The Obama Administration announced that mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees are going to New York City to be tried for their part in 9/11. Nothing like a speedy trial system.
Why has it taken so long for these men to be brought to trial? Why were they allowed to sit in Cuba, rather than face justice here in the United States where they perpetrated their crime?
Does the Justice Department only now have enough evidence? There are a lot of questions that need answers.
Word was also given that Abu al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the attack on the US Cole is going to face a military tribunal. I wonder if he should not be tried by the World Court in the Hague. After all, his was an attack of terrorism, not war. Yemen has never declared war on the United States, and I do not believe you can be at war with a group of religious fundamentalists, which only leaves terrorism as the crime.
In truth, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his "friends" should also be going to the World Court because the attack on the Twin Towers was not just an attack against New York and the United States, but against the entire world. All nations have a stake in seeing justice met, this needs to be on the world stage.
Now we will have to wait and see what transpires. Will the be demonstrations and acts of violence in New York? Will the proceedings of the military tribunal be opened or closed?
These men acted against all of us and I believe we have the right to see how they are dealt with and to insure that true justice is served.
Its Common Sense!
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
President Obama and Afghanistan
President Obama is not satisfied with any of the recommendations of his war council regarding what policy to follow in Afghanistan, so he has put a decision on hold. He is off on a trip to Asia and maybe when he gets back he will have a plan.
I have a few suggestions to make.
1) Tell Karzai it is time to get tough with the poppy growers and all drug traffic in Afghanistan. The Taliban wiped out the drug trade when they were in power, and revitalized it to supply the funding for their war. The Afghan military, not the USA & NATO, need to take the lead on the war on drugs.
2) Invite the Muslim nations of the world to send humanitarian aide, educators, doctors and construction personnel to aide in the rebuilding of Afghanistan. It would also help if they sent some militaryto assist in the training and building of the Afghan Army. That will USA and NATO troops free to concentrate on going after al Qaeda and the Taliban.
3) Following that thought,give our military a clear objective. Be it to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban or provide stability to Afghanistan. The truth of the matter is that our military presence is not big enough to do both. Which is why I think our troops should deal with al Qaeda which Muslim troops help train and support the Afghan military.
My opinion. We'll and wait and see if the President is thinking along the same lines.
I have a few suggestions to make.
1) Tell Karzai it is time to get tough with the poppy growers and all drug traffic in Afghanistan. The Taliban wiped out the drug trade when they were in power, and revitalized it to supply the funding for their war. The Afghan military, not the USA & NATO, need to take the lead on the war on drugs.
2) Invite the Muslim nations of the world to send humanitarian aide, educators, doctors and construction personnel to aide in the rebuilding of Afghanistan. It would also help if they sent some militaryto assist in the training and building of the Afghan Army. That will USA and NATO troops free to concentrate on going after al Qaeda and the Taliban.
3) Following that thought,give our military a clear objective. Be it to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban or provide stability to Afghanistan. The truth of the matter is that our military presence is not big enough to do both. Which is why I think our troops should deal with al Qaeda which Muslim troops help train and support the Afghan military.
My opinion. We'll and wait and see if the President is thinking along the same lines.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Iran - How should the USA respond?
The last week has shown some amazing images come out of Iran, those that escaped the censors. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, is suddenly a very public figure to the entire world. For most of the us the Supreme Leader was always someone in the shadows, the great spiritual leader, whose goal is supposedly to bring his country closer to God.
This past week shows that not only has he not been successful, but that he may be forcing his countrymen to take sides in what could turn out to be a civil war. For thirty years the Ayatollahs have ruled from behind closed doors, making all the major decisions and having a figure head to be their public voice. That has now changed. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came forth and told the people not only were they not to question the election results, but that they were not to protest, they were not to question and they were not to have their own thoughts.
What century is this man living in?
Those who are protesting are the intelligentsia of Iran. Students, the middle class, those who know what is going on in the world. These are people seeking a true democracy and all that comes with it.
