Paul is wrong because you can't handle a terrorist detonation of a nuclear weapon in a city as a criminal act, via criminal law. The scale is so off as to make this a difference of kind. Especially combined with his "withdraw from overseas" approach to foreign policy (one that I have some sympathy with, in all honesty), this by itself is enough to disqualify him from consideration for President. His arguments are entirely unserious, in that they not only will be futile, but counter-productive (i.e. inviting attack).
But Newt's response is also wrong. He at least has the advantage of taking the threat seriously. But "nothing to change in the Patriot Act?" Srlsy?
Look, detecting this threat on American soil is the last, final gasp of the safety net. If it gets to this point with a nuke, we've already lost.
And Newt's smart enough to understand this. You do not just
The response has to be clear, and forceful to organizations that might provide material, expertise, and financing to the people we know want to do this to us. Ancient Rome would take hostages from the Royal Families of allies whose allegiance they questioned. There are more modern equivalents, that send the message that an attack on us is personally catestrophic for you, your family, your clan, and your country.
And yes, you could actually say this to Vladimir Putin. He may be a brutal fascistic thug, but letting him know that his personal welfare is intimately bound up in making sure there are no nuclear explosions in American cities is a message that an American President with a bit of intestinal fortitude could deliver, and make stick.
Newt could be that guy, but based on this debate exchange doesn't seem to be.
Look, what's the point being a Superpower if you can't take out a dozen ruling families? Get them thinking on their future, and they'll deal with the people who would dearly like to take out one of our cities.
Is this really so hard?
5 comments:
Is it possible that Newt may understand the theorem but is reluctant to bring it up in public because the MSM and other lefties will pillory him for it? I could foresee an endless series of editorials condemning him for "ruthless and insensitive warmongering and fear-spreading." After all, to the American left The Commies Are Our Friends....
Moreover, Newt's argument seems to me to be "you are innocent until proven guilty, unless we say so." What is the difference between law enforcement and national security? Whatever they say it is.
We need to see our actions from the perspective of others. We aren't a super power anymore. And by threatening other countries with annihalation we just create more hostility. How would we feel if Pakistan threatened to nuke us if our drones killed any more civilians? We would consider it an act of aggression.
Jason, we absolutely do need to see our actions from the perspective of others. The Iranians and Pakistanis have a status/shame culture. The West (over the last 2 or 3 decades) has a status/niceness culture.
Trying to make them like us is falling into Edward Said's Orientalism trap. "How would we feel if ..." doesn't give us any clue as to whether a particular policy of ours will be seen as effective by *them*.
And never mind that the Iranians are happy to repeatedly flaunt their disrespect of the laws of diplomacy. They do it because they see us as weak, and they despise us for it.
Pakistan is happy to play both sides of the fence, with those that attacked us ten years ago, and those that sheltered them from us.
Their culture doesn't respect our "niceness" approach. We should respect their culture, and tailor our policies accordingly.
This is the root problem: how to ratchet down after years of foreign overcommitment, without inviting attack precisely because we appear weaker than before?
I have problems with Newt's answer, because of the danger of handing star-chamber authority to an Obama or Hillary Clinton. Better in the case of a real nuke to deal with the threat outside the law, and then ask forgiveness. Carte blanche to the executive branch is unsupportable.
Ron Paul is loony and has been for decades (his district is 40 miles down the road from me). He offers seemingly-logical platitudes but shows no signs of having thought about the possible unintended consequences.
Post a Comment