The definition of terrorism has been redefined by the current information. by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Thursday, October 1, 2009
First, they closed Abu Ghraib (Iraq) in 8/06. Then they decided to "Mirandize" any terrorist prisoners. Then they decided that because of the Abu Ghraib and like scandals, many of the terrorist prisoners should be released. Then they decided that every terrorist prisoner should be afforded all those rights that American citizens now get if they're apprehended.
Some believe we most likely will never have any terrorist problems again...
According to the AP in[link edited for length], the % of terrorism cases that federal prosecutors have declined to pursue has recently grown from 31 to 73%. Many terrorists go free because the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse(TRAC) claims they don't have enough evidence to convict, and we are violating their civil rights. They seem to forget it was these terrorists responsible for the 3000 deaths on 9/11.
AP reports that almost 6000 of almost 8900 terrorism cases between 2004 and 2008 were closed with no action. According to the data, the cases brought by investigators were often based on weak or insufficient admissible evidence, lacked criminal intent, or did not constitute a criminal offense.
What is considered admissible in a foreign country? How does one know if a terrorist is simply constructing a bomb, or something else? What if a suspected terrorist simply has blood on his sword, but is not caught in any act of slaughter?
Firsthand information from troops in Baghdad revealed during the worst fighting by terrorists right after the fall of Hussein, troops were asked to risk their lives again. They were forced to bus suspected terrorists out of Abu Ghraib, and let them out free on the populace.
So many forget when Bush stated that after 9/11, that if you weren't against all terrorist activities, you were with them. Terrorist activities such as physical torture, hacking someone to death with swords, forcing a detainee to utter false words on television then slitting his neck, and actively pursuing the attainment of weapons of mass destruction for multiple kills, did not seem to occur at Abu Ghraib.
Sure, atrocities such as physical embarrassment occurred at some prisons for terrorists, and that should be halted. But terrorists are NOT American citizens. They do NOT have American rights. They will kill to achieve their objectives. They do NOT have "Miranda" rights. If they're involved with terrorists in any way, they likely are terrorists.
It can be deduced that at least 50% of the terrorists that have been loosed on the general populace will be out there again killing when it suits their purpose. That means many American troops, as well as Iraqis, have already died due to votes for Democrats--in power, and dictating all legislation. They control how many terrorists are circulating in the population, and yes, how many more American soldiers will die because of incredibly poor decisions by the current administration.
The author honors all those soldiers who have died and been injured by terrorist actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. America has seen no further terrorist-committed deaths on American soil since 9/11, and the blood of those American soldiers will always be remembered.
Terrorists know there are really no rules for terrorists, as long as they get what they want. Some citizens wanted change this last election. Well they got it. For some of them, their child, wife, or husband won't be coming home for dinner anymore...
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kevin Roeten only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kevin Roeten is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
On the other hand, most of these terrorists are not "mentally" deranged in the classic sense. Second, they usually follow orders of their chain of command, so, maybe we should begin an earnest dialogue with them. Let's not count out this strategy, many of the Islamic terrorists have some legitimate points, second, who but your enemy do you negotiate and make peace with, third; we eventually came around having a full dialogue and relationship the the PLO, over time, and, it worked, we do not have PLO terrist acts outside the middle east anymore. Fourth, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter right ? So, lets not count them merely as some mental cases who are out to create some violence independently for no reason. Let's turn our approach around as by your own article, we can see the US government has gone soft.
You'll have to remember that 'legitimate points' don't justify the means. I don't ever recall having a full dialogue with the PLO. They're still commiting acts of terrorism though, aren't they? There are other more efficient ways to handle terrorists than to talk with them.
Daddy, it looks like you're going to be sick a whole lot. That word is in the dictionary, won't be taken out any time soon, and describes a particular person's qualities that are very non-normal.
The only thing going down your throat is something that fits. Just WHAT is down there?
