Obama Doctrine: Don’t Imprison Suspects

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.” His latest book is Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left (Regnery Publishing).

Twitter: @horowitz39
Facebook: David Horowitz


Crazed leftists and unprincipled Democrats savaged the Bush Administration for almost seven years because they were holding suspected terrorists who had not been tried in Guantanamo. Malignant lawyers working for the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights — two seditious enablers of America’s foes — secured the release of many of these “suspected” terrorists who promptly returned to the field of battle to kill more infidels — including and in particular — Americans. Now Obama is slaughtering suspected terrorists in Pakistan, without a protest from fellow Democrats. Which is just one small example of how the left has raised hypocrisy to epic heights in the post-9/11 world.

For conservatives, this Obama policy makes sense. We’re in a war, and our agenda is to destroy the enemy. No war can be fought without endangering innocents, although civilized nations like the United States should (and probably does) take all the precautions possible. But for Obama and the left, which don’t regard our struggle against terrorism as a war, there is no justification for the Obama policies. For unhypocritical leftists — and there are some — what Obama is doing is a crime.

 

  • IRISH

    Barack Obama is nothing more than a traitor!…God help us all if he takes residence in the white house again…God help us all.

    • Jim_C

      You know, the word "traitor" has an actual meaning. You should go look it up and tell us specifically why Obama is one. Then you could prosecute him for it.

      You can't, you won't, and you'll make excuses…and all that fuss why? because you're a dumb-ss. So instead of being a dumb-ss, go learn something for once in your life.

      • RatkoMladicFan

        Ok, smart-ss, how you describe Nacirema president who is buddy buddy with organization (Muslim Brotherhood) that openly states it's goal to destroy Nacirema society from inside?

        If I was Nacirema citizen (and luckily I am not) I would shout "mole", "one of them", or "traitor".

        But you Naciremians can contine trusting him, I don't care. You are already bankrupt anyways. It will be fun to watch the demise of Nacirema Empire.

    • Fred Dawes

      the sad fact is we really don't know who is the puppeteer behind obama?

      • Wesley69

        I believe it is George Soros.

        • trickyblain

          I believe it is Darth Sidious.

  • zsqpwxxeh

    I think CBS is airing an hour-long examination tonight of how the Obama administration is carrying out the very Bush war policies excoriated in their 2008 campaign.

    Oh, wait. Never mind.

  • scum

    Once again, David proves himself to be nothing but a blowhard in a post full of inflammatory stupidity: "Crazed Leftists and unprincipled Democrats", "malignant lawyers," "seditious enablers of America's foes.." what garbage.

    • MrSwing

      Then find a lefty website If Horowitz is such a "blowhard".

      Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

      • scum

        Unlike you, I read from the whole political spectrum

    • winoceros

      Great comeback. How substantive. How is he wrong?

      • kafir4life

        The left merely has to say it, and it is so. You'll never hear them counter the message. They can't. Not only would they be wrong, they'd just sound more foolish than they actually are (I know…..that'd be a reach).

        • scum

          uh, what?

  • BLJ

    The Obama Doctrine:

    1) Abandon your long-time allies
    2) Coddle Radical Islam
    3) Use military for political benefit (i.e. Bin Laden)
    4) Tie hands of military in battlefield
    5) Do all you can to stick it to Israel

    • Jim_C

      This article mentions how Obama is apparently killing Islamic Radicals willy-nilly.

      You call that "coddling," huh?

      • BLJ

        He only kills the one's who are not affliated with his good buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood. You must have been one of those morons who voted for him in 2008 the way you defend the guy.

        I suspect you will be dumb enough to do the same in 2012.

        • Jim_C

          Most definitely. I love how your post has to streeeeeeeeetch to justify its own ignorance of Things That Actually Have Happened in the World. "His buddies in the Muslim Brotherhood." You really have no idea what you're talking about. And you probably never will.

    • scum

      or not

    • josgh

      you aint very smart

  • trickyblain

    Unhinged much, DH?

    The thesis of this seems to be "Obama is doing things that he, himself, disagrees with, and conservatives do agree with, so conservatives should be angry because somebody said something mean about Bush once."

    • winoceros

      No, the thesis is: most of the left are hypocritical when it comes to Obama's handling of the jihadists.

      Was that too hard for you?

      • trickyblain

        I agree that many are. And this is something new? On the right or left?

        How many WSJ or Heritage Foundation articles have you seen lately that claim that running defecits is not a bad thing? Zero. You see the opposite. Yet when the shoe was on the other foot, both of the organizations above defended deficit spending when it was carried out by a Republican congress/administration.

    • scum

      What the Right is upset about is that Obama's policies have been far more effective than Bush's at doing what Bush wanted to do. The Right doesn't know what else to do than whine, as we see with DH

  • Fred Dawes

    This is nothing but total madness, IF THE Leftists want to be murdered by evil jihad guys, and want to be beheaded why don't the little monkeys go to the Jihadists and ask to be beheaded or ask all the muslim jihad people to live in that Leftists home? ( I forgot we have 0ne million coming here each year ) Obama is without a doubt a total muslim guy or in love with the jihad.

    This country is doomed and if obama gets his butt back in office we will see so much pain you will never recover from this evil, but ask who is the real puppeteer behind obama?

    • scum

      Fred, this is a suprsingly ignorant post, really. The puppeteer behind Obama must be Big Business, given that he bailed out all the Republican CEO's

  • FREE_TIBET!

