Oklahoma City Bombing 15th Anniversary


sbeaulieu

Recommended Posts

FOX NEWS

Napolitano: Issue is 'Turn to violence'

Article on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

The only thing that really drew my attention was Napolitano's comment that this was not an ideology issue, instead being a "turn to violence." Am I wrong in disagreeing? No matter the level of disagreement, change would have to come from ideological perspective. Initiating force as a solution would only temper the ideology.

I do agree with local law enforcement tactical intelligence-based threat information that they can be acted upon to protect citizens.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOX NEWS

Napolitano: Issue is 'Turn to violence'

Article on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

The only thing that really drew my attention was Napolitano's comment that this was not an ideology issue, instead being a "turn to violence." Am I wrong in disagreeing? No matter the level of disagreement, change would have to come from ideological perspective. Initiating force as a solution would only temper the ideology.

I do agree with local law enforcement tactical intelligence-based threat information that they can be acted upon to protect citizens.

~ Shane

It'd be nice if the feds also didn't "turn to violence," don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOX NEWS

Napolitano: Issue is 'Turn to violence'

Article on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

The only thing that really drew my attention was Napolitano's comment that this was not an ideology issue, instead being a "turn to violence." Am I wrong in disagreeing? No matter the level of disagreement, change would have to come from ideological perspective. Initiating force as a solution would only temper the ideology.

I do agree with local law enforcement tactical intelligence-based threat information that they can be acted upon to protect citizens.

~ Shane

It'd be nice if the feds also didn't "turn to violence," don't you think?

Yep. I think that's a consequence of a defensive posture, enacted as a reaction to an enemy in the final stages of perpetrating their objective. Extremely tactical in nature. Government should be devising a strategic and operational stance on effecting changes to ideology. The tactical part should be left to local agencies, and measured violence to deter any given situation to protect its citizens.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that really drew my attention was Napolitano's comment that this was not an ideology issue, instead being a "turn to violence." Am I wrong in disagreeing?

The present administration is being pushed from the left to crack down on rightwing and patriotic groups. Over on Rebirth of Reason, I posted a Topic about Christian, Conservative and Rightwing Terrorism and got a lot of flak from conservatives who are in denial about the threat. I found out about the extent of this attack on constitutional government while writing about LEFTWING terrorism -- the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and ALF (Animal Liberation Front) -- for a law enforcment class. Some on the left claimed a "green scare" analogous to the "red scares" of the 1920s and 1950s. So, I followed those leads and actually contributed to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC is way overboard about "patriots" of all stripes, but, basically, yes, unlike the ELF and even the nutcases in the ALF, the rightwing guys acually SHOOT at police and FBI. That's pretty serious.

I can support that with outtake from two books, both by former FBI administrators. The thing is though, that the FBI can usually TALK to the rightwing guys because they share a common military experience, common Christian _core_ values (monogamy, for example), and common respect for American traditions. On the other hand the FBI found it impossible to talk to ELF: too much cultural distance.

So, Janet Napolitano, is pulling to the center on this, bless her heart.

My website, Washtenaw Justice

http://www.washtenawjustice.com/

Edited by Michael E. Marotta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOX NEWS

Napolitano: Issue is 'Turn to violence'

Article on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

The only thing that really drew my attention was Napolitano's comment that this was not an ideology issue, instead being a "turn to violence." Am I wrong in disagreeing? No matter the level of disagreement, change would have to come from ideological perspective. Initiating force as a solution would only temper the ideology.

I do agree with local law enforcement tactical intelligence-based threat information that they can be acted upon to protect citizens.

~ Shane

1. Napolitano does not understand that we are in a war. She sees the problem as dealing with criminal behavior. I am afraid the Democrats just don't "get it".

2. If she thinks religious fanaticism can be "cured" by rational discussion she is greatly mistaken. The only cure for religious fanaticism that I am aware of is cessation of life function. When fanatics die or or killed they cease to be fanatical.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOX NEWS

Napolitano: Issue is 'Turn to violence'

Article on the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing.

The only thing that really drew my attention was Napolitano's comment that this was not an ideology issue, instead being a "turn to violence." Am I wrong in disagreeing? No matter the level of disagreement, change would have to come from ideological perspective. Initiating force as a solution would only temper the ideology.

I do agree with local law enforcement tactical intelligence-based threat information that they can be acted upon to protect citizens.