Iran has suffered since the mid-50's when the CIA help the Shah take power, when they had no rights, and then after the '79 revolution they have suffered at the hands of extremists clerics.
The Iran people want their freedom and I hope they get it. But, it is important that they get it on their own. No help, especially from Western nations who will call in the debt. I may not agree with President Obama on many things, but I think he is right on course on this issue.
The USA can comment that the election looked rigged, hell that's obvious. But it is the people of Iran who have to fight to get their freedom. For too long they have been held down by one form of tyranny or another. Its up to them to raise the cry of freedom and make it their reality.
Its Common Sense!
This past week shows that not only has he not been successful, but that he may be forcing his countrymen to take sides in what could turn out to be a civil war. For thirty years the Ayatollahs have ruled from behind closed doors, making all the major decisions and having a figure head to be their public voice. That has now changed. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came forth and told the people not only were they not to question the election results, but that they were not to protest, they were not to question and they were not to have their own thoughts.
What century is this man living in?
Those who are protesting are the intelligentsia of Iran. Students, the middle class, those who know what is going on in the world. These are people seeking a true democracy and all that comes with it.
Iran has suffered since the mid-50's when the CIA help the Shah take power, when they had no rights, and then after the '79 revolution they have suffered at the hands of extremists clerics.
The Iran people want their freedom and I hope they get it. But, it is important that they get it on their own. No help, especially from Western nations who will call in the debt. I may not agree with President Obama on many things, but I think he is right on course on this issue.
The USA can comment that the election looked rigged, hell that's obvious. But it is the people of Iran who have to fight to get their freedom. For too long they have been held down by one form of tyranny or another. Its up to them to raise the cry of freedom and make it their reality.
Its Common Sense!
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Change in Afghanistan
Two new generals are being sent to lead the USA's efforts in Afghanistan. President Obama has stated that this is a war that can not be lost. We have all heard that line in the past. Now we will have to see what happens.
History tells us that no foreign nation has ever been a long term conquerer in Afghanistan. I know the plan is to work with the Afghan government and NATO allies, but the question is, can this coalition defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
In one way things are looking hopeful. The Pakistan government, out of fear and necessity has been forced to move against the Taliban invaders who took over the Swat Valley and were beginning to march towards Islamabad. Regardless of what you think of what is happening in that part of the world, none of us want the Taliban to have access to nuclear weapons.
Now we will have to watch and see if the new strategy will prove to be effective.
At the same time we need to help the Afghan economy, education and drive towards democracy. We need to bring the feuding warlords to a peace table and work out an effective and profitable deal for everyone. We have to make the country stable, then we can work on making it secure.
Its Common Sense!
History tells us that no foreign nation has ever been a long term conquerer in Afghanistan. I know the plan is to work with the Afghan government and NATO allies, but the question is, can this coalition defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
In one way things are looking hopeful. The Pakistan government, out of fear and necessity has been forced to move against the Taliban invaders who took over the Swat Valley and were beginning to march towards Islamabad. Regardless of what you think of what is happening in that part of the world, none of us want the Taliban to have access to nuclear weapons.
Now we will have to watch and see if the new strategy will prove to be effective.
At the same time we need to help the Afghan economy, education and drive towards democracy. We need to bring the feuding warlords to a peace table and work out an effective and profitable deal for everyone. We have to make the country stable, then we can work on making it secure.
Its Common Sense!
Saturday, April 4, 2009
NATO in Afghanistan
President Obama was able to get the NATO leadership to commit five thousand more short term troops to fight the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. Unfortunately these will not be combat troops. These will be police and trainers for the Afghan military.
Currently NATO has the International Security Assistance Force in place. Their original mandate was to control and protect Kabul. Their role has expanded but they are more of a defensive force as opposed to an attack force, which is what is needed if Al Qaeda is to be brought down quickly.