Well, "legitimate points" means that there is a basic on which to have a dialogue, they are not commiting the acts against the United States for no reason. The most notable demands relate to our one-sided support of Israel, stationing of US troops in the 'holy' lands, etc. to which they (Al Qaeda) for example, have said that negotiation on those points would make them (Al Qaeda) change their policies vis-a-vis the USA. Second, its too wide a discussion to alk about "justification of means" as the US used a nuclear weapon in 1945, firebombed German cities, and recently- killed over 100,000 Iraqi's in under 24 hours on the "highway of death" during the first Gulf War. The "highway of death" whereby a 'retreating' column of mainly Iraqi armed forces, was pummeled helplessy- even though retreating, resulting in at least, by US Army accounts, of 100,000 dead Iraqi's. That number alone is more than " all " the so-called terrorist related deaths since 1945. Yes, this modern day American massacre was during a war, but those forces were retreating ! So- its a complex and very opinionated discussion to talk about "justification of the means."
Regarding the PLO, well, I recall from the 1960's to the 1980's the PLO was labelled by us and most of the world, and especially Israel as the "biggest" terrorists in the world. Up until Reagan the US and Israel said they would NEVER talk to Arafat and the PLO. Ah, well, seems we can live with "terrorists" too. The PLO was given "observer" status with the PLO in 1974 and ISRAEL itself- "recognized" Arafat and the PLO as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people in 1993. The US and PLO have reciprocal representative offices and FULL dialogue and exchange of diplomats. So you see, its not so hard to turn around the big oil tanker of US foreign policy, terrorist yesterday, full dialogue and relationship today. So ... why not Al Qaeda ??
"Legitimate Points" IS a good reason to start a dialogue. But not beheading, body shredding, physical torture, etc., etc... There is NO reason to commit terrorist acts anywhere.
You seem to forget that with Israel, the terrorist objective (including al-Qaeda) is to wipe them off the face of the earth. For Israel it's now sheer survival.
I question your 'alleged' fact about 100,000 Iraqi deaths during retreat. Weren't they set out to kill as many allies as possible? How did we even know they were in retreat? How did we know that they simply weren't reassembling for another attack that would kill even more than before? If someone is trying to kill you, there's no question of justification.
Your nuances about PLO status are questionable at best. I don't see any FULL dialogue with the PLO right now, that is if they are a terrorist entity at all. When al-Qaeda stops all terrorist activity, then we can talk--not until.
You sound awfully like a terrorist sympathizer. I wonder if that is correct...
Actually, look at my original comment, I said it was my opinion that America has gone soft on terrorists/terrorism, and therefore, if our soldiers seem to whine and complain in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our government under Bush and Obama are not willing to put in the numbers of reinforcements and resources to "defeat" terrorists and the nations that harbor them, then, in that case, I advocate dialogue. Otherwise, we just continue to be "terrorized" since they will continue to exist since we are not putting in the proper resources to defeat them.
I mean, I put my life on the line for 12 years in Bosnia and Kosovo, so I think I'm not "talking the talk" as most do in public commentary, I walked the walk, so, it seems not enough Americans are willing to sacrifice in what is a long fight against terrorism as Bush correctly pointed out right after 9/11. More than 50% of Americans now "don't" support the war in Afghanistan, and Obama in his recent hesitation in deciding what our strategy and troop levels are going to be, is obviously buckling under those poll numbers. A real President- the Chief Executive would not buckle, they would put in the reinforcements, even with limited conscription, to accomplish a "clear" defeat and victory over "terrorists." but, doesn't seem so, doesn't seem there are enough "men" to walk the walk anymore, and hasn't been since WWII. So, I'm happy to eliminate the PLO or any other terrorist organization as you wish to define it, but seems I'm in the minority in that thinking, because we can't "wish" them away, we need to fight for that goal. So, in that context, I advocate "dialogue" with our "enemy" since doesn't seem we are near defeating them, and public opinion is against mobilizing the necessary resources to do so. So, I think its an easy answer to your "wondering" if I am a "terrorist" sympathizer.
