Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Keywords or Terms: South Carolina Senator; Lindsey Graham; Governor Christ Christie; Governor John Kasich; Neo-Conservatism; ISIL; Military Intervention; Republican Party; American Boots; Religious Caliphate; MOX program; Mainstream Republican; Bush Administration; Obama’s Administration; Global Terrorism
The end of another Republican aspirant dream for the White House oval office came to an apoptosis on the hills of the fifth Republican Party debate and on the throes of the third Democratic Party debate. South Caroline Senator Lindsey Graham exit from the Republican party nomination race was probably influenced by the frustration of not being able to gain traction with voters in his own state, not to talk about those across the country. The Senior US Senator from the State of Southern Carolina first emerged as a truly influential advocate for strong national defense after having served as a member of South Carolina Air National Guard and South Carolina Air Force Reserves, as a Colonel. Unlike Donald Trump who has been experiencing a mind-blowing polls number, support for Mr. Graham brand of conservatism has been rather dismal, something close to one percentage polling point, a reality that has not only been frustrating for similar Republican 2016 contestants, but probably contributed to his decision on Monday, December 21, 2015, to drop out of the 2016 race.
Even during his participation in the Republican Party nomination exercise, the hawkish senator, who had some choice words for the sitting President of the United States regarding attempt to combat global terrorism, including: 1) “The President’s reluctance to increase American boots on the ground in Iraq to destroy ISIL and his refusal to create a regional army to go into Syria to destroy the Caliphate, guarantees our next President will have to deal with this problem; 2) President Obama’s unwillingness to work with his military commanders to develop a strategy to destroy ISIL as quickly as possible increases the threat to the American homeland,” appears not to have been able to sell his brand of military-intervention activism for America. Although not completely engaged in impropriety and bad use of language on the presidential campaign trail, his choice words for the President have not only been riddled with falsehood, it appears that some of his rhetoric are incomprehensible among Republicans in his home state of South Carolina.
Frankly, it appears that the only remarkable policy proposal that differentiates him from the rest of the Republican aspirants, has been the advancement of the MOX program for his home state; a program designed to turn surplus weapon-grade plutonium into nuclear fuel to power commercial nuclear reactor. In a state where MOX program has given hope and provided employment opportunities, his criticism of White House attempt to terminate the program has hardly helped his chances for being nominated as Republican flagbearer; and, for all intense and purpose, his campaign message of hawkish conservatism on foreign policy has hardly done well for his favorability and electability for the White House oval office.
Just as his official campaign announcement broke on a Monday, June 1, 2015, its demise also came on a Monday, December 21, 2015; close to six month of lively town hall entertainments, mumbo jumbo with a torch of euphonious statements and, rather miniscule support from Americans. Mainstream Republicans who hardly care for neoconservatives, complain he is a war monger who hardly bats an eye-lid from sending Americans to war without having a back-up plan of how to resettle and reintegrate veterans to civilian life after horrendous war time experience. A few of his supporters identify his quick wits and candor as commendable; however, critics maintain he is a war monger without much to offer a productive and progressive society, but war, sorrow and destruction.
With probably two delusional statements in a short relayed video, “I got into this race to put forward a plan to win a war we cannot afford to lose, and to turn back the tide of isolationism that was rising in our party” and “I believe we’ve made enormous progress on this effort”, Senator Graham announced the suspension of his 2016 campaign for the White House oval office with a wry look of a defeated ambition. Just as he set in motion an affinity to deploy ground troops to fight global terrorism, his rather whimsical 2016 presidential campaign, without any serious plan for addressing the rise of global terrorist groups as ISIS, make one wonder if he understood what he was selling as presidential aspirant. Like Governors Christ Christie and John Kasich, who would happily shoot down Russian planes, Senator Graham appears to come off on campaign trails, as an unusually laughable aspirant with shallow thoughts in other realm of the duties of a president; and, the implication of his proposal in the area of foreign policy that he claims some degree of understanding.
