« Today In History | Main | President Karzai-Poetic Response »
September 26, 2006
A Question of Right
by Tina Grazier
I was perusing articles and postings on the web, looking at different takes on Clinton's red faced, finger pointing interview with Chris Wallace, and I noticed something that made me wonder...how do we decide what is right? Bear with me here:
Via Blogcritics.org:
Clinton himself admitted that he was offered bin Laden in a speech when he says they did not take him because they did not think they had anything to hold him on. They released him. "At the time, 1996, he had committed no
crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America".
Unfortunately, the words here do match the words in the 9/11 Report. In that report it is said that the Clinton officials believed that killing an individual that was an imminent threat to the US would be viewed as self defense, not an assassination: Senior legal advisers in the Clinton administration agreed that, under the law of armed conflict, killing a person who posed an imminent threat to the United States was an act of self-defense, not an assassination. As former National Security Adviser Berger explained, if we wanted to kill Bin Ladin with cruise missiles, why would we not want to kill him with covert action? Clarke's recollection is the same.
What legal advice did then President Clinton receive from top advisors on what was right...and legal?
"Senior legal advisors in the Clinton administration agreed...killing a person who posed an imminent threat to the United States was an act of self-defense..."
So, if killing someone is OK as an act of self defense then why is non-lethal, stress tactics on someone to obtain information in self-defense not OK? Think about it.
Posted by Post Scripts at September 26, 2006 08:12 AM
Comments
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. It distracts from the problem at hand. It comforts those responsible for the problem at hand. But it don't solve the problem at hand.
Posted by: Libby at September 26, 2006 05:32 PM
Libby, The "problem at hand" has been well defined as one that will take possibly 20 years of effort on many fronts. The left plays games, makes negative destructive accusations, and has no plan.
20/20 hindsight doesn't count for squat.
Posted by: Tina at September 27, 2006 09:20 PM