Not to make a new topic or anything, but regarding the highway of death, the Iraqi troops were withdrawing from Kuwait to Iraq, and it was announced , by Saddam, that they were complying with the UN resolution, to withdraw Kuwait, and thus on the next morning, the Iraqi army complied and began to withdraw from Kuwait to Iraq. Once compliance was declared, and subsequent withdrawal was taking place, it was against the Hague Convention and even US Army Law of War to "attack soldiers not engaged in combat" and in compliance with orders to withdraw- essentially, a defeated army leaving the battleground- Kuwait. So, if those Iraqi's were to have "regrouped" in Iraq, as might have happened, that's a separate conflict then, or a renewed conflict- as Iraq was compling with the UN order to withdraw, so how can you leave and withdraw from the battlefied- or why would you- if you are still going to be attacked ? that's why- its against the Laws of War (Hague Convention of which we are a signatory) to attack withdrawing troops who are in compliance with an order to withdraw. In any case, not to expand further on this topic but I wasn't mentioning the Highway of Death as a new topic, only that, when you are the victor- anything you do is never labeled as a "terrorist" act (such as firebombing innocent civilians in Dresden or dropping two atomic bombs on civilians in Japan), but the "terrorist" label is assigned to the losers. Remember, our American revolutionaries were labelled as terrorists and engaged the British army in "terrorist" fashion- shooting from behind rocks and trees and even windows of homes in villages. In Israel, during British rule, the Jewish Haganah/Irgun was labeled as a "terrorist" organization until they became the government. Those so-called terrorists of the time, became the famous leaders of Israel later, including Yitzhak Rabin, Sharon, Moshe Dayan and famous sex therapist Ruth Westheimer ! Can you imagine that sweet little lady a "terrorist" ? but yes, before they became the ruling power, she was labelled a terorist by the British. Terrorism can also be classified as "asymmetrical warfare." So, issues like "terrorism" is not really that cut and dry in the real world nor any complex definitions you use. If you ever get the chance to experience a "real war" yourself, you'll see that the world is very "grey" and not black and white as you are painting it.
Wrong about Bush. Correct about Obama. Bush was responsible for the "surge" and reinforcements. Obama doesn't know what he's doing.
"Dialogue" never works with a terrorist. They realize that their methods have forced you into that position.
My son was in the Iraq war. He was shot by a sniper in downtown Baghdad. Fortunately, he lived to tell about his ordeal. I know many soldiers now who walked the walk in Iraq. There's no "dialogue" with terrorists.
There was no announcement by Hussein that his troops were in withdrawal and that they would comply with the UN, never to fight and kill again once they had regrouped.
They were given the chance to do just that before they started fighting! Besides, eveyrone knows the UN was not in charge of any conflict at all.
Be careful who you assign as users of the "terrorist" label. It's been used many times in error, and you know that. An easy question to check--did they employ the same type of techniques employed by the PLO, and al-Qaeda presently?
Terroristic tactics are very cut-and-dry. If you have to label things as "assymetrical warefare", then your "terrorist sympathy" should indeed be questioned...
I'm glad to hear that your Son survived that attack, it brings all these conflicts to us personally, I understand your perspective.
However, it's not your Son writing the article right ?
In any case, regarding terrorism, well, there isn't one specific definition right, but, in the case of generally accepted international law " working definitions" ( I practiced international law and law of war in Bosnia, Kosovo, Croatia for 12 years so I have some "practical" and personal experience with this issue) is basically the " use of violence to create fear and terror towards some goal by the user of terrorism AND with disregard to innocent civilians " Ok, so this is the general definition we use in the real world, where we use it in war zones and conflict zones and other places, if you wish to make your very own personal definition of the word, that's fine, you could make a whole new dictionary of your personal interpretations of all words and concepts. but, that is the generally used definition of terrorism. In this case, our "dialogue" which was actually called "constructive engagement" with dictatorships in Chile under Pinochet and the apartheid government in South Africa yielded results, as those dialogues over time produced democratic countries.