It appears that the USA, Britain and Canada will be the ones providing most of the attack forces for the new phase of the war on terrorism, and of course the majority of these troops will be from the USA.
I find it interesting that those European countries who have suffered at terrorist hands - Britain, Spain, France, and Germany are not willing to make a bigger troop commitment.
I know that Britain has done their share, especially in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. And I know that Spain had a small contingent in Iraq and politics about that war caused trouble for their government.
However, this new war on terrorism is something totally different. The mistakes of the past need to stay in the past and everyone needs to stay focused on the present mission - the eradication of Al Qaeda and all their supporters. This is war to bring security to the world. This is no long about national sovereignty, this is about people being able to enjoy life without the threat of radical militants killing for the sake of killing.
My hope is that as this campaign begins that success will change the mind of our NATO allies and that they will commit additional combat troops so that the mission can be completed quickly and efficiently with the hope of peace coming to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Together NATO just might be able to bring about a real difference to the world.
We'll wait and see.
Its Common Sense!
Currently NATO has the International Security Assistance Force in place. Their original mandate was to control and protect Kabul. Their role has expanded but they are more of a defensive force as opposed to an attack force, which is what is needed if Al Qaeda is to be brought down quickly.
It appears that the USA, Britain and Canada will be the ones providing most of the attack forces for the new phase of the war on terrorism, and of course the majority of these troops will be from the USA.
I find it interesting that those European countries who have suffered at terrorist hands - Britain, Spain, France, and Germany are not willing to make a bigger troop commitment.
I know that Britain has done their share, especially in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. And I know that Spain had a small contingent in Iraq and politics about that war caused trouble for their government.
However, this new war on terrorism is something totally different. The mistakes of the past need to stay in the past and everyone needs to stay focused on the present mission - the eradication of Al Qaeda and all their supporters. This is war to bring security to the world. This is no long about national sovereignty, this is about people being able to enjoy life without the threat of radical militants killing for the sake of killing.
My hope is that as this campaign begins that success will change the mind of our NATO allies and that they will commit additional combat troops so that the mission can be completed quickly and efficiently with the hope of peace coming to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Together NATO just might be able to bring about a real difference to the world.
We'll wait and see.
Its Common Sense!
Saturday, March 28, 2009
New Afghanistan Policy
Yesterday the Obama Administration stated its new policy regarding the "war" in Afghanistan. No longer is there talk of the creation of a democracy, fighting the Taliban or bringing any kind of peace among the warring factions in the country.
Rather, or at least my interpretation of what President Obama stated, is that the US objective now is solely to eradicate Al-Qaeda where ever they are. The war is focused solely on this terrorist organization and perhaps - although I do not want to make assumptions - any groups who support Al-Qaeda.
I thought this was the original plan back when Bush asked the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan to turn over bin Laden and they did not cooperate. I always thought that the war against terrorism should be focused on the terrorist, not the countries where the terrorist dwell.
We all know the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. That was Bush getting even with Saddam Hussein for putting out a hit order on his father. (And of course oil control).
Afghanistan was always different. Unfortunately the US policy operated under the misconceived notion that if the government was controlled everything else would fall into place.
As many experts have pointed out multi-tribal societies such as Afghanistan function totally different than the USA. Different history, different traditions, different mentalities. Unfortunately the USA leadership usually fails to study the enemy, rather putting them in the same bucket as the USA, which generally leads to tragedy. (Viet Nam, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan just to name a few.)
If the Obama Administration is serious on focusing solely on taking out bin Laden and Al-Qaeda I wish them good hunting. I think they need to make the necessary diplomatic actions with Afghanistan and Pakistan to receive permission for their hunt, but at the same time stating the USA will stay out of the internal workings of these countries.
I know the reality is that US & NATO forces operating in any country are seen as invaders. However, hopefully if they show their sole objective is the eradication of Al-Qaeda, the Afghans and Pakistanis will allow them to operate and even assist, so they can get the foreigners out of their countries and things can go back to how it was before the USA showed up.
