SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home TRB: Terror Firma

POLITICS JUNE 20, 2008

TRB: Terror Firma

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

Last week, the terrorism "issue" made its campaign debut. I use scare quotes not because terrorism is not a threat, but because it's unclear precisely what issue is at stake. John McCain's campaign has been determined to have a debate about terrorism, which polls have shown to be the only issue where he has any meaningful edge over Barack Obama. The problem is that on the only terrorism-related positions where Obama has staked out ground to the left of the Bush administration--torture, closing Guantánamo--McCain has, too.


But McCain saw his opportunity when Obama made the following comment:



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."


You may wonder what exactly McCain objects to here. The answer is that Obama endorsed prosecuting terrorists. In the Republican mind, there is a vast metaphysical divide over the question of how you fight terrorists. Tough guys like George W. Bush and McCain understand the evil of terrorism at a gut level and want to fight it with the military, using big guns and bombs. Wimps like John Kerry and Obama have a daintier, more equivocal sensibility, and prefer to deploy nerdy prosecutors to "serve our enemies with legal papers," as Bush liked to say.


And so, when Obama let pass from his lips a reference to trying terrorists in court, McCain's campaign pounced. Foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann warned, "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 eleventh." McCain's blog scoffed, "It's hardly surprising that a lawyer would think that the war on terror would be fought more effectively by lawyers than by the United States Marine Corps."


It doesn't matter that Obama never said, or even implied, that legal prosecution should be the sole method of preventing terrorism. The fact that he even mentioned prosecution apparently proves that he has what McCain's campaign called a "September 10th mindset."


Yet some logical flaws with this analysis present themselves. (And yes, I realize that the mere fact that I would intellectualize this issue, rather than understanding it in my gut, proves that I too have a September 10th mindset.) First, terrorists often operate in our country, or in friendly countries, which makes military action against them tricky. McCain (through his campaign blog) assailed Obama for favoring "prosecutors rather than predators." But, when the terrorists are holed up in New York City, as was the case with the 1993 bombers Obama referred to, simply arresting them strikes me as more efficient than leveling their apartment with a drone-fired missile.


Second, when terrorists can be found outside the reach of law enforcement, Obama has explicitly proposed to strike them militarily. Last summer, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration had actionable intelligence about high-level Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. It planned a snatch-and-grab operation but cancelled at the last minute. In a speech the following month, Obama called this "a terrible mistake," and promised, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." McCain criticized Obama for this, too, saying he "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan."


Third, none other than Rudy Giuliani, Mr. 9/11 himself, once prosecuted terrorists. In 1994, Giuliani said that the conviction of World Trade Center bombers "demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon-the law." You might say, in Giuliani's defense, that he did this before September 11. After that, Everything Changed, and, if he caught terrorists again, he would use tactical nuclear weapons against them. The problem here is that he continued to tout his prosecution of terrorists during his comically unsuccessful presidential campaign. But maybe this just goes to show that the September 10th mindset is so seductive that it can strike even its most vigilant adversaries.


I would have thought the example of Giuliani would be inconvenient enough that the McCain campaign would hide him in the closet while they bashed Obama for favoring the prosecution of terrorists. Instead, McCain's campaign trotted Giuliani out for a press conference call and a round of talk show appearances, possibly because he seems to materialize out of thin air whenever the phrase "9/11" is uttered.


Giuliani's sudden appearance is somehow perfectly apt. His lasting legacy to the political culture may be taking a concept (9/11) that was freighted with the strongest emotional and patriotic overtones and doing to it what Clara Peller did to "Where's the Beef?" Giuliani relentlessly milked 9/11 because (as McCain himself pointed out not long ago!) he had no foreign policy experience and repeatedly demonstrated his ignorance of basic facts about his alleged area of competence. He's the perfect embodiment of the foreign policy style that has prevailed most of the last seven years.


The sad irony is that McCain actually had a perfectly credible line of foreign policy attack against Obama: that Iraq is improving and could be imperiled by a pullout. I'm not sure I agree with his argument, but it is looking steadily stronger. His descent into Giuliani-ism, however, suggests his campaign thinks winning on Iraq wouldn't be enough. It's as if, by invoking 9/11, he can summon the return of the mentality that prevailed in the years after the attack.


McCain spent the previous couple months mimicking every theme of the Hillary Clinton unsuccessful candidacy. Now, dropping in the polls, he's mimicking the themes Giuliani rode to a spectacular flameout. It may work. If not, he can always try to tap into the magic of the Jim Gilmore campaign.


Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 55 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

