Hey, we arrested more wannabe terrorists. Again. It’s almost like that works better than invading the wrong country.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Fighting Terror Via Law Enforcement
May 21st, 2009
29 Comments
Both work, in different ways. And both need to be used — police and military.
Bill Clinton tried the law-enforcement method almost exclusively. And that worked out just dandy, didn’t it? I mean, the people who helped plot the first World Trade Center bombing certainly learned their lesson when their buddies were arrested, tried, and jailed.
Well, except for that whole African Embassy bombings thing…
And the USS Cole attack…
And the shoe bomber…
And the blind sheikh’s lawyer helping him stay in touch with his terrorist buddies while in jail…
And that annoyance back in September of 2001…
J.
Who knew Silly Putty is not explosive?
Apparently, Duros, certain people of a religion that shall not be named…
J.
And that annoyance back in September of 2001…
If George Bush were more interested in law enforcement than covering his ass, that may not have happened.
Exactly what law did Mohammed Atta break prior to his stint as a pilot?
Stupid Farris.
“Flying while Muslim.”
Just ask Norm Minetta.
J.
If George Bush were more interested in law enforcement than covering his ass, that may not have happened.
Actually, if Bill Clinton had done more instead of saying, “We’ll bring the terrorists to justice” in the wake of 5 major terrorist attacks in 7 years that may not have happened. Perhaps if he had sent in some troops into areas instead of just dropping a bomb here and there. Perhaps if he had put a strangle-hold on their money instead of waiting for something to happen first.
It is unreal that you’re still hanging on to this childish fantasy that everything the US government did to thwart terrorism was functioning on a high level and it was all demolished on January 21st, 2001. Suddenly the door was opened and the 9/11 attacks were planned, financed and carried out within a span of 7 months. Get frigging real already.
And there’s nothing wrong with engaging law enforcement to THWART terrorist attacks. It’s when the RESPONSE to SUCCESSFUL terrorist attacks (5 in 7 years under Clinton) is nothing but subpoenas, arrests, indictments, and threats of legal action which does nothing but make said terrorists sit around and laugh their asses off.
I dunno, ask Bush who was more interested in clearing brush than receiving intel reports.
Cons don’t believe in juries
“jury of your peers”
What a concept.
“Due Process”
Silly rabbit.
Bill Clinton tried the law-enforcement method almost exclusively. And that worked out just dandy, didn’t it?
Why yes Podhertz mouthpiece, the law-enforcement method did work to thwart a plot to bomb Los Angeles International airport (LAX) and stop the Holland & Lincoln Tunnels from being blown up as well. Thanks for playing!
Exactly what law did Mohammed Atta break prior to his stint as a pilot?
Probably none, but taking flying lessons but not wanting to know how to land a 767 certainly should have made him a “person of interest,” no?
Perhaps if he had put a strangle-hold on their money instead of waiting for something to happen first.
He did -via Executive Order 13099 as well as imposing sanctions on the Taliban. You were saying?
It is unreal that you’re still hanging on to this childish fantasy that everything the US government did to thwart terrorism was functioning on a high level and it was all demolished on January 21st, 2001
Indeed, what a slack job: The Khobar tower bombers are executed, the counterterrorism focus authorizing the CIA to use lethal force on Bin Laden, the thwarted attacks on LAX on the Holland tunnel, etc.
But, after January 21st, Cheney ignores Hart/Rudman, Rice ignores the Clarke terrorist policy memo and the anti-terror focus of the new Bush administration becomes….Missile defense. August 6th PDB be dammed. Bra-vo.
“It’s when the RESPONSE to SUCCESSFUL terrorist attacks (5 in 7 years under Clinton) is nothing but subpoenas, arrests, indictments, and threats of legal action which does nothing but make said terrorists sit around and laugh their asses off.”
Oh yeah, the “They tried to kill my daddy” war just did great for stemming the body count.
When Democratic President Clinton was bombing bin Laden’s camps the right wingers were screaming that it was a distraction.
Right wingers were demanding he reveal his personal sex life.
Democratic President Clinton’s claims that addressing terrorism was important was met by right wingers demanding semen samples from the ‘blue dress.’
When Democratic President Clinton left, he and many members of his team tried to impress on the incoming Republican Bush administration how important attacking terrorism was.
The Republicans ignored them.
Republicans were more interested in tax cuts, deregulation, and vacations.
As right winger “Jay” notes, it was (over) 7 months into Republican President Bush’s administration that the 9/11 attacks happened on Republican Bush’s watch.
Republican President Bush had had repeated warnings during those seven months that an attack was coming.
Republican Bush kept going on vacations.
Republican Bush was on vacation when he was explicitly warned that Osama bin Laden was planning on attacking the US.
Republican Bush stayed on vacation and smugly dismissed those that warned him.
After the attacks Republican Bush then failed to protect US from the anthrax attacks.
Then Republican Bush lied US into the wrong war, which misdirected American troops away from where the attackers had been based.
And then Republicans continued to demand tax cuts during this two front war, which meant that American troops went without body armor, MRAPs, and appropriate medical funding for things like PTSD and the Walter Reed military hospital.
Meanwhile, Republican Bush DOUBLED the US debt at home and his deregulating mania is directly attributable to the global financial collapse and collapse of America’s power as a financial heavyweight.
Law enforcement might have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
And law enforcement would have clearly prevented the global financial collapse and retained America’s financial power.
Why are Republicans against American law enforcement?
Both work, in different ways. And both need to be used — police and military.
The military response to terrorism can be effective in certain circumstances, like when you have a well-defined target who is generally agreed to be culpable for a recent major attack and is clearly an imminent threat for more major attacks in the near future (This is why many of us denizens of the reality-based community supported Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan yet recoiled in horror when the mission morphed into the disastrously quixotic “war on terror”). When such circumstances do not prevail, terror prevention is properly the province of intelligence and law enforcement. One of the most damaging delusions the republicans peddled in the Bush years was that intelligence and law enforcement were somehow a weak or unworthy response to the threat before us.
