Pan Am 103 bomber to go home

[Praetorian]

AND ANOTHER THING!!!!


There has been a policy debate in this country, for the last 15 years, about how to respond to terrorism.

One political party views it as an overt act of war, best left to the various branches of the armed forces to deal with.

The other political party insists it should be a criminal matter, left to law enforcement agencies and the Courts to sort out.

The injustice of this event should show the world why the criminal justice system is woefully unable to handle these acts of calculated mass murder, and should act as an anchor around the neck of the next politician who suggests we return to the latter policy.

[Richard]

AND ANOTHER THING!!!!

The situation is a lot more complicated than that and - as demonstrated - all sides appear to have come to a consensus that to effectively deal with it requires a coordinated effort of all available resources combined with an on-going, rigorous debate to adjust the use of those resouces as the situation dictates.

Richard's $.02

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Praetorian

AND ANOTHER THING!!!!


There has been a policy debate in this country, for the last 15 years, about how to respond to terrorism.

One political party views it as an overt act of war, best left to the various branches of the armed forces to deal with.

The other political party insists it should be a criminal matter, left to law enforcement agencies and the Courts to sort out.

The injustice of this event should show the world why the criminal justice system is woefully unable to handle these acts of calculated mass murder, and should act as an anchor around the neck of the next politician who suggests we return to the latter policy.

Where would Bush the Younger fit into your matrix?

On June 9, 2005, in a speech on the Patriot Act, he pointed out:

We've made terrorism the top priority for law enforcement, and we've provided unprecedented resources to help folks like yourselves do their jobs.

Since 2001, we've more than tripled spending on homeland security; we've increased funding more than tenfold for the first-responders who protect our homeland. Law enforcement officers stand between our people and great danger, and we're making sure you have the tools necessary to do your job.*

Or, for that matter, where would you place Bush the Elder? On 27 January 1989, on the occasion of James A. Baker III being sworn in as secretary of state, the first President Bush said:

In another era, the Secretary of State's role was largely confined to matters of war and peace. Today's world is much more complex than that -- more dangerous, too. Today's Secretary of State must be prepared to work with our allies to solve such global threats as the international narcotics trade, terrorism, the degradation of the world's environment, and the economic distress of developing countries.**

For his part, in 1986, via proclamation, President Reagan affirmed his commitment to fight terrorism using all of the means of American power at his disposal.

The United States has a clear policy of combatting [sic] terrorism and of refusing to make concessions to terrorists. We have sought cooperation with all nations, on both a bilateral and a multilateral basis, to fight terrorism. We have put those who would instigate acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens or property on notice that we will vigorously confront this criminal behavior in every way -- diplomatically, economically, legally, and, when necessary, militarily. We have demonstrated our resolve.***

____________________________________
* Source is here
** Source is here.
*** Source is here,

[Praetorian]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Where would Bush the Younger fit into your matrix?

Clearly Bush would be in the "its a war" camp. As commander in Chief he has used the U.S. Military to kill more terrorists than all other previous administrations combined have brought to justice.

Nobody argues that law enforcement has NO ROLE in the fight against terrorism. The most serious threat from terrorism is that which is staged and targeted within the borders of the U.S. and the posse comitatus generally prevents the military from being involved with that directly.... But one side does argue that the PRIMARY RESPONSE to international terrorism should be through Law Enforcement, with little or no role for the military. It has campaigned on that platform, and from what we've learned in the years since 9/11, for the 8 years of the Clinton administration governed as such. It was a "Nuisance" to be treated as such. With no real will to take the actions necessary to hunt down and punish those responsible.




John McCain on Terrorsim:

Barack Obama's belief that we should treat terrorists as nothing more than common criminals demonstrates a stunning and alarming misunderstanding of the threat we face from radical Islamic extremism. Obama holds up the prosecution of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 as a model for his administration, when in fact this failed approach of treating terrorism simply as a matter of law enforcement rather than a clear and present danger to the United States contributed to the tragedy of September 11th. This is change that will take us back to the failed policies of the past and every American should find this mindset troubling.

Bush on Terrorism :

This war cannot be won, if we treat terrorism primarily as a matter of law enforcement. The lesson of this experience is: In this war, we must use all assets of national power to keep the pressure on the enemy, keep the terrorists on the run, and keep the American people safe from harm. August 20, 2008

Dick Cheney on Terrorism : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T55v_SDdUlQ

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kerry On Terrorism :

Terrorism is primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world — the very thing this [Bush] administration is worst at.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0403300858.asp


Obama on Terrorsim :

[L]et's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims."

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

As far as GHWB and Ronald Reagen go, I think they were both wrong on how they approached terrorism.... I put together a little flow chart showing how far back the "lets arrest them and put them in prison" (or worse. let somebody ELSE put them in prison) approach has been back-firing. MANY of those atrocities occurred during the time of their administrations. (These were just the ones that came to mind... I'm sure Ive missed a few...)

September 6, 1972- Black September murders eleven Olympic Athletes at the Munich games.

October 29, 1972 (52 days later)- The three surviving terrorists are released by Germany and sent to Libya in exchange for a “hijacked” Lufthansa Jet (It is later widely alleged that the “Hijacking” was staged by German officials as a ruse to rid themselves of the terrorists).

_______________

June 14, 1985 Hezbollah Hijacks TWA Flight 847, murdering one U.S. Navy sailor. In 1987, the only Hijacker to be arrested and tried for the murder of the sailor is convicted and sentenced to life in prison in Germany.

December 20, 2005- (18 years) Germany releases the hijacker and he is returned to Lebanon.


_______________________

October 7, 1985- The Palestine Liberation Front hijacks the Cruise ship Achille Lauro- Killing one American.

The Mastermind, Abu Abbas was immediately released by Italy (a few days in custody).
Two of the Hijackers were granted parole in 1991 (six years). A third in 1996 (11 Years).
_______________________


September 5, 1986- Abu Nidal Hijacks Pan Am flight 73, killing 20 and wounding 150 more. On July 6, 1988, Five of the Hijackers are sentenced to death by Pakistan.

January 4, 2004- (16 years later) Four of the hijackers are released by Pakistan and sent to Palestine.

_____________________



October 12, 2000- Al Qaeda bombs the U.S.S. Cole killing 19 American Sailors. September 29, 2004 Yeman sentences two members of Al Qaeda to death, and several others to various terms in prison.

February 23, 2006- (1,960 days) Those convicted of the U.S. S. Cole bombing (including those sentenced to death) “escape” from prison (I put escape in quotes as this is actually the SECOND time prisoners associated with the Cole Bombing escaped from Yemani custody). October 17, 2007- One of the escapees who is sentenced to death is recaptured by Yemani officials but released on condition that he not engage in terrorism any more.

-------------------------------------

Acts of terrorism for which NOBODY has ever been brought to justice-

April 18, 1983- Hezbollah suicide bomber destroys the U.S. Embassy in Beirut- 63 Killed

October 23, 1983- Hezbollah suicide truck bombs destroy the USMC barracks in Lebanon- 241 Killed

March 6, 1984- Beirut CIA Chief William Buckley kidnaped & murdered by Hezbollah.

February 17, 1988- USMC Colonel William Higgins kidnaped & murdered by Hezbollah.

June 25, 1996- Truck bomb destroys the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia- 20 Killed.