This is Defense of the Nation?

by Tina Grazier

We learn this morning that the terrorist, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, will be treated as a civil criminal and not an enemy combatant. This decision is explained away with the usual mangling of the meaning of words and thin excuses. This is no way to defend America.

Bill Gertz, Free Beacon informs on the subtle difference between the terrorism of an enemy combatant and violent extremism perpetrated by a criminal:

A 2008 FBI report called “Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon” contains no mention of Islam or jihad. Instead, FBI analysts are required to state that jihad be called “violent extremism.”

Violent extremism is defined as an ideology that “encourages, endorses, condones, justifies, or supports the commission of a violent act or crime against the United States, its government, citizens, or allies in order to achieve political, social, or economic changes, or against individuals or groups who hold contrary opinions.”

Terrorism is defined as activity that is “the unlawful use or threat of violence in furtherance of political, religious, ideological, or social goals.”

Tsnarnaev is a petty criminal, rather than terrorists, in the double speak employed by this administration because his ideology justifies what he has done. He was motivated because of a philosophical disagreement, doncha know, and we can always simply agree to disagree in these matters. This allows the government to treat this man as misguided youth, a young man that has simply partied a little too hard in terms of his faith. Sure, he must pay for his enthusiasm about his chosen religion but it isn’t necessary to treat him like a terrorist. He may have broken a few eggs but his actions were not “unlawful” in the way that al Qaeda operations are considered unlawful. Our malleable media is dutifully compliant, running old photos that feature the fresh face of an innocent “angel”. Guest speakers are brought on to indulge in serious discussion about the psychological problems that might have afflicted these boys.

The depth and breadth of this failure to construct policy and security mechanisms in defense of this nation is impossible to measure. The damage inflicted on the nation’s legal understanding is impossible to measure. But both will have severe consequences. The people in Boston have already suffered consequences perpetrated by the overly enthusiastic Tsnarnaev brothers. Must we inflict the added consequence if a failure to seek justice and prevention of future attacks. There will be many more events before this administration leaves office, including the decimation of our military readiness.

It isn’t at all comforting to be reminded that President Obama, in his book, “The Audacity of Hope” wrote: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in any ugly direction.” It is also discomfiting that he would tell Bob Woodward America could “absorb” another “terrorist attack”.

Should the people touched directly by the Boston Marathon terror attack, whose lives will be forever changed, be assured by the empty language and approach our President has taken? He is absically telling them that they are victims of excessive youthful enthusiasm in the name of a religious profit…no big deal.

I can’t speak for the real victims of this terror attack and I wouldn’t try to do so. I do know I am embarrassed by this decree of innocence. I am not assured or confident that President Obama intends to honor his sworn duty to defend our country. In fact I am appalled and offended by the pretender who plays Commander-in-Chief in the White House.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to This is Defense of the Nation?

  1. Chris says:

    Tina:

    “petty criminal”

    “his ideology justifies what he has done”

    “He was motivated because of a philosophical disagreement, doncha know, and we can always simply agree to disagree in these matters.”

    “misguided youth”

    “a young man that has simply partied a little too hard in terms of his faith”

    “enthusiasm about his chosen religion”

    “He may have broken a few eggs but his actions were not “unlawful” in the way that al Qaeda operations are considered unlawful.”

    “He is absically telling them that they are victims of excessive youthful enthusiasm in the name of a religious profit…no big deal.”

    “decree of innocence.”

    Good God. Nine strawman arguments in one short article. Were you trying to beat a personal record?

    Also, please learn the difference between “profit” and “prophet.”

  2. Libby says:

    I must concur with Chris. You really got to get a grip on yerself … you and ol’ Lindsay.

    The man’s comments constitute the intellectual equivalent of soiling himself in public.

    We don’t need to abandon the founding principles of America to deal with this. Unless … we are indeed … a lot of gutless morons.

  3. Tina says:

    I see I have rattled the cages of the imprisoned progressive birds on this blog.

    So far we have not seen a coherent defense of the abuse of terms being employed by this administration or the idiocy that causes our media to fawn and fall in line behind it.

    We have been treated to the usual drivel that passes for intellectual superiority, including a petty, in fact ridiculously haughty, lesson regarding prophet vs profit from the would be teacher that has, no doubt, made a similar error himself at least once in his short life.

    I am definitely not impressed.

    Libby we have hired ourselves a “gutless moron” to take the lead…what else would you expect?

