Who are we fighting anyways?
Gadi Adelman illustrates how absurd and dangerous the Obama administration’s approach to fighting our jihadist enemies is in an excellent piece at Family Security Matters. Adelman would know, having survived a terrorist attack in Jerusalem which killed seven children.
A very serious administration would know – and admit to – the fact that we are not just at war with al Qaeda, but with Jihad itself. Saying that we are at war only with al Qaeda would have been tantamount to saying, during World War II, that we were at war with only the 25th Panzer Division of the German Army, and not with the entire German Army itself.
Yes, we are at war with al Qaeda… and also with Hamas and Hezbollah and Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al-Gama’at al-Islamiyya and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Ansar al Islam and Harakat ul-Mujahadin …well, you get the idea. What animates, connects and indeed unites these various groups – and many more? Jihad. Holy War against the infidels.
Unfortunately, our president actually believes that Hamas and Hezbollah have “legitimate claims!” Read the New York Times’ interview for yourself, then read the terrorist groups’ charters to see what their claims are.
But while we are drawing comparisons to WWII, what would this country have done had FDR announced that Hitler had legitimate claims? I doubt that would have gone over well.
In all fairness, all administrations have done a piss-poor job of handling the threat of Islamic jihad, some worse than others, but the past is the past. It is time for the government to move forward and announce that these jihadist groups threaten our liberty and security and are therefore our enemy. That avoids the whole politically incorrect distraction that the Islamist apologists will throw up, because while not all Muslims are jihadist, all jihadists are Muslim.
[Originally posted at Blackfive]
In: Religion, terrorism · Tagged with: al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Family Security Matters, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islam, jihad, New York Times
Al Qaeda Attackers: Common Criminals or Enemy Combatants?
David A. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A. Casey published an excellent piece at National Review Online addressing the line between trying our enemies as enemy combatants subject to the rules of war; or criminals subject to our Constitution (emphasis added).
The right way to proceed, consistent with the law, morality, and history, is to treat captured enemy personnel as enemy combatants, subject to the laws of war. By contrast, criminals — including individuals who commit terrorist acts but, whatever their ideological predilections, are not members of entities such as al-Qaeda that have been engaged in an armed conflict with us (this would include Timothy McVeigh and Major Nidal Malik Hasan) — should be treated as criminal suspects subject to the workings of the criminal-justice system. Treating an al-Qaeda operative who enters the United States to carry out an attack as a common criminal not only denies the nature of this challenge we face, but it works to level the playing field to our disadvantage.
Retired Special Forces Colonel Gordon Cucullu told me in an interview that we actually give our terrorist enemies more rights than the Geneva Conventions afford them. According to Common Article 3, non-uniformed combatants are to be shot on sight, and for good reason when you consider the effect that they have on humanity. War is best fought by uniformed members of the military.
But all we have done since the Iranian Embassy takeover in 1979 is placate jihadists. Trying foreign operatives as criminals simply because they perpetrate their acts on or above our soil not only endangers American citizens, but further emboldens our enemies and grants them access to the very Constitution that they are trying to destroy.
The NRO article is in response to a New York Times op-ed defending Obama administration’s decision to treat Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the al-Qaeda operative who attempted to blow up an airliner over Detroit) as a criminal defendant. No surprises there.
[Originally posted at Blackfive]
In: National Security · Tagged with: al Qaeda, Constitution, Gordon Cucullu, jihad, New York Times, Nidal Malik Hasan, Obama administration
ACORN’s Illegal Activities and Mafia-Style Tactics in Congress’s Spotlight
Originally published at Family Security Matters
Members of Congress heard testimony against the activist group ACORN on Thursday, exposing the group’s illegal activity and mafia-style tactics.
Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh appeared before the a House Judiciary subcommittee alleging that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has violated campaign finance and tax laws in addition to their protest-for-hire and coerced donations. The source of the accusations was from the sworn testimony of ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief, who was a clerk for ACORN’s sister organization called Project Vote.
MonCrief, a Democrat and Obama supporter, testified last year that Barack Obama’s campaign gave Project Vote a “donor list” of people who had contributed the maximum amount allowed by federal law. According to Heidelbaugh’s testimony, the donors were to be targeted to donate to ACORN’s “Get Out the Vote” efforts and finance voter registration drives.
Heidelbaugh revealed in her testimony that there is virtually no separation between ACORN and Project Vote, as employees working for one group would perform work for the other.
In: Media, Politics · Tagged with: ACORN, Barack Obama, media bias, New York Times, Project Vote, voter fraud
NY Times Turns Down McCain
The New York Times has turned down an op-ed written by Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. They are a private organization, and I suppose it is fair to say that they are welcome to publish or turn down whomever they want. His article, Getting Iraq Right, can instead be found at the New York Post.
I felt compelled to expand on a couple points in his article. (more…)
In: Politics · Tagged with: Barack Obama, Iraq, John McCain, New York Times
