What is the Democrat plan to fight terrorism?

Question

From what I have seen many Democrats are against allowing the government to collect intelligence and characterize all action as infringing on their rights. They are against detaining suspects of terror captured in battle zones and appear completely against fighting the war on terror on foreign soil to varying degrees.

I am not trying to incite discourse here. This is what I have perceived from my interactions with many on Yahoo Answers. So I am curious about what their opinion is on how we should fight terrorism. Please do not post just to attack the other side. That is a useless excercise in futility. I am looking for serious answers.

Answer 1

I am still waiting for the Democrats to present their alternative strategy.

So far I have been very disappointed because it appears to me that they have no real plan beyond chanting "Bush is evil."

If you think you have a better plan - let me see it!

Answer 2

You will see the democrats change the constitution more than any republican ever thought about changing it. Sitting in front of our new Congress, under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, there is a proposal to designate churches, pastors, religious denominations, public interest org., and other non-profit groups as "lobbyists." If you speak out against homosexuality, abortion or any thing God calls ungodly you will be fined $100,000.00 or 6 to 10 years in jail. The Constitution has always stated that government cannot get involved in religion so that a church of England would never happen in America.

It is not democrats or republicans as much as it is the people that the ACLU has placed in office. Being from San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi would need to go against everything in SF to vote against homosexuality.

To answer your question, the new Congress does not know what to do with terrorism any more than your old Congress knew. One thing that I want is - I do not want terrorist in America again. And neither the dems nor the reps can guarantee that

Answer 3

Well since the war in Iraq isn't fighting terror, the Republicans aren't doing much either.

To fight terrorism the first step is to have a proactive approach of hunting them and bringing them to justice. Something we haven't been doing. Follow the money and seize it here and in our allies jurisdictions. To stop the flow of equipment, you have to disrupt the follow of money into the terrorist regimes.

Get off oil as our main fuel! The Saudis fund terror, and so does most of OPEC. Start to switch to Bio-Diesel and E-85, both made from corn. Switching to those fuels also incidentally helps a lot of Red states, farming states. How could any Republican be against it? Most in the Government are, funny how slick big city liberals are fighting to help the rural farmers who never vote for them.

That's just a part of a liberal approach, but why change when the old conservative methods are not doing anything but making other conservatives richer.

Answer 4

have you ever study all the Patriot Act. It violates the structure. case in factor, the FBI has the authority to acquire client information from banks by technique of only soliciting for the information in a "nationwide safe practices Letter." To get the information, the FBI would not ought to seem earlier a choose, nor exhibit "likely reason" - reason to believe that the concentrated client is keen on offender or terrorist interest. study the Fourth change it violates it. We supported Bin weighted down in the course of the Afghan conflict lower back interior the Nineteen Seventies. It became our meddling attempting to get the Soviet's out of Afghanistan that created them. So, convinced we were of significant finical help to terror. do not believe me seem on the time line below. and that i hate to inform you this yet we've something called the invoice of Rights. If a terrorist is a citizen of us of a of america he has the secure practices below the invoice of Rights and larger importantly a right to a honest trial. Our forefathers positioned the invoice of Rights in there to regulate the authorities. So, the authorities can't get rid of the rights of the individuals. study it sometime. And who became it that fumbled up and allowed Bin weighted right down to flee? it truly is right Bush. by technique of ways, Bin weighted down has attacked us multipule cases such as the bombing on the united statesCole. And we bypass after Saddam who did not even attack us on 9/11. Now, we've formally created a mess in Iraq. The Democrats are not any further the in common words ones who're screwing up this usa.

Answer 5

There is more than one way to fight terrorism other than "collecting intellegence" and "detaining suspects." It's this limited thinking that causes countries to lose wars. It is possilbe to fight terrorism and preserve human life.

Hitler threw a lot of people who opposed his regime in jail and concentration camps and collected all kinds of intellegence about his enemies.

Btw, this is not the first time America has ever dealt with terrorists.

Answer 6

Actually, most democrats are against holding people INDEFINIETLY without CHARGE or TRIAL, because it is unconstitutional. And there has always been spying and collecting information, but if you want to do it to american citizens, you have to have a warrant. And most democrats are for the war in Afghanistan, you know, the one that was about terror, and are for finding Bin LAden. They were even suggesting INCREASED troop levels, a change of course, and to listen to the generals on the ground. So, it doesn't matter what the dems think, because Bush is in charge, and largely ignoring not only the dems, but a bipartisan research group HE formed, as well as the generals on the ground. What are republicans doing to fight terrorism????!!!?

Answer 7

First, let me repeat for you knuckle heads the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, there was no Al-qaueda there until we invaded.Even Bush's cronies have said as much. Second if Bush really wanted to fight Terrorism then why has he gone soft on Afghanistan? why is the Taliban creeping back into power there? why has he done nothing to stop the terror in darfur? Violence is not the way to stop violence.

Answer 8

If they want to collect intelligence on suspected terrorists, fine, according to established procedures and regulations. But their information gathering affects law-abiding non-terrorist Americans. This information can be misused by unscrupulous politicians. That's why so many on the left and right are concerned.

By the way, the word "Democrat" is a noun. You are using it improperly as an adjective. The correct phrase would be "DemocratIC plan". Using "Democrat" ungrammatically as an adjective is reminescent of Joe McCarthy, and is frequently used with a sneering attitude. It's a lot like using "Jew" as an adjective, as in "the Jew media". Does that sound nice?

Answer 9

Right now the Democrat plan is the same for everything: "Hate George Bush", "George Bush is Evil", "Dick Cheney is the real President", "Haliburton, Haliburton, Haliburton...". This plan should work well for terrorism as well, we can see how well it has worked up until now.

Welcome all Democrats to the position of power, the war on terror is now yours... Good Luck!

Answer 10

What you have seen, obviously, is what you wish to see.

As a Democrat, I am fully in support of my government gathering intelligence to use against terrorists. What I am against is my government violating the United States Constitution in order to do so.

That is my serious answer to you.