A while back, some Democrats were slammed by the right and the GOP for saying that much of the battle against terrorism is better prosecuted via law enforcement.
Yet, that seems to be the only way of beating the bastards.
Terrorists were in the final stages of planning to blow up planes heading from the United Kingdom to the United States, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday.
The plans were "suggestive of an al Qaeda plot," he said.
British police said they had arrested 21 suspects in the plot to blow up passenger jets flying between the United Kingdom and the United States.
I thought invading Iraq was supposed to have scared terrorists so much they wouldn’t try this stuff… or some other such nonsense only Republicans believe.
Hmm, three months until an election that shows the Democratic Party has good chance at taking back either the House or Senate, an anti-war candidate just won the primary against an incumbent that continues, to this day, to support two (or three, depending on how you look at things) illegal wars, and Bush’s poll numbers are in the tank. I guess it does seem like the perfect time for the Republicans to whip up a fresh batch of terror.
If any one still buys this “war on terror” garbage, then that’s just said.
So if it had been 4 months before the election it would then be ok to make terrorist-related arrests?
What worries me is that this is the first exposure most people in this country have had to Michael Chertoff.
British Police Thwart Major Terror Plot
Authorities in London thwarted a terrorist plot to blow up an aircraft in mid-flight between Britain
Wow- if Karl Rove and the boys has really been thinking, they would have made these arrests three days ago. Then his plant in the Democratic Party would have beat that one trick pony, multi-millionaire populist in Connecticut.
Karl must be slipping.
By the way- would someone please define “illegal war.”
Is that something like what Hezboolah started?
Oliver, give it a rest. Don’t twist things around. Nobody said the war in Iraq would cease terrorist operations. That’s a bunch of crap.
What people like YOU were saying however, is that the war in Iraq would keep up us from preventing terroist attacks and preventing terrorist attacks. Guess that isn’t the case now is it?
And it’s one thing to use law enforcement techniques to PREVENT terrorist attacks. It’s quite another to use the law enforcement approach after an attack has been committed. Again, you reversed what actually has been said.
I’m not holding my breath on this one. I’m seeing a lot of vague info about this latest ‘terrorist’ plot, but no specifics of any kind. At least when they ‘busted’ the Apple Dumpling Gang in Miami, there were some details offered. Pathetic, laughable details, but details nonetheless. Until we see some proof, we should remember that the wolf-cryers in the Bush Administration (and their counterparts in Lapdog Tony’s realm) have no credibility, and this episode should be considered another fraudulent PR stunt.
No, honestly, this is real. The only thing we’re still unsure about is who it is. Probably al-Qaeda, but maybe someone else.
It’s a shame the OBL is still on the loose, almost 5 years after 9/11. It sends a powerful message that someone can plan terror on the US and never be brought to justice.
You’re right, Oliver. Surveilling terror suspects really does work.
“Peter Clarke, head of the Metropolitan Police antiterrorist branch, said surveillance had been carried out for months before police arrested 21 people overnight. “We have been looking at meetings, movements, travel, spending and the aspirations of a large group of people,” Mr. Clarke told reporters. “As is so often the case in these investigations, the alleged plot has global dimensions.”
Someone over at the U.K. must read their briefings..
Wait… what did WE do, exactly? This seems like the British actually got their shit together- and I say more power to them.
Marty- I think the term “illegal war” is used in Iraq because we didn’t follow the chain of command ie. Congress has to actually agree to declare war. Instead, they just gave Bush the power to do what was deemed nessesary. Like in Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a broad exercise of power, but was not a declaration of war.
Nobody said the war in Iraq would cease terrorist operations.
Right… so I must have just imagined the “fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here” mantra thats been repeated like crazy by the right.
As someone said above, this looks more like the British have their stuff together while we’re busy playing with the Sunni and Shia in Iraq.
And nothing is wrong with doing surveillance of people, who argued against that? Another straw man.
Right… so I must have just imagined the “fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here” mantra thats been repeated like crazy by the right.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? That’s completely irrelevant.
As someone said above, this looks more like the British have their stuff together while we’re busy playing with the Sunni and Shia in Iraq.
Oh I get it. So when a terrorist plot is foiled in GB, we had no part in working with them in order to prevent something like this from happening. But when somebody bombs a nightclub in Bali, it’s our fault.
And nothing is wrong with doing surveillance of people, who argued against that?
SPYING ON AMERICANS!!!
(Absent a warrant) you did. I’d link to it, but I don’t know how to reference your pre-reboot posts.
That’s pretty much it, actually, but I didn’t want to mention it. This is our thing, just like last July.