“Exactly what law did Mohammed Atta break prior to his stint as a pilot?”
Conspiracy to commit a criminal act is a crime itself. Moron
The big question is, will law enforcement take time out of their busy schedule of brutalizing protestors, sodomizing people with plungers and shooting unarmed men in the back to actually do something that makes them a positive force in society??
Right now, cops look like chicken shit bullies who want to torture people.
Bill Clinton tried the law-enforcement method almost exclusively. And that worked out just dandy, didn’t it? I mean, the people who helped plot the first World Trade Center bombing certainly learned their lesson when their buddies were arrested, tried, and jailed.
I must confess that Mr. Clinton’s law enforcement approach wasn’t nearly as effective as Mr. Bush’s military approach. After all, the Taleban is no more, isn’t that right Mr. Tea?
Soullite, I am a law enforcement officer and I have never brutalized a protestor, sodomized someone with a plunger, or shot an unarmed person in the back. So, may I please politly ask you to apologize for smearing the vast number of dedicated, hard working police officers by basing your oponion on the actions of a deranged few?
I like your site, Ol’Froth.
Thank you, Bruce Henry!
There are a lot of good cops, “soullite”.
Sorry you haven’t met any.
They’re out there, though.
And they are very positive forces in society.
Conspiracy to commit a criminal act is a crime itself. Moron
And how would anyone have known Atta was conspiring to commit a criminal act? If only they could have wiretapped his phone, traced his funds, detained him indefinitly.
Say, aren’t all those policies championed by Bush/Cheney? Policies that send the denziens of this board into apoplexy? Policies that, despite campaigning against them, CiC Obama is continuing to utilize now that he’s actually responsible for the safety of the nation?
Ol’Froth: you can’t deny that there are many abusive people in the police and military and that asking for an apology when their behavior is pointed out is exactly the kind of thing that leads people to view the whole force as violent and corrupt…
Good point, matante. Except where it’s not.
Soullite’s slam wasn’t against bad cops, but all cops — he stated that such abuses are part of the routine schedule and duties of law enforcement. Didn’t even imply it. So the folks who are taking exception to soullite’s remarks are entirely justified.
J.
ManateDodo I DON”T deny that there are abusive police officers, and I condemn those that engage in illegal behavior. However, I object strongly to painting all police officers with a broad brush. Most are dedicated, hard working, officers. Turn it around for a bit…analyze this phrase: Will Blacks take time out of their busy schedule of robbing people, raping women, and shooting people in the head who infringe on their drug dealing territory to actually do something that makes them a positive force in society???
Now let me say I do not for one minute believe that that is how most minorities spend their time, but it is a perception held by bigots. All I’m asking is that you don’t paint those of us working to ensure your safety with the same broad brush that the racist assholes use to paint the downtrodden.
Ol’Froth,
I was one of those “Blacks” who was not “robbing people, raping women, and shooting people in the head”. And to this very day. (I’m 41 years old this week and married) I still get “slow rolled”, stopped and frisked, stopped for a “safety check in a brand new vehicle, patted down and harassed.
As a 17 year old child I was stopped halled in to the back of a police car, and beaten till I was hospitalized for walking down the street (literally just that). I woke up to have an officer standing in my living room with a GUN POINTED AT MY HEAD. (When I went to the station to make a complaint about that little happening I pointed out the VERY officer that did it. I was threatened.)
I’ve visited good friends in the hospital who were beaten into a coma by officers. And no charges were filed against them because he was scared for his life.
And that aint the half of it.
Now that said I have worked with law enforcement and have good friends that are in law enforcement. I also am OPTOC certified in the state of Ohio. And had some very good contacts with law enforcement. But on the whole they ignore my calls for aid when I need it. Harass me when I’ve done nothing wrong and a few have made a habit out of violating my civil and human rights.Been a victim of malfeasance and abuse of authority. This has been is dozens of cities in many states.
Do I have a problem with law enforcement in general? Yes, and I will tell you why. Though most LEO’s are well meaning people who do a thankless dangerous job. They, from what I have seen, by default, defend the “Bullies with badges”. Get rid of the thugs in your profession and people will look at it differently.
AS I have been quoted as saying again and again “I will stop reacting to law enforcement like an armed gang occupying my neighborhood when they stop acting like it.”
To quote a likable cult film. “When policemen brake the law there isn’t any law.”
Peace Be With You.
Though most LEO’s are well meaning people who do a thankless dangerous job. They, from what I have seen, by default, defend the “Bullies with badges”. Get rid of the thugs in your profession and people will look at it differently.
I’ve never understood the attitude that the way to convince people your group (cops, soldiers, teachers, priests, whatever) contains no bad apples is to cover up for the bad apples. Far better is to actively make sure they are found out and publicly kicked out.
“I know there are no bad cops because I’ve seen the force actively getting rid of them. Cops have demonstrated that they simply will not tolerate illegal behavior in their ranks.” is a far, far better reassurance than “I know there are no bad cops because the cops tell me there aren’t, and whenever they investigate complaints against cops they find them to be baseless.”
CSS trotted out his uncomfortable man-crush on Richard Clarke before. Rice ignored Clarke so much that she held multiple meetings with him and his superiors @ the CIA. The Bush administration was even implementing some of Clarke’s recommendations, including the arming of Predator drones with Hellfire missiles.
Of course, if the Clinton Administration had done that there might have been armed Predators available from the outset instead of the Bush administration needing to have them developed and tested. But hey, I guess that interferes with that whole “Bush was ignoring Richard Clarke” meme.