55 comments

9/11 is a Democratic Party Issue for the 2008 elections -- Thanks to the G.W. Bush Administration. -- Obama began his contribution to this Democratic Party 2008 campaign theme last year, precisely with his statements on Pakistan, mentioned here. -- The “theme” is the Bush Administration’s failure to PUBLICLY capture the planners and leaders of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001: IN what will be SEVEN years of the so-called Global War On Terror (A.K.A. "GWOT") this fall. Anyone who believes that either Obama or Hillary Clinton would not, as “Commander-In-Chief,” rubber-stamp further American military expeditions conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) via the world-wide JCS unified commands, has not been paying very close attention. The Bush Administration has provided the excuse (the failure to publicly capture the leaders of the attacks of September 2001). The Bush Administration-Democratic Party-led Congress combination has provided the legislation, complete with appropriated funds (the critical element), for the new American Military buildup/modernization. During the Bush administration, the infrastructure, material and command, has been extended, expanded and constructed, in the Western Hemisphere, central Asia, Africa, Department of Defense, Department of State, and world-wide, which provides the means to conduct future punitive expeditions, and general war, on a much broader scale than the American punitive expeditions of 1991-present, which include the 3-country (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq) conquest, occupation, and reconstruction (dissolution, partition and reconstruction in the case of the ex-Yugoslavia), conducted, overtly 1995-present, but is much broader than only that. The next President, whoever he or she is (I’m still betting it will be Hillary Clinton), has all that will be needed to continue the naked aggression (The Bush Administration named GWOT will be canceled by the next administration and American navy ships will return to flying the union jack instead of the so-called “navy jack”). Punitive expeditions under a euphemism in the vein of "Humanitarian Mission" (of the G.H.W. Bush-Clinton administrations), or some such, will return. The destruction and attacks will continue, only with more "precision” strikes and less invading “boots on the ground” (or armor): Meaning that I wouldn’t look for any major ground forces-centered expeditions using our “army within the army” (the ‘brave men’ of the Army combat brigades and marines battalions) in the first couple years of the new administration. The territorial conquests needed to press further into central Asia were mostly accomplished under the Bush Administration. The 3rd-rate troops of the American ‘armed Peace Corps’ elements of the U.S. Army (the ‘brave men and women’), American special forces (‘brave men’), and mercenaries (‘paid men’), will continue to see heavy use. Allied-country ground forces will see greater use. American naval and air forces will continue to see very heavy use. The war will go on (thanks to the foundations provided by the G.W. Bush administration, which in turn, launched the necessary ground offensives due to the foundations established by the G.H.W. Bush and Clinton Administrations). Modernization of Iraqi oil infrastructure will begin (replacing the 1961-79, now antique, infrastructure) and infrastructure construction in central Asia will continue and expand. Expansion, and securing, of lines of communication will in southwest and central asia will be the major program.

- p.

June 20, 2008 at 2:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great article but honestly? McCain appears to forget what he stood for just last week and by this time next week? 9/11 will be tossed to the side just like he tosses everything aside when it is not to his advantage. He tossed his crippled wife aside when he got back from the war and married a drug stealing addict because she had money. THAT is John McCain.

- Deanna

June 20, 2008 at 8:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You fight terror with terror. Do you or anyone else thing that Bin Laden and his group care about the people who are being held in Gitmo? All they care about is they failed to kill enough infidels. Now they have to recruit more people to get the job done. International terrorism was started by the PLO back in the 70's with skyjacking, ship jacking and the attack at Munich at the Olympics usng UN money of course. What laws have been passed since that time by any country to deal with terrorism? None until 9/11. When the terrorism issue gets heated up in October you can expect Senator Obama to change his stance as he is an expert in changing his position. McCain will stand his ground on the issue.

- Gene44

June 20, 2008 at 9:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is clear that the time has come to begin criticizing the September-11th mindset as the logically inhibited, woefully outmoded way of thinking that it is, and replace it with the fashion-forward 1/21/09 mindset.

- Charlie

June 20, 2008 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, there's nothing like the sledgehammer approach to fighting terrorism, like sending in a US naval vessel to shell a residential neighborhood in Somalia in the hopes of killing one or two terrorists. Yes yes 30 or 40 innocent civilians were slaughtered, men women and children turned into hamburger as they sat in their homes, but at least they and their families have the satisfaction of knowing they died in the fight against terrorism. Who here in the West gives a shit about black Africans anyway? They hardly qualify as human beings at all in the minds of many, some of whom inhabit the White House today obviously. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And in Iraq we rain down 105 mm howitzer shells from gunships miles away upon the heads of alleged terrorists, and when our boys are through, the accused nor anyone else in the general vicinity is in any condition to raise any objections. And we shoot farmers in the field as they sit on their tractors, with 30 mm chain guns from helicopters 5000 yards away, because we had it on good authority that they were terrorists. Quick quick, there's a suspect crawling away with his legs blown off, waving a handkerchief in surrender, blast em! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your Honor, I wish to object on behalf of my client who is unable to speak in his own defense because as you can see Your Honor my client is just a pile of jumbled innards, brain and bone matter collected from a greasy spot in the bloodsoaked Iraqi sands. Nevertheless I demand justice for the remains of my clients Your Honor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- God I love being a morally superior American.

- Aaron B. Brown

June 20, 2008 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Um yeah, you're kinda missing the issue. Were all the people involved in WTC 1 captured? No they weren't. Either Obama is lying or doesn't really have knowledge of the case. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was part of the plot, Abdul Rahman Yasin was able to flee to Iraq. In fact it was the stupidity of the terrorists to stay in the US that led more to their capture then anything else. Had they all fled to Afghanistan the same day as the attack how many would be in jail? Also it was during the prosecution of the Blind Sheik that testimony revealed we had been listening in on their cells phones. Within days their communications shut down and that intelligence source was lost. But what about the Khobar towers attack? How many of those plotters wound up in jail? I don't remember too many if any at all.

