Dean won't say Bin Laden is guilty

[StarvingStudent47]

(CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean will not ****ounce Osama bin Laden guilty before a trial, he said in an interview published Friday.

Full CNN story here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.dean.bin.laden/index.html)

My take:

Apparently Howard Dean considers 9/11 to be a common crime, equivalent to a gangland shooting, as opposed to an act of war. Because it's only for domestic crimes that jury trials are required. For war crimes, military tribunals like Nuremberg are sufficient (no jury, different rules), and for acts of war, no trial is required at all (I don't remember us conducting any jury trials to make sure that it was in fact Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor).

But there's another issue. Dean didn't just say "Bin Laden obviously ordered 9/11, but we should still put him on trial to preserve some sort of structured justice system." I'll agree that mass-murdering international criminals, from Saddam to Slobodan to Osama, should go before a tribunal before punishment is dealt out. But Dean isn't just saying that. He said HE WILL NOT SAY THAT BIN LADEN IS GUILTY AT ALL.

This kind of hurts his claim that he's not soft on the War on Terror, merely against the war in Iraq, huh?

[Shake n Bake]

oh my.....Petey, my heart


It's all over for him.

[budanski]

Dean has a complete lack of understanding of the War on Terror. Osama's rights in the civilian justice system went out the door when we started dropping bombs on him. It's ridiculous to think that he is "innocent until proven guilty" when we our government has rightly determined that he is guilty and has already delivered the sentence.

I totally agree with you that this is not a criminal case, its WAR.

I wonder if we violated his Miranda rights when we sent the Arc Light B-52 raids to try and turn him into a bloody smear? p-)

This is from the Democrat's front-runner? rofl No wonder Karl Rove is champing at the bit to take on Dean in '04.

[usa320]

Anyone who thinks there is even the slightest shread of possibility Osama Bin Laden is guilty of acts of terrorism should for one thing have NO PLACE in government, and for another thing are assholes themselves.

The guy is guilty as sin, he admitted it himself.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a dumbass.

I hope the dems keep acting like asses, cause everytime they something out of there ass, Bushes ratings go up.

Dont get me wrong i believe there should be tribunal to present the evidence against him, then he can be shot, but i think any tribunal would not be formed for the purpose of proving his guilt, but for showing proof of that guilt and deciding a scentence. (not really though, cause it will obviously be death, assuming he makes it to a trial and doesnt get 9mm pumped into his face)

[Tane Angle]

Why do they let politicians talk again? In an election year, very poor move, whether or not he believes it.

However, no President-let me say that again-no President has ever been tough on terrorism. They may say that they are, but not one has ever shown himself to be worthy of saying that he is tough on terrorism. Not Reagan, not Bush Sr., not Clinton, and certainly not our current President. Indeed, our current President has one of the worst track records around. It's very sad, very depressing.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Deuterium]

Dean is playing to his base. He could say (almost) anything at this point and it won't matter. There is no way in hell that Libs would vote for Bush nor Right Wingers vote for Dean. Dean is focused on winning the nomination. I garunfu*kintee you that after the convention he moves right and sings the happy song that will appeal to the mddle, undecided, vote.

[fred_engles]

Dean is right. We almost certainly won't take Bin Laden alive (he'd rather die than be captured; and we'd rather kill him than capture him). Nonetheless, should he be captured, he should get as fair and unbiased a trial as possible (public if security allows). That's how we've dealt with such monsters in the past [1 (http://www.pbs.org/eichmann/trial.htm),2 (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkaltenbrunner.htm)], and that's how we should continue to do so now.

[Deuterium]

Dean is right. We almost certainly won't take Bin Laden alive (he'd rather die than be captured; and we'd rather kill him than capture him). Nonetheless, should he be captured, he should get as fair and unbiased a trial as possible (public if security allows). That's how we've dealt with such monsters in the past [1 (http://www.pbs.org/eichmann/trial.htm),2 (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkaltenbrunner.htm)], and that's how we should continue to do so now.

Sure if he's captured I don't think you'll find too many people not in favor of trying him. I personally think Dean just mis-spoke. But if he truly believes that we must try and capture, capture then try guys that admit they have attacked us then this isn't the guy we need as commander in chief. Like I said, I think he just made a mistake. Unfortunately in this day and age EVERY word is combed over and guys like Quale, Gore, Bush II have a hard time. Dean will learn and unfortunately we will see more and more canned speaches/responses and less of the real man.