Senator Lindsey Graham’s presidential campaign has not only been dramatic while it lasted, it came off as even humorous on a number of occasions. How about the following from the erstwhile Senator: 1) “I’ve got a lot of friends; We’ll have a rotating first lady?” 2) “Sequestration is Latin for ‘doing really dumb things?” 3) “He’s race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. You know how you make America great again? You tell Donald Trump to go to hell?” 4) “Strom Thurmond had four kids after age 67. If you’re not willing to do that, we need to come up with a new immigration system?” and, 5) “If I’m president, we’re gonna drink more?” These ideas or statements were not only underhanded and below the caliber of a US presidential candidate; they appear to bring a torch of light hearten humor to the serious business of campaigning to be President of the United States. The willingness to introduce complete hilarious statements probably suggests how probably unrealistic or UN-serious his campaign had been before termination this week.
One can only hope that his effort on the campaign trail transformed other Republican Party aspirants to reevaluate their effort to run for party nomination and ultimately, the office of the President. Regardless of the hopes of the remaining twelve aspirants on the campaign trail, there is simply no way to imagine a candidacy built on neoconservative values with foreign policy prospects of intervention in other countries, winning the White House in 2016. Many of the remaining neoconservative Republican aspirants who may want to resort to engaging in foreign wars, there are some rather unsettling reality that America’s engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq probably taught us. Maybe a few of these aspirants will appreciate that, with a token number of America’s military in Afghanistan, the country is still experiencing loss of American lives, even after our pronouncement of withdrawal and termination of hostility in that country. The future ability of America to continue with hawkish foreign policy will hardly depend on the singular preference of a US President anymore; rather, it will depend on associated prospective human and financial costs, among others.
2016 Republican aspirants bent on engaging in foreign wars, who are unsympathetic to America’s weariness in fighting unnecessary foreign wars, especially those where our direct interests or those of our allies are not at stake, will have to deal with proposals for possible radical reform to the power of the Presidency to administer foreign policy; and probably, massive curtailment of Congressional approved funds for engaging in costly foreign wars. The uniqueness of recent experiences in foreign policy, shows an explicit rejection of unilateral foreign wars, experimentation with deception as grounds of foreign hostilities and fighting a transition from state-own and financed terrorism to splintered religious fanatically-driven hooliganism. The new reality is that the enterprise is fraught with danger; and, a few of the workable strategies are better driven by inclusiveness of allies and sometime, non-traditional allies.
Before entertaining ideas from Republican aspirants, on how America must address continued insurgencies from ISIS and other radical terrorist groups, it is probably necessary to admonish that in the past seven years, America has not directly engaged in overzealous and excessively expensive foreign interventions, where the direct interest of America is not at stake. The overwhelming criticisms that are coming from Republicans regarding how global terrorism is being fought by the current White House, fail to appreciate that President Barack Obama won his two elections on an anti-war platform. No matter how credible some current criticisms have been regarding why ISIS has grown in size or influence in the Middle-East, there is no classic answer or credibility that President Barack Obama has failed to protect Americans and the homeland, even with the unfortunate event in San Bernardo, California. The failure of the Bush Administration in the two foreign wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, may not translate into alternative proposal for the next President to take the country in the path of other unnecessary foreign wars, just because the neoconservative groups want the war(s).