- Zaggs

June 20, 2008 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait highlights the important point that in the GOP/conservative universe it is never about finding the best way to solve problems. It is always about finding creative new ways to use those problems for political gain. Which is why conservative government is so unfailingly corrupt and incompetent. I thought one of the most interesting insights in Scott McClellen's book on con job, which he helped to perpetuate, that got us into the Iraq war was his observation that exploiting the runup to the war for political gain (as Republicans did in 2002 at Karl Rove's direction) was not only in bad taste but actually undermined US efforts to prevail in Iraq. That is because it is always better for a nation to fight a war when it is united rather than divided, and because tactical adjustments to changing conditions on the ground are inevitably much harder to undertake once the conflict has been exploited for partisan gain. There is always the danger, after all, that a war president might have to admit a "mistake" in order to adjust the war plan to meet emerging threats and so play into the hands of an embittered opposition only too eager and willing to say "we told you so." Consequently, political considerations take precedence over military ones when designing new plans to fight the war. And why it is is so much easier and better to "stay the course" -- even if that course leads over a cliff. Since conservatives have been shamelessly exploiting this war politically for the last six years you have to wonder whether they consider Iraq to be an American war or just a Republican one. Since I think it is the latter, my guess is that even if it could be shown that the best way to defeat terrorism would be through nimble tactics best characterized as "law enforcement actions," conservatives would still prefer to beat the drums for Total War and massive military retaliation because it plays so well to their chest-thumping, uber-nationalist base.

- Ted Frier

June 20, 2008 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Countdown until Chait fumes about today's David Brooks editorial in... 3...2...1

- David S.

June 20, 2008 at 10:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am so tired of listening to Jonathan Chait do his "ra-ra Obama's winning--YAY Obama" thing. Just give someone else a chance to write about him and quit being so obsessed about how he's in such great shape and everything's breaking his way. It's really irritating. And I'm an Obama supporter.

- jadamsf

June 20, 2008 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

mr obama is going to win. not because of anything he as accomplished. but thru slick marketing. there will be countless articles like this one to come. its not if, its when mr obama is president, what will the american people demand from him. free health care, free energy, free obama swag.

- miles

June 20, 2008 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did anybody happen to notice that Khalid Shiek Mohammad, the man who directed 9/11 and has since admitted to running the 1993 WTC bombing though his nephew Ramzi Yousef, was not arrested for that bombing until the US invasion of Afghanistan drove him into Pakistan? The use of law enforcement as the primary tool against those who bombed the 93 WTC failed utterly. It allowed Khalid Shiek Mohammad to continue with plans for an even more spectacular attack, 9/11 which he brought to Usama bin Laden to get his help in carrying out in 1996. Of course law enforcement has a huge and important role. But when national governments, like the Taliban in Aghanistan, are protecting terrorists the only way to get them is with a military response. In the same way, PLO terrorist Abu Abbas who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship and murdered an American sat protected by Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. It was our invasion that finally ousted him. These terrorists find sympathetic governments to shelter them. We can't get them via law enforcement. A president who is scared to use the military when required will only allow these terrorists to continue to kill Americans at whim as long as they run back to the protective arms of terror supporting states. Obama doesn't have a clue. He is only going to be similar to the Bill Clinton administration which utterly failed to seriously address Islamic terrorism leading to 9/11. www.bothinonetrench.com

- Ray Robison

June 20, 2008 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good lord, you do realize that Rudy could only use the court system, right? Guess not. But here's a clue - an NYC mayor really can't order up a Marine action - he was at the mercy of a weak Democrat president.

- MIkeG

June 20, 2008 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

great post, McCain can run on an improving Iraq, and beyond that run as a Conservative Democrat. His running to the far right in search of a usable soundbite makes him look hapless, as though he is stuck in the past, and for an old guy that ain't good. If McCain says Obama is 9/10, then McCain is 1960's mentality, if you don't like it drop a bomb on it.

- blackton

June 20, 2008 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan....You just don't get it. The correct strategy isn't necessarily to hit them with "nuclear bombs". It's to kill them BEFORE they have the chance to commit these unspeakable acts, not simply prosecute them after they have already killed innocents. This is why the left is still stuck with a Sept. !0 mindset.

- Scott Wilhelm

June 20, 2008 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nothing will defeat Obama in 2008. Since McCain has decided not to hit him on the Jeremiah Wright issue - why he sat in a church spewing anti-American hate drivel for over 20 years while taking the spewer for his family's spiritual mentor - Obama will get away with political murder, as he did with Clinton, who also played softly-softly on this cruicial issue. Besides, McCain is proving stupid enough to play conservative rather than midlle-of-the road, in a year when conservatism is utterly unpopular. So we may take it it will be Obama in November 2008. All that will defeat him is his own dishonesty and the folloishness of his incredibly naive, feckless supporters. Hillary was given a blesssing in disguise when Obama rejected her (as it seems ) for his Vice-presidential slot. Now she can quietly sit the Obama disaster out and come back sweetly in 2012 to ask the disillusioned voters: "OK, babies. Had your fun and games with the slick Wonder Boy? Now how about giving Tough Auntie a try?"

- Ganpat Ram

June 20, 2008 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's obvious you live is some other warped reality. The lack of your, and Obama's understanding of the radical muslim agenda is simply breathtaking in it's naivete (as absolutely ignorant as the Obama hack talking about Winnie-the-Pooh in the context of pursuing the war on terror). Your lack of understanding about the basic differences between a war and being arrested for breaking a law is appalling!!! First, Obama conveniently lied: we didn't arrest all those responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing. Second, those we didn't arrest participated in yet other acts of war against us (as have those released from Guantanamo). I would dearly love for you and Obama to have to try and serve subpeonas on these "criminals", who would laugh at you and then cut your idiotic heads off. Obama's "change" is nothing more than retread Dem tactics that have failed so often and so completely. To remind you; Clinton tried these same tactics when he was in office, which led to the destruction of the World Trade Center and the deaths of 3,000 innocents. What on earth would make any terrorist afraid of prosecution in the US? It sure didn't stop the World Trade Center terrorist from flying those planes into the buildings. What incredible stupidity and imbecility!!! I don't want to ever have to leave my safety and the safety of the US in the hands of someone like you or Obama.........because we will surely die!!!!!!!!!!

