Apparently, the Obama Administration does not.
Today, another bunch of Congresscritters will hold yet another hearing on the problem of terrorism. I'm wondering when they'll get around to demanding that Attorney General Holder answer the question he left hanging at the last round of Congressional Hearings: How many lawyers at the Justice Department once represented terrorists? And when will they be fired? Oh yeah, and how many more of these ultimately-pointless hearings will we have to endure? These Congresscritters yack and question, the witnesses dodge questions and provide a lot of hot air, and then nothing ever gets done. But I digress...
The purpose of this hearing, we're told, is to question the response and activities of the Obama Administration in the wake of the attempted Underwear Bomber attack on Christmas Day. Some Congressional republicans are worried that the Obamatards are so concerned with providing terrorists with rights and attorneys that they may be missing the bigger picture; terrorism isn't a law-enforcement problem. That attitude, the presumption that terrorists should be brought to public trial under civilian rules of evidence, is what brought us 9/11 in the first place!
It appears that this President and his National Security apparatus intend to continue to fight Terrorism with the Cops-and-Robbers approach which manages to throw ever-more layers of law-enforcement at the issue until they all begin to trip over each other's feet. Eventually, you get enough law-enforcers with different aims, jurisdictions, missions and concerns, and the whole thing gets FUBAR'ed in a mass of legal red tape which ensures that even if you get these terrorists before a judge, it has taken years and cost millions and some (if not much) of the evidence against them is subject to continual legal challenge. It's better to just ship these guys right off to Gitmo and let them have a good-old-fashioned military tribunal, like the sort Congress has already approved...twice.
But that might mean that Mr. Holder's buddies in the legal profession might not get federal funds for defending terrorists, and it would also mean that he'd (probably) have to fire half the lawyers in the Justice Department who once defended terrorists on the federal dime.
I still say a carefully-planned program that kills enough Muslims in the most gruesome and painful ways we can devise until they're either all dead or give up the hope that terrorism will achieve their goals is the way to go, but what the hell do I know? I'm just some dope with a website, not the Attorney General or President of the United States.
UPDATE: Some word on a new terror threat, this time by a lone gunman in New Jersey. The man was armed with a grenade launcher (where the fuck do you get one of those?), some high-powered weapons, a ton of ammo and a map of a military base. I just love the way CNN waited until the very last paragraph to include this gem:
"...Officers searched Woodson's hotel room and found another assault rifle, a grenade launcher, a police scanner, another bulletproof vest, a map of a U.S. military base, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and a Middle Eastern-style headdress, the statement said.."
Middle Eastern-style? You be the judge.
Also, Newzweak is reporting that nine years after 9/11, the government has still done next to nothing to defend this country against terrorists armed with WMD's. Probably because 90% of the democrats that have been in office since 9/11 still believe that WMD's are some figment of Dick Cheney's fevered imagination, dreamed up to give Shrubby McBushHitler an excuse to invade the peaceful country of Iraq, so he could kill brown people. Considering they haven't done much to stop terrorists with bombs in their jock straps, and put another through Medical School and then onto the Army's payroll, I'm not surprised. The mid-terms cannot come soon enough.