security

Introducing the No Catch and Release for Dangerous Guantanamo Detainees Campaign

Last Friday, President Obama met with a group of terrorism survivors in the White House and announced that all charges were dropped against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole in 2001. This event was mostly overshadowed by the uproar surrounding the spending bill in the Senate, but it marks a dangerous milestone as the Obama Administration begins to deal with the messy repercussions of closing the terrorist detention facility in Guantanamo Bay.

The President will face a number of tough decisions over the next year as he prepares to move detainees to other facilities, and it is certain that there will be a great deal of pressure on him to treat these detainees as common criminals and even to let go some of the 200 detainees considered too dangerous to release.

Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of treating the risk of releasing Guantanamo prisoners as a hypothetical issue. The Pentagon estimates that 62 former Guantanamo detainees have already returned to active involvement in terrorist organizations and that one has even risen to be the second in command of Al-Qaeda in Yemen.

In response to this troubling turn of events, Students for Victory recently launched the No Catch and Release petition campaign. No Catch and Release will gather public support for three general principles for handling the Guantanamo detainees. Each of the three principles are already supported by majorities of the American people. President Obama has repeatedly stated that he wants to listen to the ideas of all Americans, so this is our chance to make our voices heard.

You can read and sign the petition at http://www.studentsforvictory.com/savelives.

In just five months, Newt Gingrich’s Drill Here Drill Now campaign prepared the environment that allowed the #dontgo Revolution to take place and win an important policy victory for energy independence. We may not have the eloquence of Newt or the resources of American Solutions, but we do have a fired up and united grassroots ready to act to make this country safer.

We at Students for Victory are urging President Obama to follow these principles and we are building a widespread coalition of activists, bloggers, and organizations who will work with us to do the same. You can publicly endorse the principles and join the coalition at http://www.studentsforvictory.com/savelives.

All Americans have the right to have their voices heard. We face an uphill struggle against organized groups that favor releasing prisoners our soldiers fought to apprehend, but one signature at a time, one message to a friend at a time, and one blog post at a time, each of us can make a difference and act to help keep our loved ones safe.

We hope you’ll sign the petition, join the coalition, and get involved in the movement at http://www.studentsforvictory.com/savelives.

 

Generally Speaking - Obama Supporters Fudge the Truth

You just can't trust these lefties to tell the truth.  Having watched the technically well made video, one is left with the impression that all security and military people in the Israeli military and intelligence have strong positive feelings for Obama. While some actually do, others do not. Not one contrary voice is heard on this video.  Indeed some of them seem to have a positive impression of Obama, basically because Obama endorses no pre-condition talks with Iran.

Yossi Alpher, appearing in the video and tagged as a "former Mossad senior officer" (but the Jewish Council for Education & Research failed to associate Alpher with one of his other jobs, that of Senior Advisor to Ehud Barak at Camp David [where Barak tried to give away most of Yosh to Arafat who chose not to end the conflict]) appears in the video endorsing Obama as a negotiator and reinforces one of the themes of the video that Sen. McCain is essentially a second President Bush and that would no longer be helpful. 

More interesting is the assertion by Ret. Brig. Gen. Shaul Arieli in the video that the "Bush Doctrine" has intensified the fundamentalist Islamic threat and has strengthened Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Arieli is interviewed in the JPOST article and endorses Obama. Arieli is a member of the "Council for Peace and Security" which includes in its http://www.peace-security-council.org/about.us.asp#abGuiding Guiding Principles  these gems:

    • PEACE IS ACHIEVED BY COMPROMISE  Peace and a strong army are the essential ingredients for Israel’s security.  The army must at all cost retain its deterrent ability.  It should however be borne in mind that peace is not achievable without compromise and willingness to make sacrifices.

    • THE OCCUPATION IS CAUSING DAMAGE  Continued occupation of the Territories and control over the Palestinians is damaging the democratic character of the State of Israel.  It is weakening the army, undermining its ability and its preparedness to respond to military threats.

    • A PALESTINIAN STATE IS NOT A THREAT  The establishment of a Palestinian State in the major part of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip – with necessary security provisions – does not constitute a threat to Israel.  On the contrary, it is essential in order to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel.  A realistic permanent boundary between Israel and a Palestinian State should be that of the Green Line (Israel’s provisional border before the Six Day War in 1967), with certain adjustments in Jerusalem and in other places.  The large Jewish settled domains on the eastern side of the Green Line should be annexed to Israel.</blockquote> I suppose giving away Gaza and offering to give away Yosh has had nothing to do with strengthening the more visible anti-Israel forces amongst the Pali population vis a vis the terrorists in suits. It is much easier to blame the American president than take responsibility for advocating failed policies which have brought increased bloodshed and rocket attacks. More of the same policies will leave a devastated Israel in its wake. A PA terrorist state will certainly NOT enhance Israel's security in any way.