- Hank Reardon

June 20, 2008 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

that's kind of strange - story's about McCain; pics of Obama.

- vas

June 20, 2008 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan Chait's arguments make perfect sense, and I agree with all of them, as most reasonable and educated people would. The problem is that for the last thirty years or so, Republicans have become adept at ignoring such logical and sensible arguments and using "Karl Rove" tactics to win elections: concentrating on emotional issues that are peripheral but that bring out their base and cause most Americans to vote against their own self-interest. What Democrats have to do is make more and more Americans aware of what the real interests of the country are - the desperately urgent interests. Otherwise, quite soon, we may not have much of a country left.

- Robert John Bennett

June 20, 2008 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, the plan should be to arrest suicide bombers after they've killed themselves, and numerous civilians. And this will be a deterrent? Good plan, you go with that as a policy recommendation. We'll see how many people think that's a good idea and a worthwhile deterrent.

- Gekkobear

June 20, 2008 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article misunderstands, perhaps willfully so, the issue and clouds it with inky misinformation. If terrorists making war on the US are caught within the US, the issue is not whether we attack them militarily, as this article foolishly suggests, but rather what law applies to them. Mr. Chait argues that they should be tried under criminal law like a gang-banger doing a drive-by shooting. McCain and the conservatives argue that they should be handled under the international law of warfare, just like Nazi saboteurs who were landed by sub in Maine during WWII. They were tried by a military tribunal and sentenced to death with FDR's blessing. Why was FDR's approach to enemy invaders wrong in Obama's view? Giving terrorists the legal rights of US citizens is insane. Under the Geneva Convention, captured combatants are held until the end of hostilities. We captured Ensign Kazuo Sakamaki, a Japanese midget sub commander, the day after the Pearl Harbor attack. We held him for years until the Japanese surrendered, just as we should hold the Islamic terrorists until their patron organizations cease hostilities. We did not try Sakamaki in a domestic court nor demand the government respect his right to habeas corpus and present evidence he was a combatant in a jury trial, as Obama would absurdly have us do with captured Al Qaeda members. By contrast, the Japanese tried the captured Doolittle Raiders and executed some of them. The US was outraged by this violation of the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention was written to round off the sharp corners of war, to moderate its excesses, to make illegal its terroristic extremes. Obama, by contrast, wants to implicitly recognize terror as a legitimate mode of warfare by giving terrorists rights superior to those of legal combatants. Such an approach turns the Geneva Convention on its head. Under the Geneva Convention, if you wear a uniform identifying yourself as a legal combatant, target the military assets of the US, and are captured, you sit out the war in a prison camp until hostilities cease. Under Obama, if you are a terrorist who does not identify yourself as a combatant, who targets civilians, and is caught, then you have the right to habeas corpus and a trial by a jury of your peers. The government may be compelled to make public its informants, secret methods, and secret info to convict you. If it does not make its case, you are sprung free to rejoin the jihad, as many Gitmo releasees have done. In other words, terrorists who reject compliance with the Geneva Convention have more rights and options than legal combatants who comply. Imagine if we ran WWII under Obama's rules. We would have to parachute a division of lawyers behind the beach head of Normandy before D-Day to ensure the German defenders rights were respected. If we could not prove a particular German infantryman had ever fired a shot at our guys, we'd have to kick him loose to rejoin his regiment. However, we won WWII because the infantry took the point, not the attorneys. It's an amazing piece of ignorance to argue that the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers was successful. We didn't catch all of them. We divulged an enormous amount of info at their trial which improved the follow-on attack, such as the engineering specifications regarding an impact by an airliner. Worst of all, a legal prosecution is entirely reactionary. It does not concern itself with anything but the crime and those defendants having direct involvement. It's sole purpose is to try to affix punishment after the damage is done in one attack. It is entirely a defensive approach. In the case of the 1993 attack, the prosecutors focused on the attack while the President ignored the terror campaign of which this was a single attack. You can't win on the defense. You must go on the offense to root out the terror network that supports individual attacks. You must widen the scope of your response beyond the immediate attack. Because we did none of that in 1993, the terrorists were able to return eight years later and knock the towers down. That is a failed approach which reeks of stupidity. And Obama recommends this as the best way to go! Obama has not learned the lessons of history with respect to terrorism and wants to doom us by repeating the timid, legalistic mistakes favored by the Left. Should he be elected, this defensive and limited approach will lead to more dead Americans by the thousands.

- Steve Gregg

June 20, 2008 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait fails to mention that had the '93 World Trade Center been pursued militarily, there is a distinct possibility that 9/11 would not have occurred. This is because the 9/11 planners were also the planners for '93 and were free to work and plan in foreign countries - which by definition alone almost requires military action. Those planners were later apprehended or killed by the US Army in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Further, Chait fails to mention that all of the Al Quaid attacks on the US - 1 every 18 months for 8 years, were done so under a Declaration of War by Al Quaida. When a foreign organization/government declares war on a sovereign state, and then unilaterally prosecutes that war, then, regardless of a country's own desires.... it IS at war. There is no question that these radicals are at WAR with the US, and at times and in places usurp national governments to prosecute that war. Finally, our NATO Treaty mandates that US be at war with Al Quaida given that every Al Quaida attack on Europe were under the proclamation of Declarations of War - most predominantly, the 1994 Declaration of War against Spain, which resulted in the horrific Madrid bombing (according to OBL this had nothing to do with Iraq - sorry CNN and NBC). OBL declared war on Spain in 1994 and called for Spain's conquest in order to regain "Holy Land" taken from the Moors in the 1400's. It is immoral to send brave Policemen to their death's combating a fully armed Army in a Declared War. Please remove the politics from this issue and stick to the facts, not myths and spins. Blessings,