    I'm really happy the Lefties overcame their Racism and elected the first THING with a higher Melanin-level. WHEN though, will they conquer their SEXISM? Dressing Rachel Maddow up as a Lumberjack when "she's?" not on camera doesn't cut it. DEMOCRATS…the POLITICAL PARTY THAT WANTED SLAVERY TO CONTINUE! Being a Liberal means never having to claim responsibility! (See? If I were a Libbie. I'd be BLAMING BUSH just for making me write that. MINDLESS DOLTS!)

    • scum

      History Lesson 101: The Democrats were indeed the core of the 'Solid South' during the antebellum period. The problem with your crude reference for today is that it fails to take into account the reversal of the parties. In the 1930s, blacks abandoned the Party of Lincoln for the Dems, and in the 1960s, white conservatives in '64 and '68 elections abandoned the Dems for the Republicans. It was at this point that the parties basically reversed positions. Even DH claims that after the 60s', the so-called 'radicals' hijacked the Dems.

  • John smith

    @BLJ

    If our goal was to stick it to israel why does camp david still train with mosad, and why do we still allow Israeli access to the echelon program?

    And as for restraining our troops' hands behind their backs, have you ever read McChrystal's plan to win Afghanistan? for every terrorist you kill someone personally knows him, and then you enrage another person to join a cell, or a camp and eventually a terrorist organization will get their hands on a brainwashed child, and basically they make sure that they film American troops shooting a young child. Thus making Americans look like monsters, and rallying people into a frenzy to join the terrorists. And really all the middle east needs to do is to unite to make us back the heck up, and they know that. Because for the past couple wars America has been in as soon as we began to lose or show signs of loss the American public outcries, and we plan to withdraw.(did you know we actually planned to withdraw from korea before Macarthur pulled his glorious flank?)

    Rumor is that in Kabul a cell actually gave a kid a faulty fuse, and drugged him up just so they can tape him getting killed maliciously, and the drugs would make him struggle, and twitch way more then a natural body should.

    • BLJ

      Wake up. They hate us whether we kill them or not. They know we are more concerned with public opinion and being PC.

      Let our soldiers do what they have been trained for and that is to kill the enemy. Comparing Afghanistan to the Korean War doesn't make any sense.

    • winoceros

      I love the ol' "what we do makes more terrorists" argument. My Lord, have you people ever, ever considered why those GD Islamic countries are such a scourge on the world for, I don't know, 1400 years? Do you think the Persians were asking themselves, "What did we do?" How about all the Christians in the Middle East? How about those Greeks and Italians and Iberian folk…"What did we do to make them so bad?" How about India, like 15 years after Mohammed was rotting in the ground…do you think they were wondering what they did wrong to make those Muslims into terrorists?

      Maybe, if you took a few seconds to learn about Islam, you would know why it does not matter what we do. They will come and come and come and they will never stop coming. Like the ocean. It is just geography and a nation's own savvy that will save them and nothing else.

      • scum

        In the Iberian peninsula, the 'Black Moors' were suprisingly tolerant of CHristians and Jews. After the Reconquista, Christians began liberally stringing Jews up and burning them. Hardly the 'civilized West' we hear so much about.

    • winoceros

      If we walled the place off and put all the Muslims inside the wall, on a whole continent, you need only wait for the converts on the other continents to do exactly the same thing.

      It's the Islam, stupid. God, why are people looking for boogeymen in the only place where there has ever, ever been freedom? What is this masochistic streak you people have? What kind of self loathing is that, anyway?

      • scum

        Well, in the 1980s we should have seen that. Unfortunately, the CIA was busy funnelling money to Claire Sterling to publish her book THE TERROR NETWORK which argued that ALL TERRORISM stems from the USSR. This myopic view of the RIght put us on the wrong track in the 90s. Therefore, the Right overspent time attacking Clinton instead of keeping its eye on the ball. Bush ignored Clinton's personal warning about Al-Qaeda, and ignored Mossad's warning about an imminent attack. There was no 9/11 conspiracy – that would be giving the Right too much credit. There was only stupidity under Bush, even with Cheney's diabolical intelligence.

  • Wesley69

    A captured terrorist poses a major problem for this administration.
    -Using the Army Field Manual, the US interrogators will get no imformation from the terrorist.
    -Under Holder, the Justice Department has the desire to extend Miranda Rights to these individuals and try them in US courts. This idea of treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue is not a popular one among US citizens.
    -If captured, where do they imprison these terrorists. Gitmo is available and should be the logical place, but Obama wants to close it. Putting prisoners there would be an embarassment for the President. It would be easier to let them be imprisoned in their own country and LET THEM GO, which has happened on occasions.
    -Thus, the thing that will least embarass the administration is to kill terrorists in the field. You avoid all these other problems and it makes you look tough on terrorism. With Obama IT IS ALL ABOUT APPEARANCE.

    • scum

      Not sure why a military installation in Cuba is the right choice. You take it as a given that we have military installations all around the world, and that we should have the right to try prisoners without ever having them set foot on U.S. soil. Look at how Gitmo was obtained in the first place…

  • Ozzy

    The number of years this country has been DOOMED is astounding.

  • Mao Ying

    One thing about Obama and his Dept. of Homeland Security is that they consider many conservative right-wingers to be terrorists. With that in mind, I say get ready for some killing here in the United States after the killing of terrorists in Pakistan is completed.