There is no ideal solution. At the same time, I believe that the USA and other nations should provide funds to Afghanistan to rebuild and educate the country so that future decisions in development will be made on learning rather than who has the better armament.
Maybe with cooperation among all parties working to eliminate terror and bringing peace and prosperity to the people things will take a positive turn.
I know its Common Sense, but will anyone actually see it that way?
Rather, or at least my interpretation of what President Obama stated, is that the US objective now is solely to eradicate Al-Qaeda where ever they are. The war is focused solely on this terrorist organization and perhaps - although I do not want to make assumptions - any groups who support Al-Qaeda.
I thought this was the original plan back when Bush asked the Taliban leadership in Afghanistan to turn over bin Laden and they did not cooperate. I always thought that the war against terrorism should be focused on the terrorist, not the countries where the terrorist dwell.
We all know the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. That was Bush getting even with Saddam Hussein for putting out a hit order on his father. (And of course oil control).
Afghanistan was always different. Unfortunately the US policy operated under the misconceived notion that if the government was controlled everything else would fall into place.
As many experts have pointed out multi-tribal societies such as Afghanistan function totally different than the USA. Different history, different traditions, different mentalities. Unfortunately the USA leadership usually fails to study the enemy, rather putting them in the same bucket as the USA, which generally leads to tragedy. (Viet Nam, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan just to name a few.)
If the Obama Administration is serious on focusing solely on taking out bin Laden and Al-Qaeda I wish them good hunting. I think they need to make the necessary diplomatic actions with Afghanistan and Pakistan to receive permission for their hunt, but at the same time stating the USA will stay out of the internal workings of these countries.
I know the reality is that US & NATO forces operating in any country are seen as invaders. However, hopefully if they show their sole objective is the eradication of Al-Qaeda, the Afghans and Pakistanis will allow them to operate and even assist, so they can get the foreigners out of their countries and things can go back to how it was before the USA showed up.
There is no ideal solution. At the same time, I believe that the USA and other nations should provide funds to Afghanistan to rebuild and educate the country so that future decisions in development will be made on learning rather than who has the better armament.
Maybe with cooperation among all parties working to eliminate terror and bringing peace and prosperity to the people things will take a positive turn.
I know its Common Sense, but will anyone actually see it that way?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Senator Cardin on Torture
A week or so ago I wrote to my representatives about the USA policy on torture, especially in light of some things that have come out of the Bush Administration. I got back my first response from senator Ben Cardin and will share.
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your views on the Bush Administration's detainee policy. It is time for Congress to assert its own constitutional prerogatives on these issue.
Congress has an obligation under the Constitution to enact legislation that creates fair trials for accused terrorists that will be upheld by the courts. We also have an obligation to protect our troops that fall into enemy hands, and to uphold American values and the rule of law. Even during wartime, the President must work with Congress and the courts to uphold our Constitution. In 2006 , the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld struck down the President's military commissions, since they violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. The Court noted that Congress, not the President, has the authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to ``define and punish piracy's and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations . '' Congress alone can "constitute tribunals . "
I voted against the Military Commission s Act as a member of the House of Representatives in 2006 . I do not believe it is sound legislation, and I think it is susceptible to challenge in the courts. We should be bringing terrorists to justice quickly, and we must create a system that meets basic rule of law standards. I have co-sponsored S. 185, the Habeas Restoration Act, to restore the right of habeas corpus for accused terrorists to petition for a court hearing before an independent judge and challenge their detention.
In December 2007 the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on these issues, and in June of that year the Helsinki Commission also held a hearing on these issues and the implications of Guantanamo for U.S. human rights leadership. I am privileged to serve as the Senate Co-Chair of the Commission. The credibility of the United States demands that we answer our critics when they raise human right issues with us, just as we hope representatives of other countries will respond seriously and substantively when we raise concerns with them. In all the years that I have served as a member of the Commission, no other concern has been raised with the United States by European colleagues as often or earnestly as Guantanamo.
