Posts Tagged terrorism
How Ostensibly Patriotic Americans Help Al Qaeda Win the War on Terror
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Politics, Sarah Palin, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on March 11th, 2010
The very nature of terror is best explained by the various elements of it’s definition: a state of intense fear, often intentionally induced in a population by the actions of others for political purposes.
The present War on Terror, as it has come to be labeled, was initiated by Al Qaeda with the first bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, and culminated in the final attacks and destruction of those buildings on 9/11. The ends of those attacks were achieved in that Americans have now lived in a state of persistent and intense fear going on for nine consecutive years.
The subsequent failures to complete additional terrorists attacks on the United States since 9/11 are not near as important as the mere affect that those attempts have on the psyche of the American public. After all, the achievement of the singular objective of creating terror does not require that anyone be killed or maimed. To the contrary. In fact, it is simply the capacity to maintain a steady level of an intense feeling that the potential for harm is always present in our minds that determines the success of Al Qaeda. In that sense, they have certainly surpassed their expectations.
Even more important to the goals of Al Qaeda is the general breakdown of the civil, political and economic fabric of America. To the extent that those elements of our social structure begin to crumble and dissolve into complete turmoil as a result of the fear that has been instilled in us, the greater the degree of success the terrorists will have achieved in reaching those goals. Once again, on that basis, the terrorists are achieving their objectives.
As we bear witness to the daily political and psychological assaults on our fellow Americans by others who pretend that they are somehow more patriotic and superior because of their personal philosophies, we should stop and ask ourselves these questions:
First - to what extent do these unwarranted criticisms of the patriotism of other Americans merely increase our fear of terrorism?
Second – to what degree do these personal attacks on other Americans tear at the fabric of our social and political structure, thereby inadvertently facilitating the goals of the terrorists?
Finally – does wrapping oneself in the American Flag make you anymore American than others?
I think most of us know the answer.
Can Liz Cheney Really Keep America Safe?
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Crime & Punishment, Dick Cheney, Fox News, Legal & Justice, Media & Communication, National Security, Politics, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on March 11th, 2010
ATTICUS FINCH (Gregory Peck) in “TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD”
Hardly!
Why? Because she advocates the use of fear that rises to the level of McCarthyism, as demonstrated in the recent video released by her political organization, Keep America Safe.
A significant number of well-respected Conservatives have deeply criticized the video’s characterization of current Justice Department lawyers as Un-American because of their previous legal representation of suspected terrorist detainees. One of the greatest callings in the American legal system is defending both the unpopular and the guilty. This role is epitomized by the lawyer Atticus Finch in the movie “To Kill a Mockingbird“, rated as the best courtroom movie of all time by the American Film Institute.
Liz Cheney is a lawyer. If she attended her classes in law school, she should have a basic understanding of the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as well as the principles of American Jurisprudence, all of which ensure due process for everyone who is charged with a violation of the laws of the United States, regardless of citizenship. Her failure to grasp those most fundamental principles of the American justice system only further undermines any semblance of credibility regarding her legal or political opinion.
One of her former law professors, the esteemed Richard A. Epstein, of the University of Chicago School of Law. said it best: “There’s something truly bizarre about this.” Which only begs the question: Is she a moron, or just pathologically shameless and void of any conscience? Maybe it runs in the family?
Most importantly, however, is the real reason why Liz Cheney cannot “Keep America Safe”.
If she relies on the argument that America was much safer from an attack by terrorists during her father’s tenure with the Bush Administration, one need look no further than the Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001, titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”, in order to completely discredit this notion. Her father publicly admitted in May of 2002 on Fox News that he read the brief, and then attempted in vain to dismiss it’s warnings as inconclusive, while simultanously advocating that the brief not be released for public disclosure. Interesting . . .
As this author has pointed out in the post titled “Failing to Connect the Dots: The Lights Were Blinking Red“, that evidence is the most damning indictment of Dick Cheney’s part in the collective negligence of the Bush Administration’s failure to prevent the attacks on 9/11. No wonder he did not want you to read it’s contents. To compound matters even further was their colossal failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden at the battle of Tora Bora, Afghanistan in December of 2001. Simply put, Dick Cheney obviously has no valid standing to criticize the Obama Administration’s policies regarding terrorism and the prosecution of terrorists.
By extension, as well as by her own volition, neither does Liz Cheney.
Case closed.
Were Dick Cheney’s Chest Pains and Terrorist Najibullah Zazi’s Guilty Plea in NY Federal District Court Earlier Today Just a Coincidence?
Posted by Lance Haley in Conservatives, Crime & Punishment, Dick Cheney, Government, Legal & Justice, National Security, Politics, U.S. Attorney's Office, U.S. District Courts, War on Terror, al Qaida on February 22nd, 2010
It would take a really big washrag to wipe that huge grin off my face right now. 
Click here and here – then read ScrewedUS.com Memo to Dick Cheney.
Don’t you just love life’s little ironies?
Homer Simpson Republicans Terrorize U.S. Over Terrorists’ Trials
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Conservatives, Dick Cheney, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, Sarah Palin, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on February 7th, 2010
Terrorism is about creating fear.
