Once again, law enforcement and police action continue their trend of stopping and capturing terrorists and would-be terrorists.
>> “Terror” Plot Disrupted By Law Enforcement, Again
>> FBI Disrupts Possible Terror Attack
>> Fighting Terror As Police Action
The German police caught terrorists? What country did they invade?
Kerry was right!
=================
Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. My opponent said, and I quote, “The war on terror is less of a military operation, and far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.” I disagree—strongly disagree. … After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States of America, and war is what they got.
—President Bush, March 25, 2004
I’m not sure if it’s the air or what you guys eat because you’re not able to grasp the concept.
Using intelligence and law enforcement in the prevention of terrorist attacks is fine.
A threat of jail time in response to a terrorist attack is not fine.
Comprende?
So, Jay, explain how invading a country from which none of the terrorists who pulled off said attack originated is an appropriate response.
I’m fine with using both resources–military and law enforcement–if both are being used in strategically sound ways. We have only rarely managed to do that in the past six years, but I’d tend to agree with Oliver that law enforcement has been better managed than military.
“I’m not sure if it’s the air or what you guys eat because you’re not able to grasp the concept.
Using intelligence and law enforcement in the prevention of terrorist attacks is fine.
A threat of jail time in response to a terrorist attack is not fine.”
Jay, you are fucking retarded.
How many Democrats opposed the war in Afghanistan?
How many Republicans have said you have to fight them in Iraq to prevent them from coming here?
Your talking points are worthless here, because we are not as stupid as the average Republican is.
Good thing we tapped their phones, eh? Had Democratics been in charge, the US wouldn’t have been able to acquire the intel Germany needed to make the busts.
Gee, Farris, this old canard again? If I type this response slowly, will it sink in?
Many of us are fine with using wiretaps on suspects. The problem is that Bush wants a program where he never has to account for why a wiretap was requested, never has to explain what led them to that suspect in the first place, and never has to be held accountable if those reasons were complete and utter bullshit.
It’s a system that was set up to hold such powers in check, lest they be misused by, say, a power-hungry executive who doesn’t think he’s beholden to a system of checks and balances (or his power-hungry lieutenant who insists he doesn’t even exist within that framework).
You would have made a great Stasi agent, Farris. Really. Bravo.
…far more of an intelligence-gathering law enforcement operation.” I disagree—strongly disagree. … After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies….
Know what I find interesting about this? If law enforcement and intelligence gathering had been used properly and appropriately, those attacks probably could have been stopped.
Shouldn’t that be “terrorists” with scare quotes. After all, they didn’t blow up anything so we can’t really be sure that they were actual terrorists.
How do we know that the Germans didn’t just make all this up in order to look tough?
Certainly this deserves at least some measure of the usual moonbat conspiracy ranting, doesn’t it?
[...] machine to attack Obama for stressing the role of law enforcement in fighting terrorism, yet as I’ve noted for years here, law enforcement is often the first line of offense versus terrorism. Because it [...]