Will Terrorism Return As A National Issue?
That’s one of the more interesting political unknowns right now. Here’s one data point: Efforts by some die-hard anti-terror warriors to use the Fort Hood shootings to boost fears about terrorism don’t appear to be bearing much fruit, according to a new Pew poll:
The public continues to express concern about the rise of Islamic extremism in the United States and abroad, but a survey taken shortly after the deadly Nov. 5 shootings at the Fort Hood Army base shows only a modest increase in these concerns since 2007.
In fairness, the Pew poll was taken before news broke that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators will be tried in New York.
The gap between Dems and Republicans on terrorism continues to be interesting. The shooting has boosted concern about rising Islamic extremism among Republicans, with two-thirds now saying they’re very or somewhat concerned. By contrast, less than half of Dems say they’re worried about it.
It’s worth reiterating that GOP leaders are quite explicitly hoping to use the shootings — and now the KSM trial — to revive terrorism as a national issue. With eight years having passed since 9/11, it had dropped way down on the list of voter concerns. But Republicans are hoping that a flashy trial of KSM in New York will revive memories of 9/11, giving their criticism of the current administration’s terror policies emotional weight with the public.
Obama has now taken some steps to diffuse such efforts, reacting sharply when asked by MSNBC whether the trial should offend people: “I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”
Absent another terror attack, it’s hard to imagine that terrorism as an issue will have anywhere near the emotional potency it had as recently as, say, the 2004 elections, even if Rudy Giuliani holds a conference call with reporters bashing the administration as weak on terror every day from now until Obama leaves office. But it bears watching.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here..
Quitter Palin is now calling for Profiling of Muslims in the US Military.
“But Republicans are hoping that a flashy trial of KSM in New York will revive memories of 9/11, giving their criticism of the current administration’s some kind of traction with the public.”
Then why the hell have they been throwing such fits?
I thought you guys wanted a Palin boycott?!?!
Y’all are hanging on her every word!
Liam – “for Profiling of Muslims in the US Military.”
It’s better than that – she’s all for religious profiling of Muslims. How you do that I don’t know – they are already profiled as Muslims.
“I thought you guys wanted a Palin boycott?!?!”
Hey! That’s wasn’t me. I haven’t complained about paying attention to palin for a long time. It’s hard and probably fruitless to ignore her right now – she’s everywhere. She’s in the margins at ebay with an ad for her book.
Muslims, Ay-rabs, whatever……
They’re all the same thing, right?
Of course – Ayrab=Muslim=*******.
********* also works.
What?????
r*a*g*head is bleeped and t*o*w*e*lhead is bleeped? WTF?!
I do Greg, I’m definitely in on the Boycott. HCR should be moving forward today.
Giuliani has flip flopped so many times and most Americans know it, I hope someone at his presser pushes him on that. Personally, I’m more concered about extremism and violence coming from the unbalanced right wing of the country right now.
Greg,
Not me. I love Quitter Palin. I wrote on here about a week ago: this old agnostic thanks God every night for the gift of Quitter Palin.
Thanks for the gift that keeps on giving, Jeepers; and keep up the bad work.
“Personally, I’m more concered about extremism and violence coming from the unbalanced right wing of the country right now.”
Yeah so am I. I’m not worried about Rudy redux. Nobody likes fruity Rudy, the snarling ratfaced tranny.
where was Rudy in the primary – dead last?
Don’t these people ever retire? You can defeat them at the ballot box 100 times and they still won’t go away and shut up.
Jeeez. I’m sick of Rudy Guiliani – far sicker of him than of Sarah Palin, for that matter.
Good. The AP article has some good wording from Holder also.
“We need not cower in the face of this enemy,” Holder says. “Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.”
And yes, ignore Liam. I think Liam has a secret crush on Palin.
“I hold in my hand this piece of paper! Answer my question; are you now, or have you ever been a religious Muslim?”
Josephine McCarthy Palin
Speaking as someone who was in the Trade Center that morning, coming up an escalator, I can tell you, I’m glad they’ll be made to stand trial in NY. All this whinning about them be given rights in court is a joke. Charles Manson was given those same right, didn’t actually kill anyone but, was still convicted. The case against Mohammed doesn’t hinge on any of the evidence they may have collected after they began torturing him. This case won’t be on court tv because there is no more court tv. Even if there were, I doubt a judge will allow cameras in the court room. They won’t even bring these clowns into the court house on camera. They’ll probably be an underground garage where cameras won’t be permitted. The GOP is so pathetic. Do they really think this is a way to win votes?
“Speaking as someone who was in the Trade Center that morning, coming up an escalator, I can tell you, I’m glad they’ll be made to stand trial in NY.”
Holy ****, roxsteady. I am so glad you’re still here. I had no idea.
No cameras in the court room – Who do they think KSM Is going to be talking to if he does pop off?
And how much popping off, really, do they think KSM will be allowed to get away with? I’m betting near zero. The judge can have him removed to watch the thing on video feed if he wants to use the court as a soap box.