  4. Chris says:

    I mean, I was just lectured on “misconstruing words” for accurately summarizing Jack and Tina’s proposal to keep Muslims out of Congress. But somehow all of the phrases I quoted from Tina, which make it sound as if the guy isn’t even gonna face jailtime, are perfectly OK? Those aren’t examples of misconstruing words at all?

    “Civility for thee, but not for me” seems to be the rule here.

  5. Pie Guevara says:

    I have read some petty comments in my time, but no one can hold a candle to Chris and Libby.

    What, precisely, do they profit? Everyone can use an editor now and then.

    In any case, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could have been legitimately treated as an Islamo-fascist enemy combatant (which he is) subject to military court but instead will be treated as a civil criminal. A “disenfranchised” (as one paper put it) civil, BMW driving “Terrorista” graduate of an eastern university. As such he will likely never pay for his crimes and will have a long life recruiting other Islamo-fascists while being incarcerated. His health care will be provided, his dental work, his food and shelter. He will have access to television entertainment and a library. He will live a comfortable, though restricted, life. He will have the full use of his limbs. He will not suffer from the pain, paralysis or neuropathy of dismembered and/or bomb battered body. He will not be dead like the eight year old child whose life he snuffed out.

    He will be free to emulate Chris and Libby and have a few mocking laughs. Heck, I bet he gets access to the internet and maybe even a Twitter account.

    I completely understand Tina’s passion, ire, and disappointment. I only partially understand the snot from the two snots. Evidently, snot is their stock and trade.

  6. Chris says:

    Tina: “So far we have not seen a coherent defense of the abuse of terms being employed by this administration or the idiocy that causes our media to fawn and fall in line behind it.”

    What “abuse of terms” are you talking about? You’ve offered no coherent explanation for why the bombing suspect should be treated as an enemy combatant. You have only offered strawman arguments that bear no relation to what your opponents are actually saying.

    Legal experts on both the left and right are saying that the “enemy combatant” label just doesn’t fit this case, and would itself be an abuse of terms.

    From Newsmax:

    “Speaking in an exclusive interview, [Harvard law professor Alan] Dershowitz said that, while he personally likes Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, “they absolutely should go back to school and study their constitutional law” if they persist in calling for 19-year-old terror suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be held as an enemy combatant.”

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dershowitz-Interrogate-Suspect-Miranda/2013/04/21/id/500588

    From Reason:

    “Contrast Uncle Reslan’s pithy dismissal with the current Republican craze for declaring America a “battlefield” and demanding that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a naturalized American citizen, be held as an “enemy combatant.”

    That proposal, issued by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), among others, is illegal, unnecessary, and unwise.

    As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in an earlier enemy combatant case, “where the government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court.”

    And as Brookings’ Benjamin Wittes explains, “the public safety exception to Miranda means the FBI has a considerable degree of flexibility” in questioning Tsarnaev to explore any connection to foreign terrorism.

    Republican lawmakers’ zeal for an “enemy combatant” designation puts them to the right of Justice Scalia and even President Nixon, who, upon signing the Non-Detention Act of 1971 (providing that “no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress”), emphasized that “our democracy is built upon the constitutional guarantee that every citizen will be afforded due process of law.”

    We shouldn’t allow terrorist tactics to scare us into undermining that guarantee. There’s good reason terrorism is so often called the “weapon of the weak.” In the 20th century, across the entire world “fewer than 20 terrorist attacks killed more than a hundred people,” Dan Gardner observes in The Science of Fear.”

    http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/23/boston-bombing-suspects-are-losers-not-e

    Your complaints in this matter are purely political; you’re using this as just another stick to beat Obama over the head with. You have no basis for your opinion in history or constitutional law, and you didn’t even bother to pretend to.

    Also, you spelled “prophet” as “profit” three seperate times in two separate articles, which is just embarassing for a political blogger.

  7. Chris says:

    Look who else agrees:

    Rand Paul: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Should Not Be Treated As Enemy Combatant

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Monday that Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should not be treated as an enemy combatant, a stance that puts him at odds with some of his Republican colleagues.

    During an interview with Fox Business, Paul told host Neil Cavuto that he disagreed with Republicans who have called for the enemy combatant designation for Tsarnaev.