Of Course, current Obama’s foreign policy is not rooted strictly on political ideology; it is partly based on the lesson from Bush Administration’s engagement in unpaid foreign interventions that appear to have failed to accomplish the purported purpose, as advanced by the neoconservatives who sold the wars to America. To constrain ISIS and other international terrorist groups, the nation has to look at other progressive foreign policies that will infuse vision in the type of engagements that will deliver the required results without the loss of many American lives and capital. The ultimate decline, and in some other instances, the collapse of terrorist networks across the globe, must take the route of cutting not only the source of money used in engaging in terrorism, but also, confronting interpretation of religious doctrine that continue to fan hatred for the West. To raise the indices for fighting global terrorism to the level of national terrorism is hardly going to work anymore. We are now fighting splintered terrorist groups, operating in failed or about to fail foreign nations. We must now advocate for compelling foreign policies that protect our domestic and international interests, cognizance of Russian and Chinese hegemony or spheres of influence in some of these regions. The urgency of dealing with the mounting national foreign debt, will have to be part of the strategy to fight global terrorism.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
Keywords or Terms: Bernie Sander’s Campaign team; Data Voyeurism; Data Compromise; Hillary Clinton’s Campaign team; Priority Data; Democratic National Committee’s Network; Total Overreach of Voter data; What is mine is mine; What’s yours is mine too”; Wiggle room answers; Democratic Party Watergate of 2015; Donor’s List; Pragmatic Network Protection; and, Euphoria of the Moment
Through nearly eleven months of Democratic Competition for party nomination, nothing has been sizzling or juicy as the current data breach or compromise of one of the aspirant by another. As Secretary Clinton’s commanding polls successes were galloping and the Democratic front-runner was more interested in solidifying her progress by resorting to the old political tactic of labeling or demonizing her rival as a single issue candidate, little did she know that her closest rival campaign team were abrading her lid through data pilferage. Senator Bernie Sander’s campaign team, either knowingly or unknowingly, was engaging in the unexpected and unimaginable error of data abridgment. Allegation against Bernie’s team of staffers, including possible misbehavior of data voyeurism: viewing, searching and saving donor’s data and deploying shifting messages regarding the actual time of access to Hillary Clinton’s campaign priority data, started flowing around town.
Could this be Democratic Party Watergate of 2015; or, has the situation not risen to a level of clandestine campaign data pilferage? With this critical event, can Senator Bernie Sander reassure Secretary Clinton’s campaign team of the start time of the data compromise, as each team gets to know how much and to what extent this unfortunate event has taken place; and, how both campaign teams can rise above this misunderstanding and develop a new “tone” and “spirit” of trust; or, has things gone too far too soon, to arrive at a conciliation that can put each team at rest that no fishy stuff has been going on; and, no one should be expecting any form of truce or apologies for any misconstrued activities?
Looking to the future, has the time come for Senator Bernie Sander’s campaign team to acknowledge the superiority of Secretary Clinton’s campaign team and opt for a negotiation of the complicated issue of gaining access to the latter’s donor’s list through the data abridgment? Or, is this the best moment to come clean and quit presenting itself as victim of a cautious and deliberate effort to abridge campaign data that are propriety information for Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Answers to these questions depend on where your support or reservations lie. Further, has the Democratic National Committee been complicit or part of a scheme to provide democratic leaning voters’ list to Bernie Sander’s campaign? Is there really no chance for Bernie Sander’s campaign team to catch up with the twenty-percent deficit in polling against the former US Secretary of State’s Campaign without playing dirty? At one time, it appeared Bernie Sander’s campaign team were defensive or playing fast and loose regarding data abridgment; however, the alleged forty-five-minute data breach on the Democratic Party National Committee portal has introduced another dynamic to campaigning for party nomination within the Democratic Party.
A defensive system of protecting democratic leaning voters’ list on the Democratic National Committee’s portal is likely to change in light of this dramatic event. Not far behind is the data security policy of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Both campaign teams are more likely to quickly streamline their access and use of secondary data sources in the wake of current friendly “mishap”. Democratic National Committee like Hillary Clinton’s campaign team is now confronted with the reality of data insecurity and how this may inadvertently undermine campaign efforts. Data insecurity can confound unwitting campaign teams and shift chances of redoubling campaign contributions from potential donors. The rise of data espionage is not limited to national governments or security; it is also found in political campaigns. The offensive nature of data abridgment is found in associated data or information stripping of campaign rivals, juxtaposition of the dynamics of “what is mine is mine” and “what’s yours is mine too”, and the often difficult question of who is really at fault. A sometimes irrational or immoral activity that ends up in a law suit by either the aggrieved and the offender are face saving if only for a while.