I am thinking of going to work for Palin in the Republican Iowa caucuses.
As long as she is sucking up all the Right Wing Christian oxygen, I am a happy man. The Right Winger that scares me the most is Mike Huckabee. That guy has serious preaching skills. I see him as a modern day Elmer Gantry.
I am delighted to have Palin overshadowing Huckabee, because that guy is just as dangerous as Palin, but he is a far better communicator. In difficult times, a glib demagogue can easily attract the desperate working class.
The more Palin block out Huckabee to more I like it.
Palin2012 Yup. Yup. You becha I am down with that!!!
Unless there’s an actual terrorist attack on the US, then the answer to your headline is a very resounding “no”.
Republicans are just spinning their cowardly wheels, Democrats are ignoring them, and you’re wasting time and blog space on a subject that we all already know the likely outcome. Unless that changes…there’s nothing to report on.
“nless there’s an actual terrorist attack on the US, then the answer to your headline is a very resounding “no”.”
I agree.
You can only keep people terrified for so long – it’s tiring to be scared all the time and people don’t really want to live like that. It doesn’t work forever. It just doesn’t
Somebody please – keep an eye on Dick Cheney, please. All we need is another “Pearl Harbor” and we’ll slide right the frak over into full fascism, I’m afraid.
Terrorism is a tried and true cudgel that the Republicans will be more than happy to deploy again if given the chance. The reason that Cheney/Bush got away with scaring the beJesus out of America was because the Dems were such flaccid cowards and refused to do what was right in favor of what was deemed politically expedient.
If the Dems stiffen their backbones and their resolve and counter the fear mongering with withering sarcasm, reason, and facts, the GOP has no other arrows in their quiver except frantic hyperventilation. If the Dems weren’t such wussies, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
Damn straight Gasman.
The thing is, in Congress, the ratio is like 10 to 1 with Dems who have medals (silver stars, purple hearts, medals of honor) compared to the Republican counterparts.
The chickenhawks are much louder though.
“If the Dems weren’t such wussies, we wouldn’t be in this mess.”
I agree but I cut the Democrats a lot of slack for falling right in line after 9-11. They were probably more terrified than I was.
I was a hell of a long way from NY. I was stunned, shocked, beyond sad, but probably more dazed than anything else, after 9-11. I wasn’t afraid. I was 9000 feet up in the San Juans and I knew no one was going to get me. I never have been afraid. It’s a waste of time – you cannot spend your life worrying about things like a terrorist attack – you have absolutely no control over that. So worrying is fruitless. Worry about things you can control – don’t waste your time on things you can’t.
So long as the US stays on the attack and does everything it can – in both a police action and military action sense – then I do not fear terrorism. However, suppose we leave Afghanistan and and it again becomes a safe haven for terrorist training camps – my worries begin to mount.
Regarding “Quitter Palin is now calling for Profiling of Muslims in the US Military.”
I watched the clip at TPM and she did not call for profiling Muslims?
“However, suppose we leave Afghanistan and and it again becomes a safe haven for terrorist training camps – my worries begin to mount.”
Do you think that AFghanistan is the only frakking place terrorists train?
Has it not occurred to you that they probably are training elsewhere as I type? You only worry about Afghanistan?
Dude = that’s hardly even worrying if you’re going to get that specific about it. Good lord.
There will never be a future without terrorist attacks from one stripe or another. We can never prevent all of them. There will be more Tim McVeigh types, and Anthrax type attacks. Notice how that attack, which tried to take out some senior elected Democrats has just dropped ofd the radar. That was a terrorist attack, with real WMD, and it happened after 9/11.
Americans need to to keep things in perspective; They are far more likely to die in a car accident, or by gun shot, or by a coconut falling on their heads, or a shark eating them, or from cancer, or a heart attack, than being killed by a terrorist.
Come on Americans. Muster up your courage and fortitude. Time for you to being a nation of bed wetting cowards, who allow the Terrorists to shape how you live your lives.
The London blitz was far worse than anything you have had to endure. Stop watching all those fictitious doomsday shows, and internalizing their messages of irrational fear.
Which of these lines do you want to remain in your national anthem?
O’er the land of the free,
And the home of the brave.
Or do you want it to be:
O’er the land filled with Fear,
And the home of the Knave.
It is your call.
edit:
Come on Americans. Muster up your courage and fortitude. Time for you to stop being a nation of bed wetting cowards, who allow the Terrorists to shape how you live your lives.
“Do you think that AFghanistan is the only frakking place terrorists train?”
No.
“Has it not occurred to you that they probably are training elsewhere as I type?”
It not only has occurred to me, we KNOW that they train elsewhere.
“You only worry about Afghanistan?”
I am concerned about terrorist training camps anywhere, so is the US government.
Now, what in the heck does any of that have to do with a premature departure from Afghanistan?
What the hell does “a premature departure” mean?
Tell us when you think we should depart Afghanistan.
“Americans need to to keep things in perspective; They are far more likely to die in a car accident, or by gun shot, or by a coconut falling on their heads, or a shark eating them, or from cancer, or a heart attack, than being killed by a terrorist.”
