|
|
|
|
Steven Emerson,
Executive Director
|
November 13, 2015
|
|
|
Hoekstra:
Declaration of War Against ISIS Would Clarify Enemy, How to Defeat It
by Pete Hoekstra
NewsmaxTV
November 11, 2015
|
|
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the
first of your friends to like this.
Multimedia for this item
Click
Image to View Video Recording
|
Clip of Hillary Clinton: If you have a declaration of war and
really you're supposed to put the country on a war footing, I'm not sure
that makes the most sense in fighting a threat that is as diffuse and
networked as this threat is.
Hayworth: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
saying she is not inclined to support a formal declaration of war against
ISIS. But that terror group continues on the march committing atrocities,
targeting Christians throughout the Middle East. The group has even claimed
responsibility for the crash of that Russian jet liner over Egypt's Sinai
Peninsula that killed all 2224 aboard. So why is Hillary hesitant? To talk
about this we welcome in our panel. First up Andy McCarthy, policy fellow
at the National Review Institute. He's skyping in from New York City. We
should point out Andy is also the author of Faithless Execution:
Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment. And joining us
from Newsmax Washington, my old House colleague, former chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra. Pete, currently a Shillman Senior
Fellow for the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and he's also the author
of Architects of Disaster: The Destruction of Libya.
Pete first to you. Hillary is hesitant about fighting ISIS, asking for a
declaration of war. She says it would put a big strain on our budget. Do
you agree, is she offering legitimate reasoning and argument?
Hoekstra: Well declaring war and the implications on the budget,
those two are not related. The bottom line here is I think it actually
would make some sense to bring some clarity to this, have a declaration of
war, clearly define the enemy for what they are and who they are – ISIS, al
Qaeda and radical Islamist groups – so that they have a parameter as to who
we are going after. I think the second thing here is that we haven't had a
strategy for going after these radical jihadist groups. Having a
declaration of war identifying who they are and also clearly identifying
the rules of engagement for our military would be very, very helpful.
Hayworth: On another matter, Andy, we seldom get a declaration of
investigation from the FBI on key public officials, and yet we understand
the FBI is stepping up its investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. Is
it now more than just preliminary fact finding in your opinion?
Andy McCarthy: J.D., I think it's been more than that for some
time now. The FBI doesn't dedicate the number of agents that have
reportedly been dedicated to this investigation unless it has ripened into
something of a more mature stage than just their preliminary inquiry.
They've reportedly not only done that but they're casting a pretty broad
net. They've evidently asked the State Department for some pretty
interesting evidence. They're obviously not going through the motions here.
And I'd be quite surprised if that were the case for two reasons. Number
one, I happen to know Jim Comey. We both started in the US Attorney's
office at the same time under Rudy Giuliani. He's a straight shooter, he's
a guy with integrity, and I expect he's gonna do a real investigation here.
And that gets me to the second point which is a real investigation ought to
make Mrs. Clinton, give her a lot of anxiety I would think because if you
look at the statutes that are involved here – and I don't think we're
talking just about the statutes that relate to classified information – but
if you simply stick with those it looks to me from here in the peanut
gallery where it's always easier like there's some pretty clear violations
of very serious felony statutes here.
Hayworth: We will continue to keep an eye n that. But gentlemen
in the time remaining we would be remiss if we did not talk about Gitmo.
The President insistent that he's taking a look at possible executive
action to close the prison there. Former Defense Department spokesman J.D.
Gordon, on this very program last night, and he discussed the consequences
of closing Gitmo. Here's what he had to say.
Clip of J.D. Gordon: If President Obama brings these detainees to
the United States, if there's not enough evidence to convict them, and
since we do not have battlefield detectives running after them in Pakistan
and Afghanistan, those guys could be set free on Main Street USA and even
if they don't get set free right away, Colorado, Kansas, South Carolina,
they'll become bull's eyes for terror attacks.
Hayworth: Pete, new House Speaker Paul Ryan issued a strong
warning to President Obama against attempting to sue that executive order.
In fact, legislation has been passed expressly forbidding it. Do you think
the President will go ahead with an executive order to close Gitmo?
Hoekstra: I think this President will do just about anything to
close Gitmo. And he may issue an executive order which really will
potentially create a constitutional crisis between the Congress and the
Executive branch. In the latest Defense Authorization Bill, which passed
the Senate 91-3, it prohibits the Gitmo folks from being transferred to the
United States. The President ought to move away from this issue, admit he
made a mistake by promising to close Gitmo, and focus on the real threats
that are out there and the things that would keep America safe. This has
been nothing but shadow boxing now for seven years. It's a political
gimmick. Keep Gitmo open and focus on the real issues.
Hayworth: Andy McCarthy, thirty seconds to you. Legally where
will this thing go?
McCarthy: It's a disaster for the reasons that J.D. Gordon
explained to you and others. The people who are at Gitmo are there because
they can't be repatriated. Obama has actually already tried to clear out
the place by returning people to other countries. If they had countries
willing to take these guys they'd already be gone. So you have a situation
where we're going to bring them into the United States if Obama has his
way. You have a lot of judges who don't believe in law of war detention,
and where are you going to put them other than out on the street in the
United States?
Hayworth: Andy McCarthy and Pete Hoekstra, gentlemen you have our
thanks.
|
The IPT accepts no funding from
outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or
religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative Project on Terrorism
is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All donations are
tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The
Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3
organization.
202-363-8602
- main
202-966-5191
- fax
|
|
Print
Send
Comment
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment