[On Jan. 6, 2022] Ted Cruz walked back his use of the word "terrorist" when describing Jan. 6. "What I was referring to are the limited number of people who engaged in violent attacks against police officers. I think you and I both agree that if you assault a police officer, you should go to jail," Cruz said. "I wasn't saying the thousands of peaceful protesters supporting Donald Trump are somehow terrorists. I wasn't saying the millions of patriots across the country supporting Trump are terrorists."
The following month, the Xinjiang Party Committee launched a ..year-long Counterterrorism Strike Hard Campaign that has been subsequently extended. Officials seen adopting a "soft" approach in governance were promptly replaced.
Nearly a million Uighurs and other indigenous people in Xinjiang have been rounded up and interned in what Chinese authorities call "vocational education and training centres" since the spring of 2017, as part of the Re-education campaign.
"Teach like a school, manage like the military, and defend like a prison"--this has been the approach in running these centres. Detainees are held without legal recourse
PROMISE KEPT: (Reuters, April 14, 2021): Biden plans to announce at the White House that all U.S. troops in Afghanistan will be withdrawn no later than Sept. 11, senior U.S. officials said. The Democratic president had faced a May 1 withdrawal deadline, set by his Republican predecessor, Donald Trump, who tried but failed to pull the troops out before he left office. Biden's decision will keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan pas
BIDEN: Yes, I would. It's now public knowledge: I was opposed to the significant increase in our presence, at the time [of Obama's "surge"], in Afghanistan, and because I thought the only presence we should have is a counterterrorism presence, not a counterinsurgency presence. The idea that we're ever going to break up the counterinsurgency network in Western Pakistan is just not going to happen. But we have to be in a position where we can make it clear that if need be, we could respond to terrorist activities coming out of that region, directed toward the United States. It does not require a large force presence. We got that presence down to lower than it is now. This President is the one that has increased the number, not reduced the number.
BLOOMBERG: No. You want to cut it back as much as you can, but I think, if we learned something from 9/11, people plan things overseas and execute them here. We have to be able to stop terrorism. And there's no guarantees that you're going to be able to do it, but we have to have some troops in places where terrorists congregate, and to not do so is just irresponsible. We shouldn't be fighting wars that we can't win. We should go to war only as a last resort. Nobody argues with that. But this is a dangerous world. And if we haven't learnt that after 9/11, I don't know what's going to teach us what to.
His administration's approach to counterterrorism was controversial, with his increased surveillance measures drawing criticism for relying on racial and religious profiling and violating civil liberties. In the wake of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, he argued that "our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change" to accommodate increased surveillance and other restrictions necessary to ensure public safety.
He argues that technology companies should be required to cooperate with government investigations by sharing customer data.
Patrick, who weathered criticism over his decision to shut down Boston's public services and bring in National Guard troops during the attacks, also argued that law enforcement must use their surveillance power prudently and that a mentality of "permanent lockdown" must be avoided to preserve American liberties.
Walsh previously accused the Barack Obama administration of skewing intelligence to downplay the threat posed by terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State.
He has opposed readmitting into the United States former citizens who renounced their citizenship to join terrorist groups.
YANG: First, we have to designate white supremacist terrorism as domestic terrorism so the Department of Justice can measure it. We have to create paths forward for men who are falling through the cracks. When you look at gun violence, 96 percent-plus of the shooters are boys and young men. We have to find ways to turn our boys into healthy, strong young men who do not hate, but instead feel like they have paths forward in today's economy.
WARREN: We're not going to bomb our way to a solution in Afghanistan. We need to treat the problem of terrorism as a worldwide problem, and that means we need to be working with all of our allies, our European allies, our Canadian allies, our Asian allies, our allies in Africa and in South America. We need to work together to root out terrorism.
Q: U.S. military leaders on the ground in Afghanistan say you can't do it without a deal with the Taliban. You said you would bring them home [without that].
WARREN: I was in Afghanistan with John McCain two years ago this past summer. We asked, "Show me what winning looks like." And what you hear is a lot of, "Uh," because no one can describe it. And the reason no one can describe it is because the problems in Afghanistan are not problems that can be solved by a military. The military will do anything we ask them to do. But we cannot ask them to solve problems that they alone cannot solve.
GILLIBRAND: Absolutely. And as President I would direct my Department of Justice to investigate white supremacy and other domestic terrorist groups to infiltrate them, to make sure we know if they're planning attacks, and to absolutely combat white supremacy in society because these groups are domestic terrorists.
