- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
- Messages
- 5,849
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I was listening to NPR this morning and heard from Adam Schiff, a California Congressman who sits on the Intelligence Committee, and he noted that he personally has no problem with the use of the label, but the question that remains for him is how does the use of this label change the response.
Many individuals on the right have criticized the President for his unwillingness to use the label "radical islamic terrorism." I want to set aside the discussion of whether the use of this label is proper or desired and I want to discuss the policy implications.
Put another way, if we have a President that declares the enemy to be "Radical Islamic Terrorism," how would the response of the federal government differ from the current administration? Is the sole argument something to the effect of "identifying the enemy allows us to defeat it?" Does the use of that term justify torturing the family members of terrorists or carpet bombing entire regions?
What else starts to change once we use and/or emphasize that phrase?
Many individuals on the right have criticized the President for his unwillingness to use the label "radical islamic terrorism." I want to set aside the discussion of whether the use of this label is proper or desired and I want to discuss the policy implications.
Put another way, if we have a President that declares the enemy to be "Radical Islamic Terrorism," how would the response of the federal government differ from the current administration? Is the sole argument something to the effect of "identifying the enemy allows us to defeat it?" Does the use of that term justify torturing the family members of terrorists or carpet bombing entire regions?
What else starts to change once we use and/or emphasize that phrase?