The OLD method of dealing with terrorists vs. the NEW method

[Mythsaje]

According to something I heard on NPR several months ago, the neocons have been very critical of Clinton's method of dealing with terrorists because he used a law enforcement method rather than a military method. Terrorists were hunted as criminal conspirators and subject to investigatory procedure.

The neocons saw this is inefficient and "not getting the job done."

Well, perhaps.

On the other hand, how is invading a country, killing thousands of civilians, and over 1700 of our own troops while STILL not finding the man (allegedly) responsible for the 9/11 attacks any more efficient?

My dad said the other day that what we needed was undercover operatives to infiltrate the Iraqi insurgents...police tactics rather than military tactics.

It got me thinking.

They say the Democrats don't have a plan to keep our country safe. I fail to see how using law enforcement methodology won't work at least as well as military force, if not better.

One might argue that it was the failure of our intelligence and highest branches of law enforcement that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place, but even this is questionable. If these men were on a database somewhere as suspected terrorists, they should have been being hunted by law enforcement officials--and, if so, it shouldn't have been all that difficult to find them. The information was out there.

Was it a law enforcement failure? Or was it deliberate sabotage of intelligence?

Will we ever know?

I think hunting them down as criminals is a much better idea than declaring "war" on them. They can't be fought like a conventional enemy, and it actually gives them recognition they don't deserve. They are criminals, plain and simple.

Any thoughts?

*edited to fix typos

[killbotfactory]

1. I agree

They are criminals, not boogeymen.

Clinton was relatively successful in dealing with them, but then Bush came in and shitcanned all the progress so he could focus on military pork projects and Tommy Chong.

[MojoXN]

9. I knew that killbots have a pre-set kill limit...

So I sent wave after wave of men in after them... I love the reference, tragic as it may be.

So this is how democracy dies... To thunderous applause.

MojoXN

[fob]

2. If you're suggesting bushco* use common sense AND critical thinking

skills while abandoning their "plan" to return to a Clinton era plan, then you are using your brain! The bad part is I think bush*co is down to one brain between them and it's bush*s!!

[Mythsaje]

6. I'm not suggesting THEY do it

I'm suggesting that the Democrats should bring it up as an alternative to what's going on now.

There's a question as to whether they can protect us from terrorism...

Sure. If they use a method that's proven to work in the past. All this bombing and invading has done is irritated the crap out of the rest of the world, killed thousands of people, and made us LESS safe than we were before.

We DO have a workable alternative. This needs to be put out before the people.

[fob]

18. I'm with ya. My comment was more rhetorical than for comment

[Mythsaje]

19. Ah, gotcha

I thought I'D been unclear.

One never knows exactly how one's language resonates with whichever reader. Just because it's clear to ME doesn't mean it means what I think it means to someone else.

[knowbody0]

3. the entire concept illudes me

we bomb the fuck out of Afghanistan, take prisoners, who are "illegal enemy combatants" to whom the Geneva Convention does not apply. the dichotomy explodes my brain

[madrchsod]

4. the main guys behind the first trade center bombing

are sitting in prison right now---during clinton watch they were caught, tried, and convicted using our then present laws. bush cannot find the anthrax killer or better put refuses to find the anthrax killer.

[Mythsaje]

5. Well...

isn't THAT interesting?

Thanks for mentioning that.

[MojoXN]

7. No, the insurgents are NOT criminals...

The terrorists are. Bush included. The insurgents are patriots. If some asshole nation invaded America, they could count on me rigging up IED's and taking my arsenal of weaponry and USING it against them. I can't fault an Iraqi for bearing arms against us. After all, they realize just as acutely as WE do that Bush and friends have decidedly less than their best interests at heart. All I want is an end to the carnage...

MojoXN

[Mythsaje]

8. I won't disagree with that

like I said in the other thread.

But I'm talking about the terrorists more than the insurgents here. I think we need to try to negotiate with the insurgents...far more than we have been. We have to find some common ground.

It may be necessary, on the other hand, to root out the outside terrorist instigators of some of it--assuming the reports that they exist aren't a complete fabrication, of course.

[MojoXN]

11. Dear God...

You'd better watch out! Rightists are getting ready to scream, "TRAITOR!" Somehow, I doubt that you'd consider that an insult. I wouldn't either. By the way, yeah, complete fabrication. I'd sooner believe in the goddamn toothfairy than "outside agitators".

MojoXN

[Mythsaje]

13. I've decided I want a tee-shirt

with one simple word on it. "Revolutionary."

It has SO many meanings.

<g>

[MojoXN]

14. Like my sig says...

"Revolution is necessary for progress!"

[Mythsaje]

16. Yep

I'm thinking I'm going to research this topic a little more and re-submit it. I think I may have something here re: the Democrats and their ability to defend us from terrorists.

My wife has started teasing me about my time here on DU--she's really wanting me to finish my fourth novel and it's taking longer than she likes...I told her that I was being a revolutionary at the moment and working against a dangerous administration was slightly more important than my novels.

Then again, if I can make it writing, I can devote MORE time to political pursuits. Somehow I'm not sure she'd like that either, but... you can't have everything. :D

[nickgutierrez]

10. You can't fight terrorism with a war.

You just can't.

War creates an us vs. them mentality that is more likely to convince the people of the invaded nation to become 'them' rather than to help us.

It also doesn't help that the US invaded a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

[Mythsaje]

12. Exactly!!!! n/t

[sandnsea]

15. Iraq isn't the war on terror

The only way we're catching real terrorists around the world is through local law enforcement, England, Germany, Philippines, Indonesia, various other countries. We're creating terrorists in Iraq, and they're actually using our troops as guinea pigs to learn terrorist tactics and then going back to their home countries. It'll be a nightmare when they all decide to start attacking.

Not only did law enforcement work and should have worked to stop 9/11, it's STILL the only thing that is really working.

[Mythsaje]

17. Absolutely

and I think the Dems need to start pushing this point big time.

Pound it home.

Law Enforcement works. War doesn't.