On Torture & How To Lose the War on Terror
A couple days ago, Gordo, one of the best new bloggers out there, deconstructed Michelle’s intentional misunderstanding as to why Amnesty International did not release a statement specifically addressing the torture and brutal killings of two Army soldiers earlier this week. The points made extend to the general criticism directed at us anti-war commentators that we don’t condemn the acts of our enemies readily. The bottom line: “I can’t vote to replace bin-Laden as the leader of al-Qaeda.” Please take the time to read the whole thing.
And now with the developments of a broken terror cell in Miami, Florida and the revelation that the CIA is conducting unregulated tracking of financial transactions, Malkin further reveals her will to “lose” that fictional Global War on Terror. Successful counterterrorism measures begin and end with “actionable intelligence”, which (in a case like this) is idiot speak for “cell infiltration”. And that is what the Miami case appears to be.
Miami Herald:
The group thought that they ‘’were doing [the attacks] in conjunction with al Qaeda'’ but were really dealing with undercover law enforcement, the official said.
It was ‘’pretty much talk, we were on top of them,'’ the source said.
Another law enforcement source said the group had no actual ties to al Qaeda.
Personally, if we’re going to fight terrorism, this is how the battle should look, as opposed to the infringement of personal freedoms that Michelle enjoys.
Short of calling for some form of violent retaliation, Michelle blamed two major American newspapers for exposing state secrets. Even the inimitably idiotic Bryan Preston alluded to the reporters as traitors. Through impassioned, yet misguided verbiage, the right wing bloggers, “empowered” by the traffic Malkin shares with them, are attempting to squash any debate concerning the efficacy of the program.
And, of course, they would never consider the possibility that without judicial oversight, the Executive could easily manufacture evidence to make any citizen out to be a funder of terrorist organizations. (Maybe if the Executive was named Hillary…) And here is where we can most certainly lose this struggle: By accepting that we are all in danger, and hence all “soldiers” in this fight, we then have the capacity to turn on each other; and Michelle’s site and other media like it are the mitigators of such a cancer that will eat us from the inside, if we allow them to cloud our ability to make real judgments.
A funder of terror will find a way to skirt the law. They have no illusions that they are not being watched. It’s the rest of us — the ones who would be labeled enemies of America by the Malkins and Prestons of the world for our political beliefs — who these newspapers are attempting to protect.
Ryan wrote:
Perhaps so, but why make it easy for them? The more difficult we make that job, by foreclosing more and more avenues to them, the narrower their options, the more likely it is that they will make a mistake.
And, of course, while they “knew” we were watching, they didn’t know exactly what they were watching, and even The New York Times made specific reference to two terrorists captured due to the Swift program. One was responsible for the Bali bombing — which killed more people than Timothy McVeigh’s terror attack on the federal office building in Oklahoma City.
I understand that you have a natural disposition to oppose anything that the lovely Mrs Malkin supports, but you’re just way wrong on this one.
Comment by Dana — June 25, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
“Perhaps so”, then “you’re just way wrong”. Nice, Dana.
Here’s the deal. If the Bush administration could not verify that proper measures were taken to avoid abuse of the program, then it is clearly a matter of public interest. In other words, if the reporters believed that the dimensions of the program allowed for someone with a vendetta to frame another person for funding terrorism, then it was their responsibility to let the bosses (i.e. us) know about it.
Our intelligence services should know better.
Comment by Ryan — June 25, 2006 @ 10:26 pm
I’m with Ryan. We’re in America, where our rights and privacy should NOT be violated without due process. Michelle and other wingnuts seem all too eager to give up those rights and privacy for the illusion of a little security.
And we all know what Ben Franklin said about people like that!
Comment by JillK. — June 26, 2006 @ 11:36 am