Previously, terrorism was considered a crime and dealt with as a matter of criminal justice, but that changed under Bush.
Because the Taliban would not turn over bin Laden, we said any nation that harbors terrorists would be considered terrorists, which allowed the invasion of Afghanistan. But, because of a FOIA document released in 2010, we learned that negotiations between the Paki ISI and the Taliban over the turn over of bin Laden were ongoing. Bush said no more talk, we are going in.
So the question is law enforcement versus military intervention, or how much of each.
So looking at Gitmo detainees, how many were a result of law enforcement and how many were a result of military activity. And not just the numbers of each, but how valuable were each as a source of intelligence. Then you need to recognize that another nation(like Pakistan) may not be willing to use their law enforcement or military to apprehend. Or, did Paki know all along that bin Laden was living there.
Often it just boils down to foreign policy doctrine. How much do we depend on diplomacy, military intervention, and/or financial strength. Perry is talking the NeoCon line and Paul is trying to avoid sounding like an isolationist. Rand Paul is masquerading as a Realist, but his votes in the Senate Foreign Relation Committee are giving him away. Plus, Paul keeps criticizing NeoCons, especially Cheney.
Meanwhile, Hillary(Liberal Interventionist) is watching this and has hired NeoCon Fred Kagan as an advisor. If Paul's polling numbers stay high or he gets the GOP nomination, she will run a hawkish, interventionist campaign.
McCain ran as a NeoCon and Obama ran as a Realist, and many GOP Realists backed Obama. Romney tried project that NeoCons and Realists would have equal standing in his administration, but it became obvious that the NeoCons would control, so many GOP Realists backed Obama in 2012. Of all the GOP candidates in 2012, Huntsman was the only Realist.
I have never heard of a realist. I try to pay attention.
I have no use for Paul and would never vote for him. He is not a republican, I believe he is an isolationist and I would never support that position.
But you do what you want
I liked these bums in gizmo. It was a good place to store them awaiting a trial. Putting these people in a US prison where they can recruit the weak minded invites more trouble
OK. Having said all that how do you answer the neo isolationists who sat that sixty years of American involvement in the Mideast has been detrimental and a disaster for American security. We have made the Muslims our mortal enemies.That America really never had a problem with oil flow since the sellers would wither if they did not receive hard currency. Then how do you answer people who argue that given the Holocaust and being the moral superpower, the US had no choice but to support and protect Israel. Can the US disengage, not longer involve itself in the region’s affairs and still consider itself a moral force for good?