Any Presidential campaign team, Democrat or Republican, has the onus to protect its data source in the modern age of electronic campaigns for a number of reasons, some obvious, others oblivious to an uncanny eye. One pragmatic reason is probably what Hillary Clinton campaign suffered, the chance your closest rival gaining access to data and information on your donors and using the same source for seeking funds for his or her campaign. Data security issues are not only relevant for enterprise or agency private networks, as it turns out, it is just as relevant to modern day campaigns, as an aspirant attempt to build a supporters’ base, donor’s and contributors’ list, and broadcasting the goals and ambitions of the campaign. Political office seekers now have to defend their campaign, extend their policy and programs, answer press questions as well as protect their campaign data network to survive the challenge from rivals and competition. In brief, data security calls for greater awareness and constant monitoring of data sources and network administrations of both the candidate and the affiliated political party.
Indolent and unimaginative campaign outfits that fail to establish probable strategies for transferring and receiving data from a clearing committee or agency, is more likely to face the kind of sudden data abridgment currently experienced by the Clinton’s camp. If Clinton’s campaign fail to quickly recognize and respond to possible or potential data abridgment, it may not be in a position to determine the extent of that abridgment because of immediate insufficient information regarding the extent of compromise. The lines may be drawn between the Sander’s Campaign and Clinton’s Campaign teams, the Sander’s campaign team’s litigation against the Democratic National Committee and probably the Clinton’s campaign, may be an attempt of a cover-up; however, no one is sure; and no one is certain of the ultimate outcome of the litigation, which may leave everyone involved miserable and despondent. This can actually lead to reputation issues for Democrats and their ultimate party flag bearer in the general election. Certainly, Democrats must expect the Republicans to exploit this unfortunate event that can easily be managed with a sense of comrade as a political party with a sense of purpose to retain the White House oval office.
To satisfy data security needs of political campaign networks, there is a need for establishment of parameters regarding data and information sharing and movement on those networks: between campaign networks; among aspirant’s networks; and, the local interface usage by multiple users on the network(s). There is need for incremental policies, as the campaign move through the months of campaigns to general election. Dealing with inhibited use of network data and sources and or watching closely entry and exit into a campaign electronic network(s), is as important as winning the nomination or election in an information age.
The salient and changing facts regarding when the Sander’s campaign team actually gained access to Hillary Clinton’s Campaign network and when they exited, are still opaque. Leaving wiggle room in answers to actionable questions on data abridgment of any sort, is a difficult is a difficult circumstance to be in. For Sanders, the presidential aspirant rival of Ms. Clinton, it means a gawkier eye on the activities of its data managers or network interface users to avoid possible criminal allegation against its campaign on bases of data abridgment. For the Clinton’s camp, the genie has been out of the bottle, defending your data source on all networks, the party’s and yours, is your prominent task or responsibility. Indeed, the strength of either candidate’s presidential campaign team is probably based on the ability to maintain transparency in the reception and use of data and information from whatever sources, without being labelled as a culprit.
The struggle for survival and campaign successes in a bid for party flag bearer and subsequent victory in a general election is a matter of territorial data protection and ability to refrain from defaulting to suspicious activities against rivals. The entire campaign exercise is both a territorial protection of strategies as well as well, protection of propriety and priority information. It is also going to require self-imposed restraint from using rivals’ information without authorization. Advances and successes in primaries and caucuses must depend on tactical and strategic offenses and discipline from defaulting to fraud or suspicious data abridgment in order to win. Aspirant and Senator Bernie Sanders must terminate any of his staff involved in the purported suspicious activity to rise above the fray and maintain the often touted moral transparency that his campaign has been known for till now.
Accusation of stealing campaign data from an opponent is bad press enough for a struggling campaign that is attempting to make a difference and overcome polling differentials. Senator and aspirant Bernie Sanders after all, has projected a campaign of restraint and one strictly on principles and possibilities of alleviating many Americans from poverty. The alleged data abridgment from his campaign must now be accepted as an aberration; however, if Aspirant Hillary attempt to use this as a campaign crutch, a simple apology at the third democratic party debate appropriate and hopefully sufficient, to move ahead of the controversy.