Second, regarding the PLO, well, it would just take a minute for you to check the facts, I mean, our dialogue with the terrorists of Arafat and the PLO was called the " Oslo process" wherein we brokered a deal between Arafat and Israel and part of that deal in 1993 was our and Israel's recognition of the PLO as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people. I mean, it would only take a minute for you to check that, thus, your statement that you can't have dialogue with terrorists doesn't line up with the facts, we did have a dialogue, we do have a relationship with the PLO and if you go to 1320 18th st. in Washington DC you will see the PLO Mission to the United States there. So, I mean, the facts about this are quite clear.
Regarding Bush, he did NOT implement any surge in Afghanistan, that was only in Iraq. Afghanistan was a mere "holding" action during his tenure as President.
Regarding the first Iraq war, well, again, it would only take a few minutes to check your facts. We did not take actions during the FIRST Gulf War until we had authorization from the United Nations. So, technically, yes, they were in charge of the conflict, UN Resolution 660 demanded withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, when they did not comply, the US asked for and got, authorization from the UN under Resolution 665 - use of force, and that is when we attacked initially with air power. The government of Kuwait confirms that on 26 Feb. 1991 Iraq began to withdraw their forces from Kuwait, this is the same morning that Saddam announced on Baghdad radio that Iraq would comply with UN Resolution 660. So, Iraqi forces began to move out, they were not moving in the direction of US forces, they were going up highway 80 towards Iraq- its called 'withdrawal'- the announcement was made, and journalists and the Kuwaiti government confirms on the 26th they began their withdrawal. therefore under those circumstances, its pretty clear that to attack them was a violation of international law ( Hague Convention) as well as the US field military manual which prohibits attacks on withdrawing forces- when they are in compliance with an order to withdraw. So, I don't know, those are easily checked facts, seems pretty clear. I think Colin Powell in his book that he later wrote, clearly illustrated those points which I make clear here.
In any case Kevin, a good discussion and I leave this as my final post on this issue, since as I say, if you wish to make up your own private definitions of words, and don't want to look up facts as the Oslo process- dialogue with terrorists in 1993, and the fact that the PLO has an office in DC on 18th street, then, well, it's a reality beyond my comprehension. If I had terrorist sympathies I would have not given eight years of my life in the field working for the UN Office of the Prosecutor to bring to justice those who commit terrorism and violations of the laws of war, I mean, I didn't talk about it, I dedicated 12 years of my life in a war zone to " do " something about it. My full respect for your "opinions" anyway !
Typical bigoted conservative argument. This is the problem with you guys- you are determined to misread the Constitution, whereas liberals are too stupid to read it correctly.
You guys can't pick between "American rights", "God-given rights", "unalienable/inalienable/natural or Miranda rights" to save your life. Worse yet, they all have overlapping and contradictory definitions to you. How can anyone depend on you to make a sound judgement on our proper foreign policy.
You do want to "win", right? Well, here is news for you: these terrorist cells have trained recruits to believe that Americans are worthy of the carnage they bring through their "jihad". The hypocrisy of intelligence bureaus to preach that certain individuals do not have God-given rights because they pray to a different God is not only laughable, it has reaffirmed many's belief for attacking us.
Those who would choose, however, to suppress these rights in the name of freedom for the few are not only demonstrating their own collectivist hate, but weaken their whole arguments in favor of justice in the first place. How can you claim to be a land of the free when an overbearing system that imprisons many innocents but catches few that are truly guilty is the norm? How do we manage to hold onto this legacy or image or whatever you want to call it - of opportunity and fairness?
You can't.
And don't get me wrong, Obama is not right on the matter, either. I add this because I know neoconservatives like you in the first place indulge in this singular left-right paradigm of being against you is "Anti-American, socialist, etc". Despite the fact you are on the Nolan Chart, which demonstrates there are more than two single views on political issues.
Interventionism is the problem. You don't see Switzerland or Canada being attacked. Hell, in Canada they don't even require you pass through a metal detector at national monuments. I wonder why... are they somehow Muslim kindred?
This foreign policy argument is just steeped in illogical views and utter denial.
You've got to get your facts right if you want to continue this conversation. I'm afraid you don't understand my perspective. Actually my son did write about 1/3 of the article you read. It doesn't sound like you have any experience with true terrorism at all.