WARREN: We need to call out white supremacy for what it is: domestic terrorism. And it poses a threat to the United States of America. We live in a country now where the president is advancing environmental racism, economic racism, criminal justice racism, health care racism. The way we do better is to fight back and show something better.
V.P. Joe BIDEN: I was responsible for getting 150,000 combat troops out of Iraq, and my son was one of them. I also think we should not have combat troops in Afghanistan. It's long overdue. It should end. We cannot go it alone in terms of dealing with terrorism. I would eliminate the act that allowed us to go into war. That's why we have to repair our alliances. We put together 65 countries to make sure we dealt with ISIS in Iraq and other places. That's what I would do. That's what I have done.
Sen. Bernie SANDERS: Joe voted for that war;I helped lead the oppositio
Q: Do you support or oppose the death penalty?
A: "I wouldn't take it off the table for the most extreme circumstances, like terrorism."
She called for a "humane" asylum application process, for immigration judges to be independent from the attorney general's office, and for "comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship."
"The part of ICE that's gonna survive under Homeland Security is the cross border terrorism, human trafficking, gun trafficking, and drug trafficking," she said. She said the resulting organization should be fully funded under a new name, and the "enforcement and removal" functions of ICE would become responsibilities of the Justice Department.
For example, climate change will lead to droughts. Droughts will lead to famine. Famine will drive desperate people to leave their homes in search of sustenance. Massive flows of displaced people will lead to refugee crises. Refugee crisis will lead to tension and instability across borders.
The hard truth is that climate change is going to cause terrible instability and desperation, and that will put American national security at risk. That's why as part of President Obama's national security strategy, climate change was identified as a national security threat of the highest priority.
"I think we should get rid of ICE," she said. "We should separate out two missions and do the anti-terrorism mission, the national security mission, and then on the other side, make sure you're doing-- looking at immigration as a humanitarian issue. These are civil issues."
Regarding ISIS, in Syria and Iraq, the terrorists' strongholds have been all but eliminated. The only remaining core US interest at stake is preventing ISIS from using those countries to mount future attacks against us.
Going forward, we need to be much more careful and focused about how we fight terrorism. We have to develop better criteria for when to intervene abroad. In particular, we should restrict our major counterterrorism efforts to instances in which our homeland is directly at risk. When it is not, we should avoid getting embroiled in civil wars and instead use diplomacy to rally international partners to assume the lead.
In addition to draining our resources and distorting our vision, the war on terror has caused us to undermine our own moral standards regarding torture, indefinite detention, and the use of force around the world, using drone strikes and other airstrikes that often result in high civilian casualties.
A heavy-handed military approach, with little transparency or accountability, doesn't enhance our security. It makes the problem worse.
That was then. After 82 days in office, Trump officially pronounced NATO rehabilitated, taking credit for transforming it into a modern, cost-sharing, terrorism-fighting pillar of American and European security. "I said it was obsolete," the president noted as he hosted NATO's secretary general. "It's no longer obsolete."
Never mind that the alliance has changed very little if at all in the last three months, and that whatever modest changes have been made were in train long before Trump entered the White House. After weeks of being lobbied, cajoled and educated by the leaders of Britain and Germany, not to mention "my generals," as he likes to call his national security team, Trump has found fresh virtue in a venerable organization.
The vast majority of individuals convicted for terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country. We have seen the attacks at home. We have seen the attacks in France, in Belgium, in Germany and all over the world.
It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur. Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values.
We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America--we cannot allow our Nation to become a sanctuary for extremists. That is why my Administration has been working on improved vetting procedures, and we will shortly take new steps to keep our Nation safe--and to keep out those who would do us harm.
PENCE: It is not time to start over at all. During the course of the campaign and since the outset of this administration, President Trump has made it clear he is going to use his authority as president under the law to put the safety and security of the American people first, especially when it comes to protecting this country from the threat that radical Islamic terrorism poses. The executive order is on a solid constitutional and statutory foundation. One court in Boston confirmed that. Another court in Washington came to a different decision. But we are very confident that, as we move through the process of these appeals, that the president's authority in this area will be upheld. In this case, the president used a list the Obama administration and the Congress identified of seven countries compromised by terrorism. It is within his authority to do it.
PENCE: Pres. Trump has made it clear he's going to put the safety and security of the American people first. And using a list of countries that the Obama administration and the Congress have certified were compromised by terrorist influence, seven different countries, is consistent with the President's commitment to do just that.
Q: But on this travel ban, no Egypt, no Saudi Arabia. No Pakistan, no Afghanistan. Why weren't those countries included? Because you wanted that Obama talking point.
