Streams

The Next Phase in the War on Terror

Friday, May 24, 2013

President Barack Obama and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon during one in a series of meetings in the Situation Room (Peter Souza /White House Flickr)

Justin Vogt, senior editor for Foreign Affairs, and Jess Bravin, Supreme Court correspondent for the Wall Street Journal and the author of The Terror Courts: Rough Justice at Guantanamo Bay (Yale University Press, 2013), offer analysis of President Obama's speech on national security and counter-terrorism.

Guests:

Justin Vogt

Comments [19]

Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

Nice job today here on OBAMA PUBLIC RADIO avoiding Lois Lerner and the thug Barry Obama's corrupt political scandals.

Lois- "I did nothing wrong ... but I'm taking the 5th."

Maybe WNYC should take the 5th.

May. 24 2013 04:44 PM
jf from brooklyn

The Government should be protecting us against corporations, not the other way around.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/c4f6dc24d6d88248d66cda740477108e/tumblr_mnb8kdRdOG1qarbuho1_1280.jpg

May. 24 2013 12:03 PM
jf from reality

Americans are 9 times more likely to be killed by the police than terrorism, which is incredibly statistically unlikely.

May. 24 2013 12:00 PM
jf from reality

How about the victims of Car corporations, chemical corporations, fast food corporations, tobacco corporations, weapons manufacturers, the us government........

May. 24 2013 11:53 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

JF - fair points but we are not sheep. You understand scale? Tell that to the direct victims of terrorism - a group I suspect neither you nor your family have been a part of.

To say government should abdicate the main thing they exist to do - protect the lives of their citizens by leaving their safety to fate, is a bit naive.

The methods we can of course, disagree on.

May. 24 2013 11:48 AM
Amy from Manhattan

Becky, about 1/2 of the prisoners still in Guantanamo have already *been* cleared for release. Some of that half can't go back to their home countries safely, others don't have any country willing to take them, & maybe there are diplomatic/bureaucratic obstacles for the others.

May. 24 2013 11:48 AM
fuva from harlemworld

Amy, yes. The exchange with the protestor was unprecendented. I was really impressed with his responsiveness (though, he may have embarked on a slippery slope...).

May. 24 2013 11:45 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

to jf of truthland

If we did "nothing" about terrorism, you'd see what a problem we would have. Thankfully, since 9/11 we finally did a lot about terrorism, and that is why it has lowered its profile. We use drones against them, so they have fewer places to hide. We have done a lot to secure our airplanes. WE have done a lot do secure weaker links. But that does not mean the terrorists are gone. They are groggy but not dead by a long shot. They are always working to psychologically demoralize and to get another opportunity to do something big. Getting a nuke is their biggest goal.

May. 24 2013 11:38 AM
Amy from Manhattan

fuva, I agree. I was impressed that Pres. Obama addressed the issues he did rather than avoiding them, even though I didn't agree w/everything he said about them. I go back & forth btwn. being distressed that he approves drone assassinations himself & appreciating that he's taken on the responsibility of reviewing the recommendation for each one, instead of rubber-stamping them like his predecessor.

And I was really impressed that he didn't have the protestor thrown out when she repeatedly shouted her disagreement. I don't think I've seen that happen, ever. (Although I'd rather he hadn't let her go on so long, but just by resuming speaking.)

May. 24 2013 11:38 AM
The Truth from Becky

This is a difficult issue true and we speak against the atrocities of those held in detention...what is the alternative? Free them back to their respective Countries and hope they have learned their lesson?

Next phase of the war on terror? What phase are we in with the war on drugs?

May. 24 2013 11:35 AM

@Fuva, I definitely agree with you. I was rather impressed with the level of detail he was able to actually talk about these issues and really address them instead of "gloss over" them; the same phrase he used in his speech. However, I'm not sure if it was a sorry attempt to address it too late to soon in order to take credit for addressing in the first place.

May. 24 2013 11:27 AM
jf from truthland

terrorism is not a problem. Even if the government did nothing it would kill exponentially less people than cars, or mcdonalds, or tobacco, or pollution, suicide, falls, and peanuts. So why are they doing this? No one has a sense of scale. It is as if I'm the only person in the world that can understand scale.

May. 24 2013 11:27 AM
Nancy from NYC

Gitmo costs about $1 mil per prisoner according to the President's speech yesterday. We have max security prisons here that would be much cheaper. The Republicans are buggin' about debt and spending, and force cuts to early childhood education and food stamps, but opposing closing Gitmo. Sick.

May. 24 2013 11:26 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

The enemies' doctrine of "martyrdom" means they are unscrupulous in using even their own children as shields, knowing that we are so worried - as we should be - about killing "innocent" civilians. They use our democracy and basic decency against us. Drones are the most precise instruments of war in the history of warfare, and we are, like it or not, at war against theological fanatics who will continuously try to strike at us and bring us down with a "thousand cuts." The enemy naturally hates drones, because they are defeating them. So they naturally join this virulent campaign against drones because they fear their success against them.

May. 24 2013 11:21 AM
fuva from harlemworld

I'm no Obama apologist, but I was quite impressed with the speech yesterday. To me, it exemplified an attempt to rather transparently wrestle with difficult issues, and engage in (direct, confrontational, unscripted) ground-level dialogue. It distinguishes this presidency, no?

May. 24 2013 11:18 AM
fuva from harlemworld

I'm no Obama apologist, but I was quite impressed with the speech yesterday. To me, it exemplified an attempt to rather transparently wrestle with difficult issues, and engage in (direct, confrontational, unscripted) ground-level dialogue. It distinguishes this presidency, no?

May. 24 2013 11:18 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

Keeping people in perpetual detention for years, without charge, is a filthy disgrace.

Shame on the White House and Capitol Hill..

May. 24 2013 11:18 AM
Jesiah from Upstate NY

Too little too late. The Obama Administration had ample time to change the course of this unfocused, exploitative war. What we need to start talking about is reparations for the families of the 4 Americans killed by drones without due process. We need to talk about how we are going to deal with broken countries which are more now than ever before hotbeds for terrorist and anti-american activity. We also need to think about all the consequences of the extreme power the executive branch has acquired post-911 and how that has chipped away at the fundamental rights of American citizens.

May. 24 2013 10:15 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

"Better to have 100 lambs led by a lion......
than to have 100 lions led by a lamb."

Obama's lack of conviction about anything, left or right, has been a disgrace.

May. 24 2013 07:09 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.