[usa320]

Bush having a bad track record on terrorism????

I think hes done more to counter the threat of terrorism than anyone in the past.

Clinton had many opportunities to strike afghanistan severely and destroy al queda before 9-11. He could have acted.

He chose not to.

Id say thats a poor record that cost lives.

With or without 9-11, there was a plan in circulation in the whitehouse, CIA and DOD to hit terrorist assets in Afghanistan, as a matter of fact it was sitting on Bush's desk before he left for florida on that morning.

So far hes the only president that has taken forceful and descisive action against terrorists and the rogue states that support them.

[thatguy96]

Bush has conducted 2 operational campaigns as CiC of the US Armed Forces, 1 in Afghanistan, and 1 in Iraq.

In Afghanistan, the government of the Taliban was seen by the Bush administration, much as it had been see by the Clinton Administration, and those of Reagan, Bush Sr., and even Carter for that matter (in terms of devout Muslim extremists in Afghanistan, or from elsewhere in the world, willing to fight there). The Taliban, had it not been for the events of 9-11 could easily have gone straight ahead with their destruction of Buddhist monuments and their imposition of an extremist Islamic state. The only people who were actively putting up money AGAINST the Taliban prior to the events of 9-11 were the Uzbeks and the Tajiks. In fact, the United States had in fact given money to the Taliban in order to crack down on opiate production, and was attempting to work with what was steadily becoming the only centralized power Afghanistan ahd seen since the Soviets had left in 1989.

In Iraq, the regime of tyrannical madman was expertly diposed, without any consideration for what would happen next, and at the cost of involving groups [read: the Kurds] for whom the empowerment of victory would further make the production of a peaceful and stable post-war Iraq difficult. No one in their right mind is displeased at the capture of Saddam, nor at the diposition of his regime. However, the simple fact that regime change was the agenda (no matter what the justification was), and that there was little planning for how to go about this shows a general lack of foresight on the part of the US government. To have been naive enough to believe that the Iraqi people AS A WHOLE would join the Americans in celebrating their new found freedom belies the knowledge that the US State Department attempted to press to the Administration to the contrary. The return of exiled Muslims from places like Lebanon and Iran, the empowerment of the Kurds, and the indecisiveness of the US provisional authority in the opening months made a difficult situation even worse. We have an all inclusive council in Iraq yes, but many people seem to forget that the last non-Syrian puppet government in Lebanon was also all inclusive...and it would appear that in that situation we had gotten the only 10 guys in the country who were willing to talk to each other.

G.W. Bush has also maintained an alliance with the nation of Pakistan, where internal strife shows that it too may be a haven for terrorism, generated in no small part because of the dictatorship of President Perez Musharraf, who was elected yes, but so would I have been if my name was the only one on the ballot. There is also some cirumstantial (and 'conspiracy theory'-like) evidence, both shown by the death of the journalist David Pearl and the findings of Indian security officials that, perhaps without the support of the President, certain elements of Pakistan's armed forces may in fact be rogue. Not a good sign for a nation in possession of nuclear weapons.

Our grand ally Saudi Arabia, is also heavy implicated in human rights violations, and practices many harsh Islamic policies similar to those of the Taliban. However, because of their cooperation in the "War on Terror" their actions go unabbatted, much as those of the Syrians do, with there being no pressure exerted on them to release their hold on the soveriegn state of Lebanon, or on the belligerents within their borders.

Meanwhile, he has taken a stab at the nation of Iran, who, and while it may not appear so to some people, is attempting to undertake reforms. This is being held up mostly because the President, who's name escapes me for the moment, is constantly battling with the close-minded clerics of his nation, especially the Ayatollah Khameni (a madman in of himself). However, it should be noted that those are the people calling us the "Great Satan" and they do not RUN the country. Our insertion of Iran into the "Axis of Evil" has done nothing but lend support to the extremists and detract from a very positive thinking and forward looking Iranian government (keep this in perspective, foward looking for Iran, but then again it is our belief that these people can and will change over night that seems to be presenting us with our biggest problems in this day and age).