PENCE: Well, no. It was done because both the Congress and the prior administration identified seven countries, one in Syria, torn asunder by civil war, and the other six--these are countries that do not have the internal systems in place so that we can be confident today that, when people present themselves for access to the United States, that they are who they say they are.
At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us, "how good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity." We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity. When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.
We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action--constantly complaining but never doing anything about it. The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.
"I took such heat when I said NATO was obsolete," Mr. Trump said. "It's obsolete because it wasn't taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying, 'Trump is right.'"
During his hourlong interview with the European publications at Trump Tower in Manhattan, Trump sought to temper some of his criticism of NATO by noting that the alliance "is very important to me." Still, his characterization of it as divorced from the fight against terrorism was challenged by NATO experts, who noted that the alliance had joined the US in Afghanistan.
PENCE: The administration is complying with that order, and we'll go through the process in the courts to implement this action that is entirely focused on the safety and security of the American people. The Obama administration identified these seven countries repeatedly as compromised by terrorism. And so by putting a pause in for all these countries, we can assure that anyone that's coming here doesn't represent a threat to our families and our communities.
Q: There's been a chorus of criticism of this ban. Could it have been done better?
PENCE: I think the early days of this administration are going to be described in the history books as days of action. The American people welcome the decisiveness that President Trump has shown on this issue, putting the safety and secretary of the American people above the niceties of communicating with people in Washington.
A: Trump has called for extreme vetting for people coming into this country so that we don't bring people into the United States who are hostile to the American way life. Donald Trump and I are committed to suspending the Syrian refugee program and programs and immigration from areas of the world that have been compromised by terrorism.
BOOKER: Well, she is not running against President Obama. She is running against Donald Trump. And we know already what Donald Trump has said he was going to do, which is undermine key alliances like the NATO alliance which helps us to protect not only our country, but really fight against the war on terror. He wants to go against Muslims and denigrate relationships with Muslim countries, which include countries like Turkey. And already leaders there are worried about Trump. He wants to go back to doing things that are outrageous, like saying, "hey, we're going to go after the families of terrorists; we're going to bring batch torture." Donald Trump is dangerous and would make this world a far more dangerous place. In fact, he would undermine many of the things that are in place right now that would make us a much safer country.
TRUMP: I mean a lot of them.
Q: Do you want to clarify the comment?
TRUMP: I've been watching the [other candidates in the] debate today. And they're talking about radical Islamic terrorism. But I will tell you this. There's tremendous hatred. And I will stick with exactly what I said.
Sen. Marco RUBIO: I know that a lot of people find appeal in the things Donald says because he says what people wish they could say. The problem is, presidents can't just say anything they want. It has consequences, here and around the world.
TRUMP: Marco talks about consequences. Well, we've had a lot of consequences, including airplanes flying into the World Trade Center. I don't want to be so politically correct. I like to solve problems. We have a serious, serious problem of hate. There is tremendous hate. Where large portions of a group of people, Islam, large portions want to use very, very harsh means.
CRUZ: Apple should be forced to comply with the court order because under the Fourth Amendment, a search and seizure is reasonable if it has judicial authorization and probable cause. We should enforce the court order and find out everyone that terrorist at San Bernardino talked to on the phone, texted with, e-mailed. Apple doesn't have a right to defy a court order in a terrorism investigation.
RUBIO: Apple doesn't want to do it because they think it hurts their brand. Well, let me tell you, their brand is not superior to the national security of the United States of America.
KASICH: The president should have convened a meeting with Apple and our security forces. You lock the door and you say you're not coming out until you reach an agreement that both gives the security people what they need and protects the rights of Americans.
TRUMP: I was in favor of Libya? I never discussed that subject. We would be so much better off if Gadhafi were in charge right now. If these politicians went to the beach and didn't do a thing, and we had Saddam Hussein and if we had Gadhafi in charge, instead of having terrorism all over the place, at least they killed terrorists, all right? And I'm not saying they were good--because they were bad, they were really bad--but we don't know what we're getting. You look at Libya right now, ISIS, as we speak, is taking over their oil. As we speak, it's a total mess. We would have been better off if the politicians took a day off instead of going into war.
CLINTON: I think we have achieved a great deal with the Iranian nuclear agreement. That has to be enforced absolutely with consequences for Iran at the slightest deviation from their requirements under the agreement. I do not think we should promise or even look toward normalizing relations because we have a lot of other business to get done with Iran. Yes, they have to stop being the main state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, they have to stop trying to destabilize the Middle East, causing even more chaos.
