News-Record.com

Well, technically, CAIR has a point. Fascism usually involves a coalition of government and corporations, I don't think "Islamic fascism" really does apply: I know of no evidence that al-Qaeda wants any kind of relationship with, say, Halliburton or Wal-Mart. "Islamic [or Islamicist] theocracy" is probably more apt.

As for torture, we probably do want to know, inasmuch as the info will come out anyway and testimony obtained under duress is inadmissible in court.

One other point: The administration has mocked a "law enforcement" approach to terrorism, preferring a military approach, but this was primarily a law enforcement operation. As a number of sources have pointed out, the biggest problem in fighting terrorism isn't killing them, it's identifying/locating them, and the processes involved are, literally and figuratively, detective work. (Not to say a precisely targeted Hellfire missile or Predator drone or Special Forces team won't have its place from time to time ... )

How, Doug, is using the term "Fascist", tied directly to "Islamic", a defense of our freedoms? I understand it is a rhetorical strategy, but does it accomplish something helpful? Does bin Laden give a damn if we think he's a jackbooted thug? Will other Muslims say to themselves, "Oh, hey, that George Bush is right. These particular believers in Islam, they aren't my brothers in Allah, they are Islamic, alright, but they are rotten fascists! Thanks, Mr. Bush, for clarifying that for us. And I guess now I can see the difference between Robber Baron Christians, Evil Horde Christians, Licentious, Lewd and Hypocritical Christians, and the really just regular okay Christians...who support Israel."

The NSA's intercept program helped the Brits locate and neutralize these terrorists.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
So much for the "law enforcement only" approach.
The administration has never "mocked" a law enforcement approach. Counter terrorism is not a local or U.S. problem, it's a worldwide program, and U.S. law enforcement does not operate in foreign countries or monitor foreign communications. Hence, the problem calls for a national level response, which is why we have intelligence agencies and the U.S. military.

jaycee,

Thank you for bringing to attention here the TSA contribution to foiling this plot. It's amazing how quiet the media has been on that point. Perhaps, this program has some value after all inspite of what the Dems and libs complain about it. Yeah, I know, it is a violation of our rights..even though it might help save our collective lives.

Lex made a good point about fighting terrorism is about locating terrosists. Well, the TSA program did exactly that, so I suppose that Lex will now glorify and suport that program?

Maybe, just maybe, in spite of what we hear from the media, George Bush is doing something right? You think?

Thanks from me also for mentioning the TSA aspect. I'd like to know a lot more about that, but undoubtedly the less that's generally known the better. Perhaps some arrests in this country will result.

I don't think the Bush adm has mocked a law enforcement approach to terrorism in all instances. We can't take only a law-enforcement approach, but it seems to me the government has been very active on law-enforcement fronts.

jaycee and stormy: Once again you're misrepresenting the arguments about the NSA's warrantless-surveillance program. No one is arguing that surveillance of terrorism suspects is wrong. (Literally no one. Find me one example, anywhere, of any U.S. politician -- heck, any U.S. citizen -- arguing that we should not wiretap terrorism suspects. You can't do it.) I, at least, am arguing that the government SHOULD FOLLOW THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION AND GET A FISA WARRANT when that surveillance involves people in the U.S.

I trust this was an honest misunderstanding on your part and not a deliberate misrepresentation of my position. I further hope that my position is now clear.

Are we talking about the TSA or the NSA? Two different animals.
TSA is the Transportation Security Agency which runs airport screening checkpoints.
NSA is the National Security Agency, which handles electronic intercepts, cryptology, etc.
Intelligence is a unbelievably complex field. Hardly any amount of news articles, books, etc., can fully explain it to laymen who aren't involved in it. And in this politically-charged society much of what is written these days is confusing, misunderstood, and full of bias and opinions masking as "news."
The point is, to fully explain everything to a reader or laymen or the general public would involve disclosing so much information as to render many programs ineffective.
I'm loathe to say "Just trust your government" but I think that sometimes we have to.

Lex, no legal authority has adjudicated the current procedures for terrorist intercepts to be illegal, to be outside the limits of the Constitution, or to require warrants as in other intercept activities. NO LEGAL AUTHORITY HAS SAID THE NSA PROGRAM IS ILLEGAL.
Just because you'd like it to be "illegal" so you can use it to beat up on the Bush administration doesn't make it so.
How much clearer can it be?

jaycee, I can read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. So can lawyers. The lawyers agree with me, and all your OJ-is-chasing-the-real-killers BS doesn't change that fact.