    “I think we can still preserve the Bill of Rights,” Paul said. “I see no reason why our Constitution is not strong enough to convict this young man, with a jury trial, with the Bill of Rights. We do it to horrible people all the time. Rapists and murderers, they get lawyers, they get trials with juries ,and we seem to do a pretty good job of justice, so I think we can do it through our court system.”

    Tsarnaev, one of two suspects accused of carrying out last week’s attack during the Boston Marathon, was charged Monday with the use of a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death.

    “He will not be treated as an enemy combatant,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said during a Monday briefing. “We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice. Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions.”

    Paul’s comments mark a split from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), who released a joint statement Saturday along with Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) urging for Tsarnaev to be held as an enemy combatant.

    “It is clear the events we have seen over the past few days in Boston were an attempt to kill American citizens and terrorize a major American city. The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans,” reads the statement. “The suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. We do not want this suspect to remain silent.”

    Paul disagreed with their stance, telling Cavuto that he believed wounded veterans would be “disheartened” if the freedoms they fought for were infringed upon.

    “I think they’re disheartened to think, Oh, we’re just going to tell people, ‘Oh, no jury trial anymore,’ so I think it is something worth standing up for,” Paul said. “I think of them fighting to defend the right to trial by jury.”

  8. Libby says:

    “In any case, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could have been legitimately treated as an Islamo-fascist enemy combatant (which he is) subject to military court but instead will be treated as a civil criminal. A “disenfranchised” (as one paper put it) civil, BMW driving “Terrorista” graduate of an eastern university.”

    Wind him up, and he spits it out. It shouldn’t be so easy.

    “graduate of an eastern university” is particularly hilarious in that 1) he ain’t graduated from nowhere, he’s only 19, and 2) “eastern university” positively seeths with the resentment, envy and scorn that the less intellectually endowed among us … well … need I continue?

  9. Pie Guevara says:

    Military court trials are a trials by jury. “Preserving” the Bill Of Rights is not at odds with a military tribunal, something Rand Paul, evidently, fails to understand.

    Will justice be served in a civil trial? It could happen.

  10. Pie Guevara says:

    Something I forgot to mention —

    The most significant distinction between civil and military trials is that the military jury serves as both judge-and-jury in contrast to the separation of judge from jury in civil cases.

  11. Tina says:

    “Brookings’ Benjamin Wittes explains, “the public safety exception to Miranda means the FBI has a considerable degree of flexibility” in questioning Tsarnaev to explore any connection to foreign terrorism.”

    Yep and after all language that refers to Muslim extremism has been forbidden and his lawyer has instructed him to shut up that “flexibility” won’t mean zot.

    Besides they have already decided he was just a misguided youth! (a victim)

    My focus is on what this administration has done to make sure that this person is not considered an enemy combatant. Definitions have been changed so that information that might have prevented this would not be pursued. Now that the deed is done the same language allows the administration to dismiss his actions as criminal rather than an enemy terrorist act.

    (The administration has changed how it operates in the Middle East as well. The “kill list” makes sure that enemy threats are never captured and therefore never interrogated. The less information we gather the less evidence there will be.)

    And somehow you have a problem figuring out how this administration uses the language and the law to bend in favor of the extremists who pose a violent threat to our nation and protect the president from being in a position to make the difficult decisions of a leader (Not to mention the progressive world courts).

    “you spelled “prophet” as “profit” three seperate times in two separate articles, which is just embarassing for a political blogger.”

    Yes it is a bit embarrassing. I’ll live.

    But what to do about you. You just misspelled separate, then spelled it correctly without noticing…and then you misspelled embarrassing in the same sentence. As a college educated person (English Lit) I’d say you deserve to experience a bit of your own snobbery and scorn. Embarrassed?

    I respect Rand Paul but I believe he is wrong to presume speak for “our wounded veterans”.

    The accused has only been a citizen for one year. How is it that he became a citizen given what they knew about his brother? Was he adequately screened? Did this administration move language obstacles that would have prevented his becoming a citizen?

    This newly minted citizen has shown he has no respect for our laws and no love of our country and he’s done it within one year! He made many, many wrong decisions and choices before committing these acts of violence. He could have changed his mind at any point along the way…but he didn’t. He put Jihad before his citizenship and the Constitution. He spit on the Constitution by committing this act of terror on the people gathered in Boston for the marathon. He is not a “fellow citizen” but a traitor and as such deserves the designation “enemy combatant” IMHO.