Hillary Clinton campaign team’s enthusiasm to use this error as a rope to hang Bernie Sander must be cautious as things like this has a tendency to boomerang. Yes, the suspected data abridgments from the rival candidate present new set of problems for former Secretary of State’s campaign; however, going too aggressively against Bernie Sander’s team may create other political pitfalls and challenges that may not be immediately apparent. The danger of going heavy handed in criticism may cause unintended consequences when it comes to general elections in November of 2016. This is the reason why a nuclear option of dragging Bernie Sander’s campaign through the mud may not be advisable.
The conventional wisdom is that Secretary Clinton Campaign is still the front runner; and that this unfortunate event may cripple the efforts of the Democratic Party to hold on to the White House as a whole if the issue of data abridgment is not handle with some maturity. Senator Bernie Sander may come out completely scratched in the litigation initiated against the Democratic National Committee and fall apart from this unfortunate event. Could an extended litigation within the Democratic Party scuttle the chances of the party from fielding a better prepared flag bearer? Can Secretary Hillary Clinton fear an excessive exposure of her campaign strategies at a litigation forum and thereby exposing or tearing asunder hitherto protected strategies of her campaign? These are issues and questions that must be contemplated in light of the current difficult experience.
The euphoria of the moment regarding the data abridgments dictates a new strategy for the former’s secretary’s campaign, as well as the Democratic National Committee. There is no longer a time to take things for granted by either party or any other candidate in the race. Just as Secretary Clinton is building a better bandwidth of policies and programs for her campaign, now is the time to correlate that effort with keener strategies and technologies to protect her campaign network. There is an option to implant device drivers and encryption technology that are automatic defense managers against intruders; or queries from inter-agency or inter-candidate’s electronic networks. This will eliminate agency or candidate’s network invasion by anyone, friend or foe.
Finally, Secretary Clinton’s campaign initiative to cut fees for immigrants seeking citizenship is probably uplifting for progressives; advancing proactive policies on national security, income inequality and a more equitable justice system are even more clear-able; however, leaving your network susceptible to invasion, or data swap from Democratic National Committee Network that may lead to allegation of criminal activities, is hardly a sign of a proactive data network user and dynamic campaign outfit. Working with the Democratic National Committee to exchange or transfer data of opponents may be construed in multiple context; however, shying away from impropriety may be a better option. Perfect is the enemy of the good, right? Thus, working to establish data sharing guidelines or date transfer protocols on networks is better than good; it is Perfect!
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Keywords or Terms: ‘Baddest Cowboy’ in the White House; Ted Cruz; Donald Trump; Lindsey Graham; Hostility; Hate; Retribution; Blanketing Statement; Data Mining; Civil Liberties; Immigration Laws; Islamic Jihadist; Extremism; Muslim Emigration; Middle Eastern Allies; Quran; Islamic Nations; Turkey, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria and Indonesia; International and Domestic Violence; State of Israel; State of Pakistan; Eight Amendment of US Constitution; and, United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) signatory
2016 Republican Presidential aspirants described their goal for America as a return to a “World of Wars”. After the Islamic Jihadists attack in Paris and San Bernardino, the fear that has been the essence of these two attacks probably served as a pedestal for two of the Republican aspirants to prescribe, just in the mode of what both attacks were meant to accomplish by their perpetrator: hostility, hate and retribution. Senator Ted Cruz would bomb ISIS out and former Reality Show host, Donald Trump, has no problem with killing immediate family members of suspected terrorists. As if the Republican aspirants were seeking to outdo each other at the party’s fifth presidential debate, each talking over each other, presented a bravado that made many wondered if Republicans truly learned anything from the alleged shortcomings of the last Republican White House. While one or two of them were actually reflective, Rand Paul and Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham came out with a tirade, saying he misses George W. Bush, an allusion and unlatching admiration of the last Republican Administration of alleged ill-repute.
The basic security issues facing the nation are not the mining of citizen’s meta data in an effort to counter terrorism, reforming immigration laws in light of wave of illegal immigration and quelling citizens fear in light of increasing possibility of another homeland attacks; rather, it is how to better balance citizens’ liberties with the security agencies’ right to know, and countering or stopping another Islamic Jihadist or sympathizers’ attack; making a transition from a nation with discountenanced or unenforced immigration laws to one with acknowledged and enforced immigration laws, without violating the civil rights of the huge undocumented immigrants among us; and, enlisting unflinching support from Middle-Eastern Allies who understand to an extent, the nature of extremism of Islamic Jihadist groups bent on destroying America, without being perceived as disrespectful of the Islamic Faith, or making blanketing statements that categorize all Muslims, in and out of America, as terrorists.
The bravado exhibited by Cruz and Trump at the fifth Republican Party debate is fraught with danger. At this juncture, it is safe to say, Middle-Eastern and Islamic nations are not living in a world of tranquility with the rising extremism among the ranks of their religion. To a great extent if not to their credit, religious leadership in many of these Islamic nations (Turkey, Morocco, Uzbekistan and Indonesia) and their governments are probably in comparative disillusion and tumults about rising extremisms in their religion. The audacity of the multiplicities of international and domestic violence from Islamic Jihadists, who appear to have hijacked the religion and continue to inflict mayhem and or broadcast hatred to the West, are as worrisome to men and women of Islamic faith as they are to Americans. A few of them are even completely perplexed and taken aback by the claim of these extreme groups regarding the teachings of Quran, with some of them issuing out apologetic official statements regarding their complete dissociations from terrorism and the new order of interpretation of the provisions of Quran.
At an Individual or microcosm level, the execrated Islamic Jihadist groups’ attacks across the globe, are not only petrifying to many within the religion just as it has been for the West; but appears to have backfired with huge publicity issues with countries and leadership in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria, Indonesia, Turkey, and other moderate majority Muslim states, casting the Islamic Religion as very violent and hostile to civility; a far cry from what many in the religion consider as a peaceful religion. What these countries and religious leadership probably see as their portion with rising extremism of Islamic Jihadists, and probably admonish and characterize with the words: “We are ashamed, fed up, mystified, confused and disillusioned with the repeated violence of extreme groups among us and we do not have an immediate solution to the canker-worm that appears to have engulfed our religion”; however, with all deference, remember not all apples on a tree are bad.
Of course, the call for exemption of Muslims’ emigration into America and the profound disparagement of people of the religion and the current promise to annihilate Muslims and their families by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, play readily into the narrative that Americans and the West do not respect the Islamic faith and those who practice it. Not only will the perceived religious bigotry of the two 2016 Republican aspirants mirror the nature of extremism associated with terrorists, they are truly reminiscent of a presidential aspirant fanning fear and hatred of a segment of our society; and, this is truly telling about six weeks to the first caucus or primary voting in the State of Iowa. Worst still, this new comments from probably the two front-runner in the Republican Party of 2016 presidential nomination exercise are likely to serve as ideological baggage that turns some supporters away, while gaining some credibility and or credence with like-minded voters who see the world from the prism fashioned out by Donald and Ted at the fifth Republican Party debate.
The perceived US government alliances with Centrist Middle Eastern Islamic States remain fragile with the continued derogation of Muslims and Islamic Faith by potential flag bearer of America’s Republican Party. If Donald Trump and Ted Cruz continue to build on their extremism on Muslims, either on Islamic Jihadists across the globe or American Muslims, the current meager support America is receiving in terms of intelligence gathering in fighting international terrorism and maintaining global security and stability, have the tendency to fail and create additional headaches to things on the ground; as the insensitive derogation, are more likely to provoke serious conflicts in the relations between America and the Islamic world. The current fear of domestic and international terrorists is not necessarily Germaine to America, there are also profound fears among some Islamic States’ governments, and many of their leadership are continually seeking avenues to counter the machinations of the terrorist groups and move beyond the adverse public relations created by Islamic Jihadists’ attacks on cities as Paris and San Bernardino. Believe it or not, the nemesis for some of the Islamic State governments are so grieving that a few of them have actually taken it upon themselves to take out a few of these terrorists within their borders.