Also, to use Clinton, the perpetual conservative scapegoat, for not doing anything is both unreasonable and not in keeping with the facts. Clinton DID attempt to take a hard stand on terrorism, launching cruise missiles every which way and continuing US involvement in what became a US rather than UN operaiton in Somalia. However, after each one of these events, mistakes that have been repeated in the recent actions (and have been glossed over), were used to make Clinton look incompetent and a poor military thinker by his conservative AND liberal detractors. The madness of the Abdi House Attack in Somalia, which in fact was conducted under the auspices of the UN by US forces, has to be one of the strongest showings of force made against "terrorists."...and was also labeled the first ever UN sponsered assassination. The US response in the former Yugoslavia is also not something to be scoffed at if the events in Iraq are supposed to be a yardstick by which we measure success of our interventions. Nor can I remember whether it was Clinton or Bush who let Slobodan Milosovic get off because we had not allowed our intelligence community to disclose its intel gathering methods, making the evidence we had against Slobo' completely inadmissable.

We have involved ourselves all over the world, in hotspots no one hears about, and have done very little to quell those problems either. FARC still maintains control in isolated pockets in Columbia, despite US aid and assistance. The Muslim extremists in the Phillipenes too, continue their campaign of terror in order to facilitate their agenda. Even in Indonesia, where human rights have often (and completely) been thrown out the window, extremists continue to ravage the land, and we're not even actively pressuring anybody there.

I'm sorry, but the only people who have a good track record in truly putting a meaningful stop to terrorism in the last 50 years are the Norweigans, who succeeded in maintaining peace between the Turks and the Greeks over Cyprus, and recently brokered a ceasefire in Sri Lanka, which is being adhered to for the most part, something underheard of in that nation torn apart by decades of bloody civil war.

Also, the shoulda-woulda-coulda that perpetuates itself in the post-9-11 American mindset is completely irrational, because prior to those terrorist attacks the average American, now longing for more blood, would have thought us completely immune to such things, and there would have been no rush to deal with petty belligerents such as Osama Bin Laden. Go back in your mind, attempting to push out what you know now, and ask yourself if you would've supported the possible loss of American lives to eliminated Bin Laden, a man who couldn't seem to extend his arm outside of the Middle East and Northern Africa, hotspots in their own right, even without the aid of another madman. I mean, if Bush is so all knowing and all doing, then why did he put the plans into action? Surely he could not have been so naive to let such imminent threats go unanswered. Unless he was like everyone else, and never saw it coming, a thing that happened "in places like Israel," but not here. He continued to perpetuate the atmosphere of competition between entities like the CIA, NSA, FBI, INS, and Customs, who knew full well about the 9-11 hijackers before hand, but because of horrible information sharing practices (or lack thereof), nothing was done.

In my mind, if Bush has done anything with regards to terrorism, he has incited a whole new generation to listen to the "Great Satan" bull****, perpetuated by a minority of true extremists, playing on the hardship and strife that many around the world endure every day.

[James]

I wonder how many Americans had ever actually heard of bin Laden, the Tliban, or Al-Quaeda before 9/11. Not too many, I think...

[Zach R.]

I have. Most right-wing thinkers have. We begged Clinton to go after bin Laden for eight stinking years.

[ChuckThunder]

I wonder how many Americans had ever actually heard of bin Laden, the Tliban, or Al-Quaeda before 9/11. Not too many, I think...

Most knew who he was after the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.

[duck]

How is a President's stance on terrorism measured? Is it the amount of gung-ho speeches held at army bases? Or wearing military attire as often as possible? Or leaving out the two major terror-funding nations, Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia, from the "Axis of evil"? In all of these aspects the current Prez has done extremely well.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

How is a President's stance on terrorism measured? Is it the amount of gung-ho speeches held at army bases? Or wearing military attire as often as possible? Or leaving out the two major terror-funding nations, Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia, from the "Axis of evil"? In all of these aspects the current Prez has done extremely well.

Id like to remind you he really had no choice in the matter, it happened and since he was the President he has to take action otherwise he would seem weak and to many unfit to run the country or react to such an attack.

As for the "axis of evil" your pretty much right.

When the voting season comes many people will pick dean apart for making comments like that and it diffenately "grips peoples ****" to say something like that. When you do something to the extent of 9-11 its guilty until proven innocent not innocent until proven guilty.

[thatguy96]

When you do something to the extent of 9-11 its guilty until proven innocent not innocent until proven guilty.
If they're tried in US courts, then last I checked you can't change one of the fundementals of our judicial system. However, if you try them in some extra-legal court, such as a military tribunal...then those precedings are pretty much for show anyhow...

[Seiyuuki]

When you do something to the extent of 9-11 its guilty until proven innocent not innocent until proven guilty.