    The word traitor, however, is another word no longer in the lexicon. This administration, indeed all radical progressive’s in America, have just dropped this word. How else could they justify rewarding the likes of terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn by welcoming them into higher education posts?

    Ken Kluskowski, a fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law, writes in defense of delaying Miranda:

    We know that the older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, traveled to Russia for six months last year. There is significant evidence that during that time have traveled to a region where he received formal training on how to make improvised explosive devices (IEDs)–that is, bombs–and that he returned here with the intention of committing terrorist acts. If so, he might be legally regarded as a deep-cover foreign terrorist. And if that is true, then it’s possible as a legal matter that recruiting his brother may be regarded as developing a terrorist sleeper cell, instead of merely being a co-conspirator in a crime.

    Until it is confirmed that Tsarnaev was not part of a foreign terrorist sleeper cell, and that this was only a two-man cell–that there are not more terrorists in this cell they were working with–he should be regarded as a potential threat to national security, and subject to interrogation without the criminal procedural protections of the Bill of Rights, just like any foreign enemy combatant. If the Obama administration does not pursue this route, then it is not acting with the full powers President Barack Obama has under Article II of the Constitution to protect the United States.

    This raises the very important issue of whether the younger brother, Dzhokhar, was deliberately pursuing foreign terrorist goals when he took the oath of citizenship to become an American citizen in Sept. 2012.

    It’s an interesting question but it won’t be adequately pursued because the language is not available to designate him as acting in conjunction with terrorist cells even though he used a WMD and was instructed by an al Qaeda created web magazine to promote terrorist acts.

    The constitution means nothing to this administration. The Constitution is in the way in some circumstances and to be used as a tool when it suits them.

    Treating this traitor as an enemy combatant would not set a precedence for anything other than treating traitors as enemy combatants. The argument that it would open a door so that any American’s rights could be removed for any criminal act is just another case of fracturing the language.

    How will we define terrorists that have come to this country and deliberately obtained citizenship in order to wage war on America in the future? If they are smart they will act alone or in pairs so as not to be designated a cell. When is a terrorist not a terrorist? When the language disallows the words that could convict them.

  12. Pie Guevara says:

    Tina and Jack are out here everyday posting their views in a readable blog. I would appreciate if Libby and Chris, who chose to plague them with petty annoyances, insults, and silly drivel would provide links to their own blogs.

  13. Chris says:

    Tina: “My focus is on what this administration has done to make sure that this person is not considered an enemy combatant. Definitions have been changed so that information that might have prevented this would not be pursued.”

    You have no evidence for this. The administration hasn’t done anything in this case that doesn’t match legal precedence.

    If anything, it was Bush who changed definitions by broadly expanding who could be classified as an enemy combatant.

    The term “enemy combatant” is in itself Orwellian, since it declares a class of people exempt from the Geneva conventions, which are supposed to protect all prisoners.

    More importantly, I’d like to point out that one of the sources you link to above, the American Free Press, is a white nationalist site which has trafficked in anti-semitic conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, and 9/11 trutherism.

    As I’ve told you (and Jack) before, when you link to such openly racist sites, you severely damage the credibility of your blog, yourself, and your entire movement.

    Here is some information about the American Free Press, which has been designated as a hate group by the SPLC:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Free_Press

    This is not the first time you or Jack have linked to a white nationalist site.

    I think it’s time you two start asking yourselves how you allow that to happen so often. You need to take a hard look at your movement and consider why there is so much overlap between the modern right and fringe hate groups, that you can so frequently use the latter to support your positions without even noticing what they are.

    There was a red flag in there, when the article lamented the plight of “white South Africans” who have allegedly had their rights violated. What he’s talking about, I have no idea, because I am not a white nationalist.

    Not all Republicans are racist, but the Venn diagram should concern any reasonable Republican.

    You need to be more careful about where you get your information.

    As to the actual argument put forth by that article, it’s true that Obama and Ginsburg have said that there are flaws in the Constitution. (Heaven forfend!) But their argument is actually that the Constitution doesn’t do *enough* to ensure human rights. That’s the opposite of your argument. You are basically saying that, in order to successfully combat terror, we have to decide that the Constitution just doesn’t apply to some people. That the government should be able to detain suspects without trial or due process rights indefinitely. That our Constitutional system just isn’t good enough.

    That is far more insulting to our Constitution, and to those who have died to protect it, than anything Obama or Ginsburg have said.