SANDERS: I recall when Secretary Clinton ran against then-Senator Obama, she was critical of him for suggesting that maybe you want to talk to Iran, that you want to talk to our enemies. Iran is sponsoring terrorism in many parts of the world, destabilizing areas. Everybody knows that. But our goal is to try to deal with our enemies, not just ignore that reality.
CLINTON: I do reserve it for particularly heinous crimes, like terrorism. I thought it was appropriate after a very thorough trial that Timothy McVeigh received the death penalty for blowing up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
SANDERS: It's hard to imagine how people can bomb and kill 168 people in Oklahoma City, but this is what I believe: #1, too many innocent people, including minorities, African Americans, have been executed when they were not guilty. We have to be very careful about making sure about that. But #2, of course there are barbaric acts out there. But, in a world of so much violence and killing, I just don't believe that government itself should be part of the killing. So, when somebody commits any of these terrible crimes that we have seen, you lock them up, and you toss away the key. They're never going to get out. But, I just don't want to see government be part of killing.
CLINTON: Absolutely. We have to figure out how to deal with Iran as the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They are destabilizing governments in the region. They continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon against Israel. If we were to normalize relations right now, we would remove one of the biggest pieces of leverage we have to try to influence and change Iranian behaviour. The president doesn't think we should. I certainly don't think we should. I believe we have to take this step by step to try to reign in Iranian aggression.
SANDERS: I never said that. I think we should move forward as quickly as we can. They are a sponsor of terrorism around the world and we have to address that. A number of years ago, people were saying, "normal relationship with Cuba, what a bad and silly idea." Well, change has come.
SANDERS: I think President Obama had the right idea, and the bottom line is that of course there have to be conditions. But, of course it doesn't do us any good to not talk with our adversaries..
CLINTON: Absolutely. We have to figure out how to deal with Iran as the principal state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They are destabilizing governments in the region. They continue to support Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon against Israel. If we were to normalize relations right now, we would remove one of the biggest pieces of leverage we have to try to influence and change Iranian behaviour. The president doesn't think we should. I certainly don't think we should. I believe we have to take this step by step to try to reign in Iranian aggression.
SANDERS: I never said that. I think we should move forward as quickly as we can. They are a sponsor of terrorism around the world and we have to address that. A number of years ago, people were saying, "normal relationship with Cuba, what a bad and silly idea." Well, change has come.
SANDERS: I think what we've got to do is move as aggressively as we can to normalize relations with Iran. Understanding that Iran's behavior in so many ways is something that we disagree with: their support of terrorism; the anti-American rhetoric that we're hearing from of their leadership is something that is not acceptable. On the other hand, the fact that we've managed to reach an agreement, that prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and we did that without going to war. So if your question is, do I want to see that relationship become more positive in the future? Yes. Can I tell that we should open an embassy in Tehran tomorrow? No, I don't think we should. But I think the goal has got to be to warm relations with a very powerful and important country.
No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.
At the same time, that does not mean we just flat out open our borders. We can't do that. We cannot continue to allow immigrants to come here illegally. And in this age of terrorism, we must not let in refugees whose intentions cannot be determined.
CLINTON: Guns, in and of themselves, will not make Americans safer. We lose 33,000 people a year already to gun violence, arming more people to do what I think is not the appropriate response to terrorism. The first line of defense against radicalization is in Muslim-American community.
RUBIO: What he's pointing to is an amendment that only 10 people voted for. You know why? Because it's not focused on terrorists. It would have banned anyone from coming here. Someone from Taiwan would not have been able to come here as a tourist.
PAUL: What I put forward was an amendment that would have temporarily halted immigration from high-risk terrorist countries. I wanted them to go through Global Entry, which is a program where we do background checks.
SANDERS: Well, that's what the CIA and the Department of Defense tell us. If we are going to see an increase in drought and flooding and extreme weather as a result of climate change, what that means is that peoples all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources. When you have drought, when people can't grow their crops, they're going to migrate into cities. And when people migrate into cities, and they don't have jobs, there's going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment. And people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al Qaeda and ISIS are using right now. I think, when we talk about all of the possible ravages of climate change, which, to my mind, is just a huge planetary crisis, increased international conflict is one of the issues that we have got to appreciate will happen.
SANDERS: Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see countries all over the world--this is what the CIA says--they're going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops ask you're going to see all kinds of international conflict.
Gov. O'MALLEY: This is a new era of conflict where traditional ways of huge standing armies do not serve our purposes as well as special ops, better intelligence and being more proactive.