- Silence Dogood

June 20, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The reality is, the "law enforcement" mindset isn't a "September 10th" mindset. Rather, it is a "January 19th, 2001" mindset. From all evidence, as soon as the Bush Administration stepped into office, they started dismantling the legal/security apparatus that Clinton had assembled to protect us from terrorism in America so that they could rebuild something of their own and re-brand it a Bush program. Add that it is highly likely that Bush was true to his debate pledge, and stopped the "racial profiling of Arab Americans" that apparently was taking place (with very little hooplah, apparently) under Clinton. The world didn't change on September 11th, 2001 ... the world changed on January 20th, 2001, when we inaugurated a President who has always cared more about his own political goals than about the security of the American people.

- Phil

June 20, 2008 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Someone's drinking koolaid. While certainly I'm not a fan of John McCain, Obama's proposals for the GWOT are at best ludicrious - pick up our toys and go home in Iraq when we are winning, sit down and talk without preconditions to the terrorist president of Iran, give the terrorists their day in a US Court of Law, make terrorism a "law enforcement" issue. Talk about Poo politics - and I don't mean Winnie the Pooh

- Katablog.com

June 20, 2008 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You may wonder what exactly McCain objects to here" No, not at all. It's quite obvious that what McCain objects to is that it's NOT ENOUGH. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was indicted after the first WTC bombing. That's why there was a SECOND WTC bombing-- because indictment isn't enough. He won't be planning any more attacks because we went and got him this time.

- Mgmax

June 20, 2008 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The "difference" that your editorial fails to mention, is that Obama and his advisory staff says that they seek to "prosecute" Osama in US courts. We're not talking about NYC tenement here. We are talking about blowing up some cave in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan. Using a missile is such a scenario is far preferable than trying to land a special forces patoon in those mountains to try and capture him and transport him to NYC for prosecution. And if we did capture him, should he be tried in a US criminal court where his defense, through "discovery" asked for access to all government documents (including intelligence sources and means) that mentioned his name, or the organization of Al Qaeada, or have our informants or human intel infiltrators appear in court for testimony? Clearly some other type of "prosecution" has to be conducted. And McCain (as well as Bush) believe that a "military tribunal" is the "correct" method of trying Osama bin Laden. In fact, it was our own Supreme Court that directed Bush and the Congress to establish for trying such individuals. And the Congress and the Executive did just that in compliance with the SCOTUS recommendation. But the SCOTUS, with support from Obama, apparently was only "kidding". They stopped the process before it even began! And Obama welcomed such a move by the courts. You also missed the obvious fact that neither Bush nor McCain said that prosecution is another tool that can be used. In fact, post-9/11, the Administration has used this tool to prosecute dozens of terrorists and potential terrorists. Not only in the US, but also in other nations around the world (France, German, England, Australia, Phillipines, Thailand, Australia, just to mention a few). We should have mutliple tools. And Obama essentially eschewed all other alternatives except "prosecution" when he said that we would attempt to prosecute Osama (clearly the most menacing of all terrorists and one who attacked the US in a "declared war") in US courts. If Obama supports prosecution for Obama, he also demands it for all other terrorists who openly vow to wae war on the West by attacking innocent civilians. Sad. Just sad. And you defense of this is equally short-sighted.

- tehehehe

June 20, 2008 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Want to really stop the terrorists in their tracks? Take away their money! Join kick-oil.org and help end America's addiction to foreign oil!

- kick-oil.org

June 20, 2008 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is an astonishingly ignorant article. How should the U.S. government wage the War on Terror? This is, fundamentally, a separation-of-powers question. Bush and McCain think the War on Terror is an Article II Executive function, to be fought and won by military/intelligence forces directed by the Commander-in-Chief—with minimal to no interference from the remaining two branches. Clinton and Obama think the War on Terror is a joint-enterprise Article II/Article III function, to be prosecuted by the Department of Justice and the federal judiciary. Notwithstanding Boumediene, the courts have routinely sided with Bush and McCain. Adjunct-Professor Obama should know this. Jonathan Chait doesn't seem to know much of anything about national security, so it is not surprising that he does not know this. That terrorists "often operate in our country" doesn't make the question any more "tricky." Even under the ill-advised FISA scheme devised by 1970s-era Democrats, domestic terrorists were treated as enemy combatants and, thus, afforded none of the rights enjoyed by citizen defendants. No Fourth Amendment rights. No Miranda rights. No habeas rights. Nothing. Using Jonathan Chait's own terminology, said domestic terrorist have always been "outside the reach of law enforcement," legally speaking. Chait doesn't know this, so he offers the false dichotomy of "simply arresting them" versus "leveling their apartment with a drone-fired missile." The methodology of capture is not the point. What happens after they are captured is the point. Are captured terrorists placed into the Article III pipeline, where they will receive court-appointed attorneys, pre-trial proceedings, discovery, appeals, and habeas corpus? Or will they be placed in a CIA-run prison somewhere in Bulgaria, where military interrogators will extract valuable intelligence, restrain their movement, and exploit their detention to maximize the harm inflicted on Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc? Obama-the-Lawyer favors the former. Bush, McCain, the military, the intelligence community, and the American public favor the latter. And that is why Obama will lose in November. If you want to understand this issue, stop reading the New Republic. Then start reading Andrew C. McCarthy at National Review: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTFhZTdmZWZlMGExNDRjOWRlZWUxYzEwNjg0MWEzZDc=&w=MA==

- Texas Lawyer

June 20, 2008 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't believe it took 14 comments before someone pointed out how badly Chait and Obama (and the previous 13 writers) missed the point. We need a better name for terrorist enablement that "September 10 mindset."