The damage done to the United States goes beyond undermining our status as a global leader on human rights. Our policies and practices regarding Guantanamo and other aspects of our detainee policies have undermined our authority to engage in the effective counter-terrorism measures that are necessary for the very security of this country. It is a dangerous situation for our country if we cannot build and maintain effective global alliances. I am disappointed that the Administration, over 6 years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has failed to work with our allies.
On the issue of torture and mistreatment of detainees, I strongly disagree with the President's views on this matter. I voted for the Intelligence Authorization bill for 2008, H.R. 2082, which requires the intelligence agencies to adopt the Army Field Manual's restrictions on "enhanced" interrogation techniques. The Army Field Manual complies with U.S. law and our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The Manual prohibits "acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or aid to interrogation." This legislation therefore creates one consistent interrogation policy across both the U.S. military and the intelligence community. President Bush vetoed this legislation in March 2008, and the House voted 225 to 188 to override the veto, short of the two-thirds majority vote needed under the Constitution to override the veto and enact the law.
In June 2008 the Supreme Court announced its decision in the Boumediene v. Bush case, which struck down part of the Military Commissions Act and restored the habeas corpus right of detainees to challenge their detention. The Supreme Court decision rejected the Bush Administration's detention policies for accused terrorists, in which individuals are held without trial or charge indefinitely for years. Part of America 's strength is our respect for the rule of law, and our ability to balance both legitimate security needs with fundamental due process of law protections administered by an independent and fair court procedure . The Supreme Court has inserted an important check and balance on the Executive Branch's war on terrorism policies . I hope that the Bush Administration will now work cooperatively with Congress, the courts, and our international allies to reexamine our current trial procedures in Guantanamo Bay , and to ensure that we try the detainees according to the rule of law.
Thank you for contacting me, and please feel free to do so in the future .
I agree with what he says, but what is missing is some direction. Just what is Congress going to do to make things right? Are they going to issue legislation making it a crime for a US citizen and/or contract employee to willfully torture a suspected terrorist? T
The Senator is heading in the right direction, but he, and the rest in Congress need to get a little more forceful
According to the Supreme Court it is Congress's role to act in these matters. Now they need to act, not talk.
Its Common Sense!
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your views on the Bush Administration's detainee policy. It is time for Congress to assert its own constitutional prerogatives on these issue.
Congress has an obligation under the Constitution to enact legislation that creates fair trials for accused terrorists that will be upheld by the courts. We also have an obligation to protect our troops that fall into enemy hands, and to uphold American values and the rule of law. Even during wartime, the President must work with Congress and the courts to uphold our Constitution. In 2006 , the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld struck down the President's military commissions, since they violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. The Court noted that Congress, not the President, has the authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to ``define and punish piracy's and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations . '' Congress alone can "constitute tribunals . "
I voted against the Military Commission s Act as a member of the House of Representatives in 2006 . I do not believe it is sound legislation, and I think it is susceptible to challenge in the courts. We should be bringing terrorists to justice quickly, and we must create a system that meets basic rule of law standards. I have co-sponsored S. 185, the Habeas Restoration Act, to restore the right of habeas corpus for accused terrorists to petition for a court hearing before an independent judge and challenge their detention.
In December 2007 the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on these issues, and in June of that year the Helsinki Commission also held a hearing on these issues and the implications of Guantanamo for U.S. human rights leadership. I am privileged to serve as the Senate Co-Chair of the Commission. The credibility of the United States demands that we answer our critics when they raise human right issues with us, just as we hope representatives of other countries will respond seriously and substantively when we raise concerns with them. In all the years that I have served as a member of the Commission, no other concern has been raised with the United States by European colleagues as often or earnestly as Guantanamo.