~ Shane

1. Napolitano does not understand that we are in a war. She sees the problem as dealing with criminal behavior. I am afraid the Democrats just don't "get it".

Was there a declaration of war?

What is the difference between war and criminal behavior? How does that difference apply to the example of terrorism?

2. If she thinks religious fanaticism can be "cured" by rational discussion she is greatly mistaken. The only cure for religious fanaticism that I am aware of is cessation of life function. When fanatics die or or killed they cease to be fanatical.

I'm not sure the problem is fanaticism per se as violence. But let's say it's fanaticism. I doubt you're right that the only way to change a fanatic is to kill her or him. Why do you believe that's the case?

And why would fanaticism matter unless it were violent? I'm sure you'd agree that fanatical religious pacificists pose almost no problem to anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was there a declaration of war?

All of our wars since WW2 have not been legally declared by Congress. They are de facto wars with one kicker --- Congress is willing to fund them.

Declarations of War, even though required by the Constitution are a thing of the past.

The Viet Nam War was never declared by 60,000 of our people died in it and it cost the U.S. a fortune. So much for declarations.

Our nation was attacked on 9/11/2001. Declaration on no declaration war has been made upon us. We have responded (badly, I must say) by conducting a war in Iraq and more recently in Afghanistan.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was there a declaration of war?

All of our wars since WW2 have not been legally declared by Congress. They are de facto wars with one kicker --- Congress is willing to fund them.

Declarations of War, even though required by the Constitution are a thing of the past.

The Viet Nam War was never declared by 60,000 of our people died in it and it cost the U.S. a fortune. So much for declarations.

Don't you think that's part of the problem: a government can carry out a war without really caring much about its own constitutional limits?

Our nation was attacked on 9/11/2001. Declaration on no declaration war has been made upon us. We have responded (badly, I must say) by conducting a war in Iraq and more recently in Afghanistan.

"We" didn't respond. The government did some stuff -- invaded two other nation states, violated the rights of its subjects, etc. I don't recall being consulted or even having my consent asked for in this matter.

Also, what happened in the 2001 attacks was "criminal behavior," specifically murder and willful destruction of property. Why do you view as anything but criminal behavior? (And please stop playing the violin. You're not the only person who was or was close to anyone directly affected by the 2001 attacks. Some of us, however, just have better manners and respect than to wave the bloody shirt around as if that were an argument.)

Edited by Dan Ust
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was there a declaration of war?

All of our wars since WW2 have not been legally declared by Congress. They are de facto wars with one kicker --- Congress is willing to fund them.

Declarations of War, even though required by the Constitution are a thing of the past.

The Viet Nam War was never declared by 60,000 of our people died in it and it cost the U.S. a fortune. So much for declarations.

Don't you think that's part of the problem: a government can carry out a war without really caring much about its own constitutional limits?

Our nation was attacked on 9/11/2001. Declaration on no declaration war has been made upon us. We have responded (badly, I must say) by conducting a war in Iraq and more recently in Afghanistan.

"We" didn't respond. The government did some stuff -- invaded two other nation states, violated the rights of its subjects, etc. I don't recall being consulted or even having my consent asked for in this matter.

Also, what happened in the 2001 attacks was "criminal behavior," specifically murder and willful destruction of property. Why do you view as anything but criminal behavior? (And please stop playing the violin. You're not the only person who was or was close to anyone directly affected by the 2001 attacks. Some of us, however, just have better manners and respect than to wave the bloody shirt around as if that were an argument.)

The 2001 outrage was war, plain and simple. The proper response would have been for Pres. Bush to draft a Letter of Marque and Reprisal against Al Queda or any other Islamic Terror group and for Congress to have endorsed it. Then everything would have been bothy legal and constitutional.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

What would you suggest should be the course of action in bringing the perpetrators of 9/1l to justice, then? If it's criminal behavior, do we just sit back and wait for Saudi Arabia to go and find Osama? Do we ask the Afghan gov't to do the same?

Waging war on terror was, in my opinion, the only way to get international involvement. Since it wasn't explicity another country's involvement, I can see why war wasn't "declared." But something had to be done. Sitting on our laurels will only convey that any extremist entity can do as they please on our soil.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2001 outrage was war, plain and simple.

