Monthly Archives: August 2014

In Which Governor Jindal Has the Right of It

Posted on by
Reply

Governor Bobby Jindal (R, LA) has some thoughts on the proper way to deal with ISIS and its ilk in a recent op-ed for Fox News.

I listened to the president last week as he appropriately conveyed Americans’ revulsion at this savage act and our grief at the Foley family’s loss. As usual, the president’s words were very eloquent. To his credit, the president was unequivocal regarding the evil of this terrorist group, and he took the time to list some of their crimes against humanity.

But.

The president said that when people harm Americans, “we do what’s necessary to see that justice is done and we act against ISIL, standing alongside others.” What? Here’s an idea—how about we offer these people death instead of justice?

Because President Barack Obama’s view of “justice” is a court room and a forum for terrorists who are making war against us and against humanity in general.

Here’s another way the president could phrase it, “we will hunt them down and kill them.…”

The president also said the people of Iraq, “must continue coming together to expel these terrorists from their community.” Um, no. They do not need to be expelled. They need to be eliminated.

And

[T]hese people [ISIS] will only fail if we cause them to fail. It is not inevitable. Causing them to fail requires that they be defeated, destroyed, and yes, killed.

RTWT. What he said.

Paying Ransom

Posted on by
Reply

Although I’m writing this article in the context of terrorist kidnappings, it should be noted that the principles discussed apply to any form of kidnapping.

The beheading of freelance journalist James Foley has forced a new debate between the longtime US and British refusal to negotiate with terrorists, and Europe and the Persian Gulf’s increasing willingness to pay ransoms in a desperate attempt to free citizens.

The case:

The dilemma: How to save the lives of captives without financing terror groups and encouraging more kidnappings.

Here’s the misunderstanding:

By paying ransoms, governments in the Mideast and Europe have become some of the biggest financiers of terror groups. By refusing to do likewise, the US and Britain are in the thankless position of putting their own citizens at a disadvantage.

The utilitarian side of this is that the ransoms do two things: they reward the terrorists for their labor—ransoms are nothing more than wages for work done—and ransoms fund terrorists’ future activities, from additional kidnappings as a continued source of funding to additional acts of outright terror.

As State’s Deputy Spokeswoman Marie Harf has indicated, ISIS already has collected millions of dollars in ransoms this year alone. That funds far more than additional kidnappings (although the ROI on kidnappings certainly has been attractive in its own right), it pays for a lot of terrorism, and not only for ISIS but for their clients. Those millions of dollars, also, is money with which to buy nuclear weapons from Iran and/or northern Korea.

Here’s Clinton Van Zandt, the FBI’s former chief hostage negotiator:

…government-paid ransoms help create “a growing cottage industry in kidnap ransoms.”

“You may get that person back that time, but what you’ve done is put a price tag on the head of every American overseas. And you’ve advertised that we pay to get Americans back.”

The moral side of paying ransom is quite simply stated: those who pay put the one they think they’re rescuing at risk of further kidnappings, both from the original kidnappers and from others who are looking for funding. Worse than that, those who pay the ransom are extending that risk to complete strangers. By making kidnapping a profitable enterprise, those payers make everyone a potentially profitable target for the project.

Paying the ransom also makes the payer, morally if not legally, an accessory to the crime: it’s tantamount to aiding and abetting; in the case of terrorists, it’s the moral equivalent of giving aid and succor to the enemy in time of war.

Clearly, then, the ones who put others at disadvantage are those who pay the “kidnappers” for their labors. And these also put their own citizens at greater risk by demonstrating empirically the returns to be had from the labor.

On the other hand, there is a morally, as well as politically and fiscally, sound alternative: to attempt rescue of hostages. That was how the US freed hostages in Colombia in 2008, for example, and Israel rescued hostages in Entebbe in 1976. That such efforts aren’t universally successful is demonstrated by the American attempt with Foley, the Son Tay raid in 1970, and the raid into Iran in 1980. However, it’s entirely too likely (although not certain) that the kidnapped victims will be killed, anyway. Such rescue attempts represent the only legitimate means, and they don’t pay the terrorists for their kidnapping labors.

This is, to be sure, a tough decision to make, wrought with emotion, but for all that, it’s the only right answer. We cannot betray the victims or their honor by attempting to purchase a sometime, ephemeral release.

—–

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

And

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate:
“To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods….

The Democrat’s View of “Justice”

Posted on by
Reply

[State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D, MO)] predicted Friday that if prosecutors don’t win a conviction against the police officer who shot 18-year-old Michael Brown, it could trigger a new wave of unrest in Ferguson.

“There’s several people out there including the protesters that I’ve been with this morning who seem to feel as though there won’t be a conviction,” she told Fox News.