That’s true and it is wise to take prudent measures to reduce the risk of car accidents, heart attacks, and terrorist attacks. One way to help reduce the risk of terrorist attacks is to deny them safe haven for training. I hear that a lot of terrorists trained in Afghanistan when it was under Taliban control…
“Now, what in the heck does any of that have to do with a premature departure from Afghanistan?”
Everything –
Because recognizing the Afghanistan is not Terrorist Land, and that by making war on Afghanistan we’re not making war on terrorists at this point, because terrorists are not tied to states, it allows us to see why hanging around Afghanistan is a waste of time and of American lives.
sbj, you talk about terrorism in ways that make me think you are not really talking about terrorism, cause you don’t understand it. That’s no surprise – they way the right talks about it makes me think no one on the right gets it.
You cannot make war on terrorism – by its very nature, through and through, it is impossible to do it by making war on it. The only effective way to fight terrorism is to recognize what it actually is and deal with it on its own terms – treat it like a criminal conspiracy and go after the people as if they were criminals -not soldiers.
All you do is glorify their cause by making war on it.
Where we went wrong on 9-12-01, was by going to war. All Bush ever wanted to do was be a War President.
We should never have gone to war against “Terrorism.” If Osama is dead, I think he died of laughter at us for being so frakking stupid and weapons’ happy that we ham-handedly decided to do this the WWII way – attack with the army.
We should have done it totally differently right from the start and we would not be in the mess we’re in right now.
Afraid of terrorists?…my father was a bookie and so I tend to look at life in terms of odds..statistics..probabilities…perhaps I should have been an insurance underwriter but how boring!
I’m far more afraid that I will get something more serious than a kidney stone and United Healthcare’s lack of coverage will leave me bankrupt…I’m far more afraid of a heart attack…I’m not a pollyana but REALLY could we not keep this terrorism thing in perspective.
So much about 9/11 and yes it was shocking and depressing…but at least explainable…Islamic religious nuts…I was just as shocked after Oklahoma City when an AMERICAN blew up innocent men and women…how do we profile for folks like Timothy McVeigh…Faux News NEVER mentions domestic terrorism…perhaps because their crowds with loaded pistols and signs that say “Next time we’ll come armed” would take it personally.
The right wing have always been COWARDS whether it’s Bush & Cheney hiding after 9/11 or taking five deferments to avoid serving their country in Vietnam. That’s why we call them chickenhawks!
“You cannot make war on terrorism”
We declared war on al qaeda.
But more to your point – this circles back to my original comment here. I do not fear terrorism at all so long as we do what we can to prevent it – and that means, for me, bringing the battle to them. Once you start treating it as a simple criminal enterprise, which I do not believe it is, then folks begin to lose faith in our efforts and worries begin to mount that we are not as safe as we could be.
“Where we went wrong on 9-12-01, was by going to war.”
Wow. Just wow.
I left out that as devastating as the sight of the Twin Towers dropping…I was just as moved by the carnage in the nursery at the bottom of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Who is watching out for the next Timothy McVeigh?
The only extremists you all worry about are the ones who think they already pay enough in taxes and don’t feel like paying more to bail out profligate state, county, and municipal employees. Those terrible a-hole extremists who think their money is their money.
Most of the bad guys are in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc, with almost none of them in Afghanistan. There are more of them in all those other countries that we are not invading or trying to nation build in.
Tracking down terrorists is a global intel, and police operation.
Tena,
I ascribe the post 9/11 political cowardice of most of the Dems less to actual fear of Al Qeada than to fear of ignoring polls that were indicating that Americans were screaming for blood, any blood.
Cheney/Bush had no problem in capitalizing our bloodlust for revenge by steering us toward Iraq. Kerry and Hillary Clinton, for example, knew better than to believe the fear mongering which was whipping us into a murderous frenzy. Yet, with their eyes firmly affixed to polls which were all for a quick war of vengeance rather than cool sober deliberation. Thus, we had our “authorization of combat” which is utterly meaningless legally.
If the Dem leadership had exercised courage and insisted on debating a declaration of war, maybe we could have avoided much of what transpired during the presidency of Cheney/Bush.
The Constitution is a wonderful thing when we actually use it.
Right Wing Orwellian Double Speak;
“We declared war on Al-Qaeda”
“Al-Qaeda Prisoners are not Prisoners of war, and therefore are not covered by the Geneva conventions”
“I’m not a pollyana but REALLY could we not keep this terrorism thing in perspective.”
Every American is roughly 19 times more likely to die as a result of being struck by lightning than to die in a terrorist attack on American soil.
The odds are probably higher against it now – those odds were published by Harper’s in 2005. We’re now 4 more years out from 2001, which decreases the likelihood even more.
That’s the reality. Everything else is fear-mongering and bed-wetting.
Now, based on those odds, which are real – are all those American lives and all those trillions of dollars for this stupid war against Al Qaeda, trollus pilisplitticus which is a war on Terror, worth it?
