The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: When is a Terrorist not a Terrorist? You decide

  1. #1
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default When is a Terrorist not a Terrorist? You decide

    From Glenn Greenwald Salon.com

    Imagine if a group of leading American liberals met on foreign soil with -- and expressed vocal support for -- supporters of a terrorist group that had (a) a long history of hateful anti-American rhetoric, (b) an active role in both the takeover of a U.S. embassy and Saddam Hussein's brutal 1991 repression of Iraqi Shiites, (c) extensive financial and military support from Saddam, (d) multiple acts of violence aimed at civilians, and (e) years of being designated a "Terrorist organization" by the U.S. under Presidents of both parties, a designation which is ongoing? The ensuing uproar and orgies of denunciation would be deafening.

    But on December 23, a group of leading conservatives -- including Rudy Giuliani and former Bush officials Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, and Fran Townsend -- did exactly that. In Paris, of all places, they appeared at a forum organized by supporters of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) -- a group declared by the U.S. since 1997 to be "terrorist organization" -- and expressed wholesale support for that group. Worse -- on foreign soil -- they vehemently criticized their own country's opposition to these Terrorists and specifically "demanded that Obama instead take the [] group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in Tehran." In other words, they are calling on the U.S. to embrace this Saddam-supported, U.S.-hating Terrorist group and recruit them to help overthrow the government of Iran. To a foreign audience, Mukasey denounced his own country's opposition to these Terrorists as "nothing less than an embarrassment."

    Using common definitions, there is good reason for the MEK to be deemed by the U.S. Government to be a Terrorist group. In 2007, the Bush administration declared that "MEK leadership and members across the world maintain the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond," and added that the group exhibits "cult-like characteristics." The Council on Foreign Relations has detailed that the MEK has been involved in numerous violent actions over the years, including many directed at Americans, such as "the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries" and "the killings of U.S.military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran in the 1970s." This is whom Guiliani, Ridge, Townsend and other conservatives are cheering.

    Applying the orthodoxies of American political discourse, how can these Terrorist-supporting actions by prominent American conservatives not generate intense controversy? For one thing, their appearance in France to slam their own country's foreign policy blatantly violates the long-standing and rigorously enforced taboo against criticizing the U.S. Government while on dreaded foreign soil (the NYT previously noted that "nothing sets conservative opinion-mongers on edge like a speech made by a Democrat on foreign soil"). Worse, their conduct undoubtedly constitutes the crime of "aiding and abetting Terrorism" as interpreted by the Justice Department -- an interpretation recently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last year in Holder v. Humanitarian Law. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole represented the Humanitarian Law plaintiffs in their unsuccessful challenge to the DOJ's interpretation of the "material support" statute, and he argues today in The New York Times that as a result of that ruling, it is a felony in the U.S. "to engage in public advocacy to challenge a group's 'terrorist' designation or even to encourage peaceful avenues for redress of grievances."

    Like Cole, I believe the advocacy and actions of these Bush officials in support of this Terrorist group should be deemed constitutionally protected free expression. But under American law and the view of the DOJ, it isn't. There are people sitting in prison right now with extremely long prison sentences for so-called "material support for terrorism" who did little different than what these right-wing advocates just did. What justifies allowing these Bush officials to materially support a Terrorist group with impunity?

    Then there's CNN. How can they possibly continue to employ someone -- Fran Townsend -- who so openly supports a Terrorist group? Less than six months ago, that network abruptly fired its long-time producer, Octavia Nasr, for doing nothing more than expressing well wishes upon the death of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, one of the Shiite world's most beloved religious figures. Her sentiments were echoed by the British Ambassador to Lebanon, Frances Guy, who wrote a piece entitled "The Passing of a Decent Man," and by the journal Foreign Policy, which hailed him as "a voice of moderation and an advocate of unity." But because Fadlallh had connections to Hezbollah -- a group designated as a Terrorist organization by the U.S. -- and was an opponent of Israel, neocon and other right-wing organs demonized Nasr and CNN quickly accommodated them by ending her career.

    Granted, Nasr was a news producer and Townsend is at CNN to provide commentary, but is it even remotely conceivable to imagine CNN employing someone who openly advocated for Hamas or Hezbollah, who met with their supporters on foreign soil and bashed the U.S. for classifying them as a Terrorist organization and otherwise acting against them or, more radically still, demanding that the U.S. embrace these groups as allies? To ask the question is to answer it. So why is Fran Townsend permitted to keep her CNN job even as she openly meets with supporters of a Terrorist group with a long history of violence and anti-American hatred?

    There is simply no limit on the manipulation and exploitation of the term "terrorism" by America's political class. Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell support endless policies that slaughter civilians for political ends, yet with a straight face accuse Julian Assange -- who has done nothing like that -- of being a "terrorist." GOP Rep. Peter King is launching a McCarthyite Congressional hearing to investigate radicalism and Terrorism sympathies among American Muslim while ignoring his own long history of enthusiastic support for Catholic Terrorists in Northern Ireland; as Marcy Wheeler says: "Peter King would still be in prison if the US had treated his material support for terrorism as it now does."