    To make this argument, while at the same time accusing others of not appreciating the Constitution, is absurdly hypocritical. You can’t say one minute that you love the Constitution the mostest, and then say the next minute that certain classes of people should be denied Constitutional rights. Well, you can, but not without looking like an inconsistent hypocrite who can’t even follow her own thought process.

  14. Libby says:

    You know, you guys aren’t making any sense at all. It’s not like he’s gonna get off. We got the poor dumb dweeb on tape.

    Is it, perhaps, that he won’t be tortured?

    If that’s it, you are some sick f*^#s.

  15. Tina says:

    My argument Chris is that the President and his administration do not respect the Constitution and they have shown little intention of protecting the American people from Islamic terrorists.

    “You have no evidence for this. The administration hasn’t done anything in this case that doesn’t match legal precedence.”

    Clever wording Chris, good little commie progressive is catching on.

    The administration set the table for this case long before the case ever came up. That has been my main point over the last few days. You want evidence that he has changed language and procedures to the extent that I now wonder whose side he’s on?

    Here it is (all emphasis mine):

    PJ Media

    Scroll down to #2

    As part of a widespread Obama administration ‘Islamophobia’ witch hunt in U.S. government agencies, Matt Vadum at Breitbart News reported that the FBI had produced a document it called “Guiding Principles: Touchstone Document on Training” to justify an ongoing purge of its trainers and training material. Among the provisions of this “Touchstone Document” is the statement that “mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).”

    The net effect of this new FBI policy is that membership in a terrorist organization, or support for “legitimate” goals of terrorist organizations, does not hinder your relationship with the FBI for ‘outreach’ purposes nor make you a suspect for any investigation.

    The motive for this new policy was the problematic issue that virtually all of the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach partners have been identified by the FBI and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal court as fronts for terrorist organizations or have directly supported terrorist organizations.

    The problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court found otherwise in Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder (2010), where the court upheld provisions of the PATRIOT Act that makes even support for “legitimate” objectives of a terrorist organization a violation of federal law.

    The FBI’s “Touchstone” policy of ignoring support for terrorist organizations in its ‘outreach’ to the Muslim community is part of a larger trend during the Obama administration of rolling out the red carpet for Islamic extremists. At the same time that the FBI was announcing its new policy, as Michelle Malkin recently reported, Hisham al-Talib, who has been identified by the U.S. government as being a senior U.S. Muslim Brotherhood leader involved in organizations supporting terrorism, being invited to the White House in March to help assist the administration in its reception of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leaders several weeks later. A more recent report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism found a whole string of Islamic extremists regularly visiting and consulting with the White House.

    This explains the admission of a senior White House outreach official back in June to Neil Munro of the Daily Caller that the Obama administration has conducted “hundreds” of meetings with terrorist front group CAIR in violation of a longstanding ban by the FBI with the group for its terror support (a ban that would run afoul of the FBI’s new ‘Touchstone’ policy). And as reported on Friday, it also explains the DCCC fundraiser featuring House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in Washington D.C. attended by many U.S. Muslim Brotherhood figures, including CAIR co-founder Nihad Awad.

    One corrosive effect of this outreach was noted by Kerry Picket at the Washington Times, who reported that these same organizations now deemed ‘moderate’ by the Obama administration has helped shape our national security policy. That might explain the complete meltdown in our Middle East foreign policy.

    It also explains how a guy accused of using a WMD to create extreme fear and to murder and maim folks in Boston, U.S.A. can be declared a criminal instead of an enemy combatant.

    Read on at PJ Media: #3 informs that:

    “Just one day after the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram (meaning, “Western education is forbidden”) bombed an Easter day service in Kaduna, Nigeria, killing 39 Christian worshippers, the State Department’s top official for Africa, Assistant Secretary of State Jonnie Carson, gave a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) where he said, “I want to take this opportunity to stress one key point and that is that religion is not driving extremist violence either in Jos or northern Nigeria.” … Questioning the State Department’s decision not to designate Boko Haram, Eli Lake of the Daily Beast quoted one official who explained that the Obama administration’s refusal to act against Boko Haram was based on political and policy considerations, not whether they were in fact a terrorist organization engaging in terrorist acts of violence.

