An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Pakistan Captures Taliban Leader
Newsweek: “Another leader of the Afghan Taliban has been captured by authorities in Pakistan working in partnership with U.S. intelligence officials. Taliban sources in the region and a counterterrorism officials [sic] in Washington have identified the detained insurgent leader as Mullah Abdul Salam, described as the Taliban movement’s ‘shadow governor’ of Afghanistan’s Kunduz province.”
I assume this means conservatives across America, from the GOP to the FNC (Fox News Clan), will stand up and applaud President Obama’s outstanding leadership and successful conduct of the war on terror.
(Waiting…)
21 Responses to “Pakistan Captures Taliban Leader”
Michael, I think you are conflating two separate points. First, Republicans have been the foundation of Obama's support for his policies toward Afghanistan. In his most recent interview, Dick Cheney made his approval very clear. Second, Republicans have been the foremost critics of Obama's policies toward the detention and prosecution of terrorists. Both issues concern the war on terror, but very different parts of it.
Perhaps the question at the conclusion of your post should have been: Will all the Democrats who wouldn't support their own president's “necessary war” now reconsider their opposition?
I have already applauded both Obama's decision to send more troops to Afghanistan and his decision to capture commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and let the Pakistanis take charge of his interrogation. As have most Republicans and conservatives.
As adesnik pointed out, Republicans generally support winning the war in Afghanistan, just as we supported winning the war in Iraq. Gallup shows that while Republicans tend to generally disapprove of Obama and Democrats support him, Obama gets some of his highest ratings from Republicans on Afghanistan and his lowest from Democrats.
Actually, most Democrats did support going into Afghanistan. It was abandoning Afghanistan to invade Iraq, which posed no threat to U.S. national security and had no connection either to 9/11 or to Al Qaeda, that Democrats decried. And I think their position on that has been proved valid.
You don't know if Obama “let the Pakistanis take charge of his interrogation.” None of us know whether or not U.S. officials are involved in Baradar's interrogation, and if they are, to what extent. If they are *not* involved, none of us know whether that decision was in U.S. control or not. I tend to think that if the Obama administration had any influence or choice in the matter, it would have done everything possible to make sure that Baradar was not tortured or otherwise mistreated — not just because Obama ordered an end to torture in interrogations, but also because I believe that Obama is more interested in using interrogation methods that are most likely to get accurate, reliable, actionable intelligence than he is in beating up and torturing Baradar to get revenge.
Kathy, I think you may have misunderstood my point (and Michael's). We are talking specifically about President Obama's decisions, not the original decision to go to war in Afghanistan. As you note, the decision to go to war in 2001 was almost unanimous. But as I pointed out, Democrats provided the main dissent against Obama's second infusion of troops in December, whereas Republicans supported the President with few qualifications. Interestingly, the same Democrats who opposed the second infusion of troops let out barely a peep of protest in response to Obama's first escalation in March. It's almost as if their politics were following the poll numbers…
Also, it is very kind of you to refer to the Christmas bomber and KSM as only suspected or alleged terrorists. But since Joe Biden is absolutely confident they will be convicted and won't even answer the question of what might happen if they are exonerated, I have excused myself from adding any unnecessary qualifiers.
The NYT reports today that Pakistan has limited US access to Baradar, which suggests there's no issue here of what Pres. Obama let them do.
“was abandoning Afghanistan to invade Iraq, which posed no threat to U.S. national security and had no connection either to 9/11 or to Al Qaeda, that Democrats decried. “
You are absolutely right about that, Kathy.
But once again… Although true, it has no bearing on Afghanistan policy NOW.
Both parties generally appear to support Obama's increase in troops in Afghanistan. The far left is against it.
And your assertion of “suspected” or “alleged”:
Did those in Nuremburg get called “suspected Nazis”?
No.
Re your first graf: I could quibble, but since I am not terribly enthusiastic about Obama's policies in Afghanistan, it's hard to summon up the energy to argue the point.
Re your second graf: How principled of you to assume guilt because Joe Biden does. I'm sure that before Biden said that, you always referred to suspected or alleged terrorists as just terrorists.
If your point, however lamely expressed, is that you believe I am giving Biden a pass for what he said, let me reiterate here that I am not. And I use that word “reiterate” because I already said it, clearly, in a post that I put up here at TMV when Biden first made that statement. Perhaps you did not see it, or have forgotten about it.