Secretary CLINTON: We do have to take a hard look at the defense budget and we do have to figure out how we get ready to fight the adversaries of the future, not the past. But we have to also be very clear that we do have some continuing challenges. We've got challenges in the South China Sea because of what China is doing in building up military installations. We have problems with Russia: they allowed a TV camera to see the plans for a drone submarine that could carry a tactical nuclear weapon. So we've got to look at the full range and then come to some smart decisions about having more streamlined and focused approach.
Gov. O'MALLEY: The nature of warfare has changed. This is a new era of conflict where traditional ways of huge standing armies do not serve our purposes as well as special ops & better intelligence.
Secretary CLINTON: We do have to take a hard look at the defense budget and we do have to figure out how we get ready to fight the adversaries of the future, not the past. But we have to also be very clear that we do have some continuing challenges.
SANDERS: All of that and more.
Q: You're okay with the drone?
SANDERS: A drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is terrible and it is counterproductive.
Q: But you're comfortable with the idea of using drones if you think you've isolated an important terrorist? That continues?
SANDERS: Yes. And look, we all know, that there are people as of this moment plotting against the United States. We have got to be vigorous in protecting our country, no question about it.
And we've seen no less an authority than The Wall Street Journal say that, "Anyone still thinking the U.S. has lost its manufacturing chops hasn't been to South Carolina."
South Carolina is truly becoming the "It" state when it comes to economic development and job creation--not just in the United States, but worldwide.
"Many of our states have divestment policies as well as restrictions against state contractors doing business with the government of Iran. We intend to ensure that the various state-level sanctions that are now in effect remain in effect."
In 2009 Bernie voted against the proposals the Obama administration suggested for closing the prison. The bill was defeated with strong bipartisan support (90-6). Given Bernie's human rights concerns regarding the facility, he likely voted against it because the plans did not address the human rights violations--including being held indefinitely without trial--that he and so many other Americans are most concerned about with regards to Guantanamo.
PAUL: First of all, only ISIS is responsible for the terrorism. Only ISIS is responsible for the depravity. But, we do have to examine, how are we going to defeat ISIS? I've got a proposal. I'm the leading voice in America for not arming the allies of ISIS. I've been fighting amidst a lot of opposition from both Hillary Clinton, as well as some Republicans who wanted to send arms to the allies of ISIS. ISIS rides around in a billion dollars worth of US Humvees. It's a disgrace. We shouldn't fund our enemies, for goodness sakes. So, we didn't create ISIS--ISIS created themselves, but we will stop them, and one of the ways we stop them is by not funding them, and not arming them.
PAUL: There was a poll not too long ago in Iowa that asked, do you think we should be more involved in foreign wars, like John McCain, who wants to be everywhere all the time, or do you think we should be less involved or more judicious and only go to war when we have a threat to an American interest, like Rand Paul? And it polls equally in Iowa. So I think the party is split on some of these things. I do want to defend America. In fact, I think we are distracting ourselves from the real terrorist threat by collecting so much information that we get inundated by the information and we get distracted. I want to collect more information on terrorists, but I want to do it according to the 4th Amendment--which puts forward that suspicion should be individualized and there should be a warrant with a judge's name on it.
The administration's feckless response to Benghazi was emblematic of President Obama's long-standing approach to radical Islamic terrorism--three words that almost never enter his vocabulary in the same sentence. In his worldview, the real root problem behind terrorism is disaffected youth who have been antagonized by American and Western imperialism. He and his administration dogmatically refuse to call terrorism "Islamic" or "Islamist," nor will they reference "jihad."
SANDERS: I may well be voting for it. It doesn't go as far as I would like it to go. I voted against the original Patriot Act, and I voted against its reauthorization. Look, we have got to be vigorous in fighting terrorism and protecting the American people. But we have to do it in a way that protects the constitutional rights of the American people. And I'm very, very worried about the invasion of privacy rights that we're seeing not only from the NSA and the government but from corporate America, as well. We're losing our privacy rights. It's a huge issue.
Q: The government is going to be asking corporate America to keep this data under the USA Freedom Act. You're comfortable with that?
SANDERS: No, I'm not. But we have to look at the best of bad situations. The question is whether the NSA keeps it, the question is whether it is transferred to the phone companies, who already keep records for an extended period of time.