When Osama went on tape and took responsibility for 9-11, I don't think the whole line "...innocent until proven guilty..." apply anymore.

[StarvingStudent47]

Dean is playing to his base. He could say (almost) anything at this point and it won't matter. There is no way in hell that Libs would vote for Bush nor Right Wingers vote for Dean. Dean is focused on winning the nomination. I garunfu*kintee you that after the convention he moves right and sings the happy song that will appeal to the mddle, undecided, vote.

It's too late for this centrist. I won't vote for Dean. Period. Of course, I won't vote for Bush either. If it's Lieberman v Bush, I'll vote Lieberman. If it's Kerry v Bush, I'll vote Kerry. But if the race comes down to Dean v Bush, I'm just going to write in Aragorn son of Arathorn.

[duck]

Oh, I didn't mean anything related to 9/11, in fact the President was very sombre and showed strong leadership during the Afghanistan operations. But why does AQ still have the capacity to threaten the West, wasn't Saddam's fall and capture a major blow for them?

[StarvingStudent47]

I wonder how many Americans had ever actually heard of bin Laden, the Tliban, or Al-Quaeda before 9/11. Not too many, I think...

I had been complaining about the anti-Buddhist and anti-women policies of the Taliban since they came to power. I was angry as hell when they destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, but no politician listened. I was angry as hell when they started stoning rape victims for "adultery," but no politician listened.

I was very familiar with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda before 9/11. Don't you remember the first WTC attack? (a truck bomb in the basement) Don't you remember the attack on the USS Cole? Don't you remember the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Those were all al-Qaeda attacks, and were known to be al-Qaeda attacks at the time.

[StarvingStudent47]

If they're tried in US courts, then last I checked you can't change one of the fundementals of our judicial system. However, if you try them in some extra-legal court, such as a military tribunal...then those precedings are pretty much for show anyhow...

So were the Nuremberg trials "extra-legal"? How about Slobodan Milosevic's tribunal? Those both followed the rules of military tribunals, not United States criminal courts.

[Tane Angle]

I'd heard of them, James, but I don't count. Getting back to why I said Bush isn't really fighting terrorism, it's that he is not proactive. Take away the breeding grounsd for terrorism, and then terrorism will be less of a problem. Make it tough for terrorist recruiters to recruit. He doesn't do that. Rarely do people take a proactive enough stance, but trust me, we need one. A reactive stance like Bush's means continued US civilian casualties, I hate to say it. Have a good one, and just some thoughts....

[NcDeuce]

^ Word

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

^ Well said

[Nizark]

Ok, so dean popped himself with that stupid ass remark, meaning Clark is moving into first place. Not guilty? Who is the holy hell was he trying to garner to with that remark, the 2 wahabi's in dearborn MI or Brooklyn? F*cker's done for, step up Mr General

[Tane Angle]

Well, TF160SOAR, if you don't mind me putting you on the spot, you and your classmates are our future. In a few years you will be on the frontlines in this truly worldwide war. It is a war perhaps more ruthless and with higher stakes than any other before. So what are your thoughts on proactive fighting terrorism? And what are the tools which you think we should use? And are we willing to embrace the UN, France, and other nations and NGOs as partners in this war? Just ignore this post if you want bud, but answer if you want as well. Same for everyone else out here; what are your thoughts on being proactive, because we are obviously not sufficiently proactive?

Thanks for the support/agreement to you both. :D

[ibstolidude]

Well, TF160SOAR, if you don't mind me putting you on the spot, you and your classmates are our future. In a few years you will be on the frontlines in this truly worldwide war. It is a war perhaps more ruthless and with higher stakes than any other before. So what are your thoughts on proactive fighting terrorism? And what are the tools which you think we should use? And are we willing to embrace the UN, France, and other nations and NGOs as partners in this war? Just ignore this post if you want bud, but answer if you want as well. Same for everyone else out here; what are your thoughts on being proactive, because we are obviously not sufficiently proactive?

Thanks for the support/agreement to you both. :D

Since I have a minute - somethig very rare these times, but in abundance this week.

Strictly Militarily and without regard to the human/humane factor...
the GWOT is a true UW war that is being fought across the broad spectrum of the operational continuim...it is on many fronts and has many areanas, but as with ALL UW the civilian populations must be viewed as Key Terrian. As with Key Terrian they are divided into various targets based upon many specific criteria...each target (as with key terrian) WILL be won by one side or the other..
It is not feasible to consider the destruction of all populations that are less than favorable to US objectives, therefore measures should be taken to ensure that those pieces of Key Terrain (Civies) have been denied to the enemy...one way to do that is with humanitarian and nation building efforts...

