Steyn points out that we’re back to the law-enforcement model for combatting terrorism:
[T]he President’s remarks had a horrible desiccated complacency. “Alleged…” “suspect…” “charged…” – because this is no different from a punk holding up a gas station, right? In all their alleged allegedness, this Administration has an allergy to the concept of war, and thus to the tools of war, including strategy and war aims. In essence, they’ve accepted a Fort Hood model for this challenge: every so often, something will happen and people will die, and we’ll seal off the crime scene and take the alleged suspect into alleged custody. But it’s reactive, and it cripples our ability to prevent the death of innocents.
There’s a difference between an alleged suspect (which is what he is is the President’s fantasy) and an enemy combatant (which is what he is in reality). If this were a war, we would question him about who he hooked up with in Yemen, who did he meet with in London, and maybe get a lead on attacks to come. Instead, the authorities, having issued the Knickerbomber a multi-entry visa, having permitted him to board the plane, and having failed to detect his incendiary unwear, now allow him to lawyer up and ensure that we’ll never know who he knew in Yemen or anywhere else.
As far as I can understand it, this administration wants to go back to the naive pre-9/11 policies of treating Islamic terrorism as if it were a criminal justice issue.
That is going to lead directly to tremendous loss of life.
More at the link, including some stuff from Derb and from Jonah G. that I haven’t read yet.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Exactly,
That’s why Obama’s doubled the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
I really can’t believe you take twits like Steyn and Goldberg seriously, LMA.
I like Goldberg. I like Steyn, except for the compulsive punning and the weirdness about immigration.