Foreign policy has become an unusually prominent issue heading into the 2016 election cycle. President Obama has made a strong effort to avoid labeling the terrorism carried out in the name of religion "radical Islam." When asked for her take on that, Harris echoed President Obama saying "there are extremists who are using religion as a cloak to commit terror and terrorist acts. And I think it would be a mistake for any of us to mistake the religion for the terrorists. They can be distinguished. And they should be in our language as well as our policy approach."
She prefaced her remarks by pointing out the need to talk about Israel "because it is our strongest ally in the Middle East. And so we have to take that seriously and be guided by that reality, as it relates to issues that impact the Middle East."
I disagree with Sen. Paul's representation of what America should be doing, and when you read his op-ed, he talks about basically, what I consider to be, isolationist policies.
Senator Elizabeth Warren said she is against the death penalty but respects Holder's decision. Senator Ed Markey said he is against the death penalty, except "in the case of terrorism." Martha Coakley, Marty Walsh, Juliette Kayyem, and Don Berwick similarly hedged.
There's a Democrat in the White House, and Massachusetts Democrats don't want to cross him or his AG. There's also the posturing aspect of Holder's decision: seeking the death penalty increases the government's leverage to get a guilty verdict in return for life without parole. And to Massachusetts politicians, "Boston Strong" has come to mean looking tough to the nation on terrorism, not "squishy on crime."
American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria's chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve--a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear.
Iranians recently elected a new President who has taken a less confrontational tone and positioned himself as open to negotiation.
The president is right to keep all options, including military action, on the table while vigorously pursuing both international sanctions and a negotiated settlement that prevents Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Today, sanctions have imposed real and increasing harm on Iran's economy and isolated them from the international community. Pursuing these diplomatic and economic actions must continue while there is time, because while all options should remain on the table, the cost of military action to end the Iranian nuclear program could be very high for us and our allies in the region.
Since then, he's clashed repeatedly with other Republicans on these issues, including the recent revelations regarding the National Security Agency's sweeping collection of phone and internet data. Paul defended his position as being more geared towards the youth vote that the GOP desperately needs to attract. "If you talk about some privacy issues like that, I think you will find youth coming to you," said Paul. He sought to make his position on intelligence gathering clear as well: "I don't mind spying on terrorists. I just don't like spying on all Americans."
We support the political process that France is leading to restore a democratic government in Mali. We discussed the importance of working with our regional partners to counter terrorism across North Africa and beyond. We spent time discussing how terrorist organizations metastasized and why additional strategies will be necessary going into the future to deal with this new threat.
I emphasized the importance of working with the new government of Libya and building effective security institutions. On Syria, we both fully support the Syrian opposition coalition, the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
Gillibrand said Al Quaeda has "metastasized" to other parts of the world. "I do not believe that we should continue our investment of troops, troops' lives and our money in Afghanistan because the threat has moved," she said; the US needs a "counter-terrorism approach instead of a counter insurgency approach. We need narrow targeted missions," she said.
With our European allies, we revitalized NATO and increased our cooperation on everything from counterterrorism to missile defense.
If the Obama administration were to admit that Islamic terrorists are not motivated by poverty but rather by an evil ideology, that would require a paradigm shift in the way it approaches terrorism. They'd have to admit the existence of evil, name the enemy, and acknowledge that military power rather than more anti-poverty programs must be the central means to fight and win.
Our president has made a bad habit of apologizing to foreign audiences for America's supposed transgressions. This groveling needs to end--now. The American president must proudly represent the world's greatest democracy to the world. It is naive to think these apologies gain us respect--they simply convey a dangerous lack of confidence.
Furthermore, Obama proceeded, he will strengthen the NPT "so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions." He made no mention of the conclusion of US intelligence that Iran had not had a weapons program for five years, unlike US allies in Israel, Pakistan, and India, the three countries that all maintain extensive nuclear weapons programs (with direct US support), all unmentioned as well.
Click for Merrick Garland on other issues. Source: N.Y. Times, "Bombing case", by Charlie Savage
But when the 9/11 Commission came up with reasons for leaving Able Danger out of its report, the media nodded off again. One 9/11 expert concluded that the commission and the Pentagon were "covering up dangerous information that suggested Atta was being protected. Combine this observation with the money reportedly sent to Atta--the Able Danger evidence provides additional reason to suspect that the 'hijackers' were really paid assets."
Obama fired back, but clearly he and his campaign had been put on the defensive. The exchanges bolstered the continuing story line. He wasn't seasoned enough to be president.
A: I think the problems of terrorism and groups that are resisting modernity, whether because of their ethnic identities or religious identities, and the fact that they can be driven into extremist ideologies, is one of the severe threats that we face. I don’t think it’s the only threat that we face.