    And you will really enjoy #4:

    Another bombshell article from Eli Lake reported that Hani Noor Eldin, a member of the Egyptian terrorist group Gamaa Islamiya, was issued a visa in violation of federal law and flown in May to the U.S. by our government as part of an official delegation from Egypt. The State Department’s website identifies Gamaa Islamiya as a specially designated terrorist organization, and as Lake noted in his report, Eldin readily acknowledges his membership in the group, which recently announced that they were prepared to fight to install Islamic law in Egypt, even using violence.

    Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post also reported that among Eldin’s tour stops in Washington D.C. was the White House, where he met with members of Obama’s senior National Security team. During that meeting, Eldin reportedly pressed the Obama administration for the release the ‘Blind Sheikh’ Omar Abdel Rahman, the leader of his terrorist group who is currently serving a life sentence in U.S. federal prison for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the planned follow on ‘Day of Terror’ attacks. (More on the Blind Sheikh later.)

    Incensed members of Congress demanded answers from the Obama administration, but received none. In fact, when DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was asked about Eldin’s visa and the violations of federal law to grant it by House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Napolitano doubled down on the administration’s position and vowed that more members of designated terrorist groups would be allowed to enter the U.S.

    Please do go right on through to #10 where you will read this:

    There are many other stories I could have included in this list, such as the declaration by the Obama administration back in April that the “War on Terror is over”, or the selection by the State Department last month of an Islamic extremist that had previously had his appointment to a national terrorism commission withdrawn over his support for terrorist groups to represent the U.S. at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) human rights conference in Vienna.

    Want more…from the Thomas Moore law Center:

    In December 2011, the National Defense University’s Deputy VP for Academic Affairs, Dr. Brenda Roth, officially confirmed in writing to the Pentagon that all course materials at the National Defense University were vetted and approved by the University and its military command. This official confirmation covered the content and outside guest speakers used in its course entitled Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.

    Nevertheless, four months later General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, disregarding Dr. Roth’s official report, publicly excoriated and fired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Matthew Dooley, an instructor involved with the course, on grounds that the course was offensive to Islam and unprofessional; he also ordered LTC Dooley’s career–ending negative Officer Evaluation Report. … Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, the public interest law firm representing LTC Dooley, commented, “Any fair-minded person would conclude that Matt Dooley was thrown under the bus to protect the generals who had institutional responsibilities over the course. I believe the Pentagon wanted to curry favor with the White House and the Muslim community, which demanded that all training materials offensive to Islam be purged and the trainers who use them punished. The fact remains that the course and guest lecturers for which LTC Dooley was publicly ridiculed and punished were all approved by senior leaders long before he ever became an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC).”

    Investors reported following the Benghazi attack:

    Why would U.S. diplomats apologize to violent Muslims, on of all days 9/11, for America’s sacred right of free speech? They were following a new protocol negotiated between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an alliance of 56 Muslim nations.

    In December, Clinton met behind closed doors in Washington with OIC officials to hammer out “mechanisms” for enforcing a U.N. resolution the administration signed to fight “Islamophobia” in America and other Western nations.

    The three-day session was closed to the public.

    However, the Homeland Security and Defense departments and the FBI have since purged thousands of counterterrorism training materials that Muslim reviewers complained pushed “negative stereotypes” of Islam.

    Sanitized material included anything defining jihad as “holy war.” In addition, courses on radical Islam have been canceled, and some instructors and trainers have been fired or disciplined.

    IBD has learned that the Army’s elite training and doctrine command, known as TRADOC, has scrubbed all classes dealing with radical Islam. TRADOC oversees training of Army forces at more than 30 schools. U.S. Army intelligence officials say soldiers will now go into battle in Muslim nations with no training in how to spot jihadist activities and signs of Islamic radicalization.

    What’s more, the Justice Department has considered designating Islamophobia as a hate crime. Pressure to do so has come from the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim groups identified by the FBI as fronts of the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

    You might also find this at PJ Media a litte unsettling on this administrations entire ME/terrorism policy.

    The House report on Benghazi is out and we will report on it soon.

    Get back to me Chris when you’re done playing kindergarten word games and have finally gotten serious about the real threat the free world faces from Islamic Extremist terrorists…and their enablers in this administration!

  16. Chris says:

    Tina: “My argument Chris is that the President and his administration do not respect the Constitution”

    But neither do you. Otherwise, you wouldn’t harbor such grave doubts that our Constitutional system can handle someone like the Boston Bomber. You wouldn’t argue that we have to step outside the Constitution in order to obtain justice.