Unfortuantely it is a long term (and the US administrations are fickle things at times) objective and one that most nations have trouble with.

[StarvingStudent47]

Just to throw two wrenches into the gears, Tane--

1. When we send aid to third-world countries without also sending troops, it always seems to end up in the hands of dictators or warlords instead of in the hands of the needy. Over the years, I've become more and more disenchanted with the alleged "society-building" ability of humanitarian aid. Sure, it sometimes keeps people from starving to death, and that's definitely worth doing, but it never seems to help beyond that absolute minimum level.

2. Since when do people not bite the hand that feeds them? Just look at the effing mujahadeen.

[NcDeuce]

I definitely agree on the proactive stance. You only can do so much by taking a reactive stance. I hope we slowly build more Special Operations units to combat terrorism and take the fight to the scum out there rather then wait for an attack on us.

And hopefully the media doesn't have to jump all over it.

And it's late, I must go to beddddddddddddd...

[Argyll]

What a pretty lame answer!

[NcDeuce]

It was 3 in the morning!

[Trigger]

So what are your thoughts on proactive fighting terrorism? And what are the tools which you think we should use? And are we willing to embrace the UN, France, and other nations and NGOs as partners in this war?
If by 'proactive' you mean appeasement of potential enemies by sending them a blank check and a ticket to Uncle Sam's 'All You Can Eat' buffet, then I am not in favor. I'm more of the proactive=pre-emptive type. I think that when we see the bad guy coming out of the neighbor's house, with bloody knife in hand, we should take his f**kin' head off and put it on a pike for all his would be followers to see. In other words the tools of zero tolerance and sheer brutality when necessary. I think feeding the starving people is very important. I'm not saying 'screw them' if they happen to be born in some third world sh*thole. We (the U.S.) do a whole lot of humanitarian deeds that go unnoticed by people who dislike us, and when we bend over backwards to do even more and try to get cuddly and walk on eggshells because we don't want to 'offend' the delicate feewings of every culture on the planet, then we simply look weak to the very people who wish to harm us.
As far as embracing the U.N... In my opinion, the time for asking permission or for a consensus from them is past. We have to look out for the welfare of our own citizens first. If that means acting unilaterally or pre-emptively then I feel it must be done. If we look weak or act weak, we are going to keep getting hit.
Many of you are more informed and have more experience with some of these matters, so please don't take offence to these rambling thoughts.

[Argyll]

Only 3? ;) Plenty of time to write a thesis on counter terrorism after having "rucked " for 18 hours with less than 4 hors sleep in the last 48 then?

[budanski]

If by 'proactive' you mean appeasement of potential enemies by sending them a blank check and a ticket to Uncle Sam's 'All You Can Eat' buffet, then I am not in favor. I'm more of the proactive=pre-emptive type. I think that when we see the bad guy coming out of the neighbor's house, with bloody knife in hand, we should take his f**kin' head off and put it on a pike for all his would be followers to see. In other words the tools of zero tolerance and sheer brutality when necessary. I think feeding the starving people is very important. I'm not saying 'screw them' if they happen to be born in some third world sh*thole. We (the U.S.) do a whole lot of humanitarian deeds that go unnoticed by people who dislike us, and when we bend over backwards to do even more and try to get cuddly and walk on eggshells because we don't want to 'offend' the delicate feewings of every culture on the planet, then we simply look weak to the very people who wish to harm us.
As far as embracing the U.N... In my opinion, the time for asking permission or for a consensus from them is past. We have to look out for the welfare of our own citizens first. If that means acting unilaterally or pre-emptively then I feel it must be done. If we look weak or act weak, we are going to keep getting hit.
Many of you are more informed and have more experience with some of these matters, so please don't take offence to these rambling thoughts.

(*gets out the ole trusty torch and pitchfork.) ;)

[Haiw]

I definitely agree on the proactive stance. You only can do so much by taking a reactive stance. I hope we slowly build more Special Operations units to combat terrorism and take the fight to the scum out there rather then wait for an attack on us.

And hopefully the media doesn't have to jump all over it.

