If you are reading this, you are probably not a terrorist or a prospective terrorist. Most likely, there is nothing that would lead you to carry out an act of terrorism. But, ask yourself something. What might make you at least consider blowing up a truck-bomb or strapping on a suicide vest and walking into a pizzeria? What would the Norwegians have to do to you to get you thinking about taking that kind of revenge in downtown Oslo?
If they bombed your hometown, would that maybe get you fantasizing? How about if they invaded America, took your brother into custody, and raped him?
At some point, if the Norwegians inflicted enough harm and suffering on you, you might just start to get a little twitchy. Maybe you wouldn’t actually do anything about it, but you might just wish you could. And that is the starting point for any terrorist. Without a set of grievances, they’d either attack no one, or they’d attack someone else.
According to the 9/11 Report, the Hamburg Cell went to Afghanistan because they wanted to get training for the war in Chechnya. Somehow they were convinced to attack America instead. But, as far as I know, they never considered attacking Oslo.
When our country invades and occupies a foreign country, it makes it more likely that there will be people wanting to commit acts of terrorism against us. If there is some greater good involved, then we have to accept that increased risk. But there was no greater good in Iraq. All invading Iraq did was make our citizens less safe. It made us all less safe by making a lot of people incredibly angry.
There is no good reason to needlessly make our citizens less safe. Stupidly and immorally angering people is something that should be avoided.
The Republicans responded to 9/11 by making most of the world extremely angry and then told us that this was keeping us safer. Now they worry that a trial will be an unacceptable threat. It’s insane.
.
(AP) – In one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won’t find it “offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”
Obama, as a lawyer … sealed conviction and execution of 9/11 mastermind. How will the US Justice system claim KSM will get a fair trial? In The Netherlands, the convicted person will automatically receive a lesser sentence due to such a remark by a high official or politician.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
There is something unseemly about having a trial where the possibility of acquittal is basically precluded. We’ll see how this works in practice. Other than setting these suspects free, there is no way to give them a just trial because of what Bush did to them. This solution is better than most of the alternatives.
.
Terror suspects should be handled by the Justice system and tried in civilian court. That’s what happens in a democracy and the European countries. It seems Obama is learning from big mouth Biden with such poor remarks.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I agree. He shouldn’t make this more of a farce than it inevitably will be.
Come come, in the interview with Todd Obama clarified that “Look – what I said was people will not be offended if that’s the outcome.” Now, he did not, in fact, say “if” he said “when but this wouldn’t be going to trial if they weren’t sure of the strength of their case. The judge ultimately has the last say so, not the DoJ and not the President (as we saw over and over again as the Judiciary branch and various judges threw out cases under Bush), that is because the great thing about our 3 branch system is that each of these groups are individual actors free to do what they want but subject to the purview of each other’s respective powers.
Unfortunately, I believe that there was at least one ‘good’ reason for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and that was money. Money money money.
I honestly cannot think of any other rationale. And I’ve been thinking that since March 2003.
Reason for the Iraq War:
Personal monetary gain.
by putting “good” in quotes it makes it all better? Get you head out of you know where! how dare anyone thinking that given the president’s statement, anyone can get a fair trial- and don’t jump on me for talking about a fair trial. why the hell is this acceptable? a “fair” trial is now out of the question. And don’t you or anyone else think for one second that the world hasn’t figured out what a bunch of hypocrates.
The president blew it.
And we are all screwed once again.
Makes me wonder if they have cause to believe he really is innocent. Yeah, the guy confessed. But he was also waterboarded over 100 times. What’s the deal, here?
Hi BooMan,
I’ve been reading your blog the last 3-4 years now.
I’m from the Netherlands and have a hard time understanding America. Your blog is one of my antidotes against my lack of understanding. I was one of those ‘mad’ people trying to figure out what a single person can/should do to stop wrongdoings on the scale your country has been doing them. Long story short: I just let go.
With the election of Pres. Obama i had really had high hopes things would change. Of course i was wrong. I think it’s just a matter of macchiavellian realpolitics all over the globe. It doesn’t matter if three quarters of the people worldwide want change. The top 1 percent in power are only concerned with the extend of their ‘big stck’ and those are the people who decide on the game being played, the rules, the winners, the losers. It always has been like that, it always will be.
I don’t know what i’m trying to say exactly. I think it is that i like to be informed. You are one American i can count on in that regard. For that i would like to express my gratitude. It’s a small shimmer of light in a vast darkness.
As for change in America: something that radical is not going to happen. I admire you for trying though.
Regards from the Netherlands.
” when he is convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him” is one of the most outrageous statements I’ve ever heard from an American president. If George Bush said something like that we would all be talking impeachment.
People the world over will never believe that a fair trial is possible in this country because of our president’s monumental stupidity.
Bush made all sorts of outrageous statements that turned out not to be true (“Mission Accomplished” anyone?), the fact of the matter is that even though Obama may be talking one game he does not have the end say-so over what the judge rules. If the DoJ cannot present enough evidence to get a conviction then there is no “well I said so” that the WH can do, although the DoJ could try him on some other charges he is also wanted for. What you are saying is that you doubt the independence of the Judicial Branch, if that is so then please just go ahead and say it instead of head hanging over what a third party to this process has said about the doings of the DoJ and the courts.
Because Bush is an idiot we ought to excuse Obama for being one?
I actually have very little doubt about the independence of our judiciary. The problem is in the PERCEPTION of Obama’s statement by a world-wide audience. I repeat – it was monumentally stupid.
A gaffe is a gaffe, so yes this was stupid. But perceptions won’t be framed by one comment coming weeks (or months, or years) before the trial. What is going to matter is that we get this guy in court and due process is followed, other than that people can (and will) say whatever they want about what they think the outcome will be.
I’m not worried about perceptions because Obama’s critics lambaste him for every word that comes out of his mouth, I don’t expect that they even know how to discern real the faults of Obama from the ones they have made up.
As for rational people like the ones reading this blog, either we believe the system works or we think the WH and the DoJ are subverting it. Are we going to pull a Beck and look at perceptions, or are we opening books and finding out about the substance of what lies beneath? If we think the courts are handed their verdict from Holder and Obama then let’s call them out, if we think that they are trying to win a court case on the merits of the evidence then how about we cheer on the return of our elected government to behaving like a civilized nation again? Or we can nit pick about semantics and be talking heads while real things happen.
The Republicans and most of the Democrats really have no interested in publicizing the reason “they” attacked.
I want an open trial. Televised.
Greenwald makes the same point, differently.
My sentiments exactly.
“Terrorists” aren’t born, they’re created, provoked —always.
So, what should the U.S. (or any nation in its place) be doing instead? The answer to that is still an unthinkable one for too many Americans and others :
we should be negotiating with them for a cessation of hostilities; we should be very seriously considering their grievances–all of them, so much so that they cannot doubt our sincerity or seriousness. Now, there’s the rub: Who, at this late date, would ever trust the word of a U.S. head of state? I wouldn’t clear that bar without the sort of sea-change of proofs that at this writing are hard to imagine.
Look around the world: wherever you see people literally strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in suicide attacks, you have a case of a minority which has been taught by experience that their opponents are evil, oppressive and beyond the reach of reason and negotiated peaceful coexistence.
Think about that. It’s precisely how the “West” and, in particular, the U.S. are perceived by many millions of people around the world. For them, the U.S. government is violent, dangerous, oppressive and not open to arguments, appeals to reason or to the claims of justice. That should shame us; that should leave us dumbfounded. But for many, it does nothing of the sort. The nation’s power-serving mass-media have much to do with that fact.