Monday, June 04, 2007
No interdiction allowed
It is no secret that the American left as a general rule opposes the militarization of the war on Islamist terrorism. It much prefers to treat terrorism as we did before September 11, 2001, as primarily a law enforcement problem. If sincerely held that position is principled even if misguided. One can't help but get the feeling, though, that many on the American left also don't believe that we should investigate potential terrorists unless and until there has been an actual successful attack. See, for example, Nora Ephron's latest post over at the HuffPo -- "How To Foil A Terrorist Plot In Seven Simple Steps" -- and the many approving comments appended thereto. The "Ephronist" branch of the left wing apparently believes that we should not "entrap" potential terrorists. In other words, treating terrorism as a problem of law enforcement means that we should investigate and prosecute terrorists only after a successful attack. No interdiction allowed.
13 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jun 04, 01:28:00 PM:
TH your point is driven home today with Joe Biden's latest OP-Ed in the WSJ (either this weekend or today - I read them on a plane this morning.) As you read his commentary it is apparent that he is trying to talk tough on those States that would provide nuclear arms to terrorists, but only after one has been detonated on our soil. I guess he missed all of the second guessing of the Bush administration about why they did not do more before 9/11? Actually, I think he was leading the rally if I am not mistaken...
By , at
Mon Jun 04, 01:32:00 PM:
Sadly, large numbers of seemingly intelligent and educated people subscribe to the delusional self-loathing Ms. Ephron heaves up here. Rather than demonstrating an oh-so-clever and nuanced view of the world, believing this childish drivel is every bit as dangerous as giving straight razors and loaded firearms to infants.
By , at
Mon Jun 04, 03:17:00 PM:
Our misadventure in Iraq provides the left with all the ammunition they need stifle future military responses to terrorism, Islamic or otherwise. Had we concentrated on Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and discrete targets elsewhere, we wouldn't be subject to the drivel you refer to.
Unfortunately, I think it's too late to stop a return to the law enforcement approach to terror.
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Mon Jun 04, 03:24:00 PM:
I was under the impression this was a tongue-in-cheek sort of piece and not a statement of policy. She's a comedy writer/screenwriter, after all.
By BillT, at
Mon Jun 04, 03:47:00 PM:
"In other words, treating terrorism as a problem of law enforcement means that we should investigate and prosecute terrorists only after a successful attack. No interdiction allowed."
We must also see that terrorism is often accompanied by a softening up of targets through political or legal pressures. Follow enough lawsuits and you'll find a bevy of targets on someone's list.
By , at
Mon Jun 04, 04:57:00 PM:
She's a comedy writer/screenwriter, after all.
Most liberals are pitching a comedy act these days.
By , at
Mon Jun 04, 06:09:00 PM:
Destiny ... if law enforcement worked, we wouldn't have many things ... from petty crimes thru terrorism. Sadly, we do, because cops are generally ineffective union boys. Even the best of them are hamstrung by the ills of their lesser officers, and then they hand over the perps to the justice system, which is just pathetic.
As for this person being a comedian or some such thing ... there's truth most people find in humor. Law enforcement should be sparing the rod, and they should let the pros handle the job with live ammo and ruthless determination. I'm talking military, sans observers or concern for hurt feelings (ala TH's recent post on WW2 tactics).
JT
By , at
Mon Jun 04, 06:11:00 PM:
Indespensible:
Liberals ALWAYS hated any military response and ALWAYS said "NO!!" to any military pre-emption.
Evidence: Bill Clinton's run-away in Mogadishu (shameful a cowardly retreat as ever was), Moveon's opposition days after 9/11 to bombing Afghanistan, Liberals yelling "hands off Iran" while supporting Ahmadnutjob's desire to "wipe out Israel" etc. etc.
Liberals are simply lying when they said they would have supported Afghanistan. They can look at a map too, see it's surrounded on three sides by hostile, nuclear armed Pakistan and Iran. That only a rickety air bridge acts as our supply to guys there and we have a cap (since the laws of physics dictate you just can't supply a major force through an air bridge).
They have no desire to fight, any time, any where, for America. They honestly despise America and don't think it or the ordinary people are worth defending.
And yes we will return to a law enforcement only approach to terrorism, with only after a successful attack leaving thousands or millions dead, unleash the investigators with careful attention to civil liberties for all involved.
This suits Liberals just fine since they are elites with nothing but loathing for the average person and WANT them to get it in the neck.
Of course, the average person seeing that Liberals stranglehold on the Government and Media tout "let them eat cake, er file a lawsuit after they're dead. Maybe," will respond in their own fashion.
It's only a matter of time before we get nuked, by a deniable cut-out like Hezbollah, Liberals respond with concerns about Islamphobia and civil liberties. And vigilance committees akin to San Francisco in 1851 simply start lynching anyone who looks like they might be connected to terrorism.
If people don't have their government securing their physical safety they will secure it themselves. The danger of government inaction is that it tells people the government is on the side of the enemy, and thus can and should be opposed (if they won't arrest terrorists they won't arrest vigilantes).
The hideous danger of this is of course self-evident. Abdication of the pre-eminent responsibility of government (public safety) leaves a vacuum which is always filled.
Ephron of course is an idiot. The plotters were Carribean Black Racists/Supremacists who had been involved in a coup in Trinidad and Tobago (an Islamist-Afro-Supremacist one at that) so naturally she carries their water. Like the glitterati adoring the Black Panthers. For the same reason.
By , at
Tue Jun 05, 12:18:00 AM:
Linking to an artice written by the woman who wrote he bestseller "I Feel Bad About My Neck" to define the left's (aka the Ephronist branch) approach to fighting terrorism is akin to Glenn Greenwald linking to Larry the Cable Guy's recent monologue to explain the right's (aka "Happier than a tornado in a trailer park" branch) of foreign policy.
By honestpartisan, at
Tue Jun 05, 01:09:00 AM:
The "Ephronist" branch of the left wing apparently believes that we should not "entrap" potential terrorists.
No. By definition, someone who is entrapped is someone who wouldn't otherwise have been a terrorist in the first place. It's not making us safer to concentrate resources on people who aren't terrorists until a mole eggs them on.
In other words, treating terrorism as a problem of law enforcement means that we should investigate and prosecute terrorists only after a successful attack.
No again. A terrorist is guilty of a variety of crimes just by planning and preparing for an attack with someone else.
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Jun 05, 08:34:00 AM:
It's not making us safer to concentrate resources on people who aren't terrorists until a mole eggs them on.
Because surely there's no Imam's out there issuing fatwas who would do such a thing right?
By DaveG, at
Tue Jun 05, 08:54:00 AM:
I'll believe that a law enforcemnent to terrorism will work when I can finally get the picture of OJ Simpson walking away from a DNA-proven murder because a farking glove didn't fit out of my memory.
"If the bomb vest doesn't fit, you must acquit."
By honestpartisan, at
Tue Jun 05, 11:56:00 AM:
Because surely there's no Imam's out there issuing fatwas who would do such a thing right?
That's a different case then someone who otherwise wouldn't be a terrorist.
By the way, it's not clear to me that the JFK guys were entrapped or not. There are indications of that (as well as indications that they had no clue), but we don't know the full story yet. And as the case of Jose Padilla shows, to judge them guilty in advance doesn't reveal the truth of the situation, either.
