find local cooperation with US counterparts in Boston as US LEOs would have in liaising with some Pakistani sheriff?

          "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

          by efraker on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 02:58:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  as far as the death penalty, France and the UK (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            also won't extradite anyone to the US to face a capital charge.

            As far as law enforcement officers, we don't get to suspend the rule of law just because it's hard or inconvenient.

            The Brits decided to stick to the rule of law in their dealings with the IRA.  We decided not to stick to the rule of law in our dealings with Al Qaeda. We decided to make the same mistake we have ALWAYS made historically, which is to try to fight a political enemy using military methods.

            That's why Al Qaeda is still blowing people up, and the IRA is not.

            •  we reach the same conclusions... (0+ / 0-)

              ...but for different reasons. Thanks for the discussion, its been to my certain benefit.

              "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

              by efraker on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 04:51:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (140)
  • Community (59)
  • 2016 (39)
  • Environment (38)
  • Republicans (37)
  • Elections (32)
  • Bernie Sanders (32)
  • Culture (31)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Media (25)
  • Spam (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Labor (22)
  • GOP (22)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site