Your definition for terrorism is poor. What dictionary did you get it from? As I stated, until an organization stops commiting terrorist acts, there's no reason to talk. I haven't heard of any terrorism from the PLO lately, have you?
I never said Bush was responsible for any 'surge' in Afghanistan. It was in Iraq, and it was quite successful. Get my words straight. Clearly you missed what I said. Iraqi troops were going back to regroup. This was the SECOND gulf war, by the second Bush. It would be good of you to keep your facts straight. Also, no matter what resolution the UN passed, they were not in charge of allied forces in either gulf war.
It's too bad you never saw any combat either. It would give you a whole new perspective. I'm afraid much of your 'experience' sounds like a waste, because what you write sounds awfully like a 'terrorist sympathizer'. It's a given that the UN should have been disbanded a while ago. Good luck in any future endeavor. You'll need it!
You don't seem very conservative with your typical colorfully-laced diatribe about what you don't like. And I suppose you read the Constitution inerrantly?
Maybe if someone asked the right questions, he'd get the right answers. Everything is "God-given" rights. Everything else is sheer interpretation.
It's easy to see the real God would NOT be for carnage, physical pain, death......you name it. Therefore, the belief for attacking someone for no apparent reason is anti-everything. Ever hear of a just war?
The prison system can be changed in many ways--and death row is one of them. Do you actually know what your God-given rights are? Make sure you do, before you start spewing hate.
Someone has to be right with so many opposing viewpoints. Aren't you glad Obama didn't abort you with his heath care program?
Intervention is not always the problem. Human weakness is. You never read my column on Muslim control of various countries? That's too bad. If you really want the right way to do things, just let me know.
The closest you could come to calling me conservative is fiscally conservative, but I prefer "fiscally sound". Conservative labels are offputting to most people, and for good reason.
Your problem is that you constantly tie everything back to "God-given" rights without instead finding any secular argument to synergize your points.
It's easy to see what a real God is for? Really? Suppose I subscribed to that idea, there would still be half as many in your camp that disagreed with me. Neocons use the same man for justification of carnage just as convincingly. So don't try to lecture me on what He wants when such a view is not so unanimous as to disprove my claims.
If we were to take the idea of "just", God-given rights and the proper implementation of them, then I would actually agree with much of what you said in this paragraph.
But the picture you present of pre-emptive war, the concept that God-given rights are not universally extended, and that torture and deprivation of freedoms are both okay, does not sit well with what you then claim to support.
This is why you are a hypocrite. And also, baseless attacks like Obama "aborting" don't help your argument either.
You're right. Conservative is not a good label. Especially when you reject the 'social' side like abortion, euthanasia, cloning, and same-sex marriage. You can't be a conservative if you like the fiscal side but not the social side.
The real problem lies in the fact that you don't realize any secular argument is based directly from the God-given rights side. I'm afraid you're wrong about what people believe. Far more than half the population believe there's a God--somewhere between 82-86%. What happened to you?
I haven't lectured you about anything yet. You may have taken it that way though. That's too bad. A unanimous view is not necessary to validate what is right. Remember back in the 1800's, the popular opinion about slavery was far from unanimous. In fact, more people still wanted it. They came around, though.
No true Christian 'justifies' carnage. Sometimes it's got to happen, especially when there is an unjust aggressor, such as against Hitler, and the War on Terrorism. I never said just God-given rights were ALWAYS implemented.
There was no premptive war if you are talking about Iraq. It was proved without question that Hussein aided and abetted Islamic terrorists. It was proved without question about his nuclear ambitions if left to reign. He had already struck Kuwait, and had defied all UN sanctions. He was warned to step down or he would be forcibly removed. He would not.
If you are calling waterboarding 'torture', then you have changed the definition of torture drastically. Those terrorists that were waterboarded were only 3, and they never were given direct physical pain, and they all lived to tell about it, even saving thousands on the West Coast from unneccesary slaughter.
And if you don't think Obama is for abortion, I have a bridge in Louisiana I'd like to sell you. How can you leave out at least 1.3 million humans/year and tell them they aren't US citizens??
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
