I've stayed away from reading the sock puppet for awhile. Too bad, too, since I missed a gem that he put out last Friday called "Counter-terrorism logic". For a guy who is believed by the lefties to be all-knowing, Greenwald manages to set up straw man arguments as if they were dominoes lined up to be knocked down in one push.
He starts out with a number of links regarding the 2004 Madrid bombings, the final one having to do with the conviction of 21 Islamist terrorists in the Spanish courts. His conclusion [emphasis from original]:
Number of terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals on Spain since March, 2004 --i.e., the last 5 years: none.
His bottom line is that he wants a return to the September 10th, 2001 mentality of fighting terrorism:
Using the prevailing media-logic applied to Bush's counter-terrorism policies such as torture and Guantanamo (i.e., if a country is attacked by Terrorists, its Government then does X, and there are no Terrorist attacks for some period of time thereafter, then that is "proof" that "X stops Terrorism"), I believe these events in Spain constitute proof that the way to stop Terrorism and to keep the citizenry safe is to stop invading and occupying Muslim countries and take accused Terrorists and put them on trial with full due process rights before putting them in cages for life.
To Greenwald, there's nothing more obvious:
After all, that's what Spain did, and there's not been another Terrorist attack for five years. Therefore, those policies have kept the Spanish people safe.
I see. If the U.S. would stop invading and occupying Muslim countries, we'd have no more terrorism in the U.S., just as it is with Spain. If the U.S. takes accused terrorists (from where?) and puts them on trial with full due process rights (does that include getting warrants, providing terrorists with their Miranda rights, making sure terrorists' defense attorneys are provided with all of the information of the methods used to capture their clients, national security be damned?), we'd have no more terrorism in the U.S., just as it is with Spain.
One of the plethora of reasons why I have no respect for Greenwald is because every one of his arguments is either based on half-truths, outright fabrications, and/or completely omitted facts. The piece I link to is chock full of the latter. The argument by the sock puppet is that Madrid was attacked by Islamist terrorists because Spain had joined the U.S. in the fight in Iraq. But with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we weren't in Iraq. In fact, we hadn't invaded a Muslim country in over 8 years (Somalia in 1993). We did have bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (and elsewhere), but those weren't the result of an invasion or occupation, that is unless Greenwald wants to change the definition of those terms (something else frequently done by leftists). Say goodbye to that Greenwald drivel.
More egregious is Greenwald's seeming lack of respect for the sanctity of life. In order to prosecute the Madrid bombers, 191 people had to die first. Now, I wouldn't doubt that he believes the terrible loss of life was horrible for those involved. But the tragedy is that the Spanish government didn't prevent it in the first place. Same with 9/11; 3000 died before anyone could really act. But rather than engage an enemy who had committed an overt act of war against the U.S., Greenwald calls how the U.S. is fighting it an act of fearmongering. He would rather put millions of his fellow Americans at risk of another terrorist attack than admit there is a war on, something every branch of the federal government believes we are in (even with some of the ridiculous rulings that have come out, nobody has challenged the original 2001 AUMF to fight Al Qaeda; I will say the jury is still out on this in regards to how the new administration will deal with the war) .
Lastly, the Madrid bombers didn't blow themselves up, while the 9/11 terrorists killed themselves as well as the 3000 they murdered, except for the one guy who was already in custody on unrelated charges at the time, and he has since been convicted of the crime. Plus, the terrorists in Spain never left the country; I believe all were captured in Spain. The murderers of 9/11 were all over the world, mostly in Afghanistan. Which brings me to Greenwald's point about taking accused terrorists. Since most of the 9/11 terrorists weren't in the U.S., the federal government would have to work with foreign governments to get them extradited. As everyone remembers (except Greenwald, apparently), the Taliban government of Afghanistan refused President Bush's demands to turn over Osama bin Laden and the other Al Qaeda vermin, which made the Taliban complicit in Al Qaeda's act of war. The only way to go after them was to invade and occupy Afghanistan. The U.S. has since taken many accused terrorists since then, and have tried to prosecute them, with all the due process required (it isn't the kind Greenwald likes, but it is still due process), only to be repeatedly thwarted by the Judicial Branch (that is for another day). How does Greenwald propose we take terrorists who are holed up abroad, protected by governments that, like the Taliban, would probably refuse any extradition request? No problem for Greenwald; he provides no answer. In fact, he gets all whiny and complainy about the Obama administration defending and maintaining the rendition program to capture terrorists that was implemented two administrations ago. The only conclusion I can draw from Greenwald's statement is that if he believes the U.S. can't use rendition to take accused terrorists, and a foreign government refuses to turn over an accused terrorist, the only option Greenwald would offer is to do nothing. As I had stated above, Greenwald would rather put millions of his fellow Americans at risk of another terrorist attack than admit there is a war on.
It is simply amazing that someone who is trained to debate can't even do any better than string together a series of utterly pathetic arguments in order to force a conclusion that has time and again been proven false. That seems to be a problem with leftist "constitutional" lawyers like Greenwald; they don't believe the U.S. Constitution is to be used to protect the life and liberty of the people of the United States, only foreign terrorists who are at war with us.