@SBJ…” and that means, for me, bringing the battle to them.”
Again this is why I asked you to respond to Matthew Hoh’s prescient resignation letter.
You have just said one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. 9/11 may have been ordered from Afghanistan/Pakistan but it was planned and executed in the U.S. and Western Europe! Where the hell do you plan to fight these guys…Afghanistan..Pakistan…Indonesia..Somalia…the Southern Phillipines…and the list could go on and on and include some of our so called allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt..and…just keep filling in SBJ WTF do you think we should do invade and occupy several dozen sovereign nations?…think about what you’re saying..it is moronic!!!!
Furthermore 8 fng years later and we still haven’t gotten the guys who ordered 9/11…it’s simply braindead to think we are “fighting them there instead of here.”
If you are old enough SBJ you were probably in that group that espoused the “Domino Theory” to justify Vietnam….how many times must our nation repeat this stupidity. The last two terrorist attempts in our country WERE foiled by police work not military action. YOu couldn’t be more mistaken when you write..”Once you start treating it as a simple criminal enterprise, which I do not believe it is, then folks begin to lose faith in our efforts and worries begin to mount that we are not as safe as we could be.” NO NO NO…only the Faux News right wing cowards and pinheads like you.
“to fear of ignoring polls that were indicating that Americans were screaming for blood, any blood.”
I count that as part of the Democrats being terrified – I totally agree. Hell,Bush have favorables way the hell up in the 80s right after 9-11. The Democrats could not be seen as bucking a popular president in a very vulnerable moment.
In recent years, approximately 100,000 Americans have died, each year, from infection complications, that they contracted in hospitals.
Get a clue Americans. Terrorists only win if you keep on nursing your irrational fears, by suckling from the The Right Wing Fear Monger’s teat.
I emailed this to Greg, but I guess it’s worth a note here, too.
Here’s a link to a study on the psychological effects of such ‘terror hyping’. It’s worth considering what hypers stand to gain from such actions:
“Individuals threatened by terrorism become less trusting of others, even their own neighbors. Other studies have shown that they become less supportive of the rights of Arab and Muslim Americans. In addition, we found that such effects extend to immigrants and, as well, to a group entirely remote from the subject of terrorism: gay Americans. The specter of terrorist threat creates ruptures in our social fabric, some of which may be justified as necessary tactics in the fight against terrorism and others that simply cannot.
Another way public opinion shifts under a terrorist threat is toward inflated evaluations of certain leaders.”
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/public_reaction.html
Bush had
I’m returning the fingers when I get a new keyboard…
The Bush/Cheney years; In A Nutshell.
A REIGN OF TERROR.
““Where we went wrong on 9-12-01, was by going to war.”
Wow. Just wow.”
Wow yourself.
Now, explain what that means: Wow. Just Wow.
There’s not enough information there to tell me one thing so explain yourself.
And while you’re at it, sbj, answer my question:
“Now, based on those odds, which are real – are all those American lives and all those trillions of dollars for this stupid war against Al Qaeda, trollus pilisplitticus which is a war on Terror, worth it?”
“Where the hell do you plan to fight these guys…Afghanistan”
yes. We are right now.
“Pakistan”
Yes, we are right now.
“Indonesia”
We certainly had deployed troops “along the narrow straits straddling Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia” as “part of Washington’s new counterterrorism initiative.”
“Somalia”
“The American military quietly waged a campaign from Ethiopia last month to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda in the Horn of Africa.”
“the Southern Phillipines”
Yes – American troops have been killed in the Philippines fighting terrorists.
“WTF do you think we should do invade and occupy several dozen sovereign nations?”
No. just countries like Afghanistan where the ******* Taliban aided and abetted mass murder and provided safe haen for thousands of terrorists to train. Those terrorists are now located all over the world.
“think about what you’re saying..it is moronic!!!!”
What you just wrote is moronic. We are everywhere and have been everywhere you don’t think we can possibly be to fight terrorists.
We didn’t go to war against ex-Marines or militia groups after Oklahoma City.
We didn’t go to war against Operation Rescue, which has so far murdered 3 doctors, I believe, and blown up I don’t know how many women’s clinics.
Where wes your “wow. just wow” then?
“Now, explain what that means: Wow. Just Wow.”
I am still amazed when I read that someone does not feel we should have gone to war in Afghanistan.
Plumline Liberals: There are no threats to our security or safety. We should just withdraw our forces and assets, disarm, and not worry about it. There is no problem with Islamic terrorism or aggression; it is our fault. It’s all Bush’s fault for brainwashing the public to fear what there is no reason to fear.
“we can possibly be to fight terrorists.”
And how is that working out for us? Obama’s Administration, though intelligence work, has stopped at least 3 plots I can recall, and has arrested a whole bunch of actual terrorists.
In the meantime, we are fighting over trying one of the main instigators of the actual attack against us cause the GOP is too damn scared to let him be tried in a real court.