Q: But how do you view the problem within Islam? As somebody who saw it in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world?
A: When I lived in Indonesia, in the late ‘60s & early ‘70s, Indonesia was never the same culture as the Arab Middle East. The brand of Islam was always different.But around the world, there was not the sense that Islam was inherently opposed to the West, or inherently opposed to modern life, or inherently opposed to universal traditions like rule of law. And now in Indonesia, you see some of those extremist elements.
America is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation. The Constitution protects all forms of religious worship but bars any of them being an official faith.
Religious freedom is enshrined in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” George W. Bush and his religious right allies ought to read that amendment over a few times, to let it sink in. The government shouldn’t have anything to do with faith. Period.
Religious belief cannot be allowed to influence public policy. Science must guide us on climate change, evolution, stem cell research and reproductive rights.
A: The concepts are not contradictory, but complementary. Pakistan is a great example. We paid $10 billion over the last seven years & we had two goals: deal with terrorism and restore democracy. We’ve gotten neither. Pakistan’s democracy would strengthen our battle against extremists. The more we see repression, the more there are no outlets for how people can express themselves and their aspirations, the worse off we’re going to be, and the more anti-American sentiment there’s going to be in the Middle East. We keep on making this mistake. As president, I will make sure that nuclear weapons don’t fall into the hands of extremists, especially Al Qaida. If we simply prop up anti-democratic practices that feeds the sense that the US is only concerned about us and that our fates are not tied to these other folks. That’s going to make us less safe. That’s something I intend to change.
A: We are committed to Iran not having nuclear weapons. We have been governed by fear for the last 6 years. Bush has used the fear of terrorism to launch a war that should have never been authorized. We are seeing the same pattern now. It is very important for us to draw a clear line and say, “We are not going to be governed by fear. We will take threats seriously and take action to make sure that the US is secure.”
CLINTON: I said there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.
EDWARDS: I would not continue combat missions in Iraq. Combat missions mean that the war is continuing
Q: Would you send combat troops back in if there was genocide?
EDWARDS: I believe that America along with the rest of the world would have a responsibility to respond to genocide. But it’s not something we should do alone.
A: Well, the first thing that you would do is to realize that terrorism is not a war. Our war on terrorism makes no sense. We’ve had terrorism since the beginning of civilization, and we’ll have it to the end of civilization. It must be treated as a criminal act for what it is. The US should now interface with Interpol and with other countries to bring these people to justice, but our government has done just the opposite. We had the help of Iran to do away with the Taliban three years ago, then we called them an “Axis of Evil.” We had the help of other countries, and now they do--our government doesn’t need them. We have a database of 7 million stolen passports at Interpol and it’s headed up by an American, and not one American intelligence agency has ever accessed that database. We can’t even put the dots together here little more than can we do it globally.
A: I don’t think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store waste properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism. And if we can do that in a technologically sound way, then we should pursue it. If we can’t, we should not. But there is no magic bullet on energy. We’re going to have to look at all the various options.
CLINTON: My understanding of the revolutionary guard in Iran is that it is promoting terrorism. It is manufacturing weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. It is certainly the main agent of support for Hezbollah, Hamas and others, and in what we voted for today, we will have an opportunity to designate it as a terrorist organization, which gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the leaders.
A: My goal is to end the war when I’m President & to bring our troops home. But as has been stated in [April 2007 legislation], we do envision a vastly reduced residual force to remain for some limited period of time to train Iraqi troops, to provide logistical support, for counter-terrorism missions, to protect the Kurds if necessary. That does not mean we would have a permanent force. I am absolutely clear: we do not plan a permanent occupation or permanent bases, but there may be a continuing mission to protect America’s vital interests, and to support an Iraqi government that we hope to be an ally going forward, assuming they are acting responsibly. So, the bottom line for me is that we will begin re-deploying our troops as soon as I am President, and we will do so in as expeditious a manner as possible, [leaving] as few troops as necessary with no permanent occupation, and no permanent bases.
We risk a further increase in isolationist sentiment unless both the administration and Congress can restore the American people’s confidence that our foreign policy is driven by facts and reason, rather than hopes and ideology.
A: Yes.
Q: Should the US withdraw its troops from Iraq?
A: Yes.
Q: Discuss your proposals for an exit strategy in Iraq.
A: Immediate and unconditional withdrawal. The real US military mission was to establish military bases and control the oil, not WMDs, terrorism, and democracy as the politicians spun it. The mission was imperialistic. It was wrong and it should stop.