- bondf

June 20, 2008 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess most of you fall into the same category. Everything is black or white and there is nothing else. All of 9/11 is one singular issue. Kill or be killed. If you have the information to stop terror, then stop it, by military, by arrests and trials, whatever works. You don't have to 'just kill em all'. That is a ridiculously uninformed way of thinking. And in the aftermath of a successful attack, I would rather showcase a trial then become 'one of them' to the world by just bombing the crap of them and taking a bunch of innocents along the way. Of course you are all screaming 'better dead'. I would ask you to grow up. I would ask you to stop just 'using your gut' and try some thought and intellect for once. 8 years of 'gut' has brought nothing. No peace, no prosperity, no unity, just fear and fear mongering. I am stunned at how infantile the responses are. You people would give up your rights and your Constitution in a blink of an eye. The sacrifice of American soldiers is lost on all of you. You make no sacrifice. You should stand up for your country, defend your Constitution and take the high road and be willing to sacrifice in the name of all that America stands for. Instead you whine and complain about stupid liberals, useless courts and let's kill em all. For God's sake and America's, shut and grow up.

- Larry L

June 20, 2008 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I recall Bush's speech of 20 September 2001 in which he evoked a multiphase strategy to combat terrorists. He said something to the effect that much of what would be done would be unseen. I suppose that may be true since by definition it has not been visible. Military action was justified in Afghanistan. Covert operations are a tool; NSA surveillance of electronic communication is another. There is no arm of the government that is excluded if it can play a useful role. That would, in appropriate circumstances, include the Courts. Rudy Giuliani did good service as Mayor in reassuring the people of New York City and presenting a calm face to the nation in the midst of horrific events. His role as a public official lasted until 31 December 2001. In terms of the larger issue of these times, he is a footnote.

- John

June 20, 2008 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It doesn't matter that Obama never said, or even implied, that legal prosecution should be the sole method of preventing terrorism." Really, now, this is quite a disingenuous statement in reference to the Obama text quoted in the article. Particularly telling is the last line of the Obama statement:"...and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, "Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims." This is blatant guilt pandering. We did not attack the "Muslims", we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan. For those that do not agree with the invasion of Iran, still this was not a "Muslim" attack, it was an attack on Saddam Hussein who could hardly be called a practicing Muslim. Bottom line that Muslims, or anyone else should take away from the last six years: The last time America was attacked they destroyed two countries in retaliation.

- pappy

June 20, 2008 at 1:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The entire premise of the Obama quote and this article is flawed. The U.S. has, indeed, sought to prosecute terrorists since September 11. In fact, the US originally demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden for prosecution and they refused, basically inviting a US military response. What's with the straw men?

- DaveS

June 20, 2008 at 2:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barrack Hussein Obama is the forerunner for the antichrist. He is anti-american. John McCain has no morals, else he would never have dumped his first wife for a woman who would go with a married man in the first place and a drug thief. If America wants a real man for the job, someone who cares about the american people, then you need to vote for Ron Paul. He will be on the ballot. Please research him.

- Janice

June 20, 2008 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, indeed Scott, kill THEM before they have a chance to do whatever you THOUGHT they were going to do. Due process and safeguards to protect the innocent are a far left invention, whoever needed those? And oh, whoever was standing in the way of the missiles, too bad, we're sorry, there's not much you can do about it. Have you heard of a pithy term called "collateral damage"?

- TKW

June 20, 2008 at 2:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another silly article from a silly writer. First, Obama fails to mention that law enforcement wasn't the only thing we did in the 1990's (remember the missile strikes aimed at Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Somalia)... but it was the preferred tool in the arsenal of that Democratic administration. The posters who point out that the Law Enforcement First model failed to protect America from the September 11 plots are proven correct by the effectiveness of those plots. Second, Chiat can dress it up any way he wants for his highbrow readers but every time Obama mentions terrorists and habeas corpus in the same sound bite, he loses votes. Regular people get to vote too... despite what the Ivy League snobs who read TNR think about that. Third, Obama's position cannot be maintained. The terrorists clearly weren't put off by a Law Enforcement First approach and will be overjoyed to see the U.S. return to that approach. I doubt their joy will be expressed in Thank You cards but rather with more bombings and attacks.

- SpencerG

June 20, 2008 at 2:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A distinction must be drawn between the politics of a statement and its substance. Conflating the two gets discussion hopelessly mired. The question for me is: was Obama impolitic in referring to criminal prosecution in the context of commenting on Boumediene. Boumediene politically is a highy manipulable decision. McCain, being political, came right out of the box to chime in with Scalia's dissenting alarmism. Obama in trying to be somewhat nuanced in commenting on the case pointed to the experience of prosecuting trade centre bombers to make the not unreasonable point that the courts can do fine in habeas review of Guantanamo detainees, something by the way that can be argued cogently both ways. In my view it was an intellectually supportable comment and a politically inept one. If the political issue is: who can best fight the "war on terror"; and if the political *argument* is: McCain it's a war not a court case; Obama it's a crime fighting problem, McCain wins hands down. And how does any one think the issue if going to be framed for the general mass of the electorate? So I think Chait's analysis suffers from him failing to distinguish between substance and politics and running the two confusedly together.