Highlight of Rudy conference call:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/rudy-calls-on-obama-admin-to-use-war-and-terror-in-same-sentence/
Then answer my question – was it worth the lives lost and the money thrown away to prevent a 1 in over 60,000 chance that your little life might be in danger?
“The right wing have always been COWARDS whether it’s Bush & Cheney hiding after 9/11 or taking five deferments to avoid serving their country in Vietnam. That’s why we call them chickenhawks!”
Any shred of respect I ever had for Ruk is gone with that comment. You deserve no respect at all, for any service to your country or anything else. You give none, you deserve none.
Except that you certainly respect folks like Clinton the draft dodger, five-deferment Biden, and community organizer CIC Barack Obama. As opposed to “chickenhawks” like John McCain, Bob Dole, GHW Bush, and many others.
You are a flaming hypocrite and disgrace.
RSR, thanks for that link. Interesting material.
rukidding – don’t pay any attention to the fool.
He’ll say anything – literally, anything.
@RSR…thanks for the link…interesting about how the fear of terrorism changed our nation.
Alas the rethugs and the right have always used fear to govern…From Ronnie Reagan’s famous record against Medicare saying if it passed it would increase the government takeover and before you know it the Government will tell you where you can work…to Glen Beck’s internment camps.
I had such a horribly sad phone call yesterday with my 85 year old mother who said, “But Obama wants to take over the country” “Mom what do you mean? You think he wants to be a dictator?” “No but he’s a socialist..you know he wants to take over the health care system…and all of you have heard the Faux News talking points on and on it goes the toxic mix of fear and hate that is so effective with our senior population.
And so if there is an enlightened soul out there who can help me with what is a growing hatred of thse fear mongers…I know it’s wrong to hate…but when they frighten the beejesus out of your elderly mom for political gain, ratings, corporate interests..it’s really hard to not return hate for hate and fear mongering!!!
RS – I second Imsinca. That is a fascinating piece. It explains a lot that I think most of us intuited. It especially explains the Bush Administration’s actions afterward.
Boy does it ever.
I told Bernie this one evening – ‘Christ Stopped at Eboli’ is a memoir by Carlo Levi about his year in exile in far southern Italy under Mussolini. When Levi comes to the invasion of Abyssinia, here’s what Levi quotes Mussolini as telling Italy on the radio his reasons for the invasion:
“They hate us for our freedoms.”
Direct quote. Book was written at the end of the war. The hair stood up along my arms when I read that. How many times did Commander CooCoo say that to us?
@QB “Any shred of respect I ever had for Ruk is gone with that comment.”
What ever gave you the idea that I could give a rat’s behind about who YOU respect. Actually I take it as compliment to be disrespected by you given your positions on torture…lack of respect for our constitution and you insipient fear of the terrorists.
Don’t these people ever retire? You can defeat them at the ballot box 100 times and they still won’t go away and shut up.
That’s because Blitzer, Schieffer, Stephanopoulos, etc. keep inviting them back to talk on the air.
“What ever gave you the idea that I could give a rat’s behind about who YOU respect.”
Nothing at all. I just wanted to point out what a craven disgrace you are, as someone who claims the moral authority of being a vet who “served” and now spends most of his time trashing anyone on the other side of the political aisle as a coward and “chickenhawk.”
I think I’ll stick with chickenhawks like John McCain over cowards and traitors like you.
“lack of respect for our constitution”
Seems to me the person with the most lack of respect for our constitution is Obama. Please give a carefull reading of what the Constitution and the Federalist papers actually say, not what you wish they had said,
“You cannot make war on terrorism”
We declared war on al qaeda.
There has never been a declaration of war. There was a Congressional authorization of the president’s actions, but there was never a declaration of war. You can’t “declare war” in the constitutional sense of the word against a vague collection of people. You declare war against a nation state or not at all.
That the right doesn’t understand that is all you need to know about how profoundly unqualified the American right is to govern this country at this time.
Virtually every expert out there feels that the authorization for the use of force is as close as we are ever going to get to a “declaration of war.”
@QB Nobody ever called John McCain a chickenhawk…that’s reserved for losers like Cheney who ducked out and Bush who played at being in the Air National Guard…two men who were also hard to find in the immmediate aftermath of 9/11!!!
I suspect chickenhawk is an apt moniker for you as well QB and although I completely disagree with you I don’t have to stoop to the old right wing cliche of calling you a traitor…
Traitor -One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.
Disagreeing with wingnuts is hardly treason…and I’m a lot less hyperbolic that you so I don’t toss that tired old bromide back at you…you may be completely ignorant…devoid of a conscience…but you are not a traitor and neither am I…and yes since I did serve my nation I do feel I have earned the right to diagree wih moronic trolls like you!LMAO
Tena’s correct. The military is a crude tool. Using the military when a scalpel was needed was about as stupid an idea as any since the decision to treat the North Vietnamese as just a puppet extension of Peking & Moscow.
losers like Cheney
He had more important things to do…….
“In the modern era the international legal consequences of declarations have become less determinate; and in fact declarations have rarely been issued since World War II. Perhaps most important, neither a declaration nor an authorization is necessary to trigger application of the laws of war.”
