Homeland Security

Rand Paul is right about drones and liberals should join him

Even two broken clocks agree with each other at some point. I believe Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has performed a service with his talking filibuster against current U.S. drone policy, so long as John Brennan is promptly confirmed now that the point has been made. In my view, if the U.S. can target a known terrorist in a nation such as Yemen, kill him. However, when drones are used obsessively and more civilians are inadvertently killed, this is bad. When the claim is made that drones can be used on American soil against American citizens under secret legal authorization that neither Congress nor the American people know about, this is flat-out wrong.


Leaving innovation in the dark

China and Russia are gnawing at the bit to access our “secured” online universe, and Congress appears content to shut the power off on ourselves, leaving innovation in the dark. While there is no part of the left’s manifesto that encourages collaboration with America’s businesses, it needs to happen. Cooperation between the private and public sectors is essential to beat the opposition. Current measures in this Congress would instead force the U.S. to watch as foreign cyber-platoons advance in front of us.


Islamic terrorists remain a serious threat

Have we become complacent to the continuous threat posed by Islamic extremists? I fear that we have been so conditioned not to disparage the practices of other cultures that we continue to ignore this evil microbe among us. We have been so brainwashed about what's politically correct that we forget about what's morally correct. We forget that thousands of Muslim women are being enslaved by archaic religious practices. We forget that Muslim children are being taught to blame all the problems of their lives on Western culture. We even forget about the men who are being told to strap bombs onto their bodies and detonate themselves in public squares and unsuspecting places.


The smoking memo

I’ve commented before (4/27/09, 5/8/09, 11/24/09 and 5/16/11) on the Bush post-9/11 policies about torture and the specious legal rationales for it.

Today, a report in Salon disclosed that a former State Department counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Philip Zelikow, wrote an official memo critical of the proposed “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a charming phrase giving cover to what is really torture. According to the Zelikow report, the CIA’s use of “waterboarding, walling, dousing, stress positions and cramped confinement” was unprecedented in our prior wars and should be deemed unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment) and illegal. It “shocks the conscience,” a term the U.S. Supreme Court once coined to describe government behavior that should not be protected, no matter what the provocation.


Revisiting 9/11 from foreign soil

This week from my hotel room in Lagos, Nigeria, for the first time in almost 10 years, I watched the towers fall. I listened to the tales of widows, friends and comrades as they recounted that day. I saw footage I’d never seen of firefighters running into the towers as others staggered out, and once again remembered the virtues of courage, sacrifice and what it truly means to be a hero. And I was overwhelmed with emotion. Just as hard a time as I had that day, maybe even more so because of what we’ve been through and where we are as a nation 10 years later.


Ten years after 9/11, still stalked by the Vichy virus: Why we still need David Petraeus

Gen. David Petraeus gave a very moving going-away speech this last week after 37 years as a man of honor in military uniform. We will still need this most respected American general since Eisenhower because:

The New York Times reports that President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority said Monday that he was going to the United Nations this month to seek membership for a state of Palestine. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said at a separate event that a Palestinian bid for recognition by the United Nations would “set back peace, and might set it back for years.”


The ticking bomb vs. the slippery slope

The Ticking Bomb — How can society not do whatever it has to do to avoid a terrorist calamity? If we know a bomb is about to blow up the Empire State Building filled with innocent people, why read a suspect his Miranda rights? The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact, as Supreme Court justices have pointed out.

The Slippery Slope — Once we slough traditional values and standards, where do we stop? If the suspect refuses to confess after waterboarding, is it OK to torture his children to break his will? Why not, if the Ticking Bomb is about to go off? When do we stop, in the Slippery Slope situation?

Civil-liberties advocate Aryeh Neier argued in a recent Washington Post op-ed that the torture debate is pointless because neither side can prove its thesis. So it comes down to principles, and on principle he is against torture.


Don't show the death photos

We don't need to see them. We know Osama bin Laden is dead. Those who say they don't believe it still won't believe it if the photos are released.
President Obama got Osama. It's a very, very big deal, and the world knows it. I would hope he would wait at least as long to release proof of Osama's death as he did to release his own birth certificate. He didn't need to show us proof he was born in the U.S., and he doesn't need to show the proof of Osama's death.
In addition to inciting violence from OBL sympathizers, the death photos, reportedly of the extremely gruesome kind, could also make bin Laden appear to be a victim, of sorts, or be perceived as gloating. Seeing the world's most evil person in a mangled, vulnerable state could bring out misguided and misdirected sympathy that al Qaeda might take advantage of.


Obama kills the lion

Things would have been different if, back in April 1980, the helicopter hadn’t crashed; eight went into a desert sandstorm to rescue 52 Americans held hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. One crashed and another had to turn back. Desert One was a dismal failure on the heels of Vietnam, telling the world that we, the Americans, could not do things well anymore. The helicopter wrecked in the desert became the symbol of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, but it would have been different if the rescue attempt were successful. Carter would have been a great hero and America would have been renewed because all that matters in war is whether the spear hits the lion. Had he been successful there would have been no “morning in America” just ahead — no need for it, no Reykjavik Summit, and probably no Ronald Reagan. So there was a moment of anxiety when the one helicopter went down on Sunday on the way to the compound at Abbottabad. But this time it was different. This time the spear hit the lion.


Quite a week for Western civilization

From my perspective, this has been a remarkable three days this weekend. Two central institutions of Western civilization were affirmed: the Roman Catholic Church (what remains of the Roman Empire); and the British monarchy (the symbol of the British Empire); and then you had the slaying of Osama bin Laden (the leading Western antagonist of the Islamic strain) with the implements of Western technical prowess.
The Roman Empire and the British Empire were the incubator and primary global distributor, respectively, of the essentials of Western civilization: Judeo-Christian ethics and Christianity, classical learning, technology and, latterly, liberal democracy and market economics/free trade. To watch a million people in London (outstripping even the attendance at the 1981 wedding of Charles-Diana), and an estimated 2 million in Rome for the beatification of Pope John Paul II was an indication that though both are under challenge, these central institutions of Western-ism have a remarkable resilience and ability still to captivate.