Posts in "War on Terror"

cityoflight's picture
By Joe Miller at 11:20AM

Terrorism: When knowing all the facts becomes taboo

As a rule, our society does not cheer on those who willfully ignore the information that will help them solve a problem. From a young age, children are taught to gather as many facts as possible before making a decision. Thoroughness and attention to detail are lauded in the workplace. In politics, however, these lessons are selectively applied. Too often, those who attempt to understand the motivations of anti-American terrorism are cast aside as naïve at best and disloyal at worst.

Understanding motive is an invaluable part of law enforcement. When someone is suspected of a wrongful act, one of the first steps we take is to try to find out why that person might have done it. So why does knowing all the facts suddenly become taboo when dealing with perhaps the most serious threat to our security?

If a man discovers that his wife has been unfaithful and proceeds to murder her, we do not absolve him of his moral and legal responsibility for the act. We condemn his behavior and punish it according to the law. But at the same time, we do not pretend that there was no connection between the victim’s infidelity and her husband’s crime. Recognizing the motivation behind the murder does not imply that it was justified. No one would equate acknowledgment of the circumstances leading to the act with blaming the victim or excusing the perpetrator’s behavior.

But this is exactly what takes place when we ask the very sensible question of what motivates thousands of people around the world to try to kill us. Where did this hatred originate? What exacerbates it, and what can we do to eliminate it? These are legitimate inquiries, yet earnest examination of them is discouraged. If knowing the answers to these questions will make us safer, shouldn’t we do everything in our power to seek them out? The bottom line is that shaping the facts to fit a more comforting narrative does nothing to protect us.


Read more here
Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 12:28PM

Join the Fight against the NDAA

If you haven't kept up with the dangerous details of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), here's an update from YAL's Jack Hunter in the Daily Caller:

Commenting on the controversial Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act — which many contend gives the federal government new powers to arrest American citizens without charge — [Senator Lindsey] Graham made clear this week that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

The entire world is now a “battlefield”? “Including the homeland”?

There have been serious constitutional questions raised recently concerning whether our federal government should be able to arrest or assassinate American citizens overseas without charge or trial. This new and largely uncharted legal territory has been troublesome. But arresting or assassinating American citizens here in the United States without trial? Rounding up and holding American citizens indefinitely without charge? What country is this?

The charge agains the NDAA has been led by Senator Rand Paul, who -- though unsuccessful in stopping the bill's passage in the Senate -- was able to remove an amendment which would have allowed indefinite detention of enemy combatants acquited of crimes in court.  He did so by requiring a recorded vote rather than a voice vote, which caused a number of senators to switch their positions for fear of constituent backlash.

When the bill finally passed, only seven senators voted against it.  That's your cue to take action.

Click here to see how your senators voted.  Click here to find your representatives' contact information.  And click here to download a petition to collect signatures against the NDAA on your campus before it's too late.

File Attachments
106 KB
Mark Anthony's picture
By Mark Anthony at 4:25PM
Megan Duffield's picture
By Megan Duffield at 3:17PM

Rebel of the Week: Rand Paul and His 7-Hour Filibuster

Imagine if this Friday at 12:01 a.m. all law enforcement officials had to cease their "patriotic" behavior adopted since 9/11. No monitoring your bank account, no sifting through your bag without reasonable suspicion at the subway stop, your phone left free from the tapmaster. Due to the persistence of Senator Rand Paul over the past two days we might experience a taste of real liberty -- even for just a moment's time the Patriot Act could be suspended.

image

imageLet's start with a recap: The Patriot Act, signed into law by George W. Bush, was created as a reaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Bush administration put together the legislation as a way to better track down terrorists, foreign and domestic, to protect our country from future terrorist attacks. Critics have grown in numbers over the past 5 or so years because the "War on Terror" seemed to turn into the "War on American's Civil Liberties."

Continue reading at SilverUnderground.com.

Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 11:45AM

25 Tons of Bombs Wipe Afghan Town Off Map in October

A small town in Afghanistan became so "overrun with Taliban insurgents" that the American military decided its only option was to do this:

image

The good:  The villagers had already evacuated the town, so there weren't civilian casualties, though it is unclear how the unit involved "can be so confident they didn’t accidentally kill civilians after subjecting Tarok Kolache to nearly 25 tons worth of bombs and rockets. The rockets alone have a blast radius of about 50 meters [164 feet], so the potential for hitting bystanders is high with every strike."  Indeed, the commander involved did not bother to sweep the village for stragglers before dropping the bombs.