    “and they have shown little intention of protecting the American people from Islamic terrorists.”

    That’s just…so unbelievably false, it’s like you’re living in another reality. The Obama administration has been just as overly aggressive in national security concerns as Bush. He’s kept Guantanamo open, made “kill lists,” used drones to kill terrorists (causing a lot of “collateral damage,” i.e. dead women and children, along the way), signed indefinite detention and targets assassinations into law…do you think he did all this for shits and giggles? No, he did it because he believes it has to be done for national security. He’s wrong, just as Bush was wrong; the best thing we can do to ensure security is to live up to our own Constitutional ideals.

    I don’t have time to read all of the quotes you posted, but I spotted a lie in the first one:

    “The motive for this new policy was the problematic issue that virtually all of the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach partners have been identified by the FBI and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal court as fronts for terrorist organizations or have directly supported terrorist organizations.”

    This is a pretty bold accusation, but it isn’t true; one only has to find one example of a non-terrorist-supporting Muslim outreach partner in order to prove his statement false. Off the top of my head, I can think of one that has not been identified as a supporter of terrorism: Imam Rauf, the head of the Islamic Community Center in New York.

    “It also explains how a guy accused of using a WMD to create extreme fear and to murder and maim folks in Boston, U.S.A. can be declared a criminal instead of an enemy combatant.”

    Tina, this has already been explained to you. U.S. citizens are traditionally not declared enemy combatants. In order to do so the U.S. must provide concrete, immediate evidence that the citizen is directly working with a foreign organization. That is evidence that we just didn’t have at this point. You are grasping at straws to find anything to bash Obama with. There are real flaws in his approach to terror, but they are all examples of him being too aggressive, not too “soft.”

  17. Libby says:

    “The administration set the table for this case long before the case ever came up.”

    How? Exactly?

  18. Libby says:

    Well, maybe we shouldn’t be too hard on Tina over her vagaries of belief. She under some bad influences. Look at this what I pulled off Salon. Apparently, Rand Paul, of the constitutional liberty, anti-drone filibuster is equally wobbly in his principles, and has said that not only the brothers, but any old liquor store robber should be droned. And then:

    “Of course, Paul isn’t the only GOP hypocrite on these issues. I can’t abide seeing Rep. Peter King as the face of the House GOP’s anti-terror brigade, since he was an avid supporter of the Irish Republican Army as “freedom fighters,” not terrorists, back in their heyday.

    “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” King told a pro-I.R.A. rally in 1982. Later he insisted: “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”

    “If only Rand Paul had been around back then, he could have proposed banning all immigration from Ireland, because its people were so inclined towards terrorism. It probably wouldn’t have happened, since clearly white European immigrants or their descendants never come in for the same kind of scrutiny (or at least the Irish haven’t for a good 100 years or so), but it’s fun to think about.

    “Back during his filibuster, I briefly thought Paul might prove a formidable 2016 GOP presidential candidate, if he channeled American discontent with the Obama administration’s drone policy and other national security excesses. I shouldn’t have worried. He’s just another opportunist, but his spine is even more flexible than most.”

  19. Chris says:

    That’s different, Libby. Irish people are white now.

  20. Tina says:

    Chris: “That’s just…so unbelievably false, it’s like you’re living in another reality. The Obama administration has been just as overly aggressive in national security concerns as Bush…”

    Well that’s one opinion.

    General Vallely begs to differ. He isn’t alone.

    Chris this:

    “…virtually all of the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach partners have been identified by the FBI and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal court as fronts for terrorist organizations or have directly supported terrorist organizations.”

    Is NOT a lie. Greeley Gazette, 2011:

    A Federal court has upheld the conviction of multiple officials with the Council on American Islamic Relations and others for providing funding to a terrorist group.

    The Holy Land Foundation trial was the largest terrorism funding trial in American history. CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America and other Muslim organizations were named as un-indicted co-conspirators in the case.

    While the first trial ended in a hung jury, a subsequent trial found the parties guilty on charges of material support of terrorism.

    The Holy Land Foundation was once the largest Muslim charity organization in the United States. HLF was under investigation for years before finally being closed down by the Bush administration after the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

    On Wednesday, Judge Carolyn Dineen King, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, issued a ruling upholding the conviction.

