Kerry for preemption?
Via Drudge, we learn that Sen. John Kerry has declared his absolute omnipotence, at least vis a vis the Israel-Lebanon conflict: "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened." Kerry also said Bush has been "absent on diplomacy" - never mind that, under federal law, the administration is forbidden to engage terrorist organizations like Hezbollah in diplomacy.
Yet in almost the same breath Kerry declares that "We have to destroy Hezbollah". Since Israel is already presently in the process of destroying Hezbollah, one can only presume that Kerry meant that Bush has failed by not destroying Hezbollah at an earlier point. Is Kerry saying that the U.S. should have gone into Lebanon and waged preemptive war to destroy Hezbollah so that the current crisis could be avoided?
Or perhaps Kerry means that our military should join the battle on the side of Israel to bring about Hezbollah's destruction. Talk about your Cowboy Diplomacy....
Yet in almost the same breath Kerry declares that "We have to destroy Hezbollah". Since Israel is already presently in the process of destroying Hezbollah, one can only presume that Kerry meant that Bush has failed by not destroying Hezbollah at an earlier point. Is Kerry saying that the U.S. should have gone into Lebanon and waged preemptive war to destroy Hezbollah so that the current crisis could be avoided?
Or perhaps Kerry means that our military should join the battle on the side of Israel to bring about Hezbollah's destruction. Talk about your Cowboy Diplomacy....
posted by Garry at
2:19 PM
2 Comments:
"under federal law, the administration is forbidden to engage terrorist organizations like Hezbollah in diplomacy."
Forgive my ignorance, but what federal law is that? And, according to that federal law, what constitutes a terrorist organization? It seems like such a law could seriously limit meaningful and effective communication with hostile entities and could hurt the war on terror not help it.
Just a thought.
By
Jeff, At
1:38 PM, July 25, 2006
My apologies for the delay in responding - I don't recall the specific statue in question, but the law is the reason, for example, why we could not engage Hamas after they won the PA's parliamentary elections - because Hamas (as well as Hezbollah) are on the State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
This is what constitutes a terrorist organization:
1. It must be a foreign organization.
2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.
In any case, just how "meaningful" is communication with such entities, when - by definition - terrorist organizations do not recognize internationally accepted norms? When a lunatic next door starts waving a gun and is screaming that he's coming to kill you and your family, you don't "negotiate" - you shoot first.
By
Garry, At
10:11 AM, August 03, 2006
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home