Virtually every expert out there feels that the authorization for the use of force is as close as we are ever going to get to a “declaration of war.”
“Close” only counts in horseshoes. Blurring the distinction is a road to trouble.
With respect to domestic law, a declaration of war automatically brings into effect numerous standby statutory authorities conferring special powers on the
President with respect to the military, foreign trade, transportation, communications, manufacturing, alien enemies, etc. In contrast, no standby authorities appear to be triggered automatically by an authorization for the use of force. Most standby
authorities, however, do not require a declaration of war to be actualized but can be triggered by a declaration of national emergency or simply by the existence of a state of war. Both declarations of war and authorizations for the use of force waive the
time limitations otherwise applicable to the use of force imposed by the War Powers Resolution.”
In other words – you don’t have to declare war to be at war.
Sheesh.
Oh, so let’s get this straight, then, Ruk. According to you:
Republicans or “right wingers” aren’t chickenhawks and coward if they served.
But they are cowards and chickehawks if they didn’t — because you disagree with them politically.
But for Dems and liberals, why, they are all all brave and courageous patriots, whether they dodged the draft (Clinton), got five wartime deferments (Biden), or just had other priorities like community organizing and going to college and law school rather than serving their country (Obama).
And that is because they are Democrats and liberals, which by definition makes them brave and courageous patriots rather than cowards and chickehawks.
You apparently think that is somehow less hypocritical and disgraceful than your original blanket statement that “The right wing have always been COWARDS.”
It isn’t.
In other words – you don’t have to declare war to be at war.
Likewise there’s been a very long-standing debate about whether the Congress’ sole authority to declare war means that without such declaration the president has no power to make war.
@SBJ…yes we know…witness the successful WAR on drugs…how’s that going for us? Let’s see an armed camp on our Southern border…war is always answer whether it is “declared” or not.
“how’s that going for us? ”
You know rukidding, I wonder if anyone has ever tried to count the casualties in that stupid damn war.
The bodies have piled up all along the border.
QB you are not worth debating dude…you say **** like..” According to you…And that is because they are Democrats and liberals, which by definition makes them brave and courageous patriots rather than cowards and chickehawks.”
Tell me how to conduct a debate with someone who is going to state MY position for me. I’ve never said anything REMOTELY like that!
The Dems had plenty of chickenhawks during the Vietnam era…Clinton was not a chickenhawk..not because of bravery or service but because he was not a war mongering torturer like Bush, Cheney and YOU!!!!
I’ll save you the time but if you go to the free dictionary online…
CHICKENHAWK- is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person actively avoided military service when of draft age.
I lumped you in with Cheney and Bush under the commentator….if you HAVE served QB then I stand corrected..or perhaps you could fit it under that…”especially if actively avoiding service doing your draft age…perhaps you’re too young to have been drafted
“war is always [the] answer”
Um, no. Who said that?
Oh, that’s just a lazy inaccurate caricature.
Got it. “Thank you, please drive through.”
You know rukidding, I wonder if anyone has ever tried to count the casualties in that stupid damn war.
I suspect the government has some figures…probably not very accurate…but nobody wants to report on a war we are losing unless it’s **** like Afghanistan where we can show our big muscles and armored vehicles.
It simply amazes me that QB/SBJ/BILGEY equate war and torture and war mongering by playing on our fears as patriotic!!! Perhaps QB and bilgey were simply born too late…they would have made great citizens of Sparta!
Hey Quarterbrain,
Since you admitted yesterday that you lied about being a Lawyer, and you just play one on the Internet,
Does that mean that you will have to fire your imaginary legal secretary?
For the sake of brevity…let me lump SBJ and QB together…I do NOT question your patriotism, bravery: I do NOT believe you are traitors…I DO believe you are seriously lacking in critical thinking skills.
“Does that mean that you will have to fire your imaginary legal secretary?”
You’re rolling now Liam!
“Tell me how to conduct a debate with someone who is going to state MY position for me. ”
They really only like to play with themselves. *ahem*
“They really only like to play with themselves. *ahem*”
Bingo!
@Ethan & Tena
Is that because they don’t have any teabagging friends?
To SBJ and all the other conservatives who are so fearful of terrorists: let’s remember that Al Qaeda’s operational zenith involved a few flying lessons, coordination of airline schedules, and utility knives. This was not rocket science, they merely exploited weaknesses in our airline safety and counted on a lack of interagency law enforcement cooperation. We have corrected some of those deficiencies, but could probably do much more. It also must be pointed out that Al Qaeda is not a sovereign nation and we have not declared war on any nation.
However, if the extremely low tech thuggery of Al Qaeda means we abandon reason, habeas corpus, and the Constitution, then haven’t we effectively delivered Al Qaeda’s wishes to them on a plate? If they are out to destroy democracy, how do we defeat them by destroying our own democracy? We cannot defeat Al Qaeda by destroying the Constitution. This is merely Cheney’s vision of a perpetual war mentality which allows for extra legal actions by the executive branch in the name of “national security in a time of war.” This has also proved to be a very streamlined way to funnel government monies via no-bid contracts to politically connected business interests.