    King wrote, “While no trial is perfect, this one included, we conclude from our review of the record, briefs, and oral argument, that the defendants were fairly convicted. For the reasons explained below, therefore, we affirm the district court’s judgments of conviction of the individual defendants. We dismiss the appeal of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.”

    One of the convictions upheld was Ghassan Elashi, founder of CAIR’s Texas chapter. Elashi received a 65-year prison sentence for funneling over $12 million from the Islamic charity known as the Holy Land Foundation to the jihad terrorist group Hamas, which is responsible for murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians.

    CAIR, which says it is dedicated to enhance understanding of Islam and empower American Muslims, has had multiple leaders within the organization that have either had ties to or been convicted in terrorism cases. Some of them include:

    Nihad Awad: Executive director of CAIR. Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land case placed Awad at a Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in 1993 that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charitable giving. According to FBI transcripts, Awad was recorded discussing the propaganda effort during the meeting.

    Omar Ahmad: Founder of CAIR and chairman emeritus. U.S. prosecutors named Ahmad as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. FBI special agent, Lara Burns, testified at the trial that Ahmad was also at the Philadelphia meeting. Prosecutors also designated him as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Palestine Committee” in America.

    Bassem Khafagi: CAIR’s former community relations director, was arrested for involvement with the Islamic Assembly of North America, which was linked to al-Qaida. After pleading guilty to visa and bank fraud charges, Khafagi was deported.

    Abdurahman Alamoudi: Another CAIR director, Alamoudi is currently serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism. according to the U.S. Treasury Department, Alamoudi, who was caught on tape complaining that bin Laden hadn’t killed enough Americans in the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, was one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America.

    Mousa Abu Marzook, a former CAIR official, was designated by the U.S. government in 1995 as a “terrorist and Hamas leader.” He now is a Hamas leader in Syria.

    Randall Royer: Former civil rights coordinator for CAIR. In 2004 Royer began serving a 20-year prison sentence for aiding al-Qaida and the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan.

    The Muslim Brotherhood was designated as a sponsor of terror organizations:

    The movement is also known for engaging in political violence. They were responsible for creating Hamas, a U.S. designated terrorist organization, who grew to infamy for its suicide bombings of Israelis during the first and second intifada.[10] Muslim Brotherhood supporters are also suspected of having established the well-known terrorist group Al-Qaeda and for assassinating political opponents like, Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud an-Nukrashi Pasha.[9][10][11

    The MB organization isn’t listed on the Department of State website but, as I recall, it was listed as a terror organization under Bush.

    So-called moderate groups are tolerated despite terror ties and influence (Also true under Bush). USA Today:

    BOSTON — The mosque attended by the two brothers accused in the Boston Marathon double bombing has been associated with other terrorism suspects, has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston and is affiliated with a Muslim group that critics say nurses grievances that can lead to extremism.

    Several people who attended the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass., have been investigated for Islamic terrorism, including a conviction of the mosque’s first president, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, in connection with an assassination plot against a Saudi prince.

    Its sister mosque in Boston, known as the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, has invited guests who have defended terrorism suspects. A former trustee appears in a series of videos in which he advocates treating gays as criminals, says husbands should sometimes beat their wives and calls on Allah (God) to kill Zionists and Jews, according to Americans for Peace and Tolerance, an interfaith group that has investigated the mosques.

    The left has used the supposed lack of WMD’s in Iraq to make jokes for years. I find it ironic that when they are presented with the opportunity to describe this non terrorist terrorist attack in America they choose WMD instead of IED or homemade bomb or simply bomb as they did in all of the reports. I just find it funny…ironic!

    Libby, your glee over Rand Paul’s supposed flip flop will be short lived:

    Following reports that Sen. Rand Paul had changed his position on drone use, the Kentucky Republican responded with a statement Tuesday night insisting he hasn’t flip-flopped on the issue.

    Earlier on Tuesday, Paul, who launched a dramatic speaking filibuster in March to oppose the potential use of domestic drones on American citizens, appeared on the Fox Business Network with Neil Cavuto and appeared to suggest that drones can reasonably be used in some domestic situations.

    “I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on,” Paul told Cavuto, responding to a question about the Boston Marathon manhunt. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him. But it’s different if they want to fly over your hot tub or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

    He spoke on radio today and said in his remarks to Cavuto he used the same words that he had used in the filibuster.

    I have explained how this administration set the table by changing policy and language. Are you awake?

Comments are closed.