Get PJ Media on your Apple

The New Definition of War

The rules of engaging American Jihadists must change.

by
Janine Turner

Bio

May 2, 2013 - 1:53 pm
<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Timothy McVeigh’s terrorist attack in Oklahoma City had no radical Jihad “holy war” connections, thus he was correctly tried as an American citizen. The Boston bombings were an act of terror for the sake of a “holy war” waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty to kill infidels. The soldiers of such a “war” are enemy combatants whether American citizens or not.

Obama adviser David Axelrod was quick to state that perhaps the Boston bombings occurred because it was “tax day.” This is an insult to Americans. It appears that there is an attempt by the Obama administration to deny the reality of Jihad on our shores, within our borders. The reluctance to tell Americans the truth is a dangerous game played at the expense of American lives. With every Fort Hood denial, Benghazi denial, Boston bombing denial of a Jihadist “holy war” is a gleeful snicker from our enemy and an emboldened foe.

Currently, the jihadists are beating us at our own game. We are being outsmarted. Our enemies are relying on the Obama’s administration’s remarkably stubborn lack of faith in its people. The Obama administration seems to think that Americans are not capable of both handling the truth and remaining vigilantly unbiased. Yet the collective American common sense knows the difference between a peaceful Muslim religion and its people and radical Jihadists and its soldiers, foreign and domestic. Americans also know a war when they see one.

The United States military oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” The initial oath in 1789 under President George Washington declared that the military was to defend the Constitution as well as to “solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever …. ”

Hence anyone, a foreigner or a domestic citizen, who engages in a Jihadist “holy war” to kill infidels as a religious duty is an enemy combatant.

An attack on the American people in the name of Jihad is an attack on America.

America’s survival depends on the wisdom and wise decisions that permeated her founding. The new reality is that Jihadists are now wrangling Americans to be their soldiers because they believe their American shield to be foolproof — the American citizen Jihadist protected by the United States Constitution. Now it is time for America to call upon its innate wisdom. It is time to define a new criminal and Constitutional standard to deal with American citizen terrorists engaged in Jihad. It is time for the rules of engagement to change.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page
Janine Turner is a longtime actress and a talk radio show host. She appears regularly on Friday editions of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Any country which sponsors 'state terrorism' against US citizens should be subject to a declaration of war by Congress. To the death.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All religions are not the same. One of them is toxic on every level to human civilization.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Nazism and various expressions of it are against the law in different countries in Europe. Considering the level of hate speech that regularly emanates from Islam around the world, it's time to start thinking about looking at Islam in the same light.

No immigration from Islamic countries, no claims of refugee status. Let them stay and put their houses in order and show they are ready to join the rest of the world.

In case Islam hasn't noticed it, they are the only group in the world that exclusively and regularly targets civilians outside theaters of war. The American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and even drones are a false equivalence. None of those would exist were it not for 9/11, and even inadvisable drones are at least trying to target terrorists. No mistakes would be occurring in places like Yemen and Pakistan if they didn't offer refuge to terrorists and engage in hate speech.

Clean your houses, cuz even a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught you nothing but to use them as excuses for yet more blame. It's no skin off my nose if Muslims can't come to America. What innate moral or legal right do they have to do so that trumps my right to sip coffee at work without an airliner punching through the wall or improvised claymores taking off my legs?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (41)
All Comments   (41)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
ralhow,
Enemy Combatants only get that designation if they are wearing the uniform of their country's armed forces. Only then do they get the "protection" of the Geneva Convention, if you want to call it that.
Anyone engaging in combat, who is not wearing a military uniform of their country, is not considered an Enemy Combatant (and in fact may be considered a spy). They get NONE of the protections afforded by signatories of the Geneva Convention.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
An Enemy Combatant status can actually have the effect of postponing justice by putting the perpetrator in indefinite confinement. Further, the Geneva Convention where with we have treaties with other countries is such that enemy combatants are only required to declare basic information such as name and rank. When it comes to terrorists, we certainly do not have a concise treaty that covers all peoples perpetrating terror across many swatches of boarders. There is precisely one remedy that is not on the conventional menu of a declaration of war. It is a measure that can be used in time of peace and war and holds the color of using extreme prejudice that by its nature violates civil liberties of the objects involved. It is called a Letter of Marque and Reprisal.

Congress, and only Congress, can issue such a letter of reprisals, and it can contain anything from hiring private mercenaries, pirates and scoundrels, bounty hunters, putting a price on the head of perpetrators as dead or alive, ordering to capture and detain, and all manner of suspending rights including the habeus corpus right to plea before a judge.

But aside from any enemy combatant status, the Miranda Rights issue is partly affected out of two issues:

1) That Congress is so pre-occupied with unconstitutional funding Big-Bird, paying the salaries of Air Traffic Controllers, and fidgeting about whether or not chocolate milk should be served in schools, that the legitimate functions of the general government in national security is farmed out to an imperial president whose job has been changed from being a field marshal in time of war to that of being a tactical officer in black ops.