While there are reasons to believe that Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are probably aware of the fear they are arousing among the populace for their personal political ambition, both have failed to calm the average American fear of terrorism or built confidence in current initiatives pursued by US government to stay abreast of both domestic and global terrorism. The denigration of minorities in America, which began with Donald Trump in the past seven months and culminated in Ted Cruz’s newly found strategy to garnering votes for his political ambition, are hardly going to dissuade rather committed Islamic Jihadists. The ideological promise or bravado to annihilate the Islamic extremists is hardly a source of succor for those apprehensive of terrorist group(s). When Donald Trump cancelled his visit to the State of Israel this week to meet Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, he probably lost an opportune chance to hear first-person experience in fighting terrorism or religious war in over half a decade. The Irish Liberation Army would teach Ted Cruz a thing or two about fighting religious wars. No-one ever wins a religious war; and, no matter how badly we will like to derail and destroy ISIS, their preconceived notion that they are fighting a religious war makes fighting them a rather tough challenge. This is why global terrorism seems like fighting a chameleon war with a chameleon group of extremists across the globe. It is just a tough enterprise that requires time and patience!
There are so much to learn from two of the legacies of 9/11 terrorist attacks: 1) allegation that US engaged in torture to obtain information regarding actual and potential terrorist attacks on the homeland between 2002 and 2007; 2) the firestorm of unintended consequences of engaging the State of Pakistan, a loose and fragile nuclear power, in dislodging one of the terrorist groups, Al Qaeda. The after effect of the first consequence led to the issue of data mining domestically to get an edge on potential terrorist threats; an issue civil libertarians frown on, and one which became a football between Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Donald Trump in the fifth debate. For all intense and purpose, Pakistan became an unwilling partner to the US because of influence of religious terrorists within her borders, and probably its convoluted position of being an unwitting sanctuary for terrorist groups; both of which made trust of the partnership, difficult. This ultimately has become the consequential effect of partnering to engage global terrorism. Now, imagine the hypothetical promise from Donald Trump to bomb terrorists’ immediate family and Ted Cruz’s proposed attempt to bomb ISIS out? What are likely to be outcomes of such engagements or actions by the US government with respect to domestic and international laws? What are going to happen to the international treaties that America has been signatory? Most important, these proposed actions by Republican Presidential aspirants run afoul of the use of degrading treatments or punishments as contained in the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), a treated US is a signatory.
Apart from violating the eighth amendment of the US Constitution, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments and specific provisions of US signed international treaty like UNCAT, the two Republican proposed actions fall under auspices of national and international criminality; and, spun other national security concerns. In other words, we are about to elect criminals to run the office of the US Presidency, if either of these two people end up in the oval office. This essentially is the nemesis of their construed proposals; and, an example of one of the allegations against the last Republican Administration. Incidentally, this is the unfortunate challenge or backlash, the US has been attempting to reel out since the advent of Obama’s Administration; and consequent to our choice to be a nation of law and order, which commands international respect as the only Super Power left standing across the globe. Proposals like Cruz’s and Trumps have consequences and no reasonable leader, Christian or Non-Christian, Jewish or Non-Jewish; Muslim or Non-Muslim, Atheist or Non-Atheist, has a chance of surviving with this kind of mind set once in the office of the US President, no matter how novel an ambition, or basis of political or legal argument; thither the security exigency.
It appears from the fifth Republican Presidential Aspirants’ debate that fierce competition, a drive to out-do each other on the rostrum, reduced the debate to the level of who is able to be the “Baddest Cowboy” in the White House’s oval office? While Ted’s and Donald’s rhetoric may appear appeasing to an increasingly frustrated and frightful citizenry about terrorism, they open up other “whoop lashes”, a couple that could relegate us to the level of ISIS, Kahane Chai, Irish Republican Army and Basque Fatherland and Liberty. Fear tends to arouse euphoria; and sometimes, a complete sense of indecency and shallow introspect from deft and non-creative leaders. The average American wants their leader to protect them from danger without violating the provisions of US Constitution; and, probably, all provisions of signed International Treaties. From the debate, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump appears to be saying they are not ready to uphold this; this ultimately disqualifies them from becoming the President of the United States.