Would you feel like you had to go to Congress or that you could order it on your own authority? First, I would make sure that the mission is clear. Secondly, I would make sure that we had the resources to accomplish the mission. If we had the resources to accomplish the mission, I would want to know, how long is it going to take?
Or give me some rough range of how long it's going to take. And yes, once I define all of those factors, I have no problem going to Congress and respecting the Constitution in terms of what we need to do. The biggest issue here is, what's the mission. How does it best serve the interests of the United States of America? That's what I want to know before I commit our men and women in uniform. And the third thing is if we cannot win what is our exit strategy? I'm not real sure what we're doing in Libya, or what the exit strategy is for Afghanistan.
That is why I categorize this as foggy foreign policy. I can't answer, because I don't have all the information that the president has in making that determination. Whether or not we should have gone in the first place? That's also is a fuzzy kind of thing. What's the mission in Afghanistan? Based on news reports, going to Afghanistan was supposed to be to help them fight off the Taliban. If that's the mission the next question is can we win in this fight against the Taliban.
I don't know the answer to that. All I know is if you look back in history Russia tried the same thing. And they finally gave up. Tell me about the domestic side of our counter-terrorism efforts. What kinds of protections should be in place in terms of federal law enforcement going into people's bank records or listening to their phone calls.
Do you think that should require a warrant? I'm a little troubled by police officers being able to go into a home without a warrant or a court order But that being said, I would rather error on the side of detection - in terms of making sure that we have every opportunity to detect as well as anticipate any threats toward this country.
I do believe in individual rights. I believe in privacy. But I also believe that we've got to give our intelligence agencies the leeway in order to be able to protect us. If I have to choose between political correctness or doing what's right to protect us I'll go with doing what's right to protect us every time.
Does that also apply to non-terrorism related things? On non-terrorism related things, I think we can draw a much harder line in the sand as far as things that should not be done to invade our privacy. I can't delineate to you exactly what I would want to change, but here again I would rather error on the side of caution and protection, rather than worry about that ten percent that I might have a problem with. Perfect legislation doesn't exist. But I'm happy with legislation that's 90 percent right on especially if it's going to protect the people.
What would you say to a civil libertarian who argued that we all want to safeguard American lives, but that if you don't draw some legal line then the government is going to tend to use its authority for nefarious purposes? What I'd say to them is this. I think it's one of our founding fathers who said - I think it might have been Thomas Jefferson, it might have been Abraham Lincoln, I'm not sure - if men were angels, we wouldn't need laws. Men are not angels.
Read: The many walkbacks of Herman Cain. In June, Trump decided to hold a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, over the objections of common sense and practically every public-health expert in the country, who warned that the event would spread the coronavirus. Some prominent Republicans attended out of a sense of defiance, including Cain, who was photographed—like most attendees—without a mask. Today, he died at a hospital in the Atlanta area. Cain was not a stupid man, nor ignorant of science; he was a trained mathematician, after all.
At one time, Cain seemed like a model of how an individual can live the American dream. Today, he seems like a cautionary tale about how an individual can be destroyed by American politics. Skip to content Site Navigation The Atlantic.
Popular Latest. The Atlantic Crossword. Who are you rooting for? Three months ago, four of my favorites were Trump, Carson, Rubio, and Cruz. All four of those people project the greatest leadership skills and problem-solving skills and courage. Is that something you think should be considered, or is it overblown? HC: That is total media overreaction for the purpose of trying to bring down Trump. The liberal media. They are focusing more on what Donald Trump said than the 14 people who are dead [from the San Bernardino attacks].
You can use that soundbite. And it has not worked. Look, you have independent lone wolf terrorists out there killing us. We have million people in the country. Manage cookies. If you think the same, join us. Opinion Notebook. One of the Republican contenders for the US election is proving a hit on the web. Share on twitter opens new window Share on facebook opens new window Share on linkedin opens new window Share on whatsapp opens new window.
Matthew Garrahan in Los Angeles. Receive free US society updates.
0コメント