I repeat, we are not legally at war because there never was a Constitutionally defined declaration of war.
Gasman – it’s a brilliant comment = you summed the whole thing up perfectly.
Don’t expect sbj to admit that.
Yesterday, I asked sbj: what war? when he was going on about pows. HE came with: now we’re in loonytown.
About as dishonest a comment as he’s ever posted. The only war that declared was a wholly fictitious War on Terror.
You can’t make war on a noun. We’ve lost every noun war we’ve started: The War on Poverty; the War on Drugs, etc.
@Gasman: Did you read my earlier comments about authorization for use of force and declarations of war?
Hahaha. Great, now I need some mental floss to clean out the yuk.
“It also must be pointed out that Al Qaeda is not a sovereign nation and we have not declared war on any nation.”
We also didn’t declare war on Iraq. We authorized the use of force against al qaeda and against iraq. That’s how we do this thing in the modern era. You don’t need to declare war to be in a state of war. You don’t need to declare war to use the military.
“The only war that declared was a wholly fictitious War on Terror.”
We didn’t declare war on terror. We authorized the use of force against al qaeda and those who helped them or harbored them. We also didn’t declare war on Iraq or on Afghanistan.
Seems to me that Obama has on more than one occasion referred to both of these events as wars?
My comment was to RUK, but could equally apply to SBJ’s pitiful avoidance of Gasman’s key question:
If they are out to destroy democracy, how do we defeat them by destroying our own democracy?
sbj,
I read your musings regarding declarations of war and the authorization of combat and dismissed them as being legally irrelevant. Simply invoking something does not make it legal.
Please find the term “authorization of combat” in the Constitution. The term is legally meaningless and was created out of whole cloth as cover for doing an end run around the Constitution. It has no more legal validity than John Yoo’s memoranda.
However, the principle of a Congressional declaration of war is very precisely spelled out. Cheney/Bush – and weak willed Democrats – could not bother to do what was legally required of them and sought to do what was politically expedient.
That’s the trouble with not following the law: the Law of Unintended Consequences begins to factor in exponentially.
“To SBJ and all the other conservatives who are so fearful of terrorists”
I am not fearful.
“Let’s remember that Al Qaeda’s operational zenith involved a few flying lessons, coordination of airline schedules, and utility knives. This was not rocket science.”
Granted – let’s remember where they trained and where they were radicalized. Do you propose that we should do nothing about terrorist training camps?
“If the extremely low tech thuggery of Al Qaeda means we abandon reason, habeas corpus, and the Constitution”
Who proposes this?
“How do we defeat them by destroying our own democracy?”
Who proposes this?
“We cannot defeat Al Qaeda by destroying the Constitution.”
Who proposes this?
@gasman: My “musings” come from a report delivered to congress.
“Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications”
Prepared by David M. Ackerman, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, and Richard F. Grimmett, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=authorization+for+the+use+of+force+iraq&fr=404_news&u=www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL31133_01142003.pdf&w=authorization+uses+force+forces+iraq&d=B_smj929TzaX&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=8mIa4CjsHPQIJhhuFQ7giA–
sbj,
Ergo, because Ackerman and Grimmett produced a paper, it is Constitutional? Silly me, I thought that amending the Constitution was more complicated than that.
Silly me – Am I wrong to assume that perhaps one should trust the legal analysis of respected experts rather than the anonymous commentor on The Plum Line blog?
sbj,
When this poster is defending the integrity of the Constitution and Ackerman and Grimmett are not, I think it would be safe to err on the side of the Constitution.
So there is concern about rising Islamic terrorism in the republican party. Makes sense to me…
Sorry gasman. You might have good intentions but I do not understand how you are better qualified than them to offer up a legal analysis of the authorization for the use of force versus a declaration of war. I understand that you and many others do not feel that any of the armed conflicts the US has been engaged in since WWII are legal because they have lacked a specific congressional declaration of war, but I believe that is the minority view and one with which I disagree. I have plenty of legal support for my view. Are you suggesting that Obama is currently engaging in the illegal prosecution of a war?
“We cannot defeat Al Qaeda by destroying the Constitution.”
Who proposes this?
Those who assert the President is authorized by the Constitution to be a dictator. I believe it’s sometimes known as the unitary executive theory.
sbj,
I am not better qualified, I am just maintaining that to stray beyond the bounds of what is specified in the Constitution for a subject as weighty as waging war, it would behoove us to strictly adhere to what the Constitution actually says, not what we want it to say.
You cannot legally defend something that is undertaken illegally. Yes, we have engaged in combat without the Constitutionally sanctioned declaration of war, but that does not give those actions a cloak of legality.
When it comes to adherence to the Constitution, you state “that is the minority view and one with which I disagree” I am willing to bet that you are wrong and I know that you are wrong when it comes to actual Constitutional scholars. There have not been mass rallies by Constitutional scholars defending the Cheney/Bush indifference displayed for eight years. Quite the opposite was true.