- itzik basman

June 20, 2008 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A remarkably obtuse editorial. For my rebuttal, please go to my blog at: www.clearcommentary.com Phil Mella

- www.clearcommentary.com

June 20, 2008 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm just going to say for the 10,000th time: the set up here kills spontaneous discussion due to the time delays and what not. It's a real shame.

- itzik basman

June 20, 2008 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Everytime Chait starts typing, my blood starts boiling. The guy is a festering pus of an imbecile. How does treating terrorism as a policing issue work again? You send the NYPD in to Afghanistan to capture them? And what if the Taliban run the government and won't allow you near Bin Laden? For all of Obama's posturing; if we're attacked again, the sentiment of 90% of Americans would be to kill the SOBs and invade France if necessary. And will this career politican stand in the way of the will of the public? I highly doubt it. He'll invade and withdraw according to the latest polls. Great way to fight a war. It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it. - General Douglas MacArthur

- JWL2672

June 20, 2008 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with fighting terrorism is that if you're successful, it becomes a moot issue and an "intellectual" question - as opposed to one of survival. Note the capture of those 10 or so islamo-bombers who planned to blow up 10 cross-Atlantic airliners last year. Because they were captured in the early stages, people think their plot wasn't serious or that they were just novices and we weren't really under threat. Same thing with the 4 muslim "doctors" in Scotland who tried to suicide bomb the airport but failed because of incompetence. People don't take them seriously and laugh. It's a fine line between some jerkoff like that burning himself to death and killing 300 people in the airport. All it takes is a little bit of luck. Because W has been so successful in stopping terrorism in the US after 9/11, it has ceased to be a "real" issue in most peoples minds. It's downright nuts that the American people have the memory and attention span of a goldfish. I for one still remember the horror, anger, and hatred generated by the WTC collapsing 10 blocks away. Maybe sitting in an ivory tower dulls that sensation.

- JWL2672

June 20, 2008 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sure, this was a great article. But the important thing is that it finally recognizes what I've always known: Rudy Guiliani, like Beetlejuice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetlejuice_(TV_series) ), appears whenever you say "9/11" 3 times! Look it up. I swear.

- Dave

June 20, 2008 at 4:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But TKW, you neatly sum up how terrorists have changed the world and the way we look at war. No more uniforms or nation-states. Just shadowy people without college degrees who want to kill you. You take due process and safeguards, and make sure to mention them to the survivors of the terorists' victims. I'm sure they'll be ever so sympathetic. While I do not advocate pre-emption in every case, sometimes the situation demands it. BTW, your concern about collateral damage is touching, considering we're the guys who firebombed Dresden and Tokyo, and nuked 2 cities.

- butchie b

June 20, 2008 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

#3 Gene44 So by your logic then you fight crime by being a criminal? You fight murderers by murdering? Seriously I hope your NOT suggesting we fight terrorists by becoming them or using their tactics. If you are, I hear the Timor Tigers are recruiting, go have fun. We are supposed to become no better than our enemies? Not what I was taught. That's pure mafioso and organized crime thinking. The notion that terrorism is inherently a crime is beyond some people...

- JFM

June 20, 2008 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a non-sequiter, anyone remember the fat, suburban hippy asswipes who wanted to go to Iraq in 2003 to be human missile-shields and such? After going to Iraq and Hussein told them to stand in front of an oil well they left. That was an absolute howler. Some people really are too stupid to live. It's a shame that smarter and nobler people are protecting their worthless hides so that they don't have to.

- JWL2672

June 20, 2008 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Republicans build the sand box and attack everyone who doesn't want to play in it. The sandbox is the word terrorist ... it justifies the use of military force. Call 9/11 a criminal act which it was and no justification follows for military action. Its easy to defeat republicans ... just don't play in their sandbox.

- beaupritchard

June 20, 2008 at 10:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are many reasons why Obama is better on terrorism. He'll give them the rights they deserve. The privacy they need. The respect they deserve. Catching Bin Laden will be no problem. Obama will know exactly where to find Bin Laden since he went to school near there.

- Edward Mitchell

June 20, 2008 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Republicans can't even catch bin Laden so what the hell do they REALLY know about anything? Of course they are against proscuting him, it only brings up the FACT that after 7 years they've come up empty handed Cripes most are so dumb they actually thik he's still in Afghanistan or Pakistan despite NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE HE IS THERE in over 6 years Stupid is as stupid does ... and the Republican do and say some pretty stupid things

- JRR

June 21, 2008 at 12:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lot's of wide-of-the-mark comments here. Obama's point (http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007216&docId=l:809655155&start=1) was that Iraq and Guantanamo have been counterproductive, by inflaming passions in the Muslim world, impeding cooperation with our allies, taking actions guaranteed to sow dissention within the country and depleting our resources and moral authority. McCain's campaign derides the notion that "the Bush administration's methods [have] been a boon to terrorist recruitment" (http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=74024316-ce8e-472e-bc63-5cfd1e9871bd). Count me among those seeing ample evidence of this. I'm firmly with Obama here, and Ted at comment #7. The whole law enforcement/military dichotomy was ginned up by those who wanted to provide cover for the Iraq debacle. I want to be smart in countering the terrorist threat. This clearly involves military, law enforcement and intelligence aspects. For the last several years we have had a lot of stupidity in our approach, largely because of those who wanted to overthrow Saddam or take satisfaction in dropping bombs on someone, or can't stand the thought that the US would have to withdraw without being able to proclaim a victory.