A little food for thought:

You may remember that within a day of the attacks, Bush was on TV saying it was an act of war. He used those exact words. I was at lunch with colleagues, and expressed shock, which earned me some strange looks. The reason, I went on to explain, was that every property insurance policy I’ve seen has an exclusion for acts of war. So the insurance companies could have denied claims, because the President’s (or rather his speechwriter’s) bad choice of words. I never heard Bush use those words again. Now, it didn’t work out badly, yes there was a dispute over whether the WTC attacks were one or two “events”, but they didn’t try to deny the claim outright. Since the attacks they’ve added new terrorism riders, basically a separate policy, which of course your lender requires you to buy.

I can’t resist sharing a tangential anecdote, a well educated accountant I was working with at the time suggested that the WTC attacks would be good for the economy, since the towers would have to be rebuilt. It would be stimulative. The old dig ditches and then fill them in again mentality, I bet he took macroeconomics with a Keynesian. And still believes it. Meanwhile this company, thousands of miles from NY, saw its property insurance premiums nearly triple immediately, and the profit for the next year disappear in consequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was there a declaration of war?

All of our wars since WW2 have not been legally declared by Congress. They are de facto wars with one kicker --- Congress is willing to fund them.

Declarations of War, even though required by the Constitution are a thing of the past.

The Viet Nam War was never declared by 60,000 of our people died in it and it cost the U.S. a fortune. So much for declarations.

Don't you think that's part of the problem: a government can carry out a war without really caring much about its own constitutional limits?

Our nation was attacked on 9/11/2001. Declaration on no declaration war has been made upon us. We have responded (badly, I must say) by conducting a war in Iraq and more recently in Afghanistan.

"We" didn't respond. The government did some stuff -- invaded two other nation states, violated the rights of its subjects, etc. I don't recall being consulted or even having my consent asked for in this matter.

Also, what happened in the 2001 attacks was "criminal behavior," specifically murder and willful destruction of property. Why do you view as anything but criminal behavior? (And please stop playing the violin. You're not the only person who was or was close to anyone directly affected by the 2001 attacks. Some of us, however, just have better manners and respect than to wave the bloody shirt around as if that were an argument.)

The 2001 outrage was war, plain and simple.

Was it not '"criminal behavior," specifically murder and willful destruction of property'? What is the relevant difference to you? How are you drawing this line here?

The proper response would have been for Pres. Bush to draft a Letter of Marque and Reprisal against Al Queda or any other Islamic Terror group and for Congress to have endorsed it. Then everything would have been bothy legal and constitutional.

Why any other alleged "Islamic Terror group" -- if said group was not involved either in the specific incident or with Al Qaeda (presuming that the official conspiracy theory of Al Qaeda attacking is true)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

What would you suggest should be the course of action in bringing the perpetrators of 9/1l to justice, then? If it's criminal behavior, do we just sit back and wait for Saudi Arabia to go and find Osama? Do we ask the Afghan gov't to do the same?

I'd suggest an investigation to find the perpetrators -- or, in this case, their fellow co-conspirators because the official story seems to be the attackers are all dead. After that, apprehending them via means that do not involve violating the rights of innocents. (For example, the police shouldn't be able to blow up an apartment building with dozens of innocent bystanders because a murderer is now living in one unit.)

Also, I'd advise getting rid of the US government and its military in the same manner that one would get rid of any protection firm that proved not up to the task. Its handling of early warning and intelligence was bumbling at best. Its military's main headquarters was even successfully attacked! That shows that the trillions of dollars its spent on protection were wasted. The level of incompetence here and mishandling of funds seems criminal. And having a more rational protection policy in place would seem the reasonable course to prevent future attacks -- instead of keeping the same incompetents in place.

Waging war on terror was, in my opinion, the only way to get international involvement. Since it wasn't explicity another country's involvement, I can see why war wasn't "declared." But something had to be done. Sitting on our laurels will only convey that any extremist entity can do as they please on our soil.

~ Shane

I'm unsure why this is so. Other criminals are pursued internationally without pretend there's, say, a war on murder, a war on rape, or war on whatever criminal activity one cares to mention.

War wasn't declared, in my view, because wars simply don't get declared any more -- not since Korea. Why wasn't war declared against North Korea? What about being declared later on against North Vietnam or any other nation state the US carried out large-scale military operations against, such as Iraq in both Persian Gulf wars? It doesn't seem to me that it didn't happen because there was no return address, so to speak, for the adversary...