“If that happens, we’re going to have exactly what you saw two weeks ago, with a lot of tear gas going all over the place.”

There is, after all, only one Politically Correct outcome, and the facts don’t matter. Chappelle-Nadal will be sure and join the protestors to ensure the right outcome is achieved. Never mind a jury’s verdict.

And

[Senator Claire McCaskill’s, D, MO] office said Friday that the Department of Justice hasn’t given a timeline for the federal investigation, which centers on whether a civil rights violation occurred when officer Darren Wilson fatally shot the unarmed Michael Brown on Aug 9.

Nor will DoJ give a timeline. They’ll also not release their results until after the grand jury, and if necessary the subsequent trial, reach the wrong answer.

Because, votes.

The Terrorist Threat

Posted on by
Reply

UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron had some thoughts.

Stability. Security. The peace of mind that comes from being able to get a decent job and provide for your family, in a country that you feel has a good future ahead of it and that treats people fairly. In a nutshell, that is what people in Britain want

And

I agree that we should avoid sending armies to fight or occupy. But we need to recognise that the brighter future we long for requires a long-term plan for our security as well as for our economy. True security will only be achieved if we use all our resources—aid, diplomacy, our military prowess—to help bring about a more stable world.

And

The creation of an extremist caliphate in the heart of Iraq and extending into Syria is not a problem miles away from home. Nor is it a problem that should be defined by a war 10 years ago. It is our concern here and now. Because if we do not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement, it will only grow stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain. We already know that it has the murderous intent. Indeed, the first ISIL-inspired terrorist acts on the continent of Europe have already taken place.

And

[W]e need a firm security response, whether that is military action to go after the terrorists, international co-operation on intelligence and counter-terrorism, or uncompromising action against terrorists at home. On Friday we agreed with our European partners that we will provide equipment directly to the Kurdish forces; we are now identifying what we might supply, from body armour to specialist counter-explosive equipment.

And

We are in the middle of a generational struggle against a poisonous and extremist ideology, which I believe we will be fighting for the rest of my political lifetime. We face in ISIL a new threat that is single-minded, determined, and unflinching in pursuit of its objectives. … It makes no secret of its expansionist aims.

And concluding [emphasis added]:

This is a clear danger to Europe and to our security. It is a daunting challenge. But it is not an invincible one, as long as we are now ready and able to summon up the political will to defend our own values and way of life with the same determination, courage, and tenacity as we have faced danger before in our history. That is how much is at stake here: we have no choice but to rise to the challenge.

I disagree with Cameron’s statement only to this extent: the terrorists have created a “caliphate” only to the extent we recognize it; otherwise, it’s only a figment of the fevered imagination of a mob of terrorists.

Beyond that, what he said. He also has some concrete ideas on how to deal with domestic and domestic-grown terrorists. RTWT.

If only our President had some thoughts….

“US special forces tried to rescue hostages in Syria but failed”

Posted on by
Reply

So screamed a recent Fox News headline. And

The Obama administration sent US troops to Syria recently to attempt to rescue hostages being held by Islamic State militants, including journalist James Foley, but failed to find them, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

But why is the Obama administration mentioning this now, just after the beheading of Foley by these terrorists? There’s no reason at all, other than as another self-serving claim to be doing something in order to show that they’re doing something in response (!) to an act of monstrous barbarity. This administration also claims ISIS terrorists were killed in the raid. Really? Where—in the aftermath of that failure, or now, in the aftermath of the claim of that effort—are ISIS’ braggings about having inflicted such a defeat on the Great Satin?

Also, why is the Obama administration giving up this classified (or it should be) information at all?

NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden said in a statement that the administration had not planned to release details of the operation, out of concern for the safety of the hostages. However, she said, it became clear Wednesday it would be reported in the media and the administration had “no choice but to acknowledge it.”

This makes no sense. If Obama’s administration didn’t leak any of this information, on what basis does it claim this information “would be reported in the media?”

Worse, giving up information about the raid (if it occurred), gives critical information concerning methods and sources to the terrorists, and to anyone else who’s listening, endangering friendly lives and hindering the ability to execute future ops of this type.

Of course, the Obama administration understands all of that. Which brings me back to that earlier purpose, mentioned above. This exposure is all about making Obama and his administration look good in the shower. As illogical as that seems, as immoral as that is, it’s entirely consistent with this administration’s performance these last six years. This act is all about Obama and his administration, and not at all about the safety of American troops or of American civilians situated overseas. After all, after his pretty speech about the beheading, and while Obama’s Own were blatting on about this failed raid, President Barack Obama went back to his golf game and his vacation.

 

Finally, a quibble. This butchery was by ISIS terrorists, not any nation. Full stop. The press really needs to stop muddying the situation, and it really needs to stop legitimizing these terrorists by euphemizing them.