2) The impartial petit jury of peers has been curtailed by present regimes by blocking the jury from making judgments on what is evidence and from determining not only the fact of guilt or innocence, but to the limiting the law as well. The weakened instrument of a jury, of which would certainly hold sway and pardon the government for taking measures of protecting life and limb would make any Miranda Rights violations rather moot. And this is especially so when an overt act of terrorism tends to rather produce a great number of evidence not warranting to gain a confession out of the perpetrator. If the confession of a terrorist is necessary to save more life and limb at the expense of not permitting the admission in court, then who cares? There is usually plenty of evidence to hang guilt around the neck of the accused to be of no consequence, and it is a calculated risk the government ought to make when jeopardy of life and limb is at stake.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Janine, welcome back...long absence from PJM. Like the new hair do a lot.
ta
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Janine, that was a wonderful exposition. Talk to Obammy and his minions. The FBI, CIA. Military and other government officials cannot assess the threat coming from Islam. Obammy has forbidden it. The word has gone out to all who are in this activity. Therefore, we cannot connect terrorists, jihadi acts to Islam. It is forbidden by the new lexicon approved by Obammy. It is as if he wants the jihadis to be successful and then we can treat the post terrorists acts with criminal action. As you say, this is war and it is civilizational and I fear that Obammy is on the wrong side of history.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Islam has replaced Communism as our new Cold War opponent. The "Muslim World" replaces the Warsaw Pact, Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, or however you want to divide it up. It's our worldview vs. their worldview.

Occasionally, there are outbreaks of real warfare. And there's always a low-level war going on against extremists. Al Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamist terrorist groups are analogous to the Red Brigades, the Weather Underground, the Baader-Meinhof gang, Shining Path, and other leftist "freedom fighters" too numerous to mention.

The difference is, the United States, Western Europe, and our allies were too strong and prosperous for the radicals to take over as they wanted to. I don't think this is true of a lot of Muslim countries. Many of them are failed states, or borderline failed - more like some of the Third World nations of Africa, Asia, and South America where communism DID take hold.

Fortunately, the fight against communism started BEFORE political correctness set in. We were able to clearly identify the enemy and develop strategies to protect ourselves - despite protestations and undermining from the American left. The stigma against communism was enough to immunize us, to a degree, against full-scale transformation into a communist state. What we're left with is the weaker strain of the disease - American Progressivism.

With Islamic radicalism, we are not so fortunate. PC dictates that we "accept" and celebrate "celebrate" Islam. We are constantly told that "moderate" Islam is fully compatible with American social and political values. We are not allowed to connect extremist Islam with mainstream Islam. We cannot analyze the problem of extremist Islamic terror attacks because we aren't allowed to analyze Islam. We can't even admit we have a disease, much less try to find a cure.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Janine,
One of the first staff Obama fired was in the Dept of Defense. His name is Steve Coughlin. He was fired because he maintained that we could not protect ourselves until we called Islam and terrorism what they were. Furthermore, he maintains that there is clearly a religious drive to the terror and Obama wants to remove the word from any governmental vocabulary. We need to post Steve's paper from the college of defense...it's brilliant. You and he are saying the same thing. Hopefully before any more innocents are killed.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Things will change but only after a few more horrifying incidents take place. There will come a point when after seeing their fellow citizens maimed and killed by terrorist activity, that people, who have been standing on the sidelines, will begin to vote for candidates who promise them security. We have gone down this road before in our history. From 1880 to about 1920, people in this country, often immigrants who felt alienated, became radicalized by the anarchist movement. Leon Czolgoz was such an immigrant. He became radicalized by anarchists ( probably Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman ) and in 1901, Czologoz assassinated President William McKinley. The anarchists were involved in other activities which culminated in the Wall Street bombing of 1920, that killed 38 people. The reaction after all of this were the immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924 which restricted immigration to the US for nearly 40 years. My guess is that after a Hillary Clinton presidency ( 1 term ) history among the voters will repeat itself.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Any country which sponsors 'state terrorism' against US citizens should be subject to a declaration of war by Congress. To the death.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Some say that the MB and its associates are following a timetable set forth 20 years ago, a timetable that declares that by the year 2013 the Gulf and surrounding states, Egypt, Libya, Syria, et al., will be in their control. To find out what they intend to accomplish by 2016, see here: http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/2494/Stephen-Coughlin-The-Boston-Attack-and-Individual-Jihad.aspx
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
No, an American citizen can be tried and put to death for murder. That's perfectly fine and no problem.

I don't agree with you, Ms. Turner. It sounds like you want to allow the government to more freely dictate who is and isn't a "terrorist". When you consider DHS already tipped their hand and tried to define people like me (Tea Partier, Gadsden Flag waving, patriotic, religious) a terrorist, it sounds like you want to grant them more power to deal with people like me.

No thanks. I'd like to retain my rights as an American citizen, even if the current administration hates me and wants me dead or "re-educated". At least this way there's a chance America will wake up and the next administration will free me before I'm re-educated to death.

Best Regards.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
How do we win a war against a group we cant even name or identify? Any ideas? Are you going to defeat them by yourself? I don't see any common sense to your libertarian mentality!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All