And if what the administration is doing were legal, why are its friends in the Congress trying to hard to rewrite the law to MAKE it legal (as they're also doing with the '96 War Crimes Act)?

You're entitled to your own opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Lex, the program is entirely legal, it has not been declared otherwise by any court or legal proceeding.
What don't you understand about our legal system?
Does the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" have any meaning to you?
You can quote or link the opinions of all those that agree with your own opinion, but it is just opinion. Courts adjudicate legal questions, not pundits, reporters, columnists, or bloggers. Or lawyers who agree with you.

Back to the "fascism" term. No, I don't think name-calling makes us more secure. But there is power in language and value in defining bad guys for who they are. It was effective when Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Some people in the West didn't like it, but people living behind the iron curtain understood very well. I think it encouraged them to know an American president was putting some real moral conviction behind.

Bush's "axis of evil" label for Iraq, Iran and North Korea wasn't nearly as effective. For one thing, the three countries weren't exactly teaming up to make trouble for the world the way the Axis powers Germany, Japan and Italy did in the late 1930s. Of course, Iran may be getting there.

Whether the Islamic extremists literally fit the definition of fascists is debatable. When they ran Afghanistan, their government was fascist in some respects but not others. But that's really beside the point. Bush is catching flak from CAIR not for calling terrorists fascists but for using the term Islamic. He's not supposed to mention that all these terrorists are Muslims.

By the way, Bush never has suggested that all Muslims are terrorists. After 9/11, he went out of his way to call Islam a religion of peace, which was very generous of him, in my opinion.

jaycee, i've refuted your Foucaultian dreamworld arguments over at my own blog. I won't waste more time on them here.

Foucaultian? Awesome! But maybe you should keep words like that to your own blog, Lex. I don't think I'd ever been on that page of the dictionary before.

No argument, Lex. You falsely claim it's "illegal" when it hasn't been judged so in a court of law. Not much to argue about.

Doug,

What page is Foucaultian on in the dictionary? I can't find that it is even a word. Did Lex just make-up a word to sound intellectual?

Stormy, that's a word Lex trots out every time I make him out to be a fool.

Oh, OK. I noticed he beat a hasty retreat to his own page.

The OED may well have "Foucaultian", to reflect the pervasive influence in cultural studies of Michel Foucault's post-structural analysis, just as most dictionaries have "Freudian" to describe the good doctor's influence on so many things; but it is more likely Lex (for "lexicographer"?) was restricting it to a narrower philosophical term.

Doug- I don't disagree Bush is using "facist" for poltical reasons. But one never hears "Christian facist", or "Christian demogogue", though they have certainly existed and probably still do. The mere linking of the religion Islam with the poltical philosophy of facism is what raises alarm. Why couldn't Bush have left it at "facists", if that is actually the political philosophy he meant to invoke as our enemy? Would we be any happier if they were still facists but were, say, Buddhists?

Sorry, dropped the "s" in "fascist".

A rose is a rose,is a rose, is a rose ( G.Stein )and Islomfascism is actually really real:

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060811-090001-2970r.htm

They're not Buddhists, or Christians.

Freddy Niche wrote:
"But one never hears "Christian facist" "

I beg to differ, there's all sorts of left-wingers spouting that slur:

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp01132005.html
http://dialoginternational.typepad.com/dialog_international/2005/05/christian_fasci.html
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=15261
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2005/04/christian_fasci.htm
http://www.nion.us/NSOC/Everest.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/246145.htm
http://www.cafepress.com/aroseisarose/746833

So, Doug, since they happen to claim a distorted form of Islam as their impetus, that justifies saying they are "Islamic Fascists", rather than more precise language? Reagan, as you pointed out, used a broader terminology, as in "empire", implying the Soviets were imperialist, but not that they were, say, even "atheists", which would have been pure red meat to throw his supporters!

I wonder, by the way, if Bush has looked into Putin's soul lately, and if, as a former stauch Societ, he would find there an atheist at heart? Would they go out and clear brush together ever again?

Come to think of it, I wonder if several of the European leaders he works closely with are as ardent in their supernatural beliefs as Mr. Bush? I'm willing to bet several are atheists.

Is the leader of Pakistan a Muslim? Is Mubarak? The House of Saud, with whom the Bushes have always been chummy? Do they appreciate hearing those who kill in a sick misunderstanding of their own faith called "Islamic Fascists"? Way to win hearts and mind, Mr. President.

"staunch Soviet", my apologies.