    And WikiLeaks this morning published a diplomatic cable from the U.S. summarizing the long-discussed meeting on July 25, 1990, at which the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, talked to Saddam -- a month before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait -- about the history of extensive American support for his regime, the desire of the U.S. for friendly relations with Saddam, and her statement that the U.S. does not care about Saddam's border disputes with Kuwait (Glaspie recorded that she told Saddam: "then, as now, we took no positions on these Arab affairs"). Months later, the U.S. attacked Iraq and cited a slew of human rights abuses and support for Terrorism that took place when the U.S. was arming and supporting Saddam and during the time they had removed Iraq from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism in order to provide that support.

    The reason there isn't more uproar over these Bush officials' overt foreign-soil advocacy on behalf of a Terrorist group is because they want to use that group's Terrorism to advance U.S. aims. Using Terrorism on behalf of American interests is always permissible, because the actual definition of a Terrorist -- the one that our political and media class universally embraces -- is nothing more than this: "someone who impedes or defies U.S. will with any degree of efficacy."

    Even though the actions of these Bush officials violate every alleged piety about bashing one's own country on foreign soil and may very well constitute a felony under U.S. law, they will be shielded from criticisms because they want to use the Terrorist group to overthrow a government that refuses to bow to American dictates. Embracing Terrorist groups is perfectly acceptable when used for that end. That's why Fran Townsend will never suffer the fate of Octavia Nasr, and why her fellow Bush officials will never be deemed Terrorist supporters by the DOJ or establishment media outlets, even though what they've done makes them, by definition, exactly that.



    UPDATE: Amazingly, Fran Townsend, on CNN, hailed the Supreme Court's decision in Humanitarian Law -- the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the DOJ's view that one can be guilty of "material support for terrorism" simply by talking to or advocating for a Terrorist group -- and enthusiastically agreed when Wolf Blitzer said, while interviewing her: "If you're thinking about even voicing support for a terrorist group, don't do it because the government can come down hard on you and the Supreme Court said the government has every right to do so." Yet "voicing support for a terrorist group" is exactly what Townsend is now doing -- and it makes her a criminal under the very Supreme Court ruling that she so gleefully praised.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    whats the big deal? the enemy of my enemy is my friend - at least when i can use them for my benefit. the world is a big, treacherous place, get used to it.

    a non story. when it gets coverage on fox maybe i'll pay attention..

  3. #3
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david gibson View Post
    whats the big deal? the enemy of my enemy is my friend - at least when i can use them for my benefit. the world is a big, treacherous place, get used to it.

    a non story. when it gets coverage on fox maybe i'll pay attention..

    Or the "Daily Show!!"


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  4. #4
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by david gibson View Post
    whats the big deal? the enemy of my enemy is my friend - at least when i can use them for my benefit. the world is a big, treacherous place, get used to it.

    a non story. when it gets coverage on fox maybe i'll pay attention..
    And I am positive that if you changed the names from Mukasey, Ridge, and Townsend to how about Sharpton, Maddow, and Olberman your reaction would be the same.

    Just would like to know what makes these people immune from the law?
    Last edited by cotts135; 01-04-2011 at 06:09 AM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cotts135 View Post
    And I am positive that if you changed the names from Mukasey, Ridge, and Townsend to how about Sharpton, Maddow, and Olberman your reaction would be the same.

    Just would like to know what makes these people immune from the law?
    oh, i dont know, perhaps there is a little thing called "in the national interest" that gets in the way?? laws and rules and tenets have been broken since the dawn of time when it is deemed that doing so is to the benefit of the nation or cause as a whole. sometimes these backfire, other times they succeed. for example, spying is illegal everywhere, yet he have spies all over the world breaking ours and their target states' laws continuously, so theoretically we should try and imprison every spy we have employed, right?

    as to the liberal reporters names you dropped, i would definitely trust them with national security interests less because they are leftists. remember, they are of the ilk of william ayers who bombed the pentagon.

    lost a lot of sleep over this last night i imagine, didnt you?
    Last edited by david gibson; 01-04-2011 at 07:45 AM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member cotts135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Watertown NY
    Posts
    697

    Default

    [QUOTE=david gibson;727249]
    oh, i dont know, perhaps there is a little thing called "in the national interest that gets in the way??"
    I see, when conservatives do it (dealing with terrorists) it is called National interest. When Democrats or someone who you don't agree with does it I frequently here the word treason or unamerican thrown around. Very nice

    ,
    spying is illegal everywhere, yet he have spies all over the world breaking ours and their target states' laws continuously, so theoretically we should try and imprison every spy we have employed, right?
    Yeah your right, however you forgot one important piece of information. Spying against the US is illegal, but spying for the US not so much at least I am not aware of laws that would prosecute our own spies.



    lost a lot of sleep over this last night i imagine, didnt you?
    Terrible insomniac- how did you know?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    3,928

    Default

    [QUOTE=cotts135;727283]
    Quote Originally Posted by david gibson View Post

    I see, when conservatives do it (dealing with terrorists) it is called National interest. When Democrats or someone who you don't agree with does it I frequently here the word treason or unamerican thrown around. Very nice

    ,

    Yeah your right, however you forgot one important piece of information. Spying against the US is illegal, but spying for the US not so much at least I am not aware of laws that would prosecute our own spies.

    Terrible insomniac- how did you know?
    really? maybe actually being a spy is not illegal, but the acts they do often are. dont you ever watch TV? the laws are there, its the will to prosecute and the "licenses to kill" that prevent it.

    as for the first sentence, please cite where this has occurred as opposed to presenting a strawman. and dont forget your thread title says i can decide for myself....so i did.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •