Yesterday Steve Schippert discussed Attorney General Eric Holder's public revelation that terrorists like Osama bin Laden should be given the same rights as Charles Manson. Holder also claimed that Osama bin Laden "would be killed rather than captured alive, that Miranda rights would be read to the corpse of bin Laden."

Beyond the other problematic inconsistencies highlighted by Steve's post, we once again are witnessing a difference of opinion (schism?) between the Administration point of view in Washington DC and the statements of the Commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said Wednesday that the military would "certainly" try to capture Osama bin Laden alive and "bring him to justice" -- contradicting remarks by a top Obama administration official.

OK. Maybe it can be argued that the "reality" (as Holder put it) is that bin Laden will be killed before he is ever in custody. Even if that is true, somehow equating bin Laden's rights with those of Charles Manson simply, also bends reality. Thirty-six years ago Sam Peckinpah made a movie about bounty hunting titled "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia" (admittedly a pretty bad movie). Maybe it's not that important if bin Laden is taken alive or if he is killed in the process of his capture. But proof of his death is what is needed.

Holder denies that there is a split between Administration policy and the attitude of the American people when it comes to the treatment of terrorists. It is interesting that some of the same people who are concerned about the post-September 11th security measures abridging their Constitutional rights are the same ones willing to extend Constitutional rights to the terrorists who started this whole mess in the first place. The disconnect is so obvious that is hard to see how Eric Holder doesn't see it.

By Jay Fraser | Permalink | Feedback (0)

This discussion on Afghanistan with Matthew Hoh at Bloggingheads.tv is excellent, thoughtful, and worth your time to listen for the entire hour. Hoh understands the local dynamics, particularly the rural Pashtuns in the southern and eastern areas of Afghanistan, and Robert Wright asks intelligent questions throughout.

Essentially, Matthew Hoh's judgment - one which ultimately compelled him to resign his position at State - is that we should withdraw from most or all of the highly compartmentalized rural areas of Afghanistan where we are fought by locals simply because we are there and increasing the Taliban's political capital as a result.

One of the most important takeaways for the average viewer, listener or reader is to understand the distinction between the actual Taliban ('Taliban Central') and those Pashtuns who, in their localized areas, are simply aligned with the Taliban. They align with the Taliban because they do not want to be occupied and they do not want a distant central government ruling over them and bringing in taxes.

While the episode is titled "Leaving Afghanistan," Hoh does not advocate a complete withdrawal. Rather, he advocates - as I understand - negotiated ceasefires (each very localized in nature) in order to allow the local populations/communities/tribes a measure of autonomy and self-governance in order to politically diminish the relationship between them and the Taliban and to politically weaken the Taliban. Left would be peace-keeping forces in Kabul and in the areas where the three primary ethnic groups territories meet.

He is spot on when he describes how the term Taliban is used too broadly and loosely. The first rule of warfare is to properly identify your enemy. Hoh is challenging you to revisit that. You may or may not agree with what Matthew Hoh is saying or the solutions as he sees them, but as John Derbyshire said, "He is an honest man."

His observations deserve your consideration.

By Steve Schippert | Permalink | Feedback (0)

In today's DailyBriefing, the first item highlighted is Attorney General Eric Holder saying that Usama bin Laden has the same rights as Charles Manson. What he actually said is far worse than that, as you will hear in the first minute of the video clip of his testimony below. The Attorney General's exchange with Texas Representative John Culberson is eye-opening for those who have napped through the dissolution of the Artist Formerly Known As The War on Terror (aka. Overseas Contingency Operations).

Eric Holder holds that the rights that should be afforded to terrorists who have declared war on the United States and executed their mayhem and killed Americans are to be based on their crime, not upon their citizenship status or the fact that they are enemy combatants at war. Simply astounding.

HOLDER: The comparison to 'are they getting more rights than the American citizen' is not an apt one. The question is are they being treated as murderers are treated? And the answer to that is yes. They have the same rights as a Charles Manson would have, any other kind of mass murderer. Those are the types of comparisons people should be making when trying make the determination about how terrorists are being treated, and not compare them to average citizens who have created no harm, have committed no crimes.

CULBERSON: You said that terrorists have the same rights as Charles Manson, correct?

HOLDER: I said that murderers have the same rights as Charles Manson. And if these people are charged with murder, then in essence, that's - those are the kinds of rights that they would get.

CULBERSON: Terrorists who have murdered American citizens - and the approach of your Department of Justice is that they would have the same rights as Charles Manson?

HOLDER: In the sense that a murderer has the right to go before a jury and get the acts that he is charged with proved beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes.

CULBERSON: So, therefor, Usama bin Laden has the same rights as Charles Manson.

HOLDER: In some ways, I think that they're comparable people in some ways, uh...

CULBERSON: That's incredible. This is where the disconnect between this administration, and your mindset, is so completely, uh, opposite that of where the vast majority of the American people are.

Holder went on to say that bin Laden would be killed rather than captured alive, that Miranda rights would be "read to the corpse of bin Laden." First, it is true enough that it is highly unlikely that bin Laden would be captured alive. However, such a statement by the top American justice official smacks of predetermination and hypocrisy similar to the pronouncement that there is no way Khalid Sheikh Muhammed would ever be found not guilty. One simply cannot have it both ways.

Citizenship and the context of war and and captured enemies in that war have no bearing on the rights of the captured. The only consideration is the crime.

If you're like me, you're just about speechless.

UPDATE: For amusement purposes, here is a particularly tickler of a headline for you in the aftermath of criticism - such as my own above.

Justice Department Accuses Republicans of Being Weak on Terrorism

The world and reality are turned on their heads.

By Steve Schippert | Permalink | Feedback (0)

The UK's Telegraph asks in a biting commentary, Is China's Politburo spoiling for a showdown with America? The short answer is yes, of course. As is its Peoples Liberation Army military leadership.

And while the commentary whistles by concerns that are not limited to the Chinese - such as the value of the dollar amid profligate US government spending that seems to know no bounds - the Chinese lectures contained within deserve sharp rebuke.

For all of the faults of the US government's hand in the flailing American economy, it frankly will be a cold day in hell when Chinese lectures to anyone this side of the Iranian regime on "workers' rights" and "human rights" warrant merit beyond comic strip anecdotes.

"I don't think the yuan is undervalued. We oppose countries pointing fingers at each other and even forcing a country to appreciate its currency," [Chinese premier Wen Jiabao] said yesterday. Once again he demanded that the US takes "concrete steps to reassure investors" over the safety of US assets.

"Some say China has got more arrogant and tough. Some put forward the theory of China's so-called 'triumphalism'. My conscience is untainted despite slanders from outside," he said

Days earlier the State Council accused America of serial villainy. "In the US, civil and political rights of citizens are severely restricted and violated by the government. Workers' rights are seriously violated," it said.

"The US, with its strong military power, has pursued hegemony in the world, trampling upon the sovereignty of other countries and trespassing their human rights," it said.

"At a time when the world is suffering a serious human rights disaster caused by the US subprime crisis-induced global financial crisis, the US government revels in accusing other countries." And so forth.

We have some very real issues to tackle in the United States with regard to government spending, unfunded liabilities, government interventions and manipulations on the free market and protecting the value of the US Dollar.

But human rights and workers' rights are not among them. And anyone who gives an ounce of credence to such libelous Chinese (and U.S. State Department?) rhetoric is so deeply jaded that reality stands not a chance.

By Steve Schippert | Permalink | Feedback (0)

Anwar al Awlaki is connected to each of the following: Nidel Hassan (Ft. Hood), Najibullah Zazi, Jihad Jane (aka Colleen R. LaRose), Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, Sharif Mobley and who knows who else.

Even if Mobley's father's claim is true that his son "is no terrorist" he is connected to al Awlaki and he did work at potentially five nuclear sites (have to agree with Sen. Schumer on this one - "We simply cannot tolerate at any time having someone with terrorist ties working at a nuclear plant, period."

It cannot be too far fetched to believe that a a drone could be in al Awlaki's future.

He at least has to be considered a high value target.

By Jay Fraser | Permalink | Feedback (0)

Mexico is getting out of control. While we should be sure not to make more out of this incident than it is, the killing of a US Consulate employee and her husband as well as the slaying of the wife of another consulate employee in Juarez is bad enough on its face and a sign that Mexico is having a difficult time curbing the drug violence ravaging the notoriously corrupt country.

Gunmen believed to be drug traffickers shot an American consulate worker and her husband to death over the weekend in the violence-racked border town of Ciudad Juárez, and killed the husband of another consular employee and wounded his two young children, the authorities said Sunday.

Jorge Alberto Salcido Ceniceros, 37, the husband of an employee of the American Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, was killed in a drive-by shooting on Saturday in Ciudad Juarez.
Related

President Obama expressed outrage at the "brutal murders" and in a statement from the White House vowed to "work tirelessly" with Mexican law enforcement officials to bring the killers to justice.

We echo the president's outrage while also acknowledging that Mexico is tip-toeing the tightrope of democracy and civility with a hungry, drug trade-infused anarchy waiting below for a fall.

By Steve Schippert | Permalink | Feedback (1)

The generally quite good Los Angeles Times blog "Babylon & Beyond" runs the following headline: DUBAI: Questions continue to surround alleged Mossad killing of Hamas operative.

The only question I have for the Los Angeles Times, the UAE and the EU (et al) is this: Is the co-founder of Hamas' "military wing" Izadin al-Qassam Brigades still dead?

Wake me when the answer is "No."

That is all.

Carry on.

By Steve Schippert | Permalink | Feedback (0)