And it's late, I must go to beddddddddddddd...
Your entire description of a proactive stance is actually a description of reactive measures... Try again.

[Haiw]

Oh and btw, playing devils advocate here; just think of this: if a country is willing to start a war with a certain country over you because they say you commited something you have not, but that you fully support and would be proud of...would you not take credit?

I mean, it's like getting jailed for nailing the hottest 17 year old...I'd say quite some people would actually take credit on it when they got back.

Apart from that 'proof'...we as the world haven't seen squad of proof...

[budanski]

Oh and btw, playing devils advocate here; just think of this: if a country is willing to start a war with a certain country over you because they say you commited something you have not, but that you fully support and would be proud of...would you not take credit?

I mean, it's like getting jailed for nailing the hottest 17 year old...I'd say quite some people would actually take credit on it when they got back.

Apart from that 'proof'...we as the world haven't seen squad of proof...

Well, if you overlook the fact that:

That country failed to honor their 1991 ceasefire agreement, failure to honor and intentional violation of all UNSC resolutions requiring their compliance, refusal to disclose complete and accurate info, support for international terrorists such as hezbollah, islamic jihad, hamas and others, continued engagement of coalition forces in the no fly zones , and being a threat to the region...

yeah, I guess there was a lack of reasons to go to war.

[Haiw]

I'm not saying liberating Afghanistan wasn't a just thing, I'm just saying that the US mentality of "we're gonna invade A'stan anyway" would make it rather obvious for a possibly innocent Bin Laden to 'take credit' for something he hadn't done...

What's up with the sig btw? It's not that people really like them in the Netherlands, it's just that they're really usefull, and basically everyone here has them :)

[Falco]

Maybe Bin Laden is nothing but a poser and it was Saddam Hussein that masterminded the 9/11 terrorist attacks :lol:

[StarvingStudent47]

I still haven't seen anyone point at another international terrorist organization besides al-Qaeda which has the organization and resources to have pulled off the 9/11 attacks. If it wasn't al-Qaeda, who was it?

[NcDeuce]

I definitely agree on the proactive stance. You only can do so much by taking a reactive stance. I hope we slowly build more Special Operations units to combat terrorism and take the fight to the scum out there rather then wait for an attack on us.

And hopefully the media doesn't have to jump all over it.

And it's late, I must go to beddddddddddddd...
Your entire description of a proactive stance is actually a description of reactive measures... Try again.

See a terrorist camp, strike it. Leave no survivors.

Opposed to:

See a terrorist camp, write it down in your intelligence logbook and wait.

How is that a reactive stance?

[Seiyuuki]

I had been complaining about the anti-Buddhist and anti-women policies of the Taliban since they came to power. I was angry as hell when they destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas, but no politician listened.

The UN objected and did not allow the Bamiyan Buddhas to be rebuilt.

[Argyll]

TF160 wrote

See a terrorist camp, strike it. Leave no survivors.

Opposed to:

See a terrorist camp, write it down in your intelligence logbook and wait.

How is that a reactive stance?


How do you assertain it's a terrorist camp,without 1st gathering the Intel and writing it down in your logbook?

Yes sir you going to make a fine officer!! :bash:

[Haiw]

I still haven't seen anyone point at another international terrorist organization besides al-Qaeda which has the organization and resources to have pulled off the 9/11 attacks. If it wasn't al-Qaeda, who was it?
Another one of those miracles...how much recourses would you really need to pull it off? I mean it's not like they needed millions; all they needed was plane tickets to the US and the money for flight training. I'd say it's a 100,000 bucks at the most. I'd say quite some terror groups would be able to fund that...

[Haiw]

I definitely agree on the proactive stance. You only can do so much by taking a reactive stance. I hope we slowly build more Special Operations units to combat terrorism and take the fight to the scum out there rather then wait for an attack on us.

And hopefully the media doesn't have to jump all over it.

And it's late, I must go to beddddddddddddd...
Your entire description of a proactive stance is actually a description of reactive measures... Try again.

See a terrorist camp, strike it. Leave no survivors.

Opposed to:

See a terrorist camp, write it down in your intelligence logbook and wait.

How is that a reactive stance?
For christ sake mister gung-ho are you always typing at 3 AM or what? The difference between a proactive and a reactive stance is not when you strike, but what actions you take... so

REACTIVE:
Striking a terrorist camp killing everyone.
PROACTIVE:
Taking measures to make sure people don't turn to terrorism and terror camps in the first place...