I also think the reason for this -- for no declarations of war in the last sixty years -- probably lies more with the continued growth of arbitrary executive power than with anything else -- giving the executive ever more power to decide when and where to use government military forces as it pleases with minimal Congressional input, thereby overriding a supposed "check and balance" on the power to make war. In this particular case, too, the US could have declared war on Afghanistan. I'm not saying I'd recommend that, but what was the hold up on doing that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2001 outrage was war, plain and simple.

A little food for thought:

You may remember that within a day of the attacks, Bush was on TV saying it was an act of war. He used those exact words. I was at lunch with colleagues, and expressed shock, which earned me some strange looks. The reason, I went on to explain, was that every property insurance policy I've seen has an exclusion for acts of war. So the insurance companies could have denied claims, because the President's (or rather his speechwriter's) bad choice of words. I never heard Bush use those words again. Now, it didn't work out badly, yes there was a dispute over whether the WTC attacks were one or two "events", but they didn't try to deny the claim outright. Since the attacks they've added new terrorism riders, basically a separate policy, which of course your lender requires you to buy.

I wonder why no one involved in the WTC insurance case brought that up... Maybe because no war was declared?

I can't resist sharing a tangential anecdote, a well educated accountant I was working with at the time suggested that the WTC attacks would be good for the economy, since the towers would have to be rebuilt. It would be stimulative. The old dig ditches and then fill them in again mentality, I bet he took macroeconomics with a Keynesian. And still believes it. Meanwhile this company, thousands of miles from NY, saw its property insurance premiums nearly triple immediately, and the profit for the next year disappear in consequence.

Sad to report, that particular view -- that destruction somehow leads to more wealth -- actually pre-dates Keynes and seems very widespread even apart from Keynes and Keynesians. This is why Bastiat wrote his famous essay on this in the middle of the 19th century. The view arises again and again whenever there's any sort of disaster. What's sad is that so many seemingly intelligent people mouth it from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suggest an investigation to find the perpetrators -- or, in this case, their fellow co-conspirators because the official story seems to be the attackers are all dead. After that, apprehending them via means that do not involve violating the rights of innocents. (For example, the police shouldn't be able to blow up an apartment building with dozens of innocent bystanders because a murderer is now living in one unit.)

Couldn't agree more. But how? If the local governments won't lift a finger to apprehend those we know to be behind the 9/11 attacks, what choice do we have but to send our military to do their job for them?

Also, I'd advise getting rid of the US government and its military in the same manner that one would get rid of any protection firm that proved not up to the task. Its handling of early warning and intelligence was bumbling at best. Its military's main headquarters was even successfully attacked! That shows that the trillions of dollars its spent on protection were wasted. The level of incompetence here and mishandling of funds seems criminal. And having a more rational protection policy in place would seem the reasonable course to prevent future attacks -- instead of keeping the same incompetents in place.

While the military, in carrying out operations, might have some fault in implementation issues, the government is at fault. Like Vietnam (although not to such a blatant degree), the government tells us what to do. The military exercises some latitude, but the final call on most issues comes down to the CINC. This conflict is definitely a money pit. The costs are staggering.

I'm unsure why this is so. Other criminals are pursued internationally without pretend there's, say, a war on murder, a war on rape, or war on whatever criminal activity one cares to mention.

The only similarity I can draw with terrorism is organized crime. Their resources seem limitless. Murder, rape are very focused crimes (although attributable to terrorism and organized crime). The difference being that it's only one dish in a menu of many these two entities "provide." As you can see, the international community at large does not have a handle on controlling/reducing either.

I also think the reason for this -- for no declarations of war in the last sixty years -- probably lies more with the continued growth of arbitrary executive power than with anything else -- giving the executive ever more power to decide when and where to use government military forces as it pleases with minimal Congressional input, thereby overriding a supposed "check and balance" on the power to make war. In this particular case, too, the US could have declared war on Afghanistan. I'm not saying I'd recommend that, but what was the hold up on doing that?

You might be on to something here about executive power. And by that, I mean no necessity to follow Geneva conventions for providing PoW status to captured enemies. Without declaring war, certain rules can be thrown out. I'm mixed on this particular issue, in that I'm certain some of the captured were innocent. Some were not and are now walking free to carry out more attacks (and we've seen examples of this).

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now