The bad:  Even if the villagers had already left the town, they still lost all their houses and possessions.  Indeed, "the villagers understood that the United States needed to destroy their homes — except when they don’t. One villager 'in a fit of theatrics had accused [the commander responsible] of ruining his life after the demolition.'  An adviser to Hamid Karzai said that the [American unit] 'caused unreasonable damage to homes and orchards and displaced a number of people.'"  Worse yet, though the villagers are supposed to be compensated for their losses and their village reconstructed,  "so far the reconstruction has barely begun, three months after the destruction."

The ugly:  “Sure they are pissed about the loss of their mud huts,” a Petraeus biographer pettily wrote on Facebook, “but that is why the [reconstruction] story is important here.”  Oh yeah, the fact that people are understandably upset that thousands of pounds of bombs immolated their entire town is exactly why we should instead honor the US government's lackadaisical and inadequate attempts to make up for the damage.  Riiight.

Is our new foreign policy to actively avoid the moral high ground instead of sometimes failing to reach it?  As Ron Paul has put it, "It is said we go about the world waging war to promote peace, and yet the price paid is rarely weighed against the failed efforts to make the world a better place."

Originally posted here.

Zak Slayback's picture
By Zak Slayback at 11:21PM

Security Theatre -- Now With MORE Bureaucracy!

Lowering the Bar reports that the TSA has now started including forms for those who decide to opt out. The reasons one can choose are:  Health, Safety, Radiation, and Privacy (You can only choose 1 of the first 3...which makes absolutely no sense). The policy is probably only used for statistical reasons, but is still annoying nonetheless.

Kevin Underhill noted his experience recently:

After I opted out, I had to wait for a few minutes but eventually a TSA worker came over with a clipboard. If you opt out, it appears that they make a record of the reason why you are opting out. The first time this happened, I assumed they were putting me on a list to get audited or something but they didn't write my name down. So maybe it is only for statistical purposes. But in any event, it turns out that the TSA has redesigned the form used to record this data. The new form resulted in the following exchange:

TSA: "For which of these reasons are you opting out?"


Read more here
Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 2:44PM

50 for 1

image

This is horrifying:

[D]uring the Bush Administration, if a bombing strike was expected to kill more than 29 innocent men, women and children, the White House had to approve it....

In the case of The Obama Administration, the acceptable "collateral damage" kill number has, apparently, been increased to 50 innocent civilians.

On the bright side, if you stay with groups larger than 50, the U.S. militaryindustrialcongressional complex may at least need a presidential order before it can kill you by mistake.

50 to 1!  And sometimes we don’t even know who is and isn’t a terrorist.

Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 3:59PM

'Flying is anything but secure; the main problem, however, is not terrorism.'

Writes Sheldon Richman:

Let’s remember that the TSA has been incompetent from the beginning. No one can name a single plot it thwarted, but over the years we have seen many stories of TSA inspectors failing tests announced in advance. We can be sure that countless forbidden items carried by innocents have passed through security. One person unknowingly carried a full 9mm pistol magazine through security in a carryon bag. While some TSA agents are missing contraband they are supposed to be looking for, others have pilfered things from people’s checked luggage. Flying is anything but secure; the main problem, however, is not terrorism.

Read the whole article here.

Peter Tariche's picture
By Peter Anthony Tariche at 5:55PM
Matt Ciepielowski's picture
By Matt Ciepielowski at 4:23PM

Truth doesn’t kill people; our government does.

Here's an except from my opinion piece in The Chronicle on the Wikileaks controversy.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration retained by President Obama, said over the summer that Wikileaks’ releases on the war in Afghanistan would endanger innocent lives. Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, went so far as to say, “Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.”

It requires a special kind of mental illness to help run a war that has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians and then claim that a journalist has blood on his hands for revealing the truth. Do you know what endangers innocent lives, Mr. Gates? Dropping bombs on innocent people. Also, there is no documented proof of a single person ever being physically harmed as a result of Wikileaks’ activity.

Read the rest at quchronicle.com, then go write for your school's paper! Lots of campus newspapers are dying for content, and it's a great way to get the ideas of liberty out on campus. If anyone would like any help writing opinion stories, or just another set of eyes to look over an article before you send it in, email me at matt.ciepielowski[at]yaliberty.org or contact me on Facebook.