Also please note that Oliver just defended the concept of surveillance in general, not its employent by the present administration.
Do we even know that the surveillance of the suspects was warrentless?
“What the hell does that have to do with anything? That’s completely irrelevant.”
Yesterday’s “serious,” set in stone rhetoric is so much “whatever” today. Hilarious.
Jay, we were told that fighting a war in Iraq would make us safer here at home. When Kerry suggested during the campaign that what would really make us safer was more and better law enforcement he was lambasted as being “unserious about the war on terror.”
Now, however, it’s plainly obvious that the law enforcement approach yields results while the war approach has yielded nothing but chaos and uncertainty.
No one, Jay, ever said that the war in Iraq would impede law enforcement efforts. The argument was and still is that the war in Iraq would drain resources from the reconstruction of Afghanistan and that it would end up provoking more terrorist activity. Both of those thing have come to pass while every single rational put forward by the pro-war side has proved wildly off the mark.
“(Absent a warrant) you did.”
The parenthetical proves the lie nicely, doesn’t it.
No one on the left ever said that the government should not eavesdrop on people, whether they are Americans or not. People who care about the Constitution simply argued that the government FOLLOW THE LAW when doing so. Do you have a problem with that?
Conservatives spend so much time and energy wrapped up in their hatred of their fellow citizens, it’s no surprise that the sad Farrises of the world actually believe in those bizarre, Malkinite caricatures of Democratic positions. I mean, Dugger’s admitted that he reads Ann Coulter’s death threats to liberals as “humor,” so assuming he’s typical, it’s safe to say that conservatives lost touch with any sort of decency, ethics, or even reality a good ways back.
Yes, an easily obtainable almost always approved warrant that you can get after the surveillance has been done. Yeah, wow, filling out a form is just too much work for us in order to preserve democracy.
The Republican rationale for 3+ years now has been that somehow invading Iraq stops the terrorists from plotting against us. I didn’t come up with you guy’s nonsensical talking points, I just point out where they run aground into reality.
Stops the terrorists from plotting against us?
Christ Oliver, you could feed Barbaro and Smarty Jones for a year with all the straw you’re throwing out.
Admit it, Cyrus: you stole that metaphor from a Mallard Fillmore comic you read in the podiatrist’s waiting room.
I’m disapointed Dr. Anatole. If you’re gonna make a doctor’s office joke, proctology is always funnier.
Only if you’re an ass.
The arguement on the right was that the War on Terror was PRIMARILY a military venture. And then the invasion of Iraq was thus the central front in the War on Terror. Conservatives didn’t say that law enforcement was unnecessary, just that it was subordinate to military action. They openly mocked John Kerry for suggesting otherwise.
Critics reversed the emphasis. They said that military force was necessary at times – like in Afghanistan or any other case where a state sponsor openly supports a terrorist act. But that the war on terror was PRIMARILY the work of law enforcement and surveillance work. I think the critics have been completely vindicated. The war in Iraq has done nothing to mitigate the threat of jihadist terrorism. It has done nothing to “change the culture of the Middle East” so that moderation will look more appealing to any potential terrorist. In fact, quite the opposite. After Iran and Syria, it was Iraq’s new leadership that came to Hezbollah’s defense first. And let’s not think about all the future terrorist veterans of the Iraq war who will, like their Afghan anti-Soviet forefathers, use terror across the West. All the great moderate secularists who were supposed to lead the new democratic revival in the Middle East have abandoned Iraq. Go read Zeyad’s blog about the exodus of middle class secularists to Jordan. Iraq is no place for a non-extremist these days who doesn’t keep his mouth shut.
Meanwhile, it was police and surveillance work that stopped this plot. It could have stopped 9/11 too. And it could stop any future plots. Launching wars that are meant to transform the Middle East have had the opposite effect.
Farris, ordinarily, I’d agree, but I felt proctology would distract from the Mallard Fillmore element, which was the real emotional core of the joke.
Also, Elrod is correct. The military failure in Iraq has been a distraction from the fight against terrorists, not a necessary part of it. I know conservatives often seem to think this is some kind of posturing on the part of liberals, but the fact is that Iraq had little to do with terrorism as a functional, authoritarian society. It was a war of choice, and a roll of the dice, and Bush lost the gamble. Rage if you like, but history’s verdict is clear.
Ordinarily I’d be happy about the prospect of a Democratic House, but frankly, there’s no cleaning up this mess that the GOP has made. I’d happily give the GOP control of Congress for 20 more years if it would undo the awful mistakes they’ve made.