Republicans are now clearly trying to create fear in the minds of the American public about the Obama Administration’s prosecution of terrorists in civilian courts. They are insinuating several things: one, that terrorists are “enemy combatants”, and therefore should be tried in military courts; two, that allowing them to be tried in civilian courts will only invite another attack on U.S. soil; third that these defendants are not entitled to any constitutional rights; and finally, that Obama is soft on terrorism.
These constitutional law geniuses include half-term Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), former Vice President Dick Cheney (Chief Republican Hypocrite – Washington, D.C.), and Chief Conservative spokesman Rush Limbaugh (former drug addict, and college drop-out).
Amazing how incensed these Conservatives are about this “recent” decision to take accused terrorists to trial in civilian courts, particularly after the Bush Administration tried over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY terrorists in the same federal courts, including such high-profile cases as 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe bomber Richard Reid.
Just in case any of you other hypocrites out there have also conveniently forgotten, Reid was going to blow up a plane on an international flight bound for the U.S.
“D’oh“!
P.S. Since yesterday, when this was posted, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) has proposed cutting off federal funding for terrorists trials in civil court. Add his name to the rapidly growing list of Homer Simpson constitutional law geniuses and conservative hypocrites.
Fighting both the Islamic Terrorists, as well as the Financial Terrorists with Terror
Posted by Lance Haley in 9/11, Bailouts, Banking, Business and Money, Capitalism, Credit Card Industry, Economics, Financial Crisis, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, National Security, Politics, United States, Wall Street, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror, Wealth Disparity & the Ultra Rich, al Qaida, financial industry, foreign policy on January 15th, 2010
Al Qaida and Wall Street understand how to use terror!
First, you place American citizens in deep fear of some unimaginable catastrophe by destroying two very tall skyscrapers full of people, or by sending the global economy into an almost irreversible tailspin. Second, you continually remind them through repetitive conditioning (suicide bombers on planes or wide-spread bankruptcies and unemployment) that it could happen again tomorrow. Finally, you then reap the results of their irrational behavior from the resulting Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): 1) two debt-laden wars, with the associated horrific physical deaths and wounding of tens of thousands of innocent young soldiers; 2) financial system-breaking bailouts, with huge profits for a select group of well-connected banks, as well as obscene bonuses for the well-heeled financial terrorist executives who reside at the top of those businesses.
The answer to the problem?
Well on the first front, President Obama and his advisers seem to understand that General McChrystal’s “urge to surge” in Afghanistan was only an appeasement to military strategists, and simply moves more targets (soldiers) into closer proximity for the Islamic terrorists to attack. More importantly, Obama and company also understand that terrorizing the Islamic Terrorists is a far more effective and efficient use of resources.
This strategy was first articulated in Obama’s campaign for President, wherein he declared that he would not hesitate to send large numbers of drones into the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area to bring the fight to our enemies in their own backyard. Guess what? It is working.
As one resident of the region was recently quoted, “[w]e have become used to the drone attacks, but now people are scared as they are coming every night.” Israr Khan Dawar, a 17-year-old student in Mir Ali, a town in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan which is controlled by Islamic militants, said “more noise means they are flying lower, and that means an attack is more likely.” Sadly, these civilians are collateral damage in an unfortunate war that they have been drawn into as a result of the reckless behavior of those around them.
As for the second front (the Financial Terrorists), we need a scorched-earth strategy like Colonel Kurtz employed in the movie Apocalypse Now, and not some lame federal “banking fee“. Obama should temporarily nationalize the ten largest U.S. banks, starting with Goldman Sachs, throw their management out, replacing them with people who will act without reckless abandon in search of profits and then make money the old-fashioned way – loaning it out at reasonable rates of interest.
Now THAT would sufficiently terrorize Wall Street.
Unfortunately, it is likely far too late. The time to have moved on this would have been one year ago, when they were at the mercy of the Feds. They won that war, and now we ARE screwed.
P.S. For all you “Capitalists” out there who would label such a drastic measure as “Socialism” – that’s what we have been doing for the past year - you better find a more cogent response. Besides, as Nouriel Roubini (”Dr. Doom”)suggested in the Wall Street Journal inteview, we would only ”nationalize” this sector of our financial system temporarily. It would seem prudent at that point to break up these banks into smaller entities, impose moderate regulations on them (especially with usury rates of 18% on credit cards), and spin off the trading and investment side of the firms - regulating them in move inventive ways. We would have then re-privatized them all within twelve months.
President Obama, that would have sufficiently vanquished the Financial Terrorists, and further given pause to Wall Street’s minions, forcing them to rethink how they are going to conduct business going forward.
Obama’s Answer to Battling Terrorism – Terrorist Profiling?
Posted by Lance Haley in Conservatives, Cultural Issues, Dick Cheney, National Security, Race, War on Terror, al Qaida, foreign policy on January 7th, 2010
Today President Obama is addressing the security lapses that occurred regarding the attempted terrorist bombing on Christmas Day in order to ensure the American public that his Administration is taking the proper steps to review and remedy the procedures that led to inaction on the information that was provided to security agencies, as well as silence his critics. Johnathan Alter of Newsweek even went so far as to suggest that the President needs to negotiate with Dick Cheney in order to get him to stop criticizing the Administration on it’s War on Terror.
