Democrats' "Plan" for War on terror: U.N. Talking Points

Figuring out where Democrats stand on terrorism has most Americans feeling insecure about their Party's plan of addressing our national security. The Democrats are ardently campaigning against the alleged bad track record of the Republican-controlled Congress, yet they don't have any cogent plan of their own. When we as voters can't get a straight answer on what direction the Democrats propose, to prevent and combat terrorism, it becomes necessary to infer where they stand based on our own observations.

I think it would be generally accurate to say that the Republican approach to terrorist attacks is that they are acts of war, and must be met with military action. The Democratic approach to these threats is that they should be treated as criminal acts, with law enforcement being the only necessary buffer between terror and the American people. Although both viewpoints lack perfection, I think it would best to use national security as the "measuring stick" of choice. In the Federalist Papers No. 3, Alexander Hamilton states the first priority of any nation wishing to thrive:

Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and omprehensively.

"Safety of the people" is what was behind the temporary enlargement of executive power assumed by several presidents. Abraham Lincoln set aside the writ of habeas corpus when he perceived the Union to be in danger. President Franklin D. Roosevelt set it aside when he imprisoned Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. Now, Congress has enlarged President Bush's powers to enable him to meet this threat. Surely, he wouldn't see the need for more latitude granted to him by Congress if he didn't see terrorism as a military threat, rather than a law enforcement matter.

He has enraged those on the left, who cry that the President now has the power to pick up people off the streets and detain them indefinitely without relief through habeas corpus. Their view is more than illogical, however. Perhaps the reason why they are raising such outrage, besides being hungry to retake the House and Senate, is that they are representing the global community rather than national security. Is this also why we constantly hear complaints from the left that "unilateral" action is the wrong thing to do?

Nancy Pelosi, the prospective new Speaker of the House should her party take control of it, outlines the left's plan of action. This plan is conspicuous for leaving out any mention of taking the war to the terrorists, unless doubling the size of our Special Forces counts as a serious military comittment to defeat terrorism. The left wing of the Democratic Party apparently believes the war on terror consists of preparing first responders in this country. Other than criticizing the war in Iraq, there is no mention of continuing the actual war against the jihadists, other than the aforementioned strategy.

If they represent anyone's views, one could argue that they reflect the philosophy of the United Nations. Take the 1994 U.N. Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, for example. In one section of the document, the resolution refers to the mode of "sanctioned" apprehension of terrorists who are captured.

To ensure the apprehension and prosecution or extradition of perpetrators of terrorist acts, in accordance with the relevant provisions of their national law;

The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy was adopted by Member States on 8 September 2006. It defines the acceptable parameters of combating terrorism as follows.

To recognize that international cooperation and any measures that we undertake to prevent and combat terrorism must comply with our obligations under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations and relevant international conventions and protocols, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.

This mirrors what the left wing of the Democratic Party is campaigning for. They seem to be pushing the U.N. system, rather than reflecting what the American people want.

All one has to do is review the press releases of the U.N. Secretary General dating back from 1996 to realize that inaction is the plan, and the left wing of the Democratic Party is in perfect step with it. None of the press releases mention a call to arms to eradicate terrorism. They only preach the "requirement" of international cooperation, and we know that has been the mantra of recent Democrats' speeches. The only "urgency" in the press releases seems to be to convene international conventions for the purpose of showing unity. To the Secretary General, September 11 has turned out to be just another terrorist attack when you consider that in the last five years, no new strategy has emerged from the U.N. when compared with the five years preceding the attack. This is deeply disturbing to me as an American, and as a voter. I'm sure there are Democrats out there who believe in taking the initiative and end terrorism by military means. Unfortunately, they are not running for Congress or have not been encouraged to speak out.

One of the most forceful statements made by Kofi Annan was on Human Rights Day, in August of 2005. It was on the use of torture and inhumane treatment of terrorists. It referenced the Geneva Convention and our obligation to adhere strictly to it. At one point, he states:

States must honour this prohibition and vigorously combat the impunity of perpetrators of torture. Those who conceive of or authorize any form of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and those who commit such acts, should not go unpunished.

Can anyone recall left wing pundits or politicians calling President Bush a "war criminal" or equating him to Hitler? Does anyone doubt that we are fighting for more than our national security? Are we American voters seriously going to hand the majorities in Congress over to left wing ideology that represents interests other than our country's?

It is apparent that a vote for a Democratic-controlled Congress is a vote for "we the peoples" of the U.N., rather than a vote for we the people.