“We don’t have to treat them in the same way that we would treat a criminal suspect in the US,” Obama said.

That's fine with me, and allays most of my concerns.

FB

The Great McCain who just HATES to pick apart other people's speeches trying to make them look bad would be ashamed of you. But then, that's a rule he honors more in the breach than in its observance.

As you seem to concede, the war against terror is both a legal AND a military problem. We must use all tools at our disposal -- the FBI, the CIA, the Fed, the SEC, Interpol, and, yes, the Pentagon. But if you bothered to do even a modest amount of original research, rather than jumping to the worst conclusions, you would know that Obama has clearly stated that one of the biggest problems with the Iraq war is it distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he has pledged to pursue aggressively.

You may also have noticed that after the 1993 WTC bombing, there were no further terrorist attacks from Middle Eastern extremists in the continental US for the remainder of Clinton's term in office. Several attacks were thwarted, most notably the Millennium plot.

Obama could hardly do worse than the Bush administration on terror, which presided over two of the greatest intelligence failures in American history and allowed bin Laden to slip through our fingers in Afghanistan.

I think one of the main reasons there have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11 has nothing to do with the "success" of US efforts at interdiction, but with the simple fact that we have provided al Qaeda with so much low hanging American fruit in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why go to all the trouble of setting up attacks in the US when we have made it so easy for them to go after us right in their own backyards?

The FY post was directed to

rabbitsmrogasboard

After the first Trade Center Bombingin 1993, it was a law enforcement issue. It should have been as such for 9/11 as well. This neocon administration took advantage of our grief and started a pre-emptive war against a country who had nothing to do with those attacks.

A handful of nutjobs took down the trade centers. It should have been a law enforcement issue. Anything more saps our rights as a free society. Tell me Fred, how many freedoms are you willing to give up for the military and administration fighting the "war on terror"?

Actually, the NYPD's response center is a model of law enforcement doing the job it should -- and a better job in many ways than "Homeland Security."

You may recall that when Homeland Security was raising and lowering the "terror threat down" every other day and advising purchasing mass quantities of bottled water and duct tape, it was the NYPD which debunked one of the "threats" that terrorists were after "targets" in NY and NJ. They have a command center that rivals the Sit Room at the White House, and fielded their own staff of trained intelligence agents when it was clear that the intel coming out of Bush's admin was, well, useless.

But part one of any domestic anti-terror response has to include domestic law enforcement trained to pick up on small signals or actions that may not register on a national scale. Local Law enforcement involvement is critical.

So Fred's "I am reading that Obama considers the terrorism problem solely a Law Enforcement (police, FBI) matter. If indeed this is his opinion, questions arise as to his comprehension of the problem..." comment is akin to reading the "Recommended! blurbs on the back of book jacket and taking that as the sum total content of the book.

As the old adage says, you can't judge a book by its cover.

KACHING!
Someone just raked up some of those McCain go troll the blogs points.