When you're simply striking the terrorist camps you're propably just mopping with the valve open.

[Tane Angle]

I guess hitting camps is both, in a way. Preemptive hits are proactive, but Enduring Freedom was reactive. However, most preemptive hits are reacting to a past attack, but preempting further attacks.

[Haiw]

Maybe to say it in another way; striking camps is like slashing off heads of the mythical dragon terrorism; they'll just grow back on... So instead of just slashing heads untill ethernity you should just get to solving the problem and making sure the heads don't grow back on...so working on the reasons why people turn to terrorism, etc.

[StarvingStudent47]

Another one of those miracles...how much recourses would you really need to pull it off? I mean it's not like they needed millions; all they needed was plane tickets to the US and the money for flight training. I'd say it's a 100,000 bucks at the most. I'd say quite some terror groups would be able to fund that...

I'm talking organization more than financial resources. Hijacking four planes simultaneously isn't a cakewalk. I'm not aware of any other incidences of multiple simultaneous hijackings in the history of terrorism.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'd heard of them, James, but I don't count. Getting back to why I said Bush isn't really fighting terrorism, it's that he is not proactive. Take away the breeding grounsd for terrorism, and then terrorism will be less of a problem. Make it tough for terrorist recruiters to recruit. He doesn't do that. Rarely do people take a proactive enough stance, but trust me, we need one. A reactive stance like Bush's means continued US civilian casualties, I hate to say it. Have a good one, and just some thoughts....

To say that Bush isn't doing anything is disingenuous. We're not privy to all that's going on behind the scenes - at the madras in Pakistan/Iran etc. My guess is that there's quite a bit being done proactively - they're just not dumb enough to tell everybody. Does it piss me off that they haven't hammered Saudi Arabia more over their funding these groups? Yes. But after the recent attacks there, I'll bet funding is drying up.

If I was a conspiracy nut, I'd assert that the bombings in Saudi were not AQ, but were prolly CIA & done to turn the locals against the group. Far fetched, yes - but it's right out of their playbook.

The world of politics is not as cut & dried as we'd like. You can't fight a war by trying to get the other side to like you. Yeah, that's a nice long term goal, but in the meantime, you get your *ss kicked. Would the proper response to Pearl Harbor have been to sit down with the Japanese & ask them why they're angry with us?

[Haiw]

Another one of those miracles...how much recourses would you really need to pull it off? I mean it's not like they needed millions; all they needed was plane tickets to the US and the money for flight training. I'd say it's a 100,000 bucks at the most. I'd say quite some terror groups would be able to fund that...

I'm talking organization more than financial resources. Hijacking four planes simultaneously isn't a cakewalk. I'm not aware of any other incidences of multiple simultaneous hijackings in the history of terrorism.
Organisation was fairly easy as well; the hardest part was propably getting the men together to do it...after that you could just plan it all in your own basement. Besides hijacking the planes wasn't that hard either, especially back then... I bet that anyone with the will to do it, 25 men and maybe a $100,000 could have done it.

[Tane Angle]

This is what I was talking about:

Today, on the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus -- including 3 million children under the age 15. There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection. More than 4 million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims -- only 50,000 -- are receiving the medicine they need.

Because the AIDS diagnosis is considered a death sentence, many do not seek treatment. Almost all who do are turned away. A doctor in rural South Africa describes his frustration. He says, "We have no medicines. Many hospitals tell people, you've got AIDS, we can't help you. Go home and die." In an age of miraculous medicines, no person should have to hear those words. (Applause.)

AIDS can be prevented. Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years. And the cost of those drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year -- which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp. Ladies and gentlemen, seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many.

We have confronted, and will continue to confront, HIV/AIDS in our own country. And to meet a severe and urgent crisis abroad, tonight I propose the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief -- a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa. This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new AIDS infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs, and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS, and for children orphaned by AIDS. (Applause.)

I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. (Applause.)

This nation can lead the world in sparing innocent people from a plague of nature. And this nation is leading the world in confronting and defeating the man-made evil of international terrorism. (Applause.)

The money was cut because one of seven major aid groups in Africa tallked about condoms in a *** ed class in China. The Senators who voted against that money are not the ones who normally vote against the President. Rather, they are the ones who are his ardent supporters. Looks like it was a hollow request? That's politics for you, I guess. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[James]

See above.

Didn't the U.S. Congress just approve more than 18 Billion dollars, for one year, for Iraq?

