Pre-9/11 thinking: Is it underrated?
posted by Liberal Seagull at 12:52 PM
Note: A reader pointed out that it was the attack on Ft. Dix, not the JFK bombing, that was thwarted when a suspicious video was reported to police. I've corrected the article.
GOP Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani recently criticized President Clinton's handling of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, saying Clinton made "a big mistake" by treating the bombing as a criminal act instead of as a declaration of war. This has been a popular talking point among Republicans since at least 2004, when Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie said, "Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says. ...this demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer." It's been repeated so many times that it barely registers anymore. But let's say Democrats do want to treat terrorism as a law-enforcement matter. Would that really be such a bad thing?
Look at recent attacks that have been thwarted. Most of them were uncovered using ordinary law enforcement techniques. The alleged attempt to attack Fort Dix, for example, was uncovered when the suspects dropped off a video to be transferred to DVD, and a suspicious clerk reported it to the local police. Likewise, the Bush Administration's attempts to prosecute terrorism suspects have been much more effective when pursued through normal legal channels. Late last year, Salon ran an article comparing the mess surrounding Jose Padilla's case to the successful prosecution, through normal "pre-9/11" channels, of right-wing terrorist Demetrius Crocker. Crocker was convicted easily; Padilla's case is still not resolved. It's hard to draw the conclusion that the "post-9/11" thinking that Giuliani touts is the most efficient way to lock up terrorists.
Giuliani also has a lot to answer for in his own reaction to the 1993 bombing. In spite of that clear evidence that the World Trade Center was vulnerable, he personally insisted that the city's crisis center be located on the 23rd floor of Building 7. I've been waiting in vain for someone to publicly call him on this decision as he runs, as the Onion put it, for "President of 9/11."
Finally, it's disingenuous to say that the events of September 11, 2001 prove that Clinton's approach was inferior to Bush's. After the 1991 World Trade center bombings, we didn't have another successful Al Queda attack on our soil for over eight years. We won't know until 2009 if Bush has been similarly successful, although for the sake of our fellow citizens I hope he has.
GOP Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani recently criticized President Clinton's handling of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, saying Clinton made "a big mistake" by treating the bombing as a criminal act instead of as a declaration of war. This has been a popular talking point among Republicans since at least 2004, when Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie said, "Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says. ...this demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer." It's been repeated so many times that it barely registers anymore. But let's say Democrats do want to treat terrorism as a law-enforcement matter. Would that really be such a bad thing?
Look at recent attacks that have been thwarted. Most of them were uncovered using ordinary law enforcement techniques. The alleged attempt to attack Fort Dix, for example, was uncovered when the suspects dropped off a video to be transferred to DVD, and a suspicious clerk reported it to the local police. Likewise, the Bush Administration's attempts to prosecute terrorism suspects have been much more effective when pursued through normal legal channels. Late last year, Salon ran an article comparing the mess surrounding Jose Padilla's case to the successful prosecution, through normal "pre-9/11" channels, of right-wing terrorist Demetrius Crocker. Crocker was convicted easily; Padilla's case is still not resolved. It's hard to draw the conclusion that the "post-9/11" thinking that Giuliani touts is the most efficient way to lock up terrorists.
Giuliani also has a lot to answer for in his own reaction to the 1993 bombing. In spite of that clear evidence that the World Trade Center was vulnerable, he personally insisted that the city's crisis center be located on the 23rd floor of Building 7. I've been waiting in vain for someone to publicly call him on this decision as he runs, as the Onion put it, for "President of 9/11."
Finally, it's disingenuous to say that the events of September 11, 2001 prove that Clinton's approach was inferior to Bush's. After the 1991 World Trade center bombings, we didn't have another successful Al Queda attack on our soil for over eight years. We won't know until 2009 if Bush has been similarly successful, although for the sake of our fellow citizens I hope he has.
<< Home