- Steve

June 21, 2008 at 7:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If terrorists were holed up in NYC, McCain would invade Venezuala. Terrorists simply don't have good targets to bomb, only states do. Rumsfeld taught us that.

- Owen

June 21, 2008 at 11:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IF prosecuting people accused of terrorism works, why did 9/11 happen? And if it was wrong for Giuliani to talk about prosecution as a terrorism strategy during his campaign, shouldn't Obama have learned from that, not be repeating it?

- Diane

June 22, 2008 at 1:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps Mr. Obama's "mindset" goes back even earlier than Sept. 10, 2001. I suspect he has a 1787 mindset. Messrs. Bush and McCain seem to have no respect for, or knowledge of, the remarkable document produced that year.

- TomRyan

June 22, 2008 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This statement is absolutely ridiculous on its face: "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." So after the first World Trade Center bombing, or after the attacks on our embassies, President Clinton captured Osama bin Laden, put him on trial, and now he's safely locked away? Did my newspaper fail to report this or something? Is that how Obama knows about this alternate reality that I don't know about?

- buffaloboy

June 22, 2008 at 9:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is going to win because McCain is not only the lesser candidate, but McCain will do and say just about anything to please the lunatic fringe of his party, while Obama appeals to the desire for greatness, for pride in ourselves and country long missing from the years of Republican domination of the Executive Branch. And most importantly, Obama is going to win because McCain–like Bush–somehow believes that's what's good for the four or five percent of the super-rich is somehow good for the rest of us.

- Brian

June 23, 2008 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know, I was watching Richard Clark on Keith Olberman last night and it occured to me that what is happening in 2008 is that the adults among us are finally pushing aside the children with matches who have run this country into the ground, like Bush and Rove and Fox News. From all across the political specturm -- conservative, liberal, middle of the road -- the message is pretty much the same. Our scortched earth, divide and conquer politics is dysfunctional and needs to be fixed. We've got to get past faith based ideological politics and back to arguing in good faith based on facts. You can't be the Leader of the Free World if you launch wars based on theories and lies, hidding the truth from your own people, using the war as a wedge issue to win elections, and deliberately not having a plan for what happens after the invasion because to plan means you have to think about problems, and the last thing you want when you are rushing a nation to war are "problems" that might slow you down. Finally, the adults among us -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- understand that we have to change all of that. That's why you see books out today with titles like "Assault on Reason," or "The Age of American Unreason" "Second Civil War." Read Scott McClellan's book. He's was the nation's Number 1 mouthpiece and he finally had an epiphany that he spent three years communicating nonsense and fantasy -- that in the Karl Rove/George Bush White House sound policy was completely subordinated to political expediancy. That's a great way to win an election, Scott conceded, but a terrible way to govern a nation -- the "permanent campaign" he called it, forever trying to "manipulate the sources of public opinion." But to what end? Winning wars or winning elections? 2008 is about recovering our politics. Creating space where we can once again have productive debates, instead of thinking about politics as war by other means. It is about re-establishing what the founding fathers hoped to create -- a "deliberative" democracy that could "break the spirit of faction" by getting very different people of very different backgrounds and points of view to sit down peacefully in the same room and work out their differences. That is the vision of American that Obama has, and is why he is attracting support from the adults across the political specturm who recognize its time to take the matches away from the children who've burned us with their scortched earth brand of politics for far too long.

- Ted Frier

June 24, 2008 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Think about it; Scott McClellan said Bush wanted the war and why did we go to war? Weapons of mass destruction and WTC 9/11 terror attacks; WMD turned out to be a lie and since 9/11 has Bush read to kids? Why is Sadam dead and Bin Laden only appears around 9/11? Iraq not Afganistan, as Bush said gas prices will be controlled by US as another lie out of control not under control; Iraq is one of the richest countries as more US tax dollars goes to fund terrorism as Iraq has produced 25.5 million barrels of oil a day as Cheney reported a $21 billion profit but how much has been unreported? USA doesn't have healthcare for kids but can send kids to war to be killed for what would pay for healthcare and then some? Illegal immigrants gets compensated $4.2 million for family members who died from the WTC dust, allowed to stay as legal USA citizens as long as they provide their legal illegal identification to DHS but legal USA federal government employees, including my husband, WTC responders have no medical programs, no worker's compensation, no accountability, out of scope for WTC statistical data, Bush has turned his back after putting his arm around the WTC responders back as he turned the knife for a slow death without honor, dignity and respect. Just how many of those WTC responders were Vietnam Veterans, like my husband, Gulf War Veterans and all veterans that USA used as guinea pigs, laboratory rats to die a premature death after giving their health, happiness and life for lies, conspiracy and Bush called Sadam a murderer like the pot calling the kettle black? As my husband died in my arms 16 months after being diagnosed with lung cancer, brain tumor, GERD, PTSD. Diagnosed in Jan 2004, exactly 16 months after being detailed to the WTC 9/11 Ground Zero clean up from Apr - Sep 2002; with no respirator, face mask, since EPA lied and Bush swore with a smile that the NYC air quality was not a health hazard just toxic, polluted, carcinogens fester along with disease in the summer heat, ambient air, humidity and a death sentence for dedicated, proud, forgotten, 9/11 responders, WTC dust sick to die for lies? Live the lunacy or Legacy for life?

- WTC Widow

June 28, 2008 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close