On another note, I have mixed feelings about pre-emptive action. On a small scale, I don't have any problem with taking action if there is 100% firm intel that allows us to do what needs to be done. At the other end of the spectrum is the invasion of a country half way around the world based on intel that now appears to be innacurate.

Don't get me wrong - if Shrub had said that the point of the war with Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi people from the get go, I would have been for it. Liberty is a good thing. Everyone on the planet should have it.

I like to think of pre-emptive action as less military and more aid to places around the world where the populations aren't as blessed as those of us in the United States. I would never give in to extortion, as some of you like to paint liberals, but I would look at the root of the probelm. Why do some areas of the world foster a deep hatred of the U.S. and Western Europe? Why are so few of these terrorists from these countries? If a nation or orginization carries out an attack on us, they should be punished. Some of you might have issue with this, but I don't feel that 9/11/01 was a criminal act. It was an act of war. Here is something I learned in USMC recruit training in 1993 - the mission of a rifle squad:

"The mission of a Marine Corps rifle squad is to destroy the enemy's will to fight by fire and maneuver, and repel the enemy's assault by fire and close combat."

After something has been done to us, the gloves should come off. No mercy. That said, we should have a seperate effort going on to prevent such things from happening in the future.

I like what Teddy Roosevelt said more than a century ago - Walk softly, but carry a big stick.

Anyway, enough of my rant.

[Trigger]

This is what I was talking about:

Today, on the continent of Africa, nearly 30 million people have the AIDS virus -- including 3 million children under the age 15. There are whole countries in Africa where more than one-third of the adult population carries the infection. More than 4 million require immediate drug treatment. Yet across that continent, only 50,000 AIDS victims -- only 50,000 -- are receiving the medicine they need.

Because the AIDS diagnosis is considered a death sentence, many do not seek treatment. Almost all who do are turned away. A doctor in rural South Africa describes his frustration. He says, "We have no medicines. Many hospitals tell people, you've got AIDS, we can't help you. Go home and die." In an age of miraculous medicines, no person should have to hear those words. (Applause.)

AIDS can be prevented. Anti-retroviral drugs can extend life for many years. And the cost of those drugs has dropped from $12,000 a year to under $300 a year -- which places a tremendous possibility within our grasp. Ladies and gentlemen, seldom has history offered a greater opportunity to do so much for so many.

We have confronted, and will continue to confront, HIV/AIDS in our own country. And to meet a severe and urgent crisis abroad, tonight I propose the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief -- a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts to help the people of Africa. This comprehensive plan will prevent 7 million new AIDS infections, treat at least 2 million people with life-extending drugs, and provide humane care for millions of people suffering from AIDS, and for children orphaned by AIDS. (Applause.)

I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. (Applause.)

This nation can lead the world in sparing innocent people from a plague of nature. And this nation is leading the world in confronting and defeating the man-made evil of international terrorism. (Applause.)

The money was cut because one of seven major aid groups in Africa tallked about condoms in a *** ed class in China. The Senators who voted against that money are not the ones who normally vote against the President. Rather, they are the ones who are his ardent supporters. Looks like it was a hollow request? That's politics for you, I guess. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...
News of the cuts emerged barely six weeks after Mr Bush toured five African states to launch a $15bn (£9.5bn) Aids initiative. It was later cut back drastically, with Congress approving just $2bn of the $3bn sought in the first year.
...Throughout all regions of the targeted countries we will provide HIV testing. We will support abstinence-based prevention education.—G.W. Bush - July 2, 2003
What good will all the anti-AIDS drugs in the world do if you don't attempt to change the behavior that is responsible for the spread of the disease?

From a question and answer session online:

Lydia, from Olympia, WA writes:
Dr. Joe O'Neill- Considering the AIDS crisis, is the United States Governement doing enough, not only internationally but domestically?

What steps could be taken, if the US was taking this epedimic seriously?

Thanks- Lydia

Dr. Joe O'Neill writes:
The U.S. Government under President Bush's leadership takes this epidemic very seriously. Over 50 percent of bilateral support for global AIDS comes from the United States. President Bush has asked for record levels of funding for domestic care, prevention and research. We call on all sectors of the United States including local governments, state governments, the private sector and other national governments to join us in fighting this disease.
Dr. Joe O'Neill is the Medical Director and a Deputy Director of the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator at the U.S. Department of State.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/hivaids/