At any rate, I believe you can do better than this, David.
No, David, I don't agree with that conclusion. If you think about it, it does not logically follow from the statement that Pakistan has limited U.S. access to Baradar, that the U.S. wanted Pakistan to limit access.
Did those in Nuremburg get called “suspected Nazis”?
Um, JD, those in Nuremberg got trials, in open court, with full legal due process, where prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these former Nazis had committed war crimes. The very existence of the Nuremberg trials, to which you refer, proves that point.
Kathy, I was actually agreeing with you on this point, not with DaMav (although I agree with most of his post). Why the presumption that we're in disagreement? Where is the love? Where is the bipartisanship?
I wrote, “The NYT reports today that Pakistan has limited US access to Baradar, which suggests there's no issue here of what Pres. Obama let them do.”
Meaning (since I guess it wasn't clear): Obama couldn't “let” the Pakistanis do anything, since the Pakistanis were in charge. The question is what the Pakistanis let us do. And the NYT reported that they didn't let us have much access to Baradar, although we did have some.
Meaning (since I guess it wasn't clear): Obama couldn't “let” the Pakistanis do anything, since the Pakistanis were in charge. The question is what the Pakistanis let us do. And the NYT reported that they didn't let us have much access to Baradar, although we did have some.
Okay, in that case, I am in complete agreement with you. Obviously, I misunderstood your point.
Re Afghanistan, the only thing I would have quibbled with was this:
because first, I don't know that it's a true or accurate portrayal; I'd have to go back and look at the coverage from that time — but that's what I meant by not having the energy. The thought of arguing the point of whether Democrats changed their position on Afghanistan from March to the second escalation doesn't stir my blood too much, because I think the entire Afghanistan policy is a disaster (and that's largely because Obama inherited an unholy mess from Bush).
If you're agreeing with me on that, then I misunderstood you on this point as well.
Regardless, though, David, I do love you, you know I do.
Platonically, of course.
Kathy, I regret not living up to your expectations. I shall endeavor mightily to reach that goal!
As it turns out, I wasn't aware of your earlier Biden post. I think I do actually read about 90% of your posts, but that one I missed.
So my comment wasn't about giving Biden a pass. It was about whether it makes any sense to refer to certain terrorists as suspected or alleged. As you correctly divine, I have always referred to terrorists as just that, unless there is some serious doubt about whether they planned the 9/11 attacks (like KSM) or tried to blow up a plane (like Abdulmuttallab).
The purpose of my barb was to point out that even all the high-minded liberals in this administration have dispensed with the fiction that KSM or Abdulmutallab may be innocent. If they are tried, the courts will demand clear evidence of their guilt. But given the overwhelming evidence, it is completely unnecessary for those in the reality-based community to use the adjectives “suspected” or “alleged”. Use them if you like, but I don't see why I should.
As you correctly divine, I have always referred to terrorists as just that, unless there is some serious doubt about whether they planned the 9/11 attacks (like KSM) or tried to blow up a plane (like Abdulmuttallab).
The huge flaw in your argument here, of course, is that you say you “always referred to terrorists as just that,” and then use two individuals — KSM and Abdulmutallab — as examples of “always referring to terrorists as just that” — as though you have somehow explained or justified using that term to describe “terrorists” as a general category that includes every individual taken into custody and arbitrarily detained with no legal rights since 9/11. There are literally thousands of such individuals — about 800 at Gitmo alone at the highest point. The vast majority of the ones at Gitmo had done nothing to justify being accused of terrorism and over the eight years that Bush was president, most of them were released, many after years of unjust imprisonment, with no charges ever filed against them.
If KSM and Abdulmutallab were the only two individuals you and so many others on the right called “terrorists,” I would not be criticizing it, even though in a legal sense they are still alleged since they have not been tried and convicted yet. But that is not the case. And I think it's dishonest (not just you, but in general, as something many conservatives do) to defend your blanket use of the word “terrorist” to refer to literally anyone the government tells you is a terrorist by naming KSM and Abdulmutallab as stand-ins for the entire category, as though that is what people like me are talking about when we object to assuming guilt because the government tells you someone is guilty.
” those in Nuremberg got trials, in open court, with full legal due process, where prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these former Nazis had committed war crimes.”
