SwiftVets.com

[Rurik]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005836

Kerry Fails the Guantanamo Test
He promises he would weaken the fight against terrorism.

BY JOHN YOO
Tuesday, November 2, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

September 11 made long-term strategy against terrorism the most important issue before our nation this election. President Bush has pursued clear, and at times unpopular, policies that use every possible tool against al Qaeda. In contrast, John Kerry, who talks tough, follows ideas that will weaken the United States in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Bush has adopted a straightforward approach to preventing future terrorist attacks. He believes that the war on terrorism demands the use of all of war's weapons. By authorizing the CIA to target al Qaeda leaders, Mr. Bush is using force to attack terrorists and their networks abroad. By denying terrorists prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions, he has prevented terrorists from hiding behind the very laws of war they mock. By pushing the Patriot Act, President Bush enhanced the government's ability to disrupt another attack at home.

Mr. Kerry has responded by outflanking Mr. Bush rhetorically. In the last presidential debate, he repeated "kill" like a kid in love with a new word: "I have a plan that will help us go out and kill and find the terrorists, and I will not stop in our effort to hunt down and kill the terrorists." But aside from proposing new spending for searching containers at seaports, Mr. Kerry said precious little about what he would do if elected.

In fact, Mr. Kerry's policies will obstruct our ability to prevent future terrorist attacks. As a small, non-state network of religiously-motivated extremists, al Qaeda cannot be defeated on the battlefield by regular armed forces. Its operatives hide within our societies to launch surprise attacks on our civilians. Our only means for preventing future attacks, which could someday involve weapons of mass destruction, is to gain intelligence that permits pre-emptive action. Once attacks occur, it is too late.





Mr. Kerry's approach would directly undermine our ability to collect terrorist information. Take the Patriot Act, which expands government authority to conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists. The act made some significant changes to the system of secret courts, hearings and warrants for pursuing potential national security threats: It updated the standard for warrants to allow law enforcement and intelligence to cooperate, it allowed searches without immediate notice to the target, and it extended warrants to business records.
Although Mr. Kerry voted for the act, he has since changed his mind. During the primaries, he supported "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time," and said that the act's best part is its 2005 sunset provision. According to news reports, he even compared use of the Patriot Act to the Taliban's repression of Afghans. Mr. Kerry now says that he would repeal the provisions for delayed-notice searches and demands for records. Sacrificing these important tools to please his party's civil-libertarian wing is not a successful strategy for a commander in chief.

Or consider the detention and trial of terrorists. Mr. Bush has declared that the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which apply only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Since al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members flout the laws of war, Geneva regulates neither the detention nor the interrogation of its detainees. Mr. Bush has ordered that special military commissions may try terrorists for war crimes. As for Americans who join al Qaeda, such as dirty bomber José Padilla, Mr. Bush has allowed their detention as enemy combatants.

Mr. Kerry sides against aggressive counterterrorism. Last month he announced that "a Kerry administration will apply the Geneva Conventions to all battlefield combatants captured in the war on terror." This reverses consistent U.S. policy since the Reagan administration to deny terrorists the legal status of honorable warriors. John Edwards has said that a Kerry administration would use the courts-martial that try U.S. servicemen, but not military commissions, for terrorists. This eliminates a significant American advantage in the war for information. Mr. Kerry's policy would prevent the U.S. from employing interrogation methods in Guantanamo Bay that go beyond polite conversation but fall well short of physical mistreatment. Under Geneva, a POW need only provide name, rank and serial number and cannot receive negative treatment for refusing to cooperate. At Guantanamo, by contrast, interrogators can reward cooperators with better food, more creature comforts and favorable plea bargains. Mr. Kerry's policy would dry up our most important method for stopping future terrorist attacks--gaining information from the terrorists themselves.





Mr. Kerry's position should, perhaps, come as no surprise. Important constituents such as lawyers, academics and civil-rights groups have bitterly opposed the military detention of terrorists and their designation as illegal combatants--to the point where many asked the Supreme Court that an American-born Saudi, captured in Afghanistan with a weapon, either be charged with a crime or freed. This represents a failure to recognize that the September 11 attacks began a war. Would a President Kerry continue to follow their advice?
These supporters will likely supply the cabinet and sub-cabinet officers who will develop anti-terrorism policy for a Kerry administration. Former Clinton officials have returned to develop the campaign's defense and terrorism policies. This provides little assurance that Mr. Kerry will follow through on his promise to "hunt down and kill the terrorists." Sandy Berger, the former Clinton national security adviser and potential Kerry Secretary of State, rejected four plans to assassinate Osama bin Laden. In one case, he apparently worried that bin Laden's capture could not meet the Fourth Amendment standards for an arrest. Other members of Mr. Clinton's legal and national security teams raised legal doubts about killing bin Laden. These officials would no doubt populate the Kerry White House and its State, Defense and Justice departments. That team had two presidential terms to destroy al Qaeda, but failed. They do not need a third.

Mr. Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Bush Justice Department official.
_________________
Hating John Kerry continuously since 1971.

Essayons!
Fight Build and Destroy

[army72]

I don't think there was ever a doubt that Kerry would weaken the country's resolve to fight terrorism. I can imagine some of his posistions filled by Hanoi Jane and her ilk.

I think terrorists know this and are hoping for a Kerry victory. Nothing would be safe. He would ask France for permission respond to attacks and would only act with their agreement.
_________________
Hillary and Kerry in '08? Something smells!!