LAW AND ORDER
Law and order is a wonderful concept. Our way of life depends on the police and courts of the cities, states, and nation to meet their responsibilities of keeping us safe and our republic functioning smoothly. Throughout our history there has been no or little conflict between the forces of law and order and those of our war fighting forces. Other nations have had to learn to manage the conflict. The British forces in Ireland had to augment their colonial struggle against the Irish and the guerrilla fighters in Malaya. The French in Algiers. The Germans against the underground opposition in occupied Europe. The list goes on.
In America, we had no such experience. Until the Twin Towers came down we had no need to change our ways of keeping our population safe and our property secure. Years before, during my tenure in the White House as a special assistant to President Reagan, we were getting close to the limits of using law and order tactics against terrorism. In one meeting in the Oval Office, I remember briefing President Reagan on our plans to combat terrorism. In that period, airplane hijackings, urban bombing, kidnapping were the tools of terrorism. My briefing explained how we were focusing the forces of law and order on identified individual terrorists with the intent of capturing them, no matter where they were hiding, and bringing them back to America for trial.
Now that seems like a very conservative approach. But it was pushing the envelope then and there was serious resistance to violating international law from high level officials. Had I been wiser about looking into the future, I would have included in my briefing that we needed to start working on a more aggressive approach to the growing threat of terrorism. We were already past the comfort zone of using traditional tools of law enforcement.
Instead of focusing on a few dozen active terrorists, we now are threatened by thousands. Instead of a handful of terrorists awaiting trial in our system of justice, there have been hundred of terrorists captured. Most of them are captured on the battlefield; there is seldom evidence that can pass our rules of acceptance for use in our justice system. There is even a problem of where to hold them. The Obama administration has made it a cornerstone of their ideology to close Guantanamo Bay as a place to hold terrorists and provide them with a trial by military tribunals. Our attorney general and the president do not recognize that we are fighting a war against terrorism and the capabilities and rules of evidence required by our courts are not suited for trials of terrorists who are not American citizens and who were captured on the battlefield, fighting for no nation state and wearing no national uniform. I don’t even believe that the rules of the Geneva Convention were meant to apply in these cases.
So now we have the son-in-law of Osama bin Laden being tried in a New York court. Why? Is Eric Holder a control king? Do he and the president want to cut the military justice system out? Do they want to control the information that comes out in trials? It certainly cannot be on moral grounds. These are the same people who brag about killing terrorists with drone strikes. Being an American citizen doesn’t provide protection from drone strikes. Where is the due process and trial procedures there? The American people deserve an explanation from the president re his policy of pretending there is no war on terrorism and his practice of giving foreign terrorists who have been caught trying to kill us access to a justice system that until now has been part of our constitutional rights reserved for citizens and legal residents. I suspect the motivation for such madness is part of the extreme left progressive ideology followed by our civilian leaders. The core of this ideology is that if we show kindness and compassion to our enemies they will cease attacking us.
Not in this world.
By the author of the Jack Brandon novels. http://www.facebook.com/factsandfictions | @factsfictions80