In what other ways is it permissible to ignore and circumvent Constitutionally mandated requirements?
I find it amusing that the “Law and Order” conservatism of as late as 10-20 years ago has been replaced with a moral relativism that renders the Constitution a burdensome millstone to be set aside whenever it is convenient to do so.
This law and order liberal is firmly on the side of obeying the Constitution.
sbj,
You also seem to fail to grasp the obvious point that it is irrelevant who writes a paper regarding the suspension of any part of the Constitution. Papers do not the law make and they certainly do not abrogate any portion of the Constitution.
If Abraham Lincoln had written a paper claiming that parts of the Constitution weren’t really necessary, it would be just as irrelevant. Papers have no power to undo or amend the Constitution, regardless of how scholarly the authors are or are not.
Yours is the argument that would sustain the Yoo memos as having the force of law. Merely making strokes with a magic conservative pen does not render the Constitution moot.
The only “paper” that would be relevant in such an instance is a Supreme Court ruling. That hasn’t happened. As much as I detest Scalia, it is laughable to think that he would endorse your “dry erase marker” version of the Constitution.
The Ackerman/Grimmett paper notwithstanding, the Constitutional requirement for a declaration of war still stands as the law.
@Gasman: “When it comes to adherence to the Constitution, you state “that is the minority view and one with which I disagree”
I’ll not engage with you if you persist with this type of ****.
“the unitary executive theory”
Might I suggest a quick read for more complete understanding?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
“The unitary executive theory is a theory of American constitutional law holding that the President controls the entire executive branch. The doctrine is based upon Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests “the executive power” of the United States in the President. Although that general principle is widely accepted, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine…The general principle that the President controls the entire executive branch was originally rather innocuous, but extreme forms of the theory have developed…According to law professors Lawrence Lessig and Cass Sunstein, “No one denies that in some sense the framers created a unitary executive; the question is in what sense. Let us distinguish between a strong and a weak version.”
“It is perhaps surprising that Congress has declared war on only five occasions: the War of 1812; the Mexican War; the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. When U.S. involvement in other international conflicts was challenged in the courts, the judiciary has ruled that declaration is not required. For example, in Bas v. Tingy (1800), the Supreme Court held that Congress need not declare full-scale war and could engage in a limited naval conflict with France. During the latter half of the twentieth century the United States engaged in numerous military conflicts without declaring war, the most controversial being the Vietnam War. Lower courts ruled that the absence of a formal declaration of war in Vietnam raised political questions not resolvable in the courts. The Supreme Court refused all appeals to review the lower court rulings, although not all its denials were unanimously agreed (for example, Mora v. McNamara, 1967).”
“The assertion of broad emergency powers by Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt obfuscated the constitutional separation between Congress’s authority to declare war and the president’s power to wage it. As long as Congress delegated authority to the president and appropriated funds (through its “power of the purse”) to support such powers, the judiciary would interpret this as congressional sanction of the president’s decision. The courts would not challenge this “fusion” of the two branches’ warmaking powers.”
I think this is what you may be referring to:
“While the commander in chief role of the president has stirred little debate in those instances when the United States was attacked by another country, the president’s authority to send forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or congressional authorization has generated much controversy.”
However, congress has authorized the President to use force in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and against al qaeda and its allies.
This isn’t really controversial.
sbj,
I’ve cheated on my taxes for years now. Not paid a dime. I also have a scholarly paper defending the practice. I have also not been prosecuted for my actions. There is precedence, and I have a paper to justify my actions. By your reasoning, I am in full compliance with the law due to my “paper amendment.”
Thanks. I really could use the extra money.
@Gasman: You are like Superman – impervious.
Let’s quit while we’re both frustrated?
sbj,
I am not frustrated, but I’m content to let the argument stand as presented.
There is no such thing as a Unitary Presidency.
The Supreme Court ordered Richard Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, and he complied.
That took care of all that Unitary Bullshite.
sbj, I think if you look at the public pronouncements and writings of the most prominent adherents of the unitary executive theory, you’ll find that, on the whole, they agree with Nixon when he said to David Frost, “If the President does it, that means it’s legal”, and I find that terrifying.
NO person is above the law, and NO president on their own is given carte blanche in such a fashion.
NOT HERE!
BS, oddball.
That caricature is UTTERLY made up by leftist ideologues like you who don’t know the first thing about the Constitution. The Unitary Executive is a fundamental, axiomatic feature of the Constitution. The only reason there is even a name for it is that Congress over the years tried to invade executive branch powers by setting up its own quasi-executive powers and bodies in its persistent attempts to undermine separation of powers and circumvent Article II.
Trust me, your hero BO absolutely believes in the Unitary Executive.
Liam, your comment is too uninformed and idiotic to merit any response. You aren’t even in the ballpark.
Well, Quarterbrain,
I see that you still are pretending to be a Legal Expert, even though you admitted that you lied about being a Lawyer.
Seek professional help for your mental illness.