..is such a huge mistake. Josh Marshall is taken to school along the way.
Like Andy McCarthy, I’m amused by Obama defenders who defend him by saying that Bush did it, too. I thought that Obama was supposed to be the UnBush. And I’m not sure why I should find this a persuasive argument, unless the arguer is stupid enough to think that I worship George Bush. He made a lot of screwups, and I complained about them pretty much continually. The fact that I often defended him against insane criticisms doesn’t mean that I found nothing to criticize.
[Update just before 2010 Eastern Time]
Cliff May has more thoughts:
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has reportedly told investigators:
There are more just like me who will strike soon.
If he knows that, he may also be in possession of information that would help investigators locate these individuals before they strike. Indeed, it is likely that UFA attended suicide-bomber school with some of them in Yemen between August and September.
But because UFA is being treated as a criminal suspect to be tried in a regular American court, he has been told he has a “right to remain silent.” And his attorney, presumably, has told him to exercise that right until such time as it is possible to determine how much leniency his cooperation may be worth.
In the meantime, one of these terrorists may succeed in his mission. That will be the price we pay for treating UFA as criminal suspect rather than an unlawful combatant.
This would seem to be a case where the precautionary principle would make sense.
Rand – would you inform on a loved one if you thought they’d be waterboarded and held forever without trial?
I don’t know, but I would certainly expect them to be interrogated. The water boarding is their choice. And no, I wouldn’t expect them to be held forever without trial. But then, I consider a military tribunal a trial.
If the decision is solely left to the Executive branch, there is nothing to stop Obama from asking ACORN for a list of “enemy combatants” that might happen to have your name on it. So, until we create such a mechanism, certain cases, such as a person on a civilian airliner, are going to have to default to “crooks” with the rights that pertain to them.
The line between the two may not be narrow and bright, and if someone falls near it, then they should be given such benefit of the doubt. But Flameypants was so far over it he couldn’t see the line from there.
Well, given that you’re ready to rely upon the benevolence of dictators with regards to the medical care of every living person in the nation, it seems like a small risk. The constitution has been “ripped up”, as you say, for over a century.
Why is the burden of proof on me?
I Googled:
site:transterrestrial.com “richard reid” court
and found exactly zero criticisms of the decision to try him as a civilian.
Ball’s in your court.
Contrary to popular myth, Google is not all knowing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Anyway, while I have no recollection specifically of discussion of Reid, there was abundant criticism at the time, by me and many others, of the seemingly whimsical and arbitrary decisions in the Bush administration as to how to deal with various terrorist suspects. It took them years to finally figure out a rational process, which was then roundly criticized by the left.
Yes, and what’s going to happen in the future is that as Jim and other Leftist baby-boomers (who see every war through the eyes of ‘Nam) get death-panelled, their opposition (or dismantling) of relatively moderate measures against exploding crotch bombers et. al. could lead to more extreme measures being necessary in the future. A repeat of 9/11 10 to 20 years from now would easily be a WWIII flashpoint, thus preventing that would be critical not just for those killed in any one event, but for all the consequences. Jim’s point about existential threats only applies now (but barely because so many of his risk-averse peers are this side of the conveyor belt), but it has an expiration date.
I don’t know what world Jim lives, but failure on his part does not make for an impressive argument that he’s right about his assertions.
As for Rand’s point, I found an example of him criticizing the Bush administrations bungling of air transportation security from 2003. I used the same search Jim used.
It’s a good post by Rand, and it’s a shame Jim didn’t find it. The post agrees with many the points I made here. That TSA is doing more to strip the freedom and security of the other civilians, thus preventing them from protecting themselves. The post focuses on that aspect, not the otherside, which is giving greater civil rights to the terrorist. But then here, in this very post by Rand, he focuses on that otherside. In both posts, Rand criticizes the current leadership for their failures.
But to play Jim’s game. I’ll notice that in 2003, when Rand was criticizing the Bush Administration. Jim wasn’t writing comments about how Rand was right. Perhaps Jim can find us one of those comments. I couldn’t find one, so balls in his court.
Here is a post by a law professor. It’s points out that instead of using intelligence that could have stopped this latest attack, we continue to just harrass everyone else.
You won’t find comments by me criticizing Bush for trying Reid in civilian courts because I thought it was the right thing to do!
You won’t find posts by Rand criticizing the decision because he didn’t think it was such a terrible decision until Obama did likewise.
You won’t find posts by Rand criticizing the decision because he didn’t think it was such a terrible decision until Obama did likewise.
I found them. You just need to look.