Not true. The Nuremburg trials were MILITARY TRIBUNALS run by the Allies. I'm pretty sure military tribunals are what you have written against….where you prefer CIVILIAN trials.
The Nuremberg trials were MILITARY TRIBUNALS run by the Allies.
You're right. I was mistaken about that point. They were military tribunals. But they were unlike the military commissions that Bush set up to interrogate and try the detainees at Gitmo in that they were real trials, with rules of evidence and due process. The defendants were not being tried for being members of the Nazi Party; they were being tried for specific war crimes. There were charges and there was evidence and there were witnesses, and the defendants had legal representation. That is not at all like the military commissions I have opposed and still do oppose.
Your original point was that it's fine to use the term “terrorists” to describe detainees who have not received any legal due process, including being shown the evidence against them to justify calling them terrorists. You compared this to Nuremberg, where Nazis were called Nazis. Yes, but as I said above, the crimes they were being accused of were specific war crimes that they committed *as* Nazis. They were not being tried for being Nazis. And as much as everybody knew what they had done, their innocence, in a legal sense, was assumed. Their guilt had to be proved. They were not detained for years and years and years and years with no charges and no evidence and no trial.
“You're right. I was mistaken about that point. They were military tribunals. But they were unlike the military commissions that Bush set up to interrogate and try the detainees at Gitmo “
Don't confuse Bush's desire for military tribunals with their detention at Gitmo. Two separate issues. I tribunal is a trial. Interrogations (whether the legal kind or the illegal kind) are performed in custody.
Are they terrorists? Probably. So I'll concede on that point. But they ARE enemy combatants who will (or should) receive military tribunals – not criminals of civil law that get mirandized and tried in court.
Don't confuse Bush's desire for military tribunals with their detention at Gitmo. Two separate issues. I tribunal is a trial. Interrogations (whether the legal kind or the illegal kind) are performed in custody.
That may be true in general, but not when talking about Gitmo. The military commissions at Guantanamo were created by the Bush administration specifically to handle the “trials” of detainees at Gitmo who had no legal rights whatsoever. The commissions are an extension of that. They do not include any of the legal rights or protections that even those Nazis accused of war crimes had in Nuremberg. They're kangaroo courts, basically, and in fact, not one single detainee at Gitmo in the eight years Bush was president was tried or convicted under those military commissions because of all the legal challenges to their very existence.
Are they terrorists? Probably. So I'll concede on that point. But they ARE enemy combatants who will (or should) receive military tribunals….
JD, in point of fact, about three-quarters of the detainees who were incarcerated at Gitmo at its highest number were eventually released because the government had no evidence to hold them. But even that happened, for most of those detainees, after years of being held without charges or trial, many of them subjected to interrogations in which brutal, horribly inhuman techniques were used, to the point of being driven insane for some of them.
This leads to two obvious conclusions:
1. You can hardly use the excuse of their being “enemy combatants” when the vast majority of them did not deserve to be labeled such.
2. Those military commissions at Gitmo are not at all the same as the kind of military tribunal in which former Nazis were tried and convicted. The only similarity is the word “military”; but the procedures used are not comparable.
– not criminals of civil law that get mirandized and tried in court.
As even you should know by now, JD, the Bush administration handled literally hundreds of terrorism-related cases as criminal justice matters, in which defendants were mirandized (Richard Reid was mirandized several times) and tried in federal court, and convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. So your suggestion that there is no precedent for trying such people in civil court is factually incorrect.
So your suggestion that there is no precedent for trying such people in civil court is factually incorrect.”
Gee, I'm disappointed in JD for being “factully incorrect”, but I couldn't find that statement.
JD: Please repeat it. Thanks
Gee, I'm disappointed in JD for being “factully incorrect”, but I couldn't find that statement.
That's because a “suggestion” is not a “statement.”
Try again.
” The military commissions at Guantanamo were created by the Bush administration specifically to handle the “trials” of detainees at Gitmo who had no legal rights whatsoever. “
Not exactly, Kat. The commissions have not been convened (yet). They do not become a tribunal until trial time. You are correct that the handling of the “defendents” may have been wrong. I'm unclear on that. Most reports (legit) have stated that the conditions there are far better than most prisons. Once again, I am officially against any sort of torture, like you. We cannot defeat our enemies by becoming our enemies.