That is utter nonsense. Dick Cheney is a hypocrite, as Alter himself acknowledges, and thereby irrelevant in his lame attempts to critique this Administration.
More to the point is Howard Fineman’s intelligent and inciteful essay in Newsweek noting that President Obama has several options to battle terrorism, suggesting one that I have long been philosophically opposed to on the principle of protecting the constitutional rights of individuals: profiling terrorists. Why, you might ask would I oppose this tactic? Before you prejudge my reasoning – “oh, this is just more Liberal gobbly-gook” - try reading clear to the end of this post. You just might be surprised by my conclusions.
The reason for my opposition to any type of profiling is the overwhelming evidence that there is a significant and unwarranted risk that it will ultimately result in few arrests and too many innocent people being wrongfully detained or otherwise unfairly targeted by security and law enforcement, and which has been scientifically proven to be both ineffective, as well as a waste of precious time and resources. That does not even speak to the “human cost” of targeting innocent people.
Moreover, law enforcement officials are widely known to rely on a multitude of nonsensical reasons under the guise of “reasonable suspicion” – which is not ironically the legal standard for a lawful search and seizure – as a legal basis for stopping someone because the officer thinks they may be involved in a crime. Many people would say, “well, so what . . . we have to sacrifice the emotional security of a few for the personal security of the many.”
This argument has been forwarded for over a century subsequent to a long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding individuals 4th Amendment right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. Very few Americans have any real indepth knowledge as to the historical basis for this fundamental right recognized by our founding fathers, as well as a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of case law protecting us from unwarranted and excessive intrusions upon our privacy by agents of the government.
But I digress from the central point of the issue of terrorist profiling.
Although I will always remain highly skeptical of law enforcement offficer’s motivations and justifications as a result of my professional experience (I have caught too many of them lying in court, while under oath), there just might be a reasoned and measured manner for accomplishing our national security objectives with a modicum of protection for the innocent. On the other hand, no one should pretend that profiling will easily identify and stop those who intend to kill innocent people and terrorize us. There are no simplistic solutions to this difficult and contentious issue.
The deeds of evil men are rarely so apparent until after they are completed.
Message to any “FED” – Hang ‘Em High!
Posted by Lance Haley in Anti-government sentiment, Congress, Cultural Issues, Government, How and Why We Get Screwed, Politics, crime on September 24th, 2009
Beck and Bachmann on fear of government intrusion
First, let’s acknowledge how irresponsible it is to accuse any particular group for U.S. Census worker Bill Sparkman’s death.
However, the peculiar circumstances surrounding him being hanged from a tree – which law enforcement investigators in Kentucky have preliminarily ruled as a homicide – beg the question, why would anyone scrawl the word “FED” across his chest, and what would be their motive?
One could easily infer that it is possibly fear of government intrusion - see the video at the bottom of an article published today.
Are Glenn Beck and Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) really that distressed over government invasion into our privacy?
Well, recall back in 2005 when the story broke regarding the fact that the National Security Agency (NSA), operating under the directives of the Bush Administration, had wiretapped millions of American citizens’ private phone conversations under the guise of investigating possible links to terrorism. This led to an investigation by Congress into the extent of the wiretaps, whether they were legal, and whether they were being properly targeted in order to protect national security as asserted by the Bush Administration.
In order to assure the American public that the wiretaps were not directed at innocent citizens, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in a White House press briefing, stated that these intercepts were only authorized when the government “has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda.” and that one party to the conversation is “outside of the United States” [emphasis added].
When General Michael Hayden, former head of the NSA and then-acting Director of the CIA, was eventually called to testify before the Senate regarding allegations of unwarranted government intrusion into the lives of innocent American citizens, he unconditionally denied that the government was listening to private conversations that were not reasonably related to terrorist activity. General Hayden stated, “[w]e are narrowly focused and drilled on protecting the nation against al Qaeda and those organizations who are affiliated with it,”
FACT: some of the conversations were between American couples (even servicemen and their spouses/girlfriends) engaging in the most intimate communications that had nothing to do with national security. That this is a gross invasion of privacy, and the most egregious form of governmental intrusion is beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Former NSA employee Adrienne Kinne, who was awarded an NSA Joint Service Achievement Medal in 2003, along with one of her fellow NSA peers, came forward in 2008 and pointedly criticized the NSA’s continued targeting of obviously innocent American citizens. She proudly stated that sometimes the intercepts did result in information that may have interrupted potential terror attacks in Iraq, and therefore saved American lives.
Yet, Kinne noted the problem was all of the wasted time and resources spent focusing on these innocent Americans, when it could have been directed towards finding the proverbial “needle in the haystack”. As Ms. Kinne so poignantly stated, “[b]y casting the net so wide and continuing to collect on Americans . . . it’s almost like they’re making the haystack bigger and it’s harder to find that piece of information that might actually be useful to somebody,” she said. “You’re actually hurting our ability to effectively protect our national security.”
So Glenn Beck and Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann. . . where was the outrage regarding government intrusion back then?