KENNEDY: Let’s talk about what the 16 agencies said. They said that we are clearly activating terrorists in Iraq, having taken the challenge to them. But they also said we have to prevail. If we don’t prevail, it will greatly mushroom this threat, let it grow in size, and come to face our future generations. They said that if we, if we lose, that’s what will happen; if we win, we will greatly degrade what’s happening on the other side.
The Governor recommended legislation reinstating capital punishment in the Commonwealth. A vote of YES would include the Governor's recommended bill, and would reinstate the death penalty for certain crimes, and with numerous safeguards against abuse. The crimes included: terrorism; killing police officers; torture; or murder-sprees.
The relevant part of the MassDems Platform is Part X, clause 3: SAFETY, JUSTICE AND CRIME PREVENTION: In opposing the reinstatement of the death penalty, Massachusetts Democrats join with other western democracies in upholding the Universal Doctrine of Human Rights. Instead, the Commonwealth imposes life in prison without parole for first-degree murderers.
Bill H. 3834 ; vote number H302
Hillary has amassed a good legislative record on fighting terrorism. She has pushed hard for threat assessments on bioterrorism, to protect the food supply, promote benefits to children of terror victims, increase homeland security grants, investigate securing radioactive materials, require annual inspections of high-risk sites, identify potential terror sites, encourage bomb-scanning technology, and improve protection at our embassies. But none of these bills has passed.
[On spending bills], Hillary has proposed additional spending to improve military housing, keep open facilities on closed defense bases, upgrade armed forces medical readiness, and increase aid to blind veterans.
KEYES: It doesn’t conflict at all. Abortion and capital punishment are at different level of moral concern. Abortion is intrinsically, objectively wrong and sinful whereas capital punishment is a matter of judgment.
OBAMA: I think that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. There are especially heinous crimes: terrorism, the harm of children. Obviously, we’ve had some problems in this state in the application of the death penalty. That’s why a moratorium was put in place and that’s why I was so proud to be one of the leaders in overhauling a death penalty system that was broken. We became the first in the nation requiring the video taping of capital interrogations and confessions. We have to have this ultimate sanction in certain circumstances where the whole community says “this is beyond the pale.”
A: I wouldn’t have chosen those same words. The reality of it is that if you look at the time before 9/11, that we knew that we were involved in dealing with the greatest threat that America has seen in modern history, and that’s the whole issue of terrorism. Look at the Hart-Rodman report that came out long before 9/11, and they said we were going to be attacked here at the homeland and that we needed to create a Department of Homeland Security. And yet what happened? The nation slept. Washington slept on that issue. I was in a meeting with Bush and with Secretary Ridge some six months after 9/11 occurred, and they were still in a position that we did not need to have a Department of Homeland Security. Washington has acted with the kind of urgency to deal with the issue of global terrorism in an effective way.
When I look at some of the things that happened in government, I can't believe it. Countries that we're protecting are screwing us on oil prices. It's unthinkable. I wouldn't stand for it.
It is our commonality of interests in the world that can ultimately restore our influence and win back the hearts and minds necessary to defeat terrorism and project American values around the globe. Human aspirations are universal-for dignity, for freedom, for the opportunity to improve the lives of our families.
Let us recognize what unites us across borders and build on the strength of this blessed country. Let us embrace our history and our legacy. Let us not only define our values in words and carry them out in deeds.
I despise terrorism and the nihilism it represents, and I was incredulous when the NY Republican Party and Lazio campaign insinuated that I was somehow involved with the terrorists who blew up the Cole. They made this charge in a TV ad and an automatic telephone message directed to NY voters 12 days before the election. The story they concocted was that I had received a donation from somebody who belonged to a group that they said supported terrorists--“the same kind of terrorism that killed our sailors on the USS Cole.” The phone script told people to call me and tell me to “stop supporting terrorism.” This last-minute desperation tactic blew up, however, thanks to a vigorous response by my campaign and with help from former NYC mayor Ed Koch, who cut a TV commercial scolding Lazio.
To begin with, I’m not laughing at missile defense, and I never have. The question isn’t whether or not such a defense can be built. The question is whether it is the right defense for our times. And I believe the answer is, largely, no. In this age of miniaturization, our real threat is not going to be flying in on a missile. It’s going to be delivered in a van, or a suitcase, or a fire-hydrant-sized canister.
[We should] prepare for the possibility of attack, to avoid total panic in case an attack does occur. Our adversaries understand that if they are able to blindside us they will be much more likely to succeed in blackmailing us.