There is a terrorist behind every tree and we're all going to die.

Fear is the key to obedience

Just another liberal rant blaming everything and every problem on Bush. Democrats never ever tire of the same old spin but the rest of us certainly do. If Phil has nothing original to say, why does the BDN waste their time publishing his drivel?

Nobody likes the fact that President Bush released terrorists that have come back to attack America. Well, except his supporters, they like that.

Interesting how Phil Merrill seems to think he knows more about national security than Senator Collins, who is the highest ranking Republican in the Senate when it comes to homeland security... he must have learned something during his short term as a legislator from Appleton that we just don't realize.

Or wait- could it be Phil Merrill who is 'pawn' of his party? Maybe Phil was asked to write a hit piece by his party bosses to make up for his deviance last fall in support of Collins.

Or, more likely, his wife is running another clean elections campaign and he is getting paid $100,000 of taxpayer money to write this for her.

Last night driving home from work, I tuned to NPR's radio program, Fresh Air.

Here's a snippet from last night's transcript:

"(...) GROSS: You know, ironically, the people who the Bush administration sent to the criminal courts, those people are some of them are serving life sentences now, like Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. Give us some other examples of how alleged terrorists were handled in the criminal courts, what the outcome was.

Ms. MAYER: And Zacarias Moussaoui is also serving a life sentence. He was the person who at one point they thought was the 20th hijacker who was missing. I think he was more, actually in retrospect, someone who was going to be a second wave of al-Qaida.

But he and Richard Reid are, you know, are serious al-Qaida terrorists, and they were put on trial by the Bush administration, which is now members of whom are now criticizing Obama for doing exactly the same thing, and they were very successful in convicting these people.

And at the time, their convictions were celebrated by some of the people now who are criticizing Obama. In fact, really, if you take a look at the numbers, the Bush administration convicted some 150 terrorists on terror charges after 9/11, and three in military commissions. Vastly more people were tried during the Bush years in the regular civilian courts and with great results.

The courts are I mean, we have a terrific justice system in this country, and we have very experienced prosecutors and very sophisticated judges who can keep order in the court. So there's a good track record here for the U.S. courts.

GROSS: So why is it, do you think, that Republicans are using this issue of trying alleged terrorists in the criminal courts? Why are they using this against the Obama administration when the fact is that the Bush administration did it too and the Bush administration had much, much, much more success in the criminal courts than through the military system?

Ms. MAYER: Well, I think it boils down to what works politically, basically. There is a serious policy argument underneath this, which is also true, that the which is that in the Bush years they tried to elevate the role of the military in dealing with terrorists, and as one of the people I interview in my story says, emasculate the Justice Department, have it play a much smaller role in dealing with terrorists.

And so there is a fight going on about the proper role for the U.S. courts in dealing with terrorism, but it's more symbolic than actual, and the problem for the Obama administration is that there's a fear factor here.

People who people are easily frightened about terrorism for obvious reasons, and the critics of the Obama administration are arguing that he, that Obama is weak because he's too legalistic.

So we have, for instance, Sarah Palin in her speech at the Tea Party convention saying we don't need a law professor fighting terrorism, we need a commander in chief.

So she's suggesting Obama, because he wants to work within the U.S. legal system, is somehow weak. The problem is, the president takes an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. He has to be both commander in chief and he has to uphold the laws, and it's not an either-or choice, and it's a false choice to make it sound otherwise.

GROSS: Jane Mayer will be back in the second half of the show. Her article, "The Trial: Eric Holder and the Battle Over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," is in the current edition of The New Yorker. You'll find a link to the article on our Web site, freshair.npr.org. I'm Terry Gross, and this is FRESH AIR. (...)"

More at http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=123493667

rainmaker, everyone knows Regan, Bush, and Bush caused the end of the world. lol

While I think an excess of ideology-driven deregulatory zeal those three presidents shared (with their Big Business backers) led directly to the financial near-collapse we are now dealing with, obviously we're not yet at the end of the world...

Regan was an affable sort, and Bush the Elder (GHWB) was of the GOP I grew up in...and had a truly meritorious record of service in WWII.

I've been a member of both major parties...they will both break your heart...and have never voted a straight ticket.

There is too much Big Money in politics, it compromises our electoral and political processes, and the result is often not in the interests of most of us workers who are just getting by.

I have a question. I have looked to see if any current residents of Gitmo were arrested in the United States. All seem to have been "enemy combatants captured on foreign soil. If this is the case, what is the basis for the argument that all potential terrorists in the U.S. need to go to Gitmo. And since the last administration arrested, charged and convicted (and all given Miranda rights) more than 300 people in the U.S. for terrorist acts on U.S. soil, why the indignation over the preppy Xmas bomber?

It might be worth noting that only four combatants have been charged in military courts and one was found not guilty.

Seems to me that the Xmas Bomber perpetrated acts against the U.S. on U.S. soil (okay a U.S. aircraft) and thus should be held accountable in U.S. court. KSM may not have been on U.S. soil, but his actions dictate that he be tried here. Silly me I guess..........

I hope since Richard Ried (9 years ago) that we have learned how to better handle terrorist in this country. Ried was only 9 months after 9/11 and we did not have any procedure in place on how to handle terrorist in our country.The crotch bomber was interrogated for only an hour and not even by the experts from the CIA, what a joke this administration is. Phil Merrill your spin is appalling.

On 2/10/10 at 12:24 PM, Dave1234 wrote: Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

I hope since Richard Ried (9 years ago) that we have learned how to better handle terrorist in this country. Ried was only 9 months after 9/11 and we did not have any procedure in place on how to handle terrorist in our country.The crotch bomber was interrogated for only an hour and not even by the experts from the CIA, what a joke this administration is. Phil Merrill your spin is appalling.

So basically you have no rational argument after the editorial and the posts by Pokeyboy and pjramsay. Is that because you are terrified by logic, reason, and the most deadly of all, facts? No need to answer, we all know.