LIVEBLOGGING THE FDD LAW AND COUNTERTERRORISM PANEL:
There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP January 24, 2007 - The Times
Sir Ken Macdonald said that it should be an article of faith that crimes of terrorism are dealt with by the criminal justice system.
There is no “war on terror” on the streets of Britain, the country’s most senior criminal prosecutor said yesterday.Those responsible for atrocities like the July 7 bombings in London were not “soldiers” in a war, but “deluded, narcissistic inadequates” who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, added.
He gave warning against allowing the threat of terrorism to trigger a “fear-driven and inappropriate” security response which damaged Britain’s traditions of freedom.
Instead of viewing the problem of terrorism as a “war” threatening the very life of the nation, it should be dealt with as an issue of law enforcement, added Sir Ken, who leads prosecutors in England and Wales as head of the Crown Prosecution Service. One of the “primary purposes” of the violent attacks carried out by supporters of international Islamist terror was to tempt countries like Britain to “abandon our values”.
Is it a war? Is it a crime? This is the theme running through the first panel discussion this morning in DC. A legal discussion. Very serious panelists, attendees, and leading legal minds of the day. Discussing the legal ramifications on whether the war on terror is, in fact, a war -- and why that matters. I listened to these eggheads and I gotta tell you --this should not be the dialogue. So much mutual masturbation so little time. It sickens me. Gitmo? Detainees? Torture? It seemed to be a legal lesson in sort of appeasing the enemy into calm.
First panelists:
David B. Rivkin Jr., Baker & Hostetler (photo left)
Roger Pilon, Cato Institute
Stuart Taylor, National Journal
Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer, Israel Democracy Institute That said, I could not listen to the western
Most significantly, we will examine whether counterterrorism should really be an "either/or" between war and crime. Are we struggling to fit the ongoing conflict into "war" or "crime" paradigms because it is legally necessary to do so? Or, have we simply fallen into the trap of settling on familiar models when what we are dealing with is actually a novel situation crying out for a novel solution?
Are these men nuts or what?
Stuart Taylor, National Journal spoke first and threw "eroding our liberties" or this pearl "any foreigin tourist can be snatched off the street" and taken away. How long before ordinary Americans will suffer the same fate? Invoking Gitmo of course.
Taylor blamed Bush for weakening the Presdiency for "reaching too far" (of course there are those of us that beleive Bush has not gone far enough.)
Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer, Israel Democracy Institute That said, A word of caution, he says, Israel situation not the same as the US.. And he does not share the view that terror is terror is terror .............. The quesstion is it a war? Israel for the first time called it an armed conflict after the second intifada. He is skeptical - messages convened when war is declared is a relaxatioin of laws, due process ..............
His second message was that the war must be won in a decisive manner. This is set up for defeat. Soundls like this guy lost the war already.
"When you've declared war you're "inclned to do too much."I think the ooposite took place, not enough was has been done.
"One of the purposes of the terrorists is to make us react harshly and it plays right into his hands." Again, we are reacting - they are dictating our behaivor. Who cares what they think, the war must be prosecuted.
He bemoans, "then we close the moral gap". So hereluctant to use the term of war to describe the whole battle of terrorism as a war. But IMAO, the enemy has no problem calling it a war. "It's misleading and unhelpful." "Who is worse the driver for bin laden, a mafia boss, or violent gang member?" Huh? How does one equate these examples. One is a soldier in the battle to inpose a claiphate in the West.
"We won't win the war unless we isolate the terrorists so that their neighbors give them up." I just don't see Muslims ratting out Muslims.
David B. Rivkin Jr., Baker & Hostetler spoke most to my way of thinking. To not use the paradign deprive yourself of concrete tools deprive the govt for the public support. Whether or not this is war is really not the probelm. THE BATTLE IS EVERYHWERE. Doesnt mean we can go inot london or Paris anduse tjhe predators or drones.The Prewssident has enormous powers to execute the war. The problem is not excessive use of pres perogatives, it's been just the reverse. This President has used his power modestly next to any other president engaged in war.
How can you execute a war when you have enemy combants file suits against us. Rivkin wished that more of our allies would help prosecute this war. Even if critics were satisfied on due 
process issues. They fundementally do not believe its war and so we will never get their cooperation. Rivkin will be on my show. He is someone that must be heard.
Taking a break for the second panel. Hanging out with Cliff May (love him) and Frank Gaffney. Dropping names baby dropping names.
This panel discussion is making my head hurt. Panel II: Should We Have a National Security Court? The panel will carry that question into a concrete examination of the 2006 Military Commissions Act. panelists will assess whether it answers all of our current enforcement needs; whether it is likely to pass muster when it is scrutinized by the federal courts, including, inevitably, the Supreme Court; and whether it is enough to serve our needs going forward -- particularly in the non-military phases of the long war on terror. The pressing question will be: Beyond what Congress has already done in the MCA, do we need a special National Security Court?
Hon. Michael B. Mukasey, former chief judge, 
U.S. District Court
Hon. George J. Terwilliger III,
former U.S. Deputy Attorney General
Steven Shapiro, Legal Director, ACLU
First up Shapiro, ACLU - "taking torture to a new level," detainees held without sentence (and due procees too I assume.)
"What is the paradign. Is it a war paradigm? Is it a law enforcement pardigm?" THE RETURN OF CILL CLINTON ANDTHE COMING OF BILLARY.
Shapiro is making the case that any combatant captured on the battlefield (al qaeda for example) should not be treated the same as the American homegrown Islamist plotting to set off a bomb in America. Shapiro said it's "not the same thing." I couldn't disgree more vehemently. Even if they are not affiliated by some sub Islamic jihad group (ie al qaeda), they are unified in purpose and objective. Islamic jihad.
Hon. George J. Terwilliger III spoke brilliantly. "Try to look back after 9/11, the government moved very aggressively to use every legal tool available to nuetralize threats or potential threats. I don't think any of us sitting thee faced with the responsiblility to defend the nation against further attacks would have reached a different conclusion. ....... But I am much more concerned withabout how we deal with people - citizens of the United States or those that are here lawfully that need to be detained.
Terrorists are the real enemy of our civil liberties ...........
