Picture of the Day: Why are these buildings still standing?
Here's a hint--it wasn't thanks to dumb luck. Or congressional Democrats.
By AcademicElephant Posted in War — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
That's a picture of the skyline of Newark, NJ. Unlike the skyline of lower Manhattan, there's no gaping hole in it left by a building that was no longer there because it had been blown up by terrorists. But there very well might have been such a hole had the 2005 plot to destroy the financial buildings in Newark come to fruition. It did not, because the CIA detained and aggressively questioned suspected terrorists, who provided them with enough information to foil the plan. But imagine if it had, causing not only tragic loss of innocent civilian life but also a devastating blow to our economy. We would not have the luxury so many indulge in now of viewing 9/11 as an isolated attack. It would take its place in an ongoing vicious cycle of terrorism.
Read on...
Today, President Bush signed the The Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law. The Act codifies and legalizes the rigorous but humane measures the CIA is using to gather intelligence about terrorist plots at home and abroad. Some call this Act the legalization of torture, but it is no such thing. It is a necessary tool in the Global War on Terror. The measures outlined in the Act have and will save American lives, and will not take the life of a single terrorist. As the President said this morning:
Over the past few months the debate over this bill has been heated, and the questions raised can seem complex. Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat? Every member of Congress who voted for this bill has helped our nation rise to the task that history has given us. Some voted to support this bill even when the majority of their party voted the other way. I thank the legislators who brought this bill to my desk for their conviction, for their vision, and for their resolve.
There is nothing we can do to bring back the men and women lost on September 11th, 2001. Yet we'll always honor their memory and we will never forget the way they were taken from us. This nation will call evil by its name. We will answer brutal murder with patient justice. Those who kill the innocent will be held to account.
With this bill, America reaffirms our determination to win the war on terror. The passage of time will not dull our memory or sap our nerve. We will fight this war with confidence and with clear purpose. We will protect our country and our people. We will work with our friends and allies across the world to defend our way of life. We will leave behind a freer, safer and more peaceful world for those who follow us.
And now, in memory of the victims of September the 11th, it is my honor to sign the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law.
Here's some food for thought in this election season: had the Democrats been in control of congress, there would be no Military Commissions Act. And, to put it bluntly, the Newark skyline might look very different a year from now because it wasn't dumb luck that preserved it in 2005. Nor was it the congressional Democrats who preferred to vote in a way that would placate their base rather than for the sake of our country's safety. Are you confident in the vote a Senator Casey would cast if faced with similar legislation in 2007? A Senator McCaskill? A Senator Cardin? As I said, food for thought, folks.
[note by Jeff] Thanks for the correction on the original photograph. It was mis-captioned online, and it has been corrected.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Sentence First -- Verdict Afterwards — Comments (28) »
Picture of the Day: Why are these buildings still standing? 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The tall building is the Goldman Sachs building and it is the tallest building in New Jersey. I work down the street from that building. Ironically Goldman Sachs decided not to move into that building after 9/11 , although they claim that 9/11 had nothing to do with the decision.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
between Constitutional Rights and Civil Rights. Civil Rights are an invention of the legislature, and Constitutional Rights are codified in the Constitution.
Certainly, we should never torture anyone, but the coercion of enemy combatants, sabotuers and spies to break-open such a network is absolutely necessary to the security of our nation. Civil libertarians would say this is wrong. Constitutional libertarians recognize that outside of the territorial borders of the United States and among those who are actively trying to destroy this country, such protections are given only by our good graces, not by constitutional protection.
Do I disagree with some of what has happened? Yes. Jose Padilla was a citizen of the United States and should be afforded every protection granted thereunto. But if we catch a terrorist, who is not a citizen, in the act of building a bomb, they should be afforded only those protections afforded to them by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. Anything more is not upholding our Constitution, but restraining the effectiveness of our intelligence operatives and our military.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
--Thomas Jefferson
the enemy, they should be charged with treason, tried and, if convicted, executed. That would include Padilla, the kid from Silicon Valley whose name has been erased from my memory (thankfully) and John Kerry.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
The UCMJ and Geneva Conventions do not provide any protections for terrorists whatsoever. Despite the Supreme Court's attempt to make them do so.
The GC specifically labels non-unifomed combatants as war criminal and illegal combatants and goes on to specifically state that all protections listed apply only to legal, uuniformed combatants.
The UCMJ applies only to Our military.
I want to try all terrorists and other war criminals under the Written laws of their native countries. Try a few members of Al Qaeda under Sha'ria and watch terrorism dry up...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
...aggressively coerced informattion can often lead to unreliable intel. Unreliable intel kills soldiers, so there is also an argument that exists outside of the philisophical realm.
this plot? The one in which "Pakistani authorities said computer evidence led them to the suspects in Britain" -- the suspects who were subsequently arrested in England in August 2004? Can you explain what measures allowed under this Act were utilized by the CIA in this case, and how these actions resulted in the arrests? Could you perhaps further clarify what actions the Democrats would prohibit the CIA from taking, and how those actions were essential in allowing the CIA to foil this plot?
As linked in the above post, this was the attack to which I refer, and to which the President referred this morning.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
That's the one I discuss above.
Are you still sure it's a good example of your overall point?
What else do you know about this case so far? From your posting, I think you read one hell of a lot into a few press remarks.
We know that a few people have indicted, and that's all. We don't know whether they're guilty, or whether CIA policies or the Democrats being in charge of Congress would have made any difference. Certainly not yet.
Was this plot really foiled by the CIA? Because of aggressive interrogations? Care to share some links or sources?
According to virtually all news services out there, the arrests were not made by the CIA, but by the British who acted on intelligence gathered from an Al-Qaeda "computer expert"'s computer. If you got anything that sheds light on that, please do tell. Else you're just puffing hot air with claims like these, actually sound quite like loonely leftie blogs.
The photo is not of Newark but rather it is Jersey City looking across the Hudson River from lower Manhattan. The tall bulding to the right of the tallest bulding in the photo is 101 Hudson Street where I worked for about 6 months.