     

Essentially, this video was constructed to be an Obama outreach to Jews and people close to Israel, made by lefties advocating the Obama way as the most effective method to preserve Israel's security. To what extent the Obama campaign assisted in its creation or advised the producers remains to be seen. That misleading and deceptive editing was needed to sell the message is something well worth noting. I wonder though if any of those appearing in the video actually are thinking that an inexperienced and naive Obama will be easier to manage from Jerusalem than someone else?

I also wonder what some of the desire for "change" in US policy is all about.  The Bush administration has, more than any previous Presidency supported the Palis politically all the while, not backing down in support for Israel in the issues that matter.  The Bush administration has publically called for a Pali state which was a game changing event. At the same time, the pretense of having free elections and at least some lip service to a commitment to "living in peace" with Israel by the PA has insulated the Bush team and prevented the forcing of any significant concessions.  Bush even sat quietly while watching Arafat rot in the Muqata. The Bush policy has certainly helped reveal a pali population that actually is more concerned with bringing on Jewish suffering than they are establishing a civil government by giving them a vote. Sen. 'say it ain't so' Joe Biden, speaking for the Obama camp during his VP debate with Governor Palin believed removing the veil of concealment covering the true intentions of the Pali population to be a negative. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1222017470356&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull  (Ex-generals misled by pro-Obama video)

Oct. 6, 2008
Matt Zalen and Shani Rosenfelder , THE JERUSALEM POST
A video released by the Jewish Council for Education & Research, which appeared to show several retired senior IDF and Mossad officials supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has proven to be misleading, with a number of officials who appeared in the video saying on Monday that their words were taken out of context.

The film's producers have stressed in response that the Obama campaign was not involved during any stage of the production.

"It's not only misleading, it was an interview about what the next president was going to have to deal with," former deputy chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan told The Jerusalem Post. "And to know that they used this interview and took five seconds, and put me in a list of people praising Barack Obama…

"It wasn't about the campaign, it was about the political and security issues of the Middle East that the next president should be involved in," he continued. "Nothing was said about Obama or [Republican presidential candidate John] McCain."

"I don't want other people to interfere in my elections, and I must not interfere with the elections in the United States," he said, adding that to do so would be neither "ethical nor smart."

In the video, the senior Israeli officials appear to support Obama's stated policy that dialogue with Iran would be the best way of confronting the current nuclear crisis. Dayan said that his position is just the opposite.

"I don't think that we - either the United States or Israel - should be engaged with Iran, because the Iranians will take advantage of that," the former deputy chief of staff said. "Our issue is to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability."

"We need more powerful, effective sanctions to delegitimize [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," he continued. "A military option should be prepared, but used only as a last resort."

Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy, who appeared in the video praising the Democratic candidate, also said that he was misled.

"I was interviewed for a documentary dealing with what issues the new American president must deal with regarding the Middle East," Halevy told the Post. "I was asked about the candidates, and was complimentary to both."

But when asked about his opinion on who was more qualified to be president, Halevy said that he had rejected the question.

"I said that I thought it was inappropriate for an Israeli to advise Americans on who they should vote for, as it would be for them to advise Israelis on who they should vote for prime minister," he said.

Halevy added that it would be irresponsible to comment on the positions of any US presidential candidates before an election, as those positions may change once the new president takes office.

Both Halevy and Dayan said that representatives of the Jewish Council for Education & Research had been in contact with them, and promised to deal with the matter.

According to Israel Radio, Maj.-Gen. (Ret.) Amram Mitzna and Brig.-Gen. (res.) Giora Inbar, a former IDF commander in south Lebanon, both said that they were also unaware of the true nature of the video. However, Inbar said he did not have a problem with the clip because it represents his views.

In the video, Mitzna had said that another four years of indecision, stagnancy and a lack of intense US involvement in the Middle East peace process would be bad for Israel. He claimed Obama would achieve a greater involvement and that he "brings many hopes."

For his part, Inbar was filmed saying that he would personally vote for Obama to help Israel. Inbar said he was not convinced that the Bush method was the right way to deal with the axis of evil and that he would welcome anyone who chose to handle it differently.

Revised Films, the independent film company that produced the clip, issued the following response:

"Our firm is an independent company that created a clip that was composed of interviews with senior Israeli security officials, and whose subject was the American policy regarding Israel, in light of the upcoming elections in the United States, while focusing on the two central candidates for president, and Barack Obama.

"The Obama campaign was not involved during any stage of the production, or [the film's] distribution. After the film was completed, the Jewish Council for Education & Research, took charge of the film and used it."

A response by The Jewish Council for Education & Research has yet to be obtained due to the time difference between Israel and the US.
 

VIDEO LINK

http://vimeo.com?pg=embed&amp;sec=1882159

 

Obama's 'civilian national security force'

Posted: July 15, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

<!-- copyright -->© 2008  <!-- end copyright -->

 

<!-- begin bodytext -->

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs – a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

(Column continues below)

Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?

What does it mean?

If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

Are we talking about creating a police state here?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69601

 

 

Syndicate content