The damage done to the United States goes beyond undermining our status as a global leader on human rights. Our policies and practices regarding Guantanamo and other aspects of our detainee policies have undermined our authority to engage in the effective counter-terrorism measures that are necessary for the very security of this country. It is a dangerous situation for our country if we cannot build and maintain effective global alliances. I am disappointed that the Administration, over 6 years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has failed to work with our allies.
On the issue of torture and mistreatment of detainees, I strongly disagree with the President's views on this matter. I voted for the Intelligence Authorization bill for 2008, H.R. 2082, which requires the intelligence agencies to adopt the Army Field Manual's restrictions on "enhanced" interrogation techniques. The Army Field Manual complies with U.S. law and our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. The Manual prohibits "acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, or exposure to inhumane treatment as a means of or aid to interrogation." This legislation therefore creates one consistent interrogation policy across both the U.S. military and the intelligence community. President Bush vetoed this legislation in March 2008, and the House voted 225 to 188 to override the veto, short of the two-thirds majority vote needed under the Constitution to override the veto and enact the law.
In June 2008 the Supreme Court announced its decision in the Boumediene v. Bush case, which struck down part of the Military Commissions Act and restored the habeas corpus right of detainees to challenge their detention. The Supreme Court decision rejected the Bush Administration's detention policies for accused terrorists, in which individuals are held without trial or charge indefinitely for years. Part of America 's strength is our respect for the rule of law, and our ability to balance both legitimate security needs with fundamental due process of law protections administered by an independent and fair court procedure . The Supreme Court has inserted an important check and balance on the Executive Branch's war on terrorism policies . I hope that the Bush Administration will now work cooperatively with Congress, the courts, and our international allies to reexamine our current trial procedures in Guantanamo Bay , and to ensure that we try the detainees according to the rule of law.
Thank you for contacting me, and please feel free to do so in the future .
I agree with what he says, but what is missing is some direction. Just what is Congress going to do to make things right? Are they going to issue legislation making it a crime for a US citizen and/or contract employee to willfully torture a suspected terrorist? T
The Senator is heading in the right direction, but he, and the rest in Congress need to get a little more forceful
According to the Supreme Court it is Congress's role to act in these matters. Now they need to act, not talk.
Its Common Sense!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Guantanamo Bay
I read an article that "Camp Justice" in the Guantanamo Bay military compound is not seeing a lot of action because things are winding down. Both Obama and McCain have promised to close the prisoner of "war" camp, and move the inhabitants to other locations.
Of course the real question is if any of these people are terrorists, or simply individuals who happened to in the wrong place at the wrong time. Granted, I am sure there are some Taliban fanatics in the crowd, but their only crime - other than the fact that they are ignorant, chauvinistic, and want to live in the stone age with an AK 47 - is the fact that they fought against invaders of their country and were captured. That makes them a war criminal, not a terrorist. As far as I know we are not trying war crimes of the Taliban, at least not yet. The way things are currently going in Afghanistan that could change in the future. These individuals are prisoners of war and should be treated as such.
Thus far very little "hard" evidence has been provided as to the terrorist status of any of the prisonners. The Guantanamo prison camp was a mistake, one I hope we never repeat.
We boast about America's desire for justice for all. Its time we started showing the world just what true justices entails.
Its Common Sense!
Of course the real question is if any of these people are terrorists, or simply individuals who happened to in the wrong place at the wrong time. Granted, I am sure there are some Taliban fanatics in the crowd, but their only crime - other than the fact that they are ignorant, chauvinistic, and want to live in the stone age with an AK 47 - is the fact that they fought against invaders of their country and were captured. That makes them a war criminal, not a terrorist. As far as I know we are not trying war crimes of the Taliban, at least not yet. The way things are currently going in Afghanistan that could change in the future. These individuals are prisoners of war and should be treated as such.
Thus far very little "hard" evidence has been provided as to the terrorist status of any of the prisonners. The Guantanamo prison camp was a mistake, one I hope we never repeat.
We boast about America's desire for justice for all. Its time we started showing the world just what true justices entails.
Its Common Sense!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
