Andrew McCarthy is a former assistant U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York. He led the 1995 terrorism prosecution of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and 11 others, all of whom are now serving long sentences for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.
Now a senior fellow for the Foundation of the Defense of Democracies and a contributing editor to National Review Online, McCarthy is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad.
"It is crucial to grasp...[the] Islamic notion of freedom, for it is the inverse of the Western conception." From this central idea, McCarthy discusses the "chasm between the Islam of Western fantasy and the Islam that actually exists," underscoring the fact that "jihadists are very adept at exploiting the freedoms that are available to them in Western democracies."
Confronting Islamic extremism, how do we make our strategic behavior -- the rules of war -- conform to the "rule of law" that is essential in maintaining a free society?- The Hoover Institution
Bio
Andrew C. McCarthy
For 18 years, Mr. McCarthy was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York where he led the terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. He served as the Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District's satellite office and also supervised the Office's Command Post near Ground Zero in New York City following the 9/11 attacks.
Mr. McCarthy is the recipient of numerous awards including the Justice Department's highest honors: the Attorney General's Exceptional Service Award and the Distinguished Service Award. In 2004, he served as a Special Assistant to Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
Peter Robinson
Peter M. Robinson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he writes about business and politics, edits the Hoover Institution's quarterly journal, the Hoover Digest, and hosts Hoover's television program, "Uncommon Knowledge."
Robinson is also the author of three books: How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life; It's My Party: A Republican's Messy Love Affair with the GOP; and the best-selling business book Snapshots from Hell: The Making of an MBA.
In Islam, the central doctrine that calls on believers to combat the enemies of their religion. According to the Qur'an and the Hadith, jihad is a duty that may be fulfilled in four ways: by the heart, the tongue, the hand, or the sword. The first way (known in Sufism as the “greater jihad”) involves struggling against evil desires. The ways of the tongue and hand call for verbal defense and right actions. The jihad of the sword involves waging war against enemies of Islam. Believers contend that those who die in combat become martyrs and are guaranteed a place in paradise. In the 20th and 21st centuries the concept of jihad has sometimes been used as an ideological weapon in the effort to combat Western influences and secular governments and to establish an ideal Islamic society.
An interesting thing I notice about these comments and discussions, is that they become buried in time. As I write this it is nearly 2 years after it was recorded, and the issues spoken of have either solidified or dispersed since then. Yet no one seems to revisit these strong topics at a later date with reflections on the way things played out.
With regard to the topic in this video, the US is in a sticky position responding to this without having terra firma to stand upon in terms of constitutional and legal precidence. In an arena like that, are there really any 'wrong' answers? The US is put in a position of trial and error. This in its self is not a critical event, it's only within the framework of terrorism and national security that it takes on complex and deep social meaning. Events and factions aside, this brand of aggression (terrorism) is carried out by a covert and entrenched enemy, within one's own borders. Meaning any faction that chooses to use terrorist type tactics is not engaged in a front line war - there are no troops on the horizon, there are no field marshals, there is no field. So what does one do when one's own citizenry is it's enemy, yet not be in a state of civil war? A civil war, complex as it is, is still easier to deal with than small cells of enemies integrated into your society. The US citizen is slowly becoming conditioned to the concept that loss of personal freedom, and privacy is acceptable in comparison to the threats of terrorism - where is your line? The very nature of terrorism means that it is impossible to eradicate - the fact that it is (in our case) rooted in religion makes it even more enduring, no matter how many pieces you can smash it; it remains fractal. So, one must reconcile the idea that this method of warfare is forever going to be part of our global conflict; how then does one address civil liberties? Really the options are limited. Enforce a police state, or shut down borders (both heavy limiters in civil freedom), or allow citizenry the freedom of existance any individual should enjoy - yet be victimized by the threat of unseen enemies. No good descisions can arise from this - the expectation of the public to see these types of decisions being made well is unreasonable, and sadly reveals the peasant mentality of the common citizen.
I think the whole thing is a farce which even if not born in statecraft, is still subject to the devices of statecraft after the fact. For example, waging a war on a nation against the action of a cellular sect of that nation, is wrong. If a group of extremist american citizens decided to blow up parliament hill, is that an act of war? Is this nationally sanctioned behavior even if the nation in question allows its citizens to practice and proliferate extremist views and behaviors under the premise of civil liberty and the right to assemble? Does this make the nation culpable somehow? Is that level of culpability enough to wage an extended war? This is the present environment we in the western world are living in. If I were a US citizen I would be a lot more worried about how a decade of terrorist activity in my country would translate to my ability as a citizen to leave my own home without permission, or read a book that would give me the power to arm or educate myself against an oppressive state. These are fundimentals to american citizens. At the same time, should 'war criminals' in this context get the full value of legal rights? That's just foolish. Should one allow a democratic state become the equvalent of a national black-op? That's even more foolish. Outright refusal of such methods by the citizens should be knee-jerk, yet they are not - furthermore if one were to examine the total, present day level of intrustion the state has on daily life of it's citizens through the use of technology, it should easily occur to them that while it gives no blatant outward appearances of it, one might as well be living under the KGB.
I know this post runs long, but I can't help but think of this quote when I look at the trends of western (and global) powers. It was said by Albert Speer in his closing statement at the Nuremburg Trials after the fall of Nazi Germany.
1946.
Quote:
As the former minister in charge of a highly developed armaments economy it is my last duty to state: ...There is nothing to stop unleashed technology and science from completing its work of destroying man, which it has so terribly begun in this war. The nightmare shared by many people [is] that someday the nations of the world may be dominated by technology-that nightmare was nearly made reality under Hitler's authoritarian system. Every country in the world today faces being terrorized by technology; but in a modern dictatorship this seems to me unavoidable. Therefore the more technological the world becomes, the more essential will be the demand for individual freedom and the self-awareness of the individual human being as a counterpoise to technology.
The interview with Mr. McCarthy was a very telling and disturbing piece of video. I, am afraid that his interpretation of the Constitution is quite warped and has many of the same viewpoints as did Prof. Yoo's interpretation. The idea that we need another type of court to deal with so-called illegal enemy combatants is a truly scary proposition. Without doubt this person would like to string up the people who do harm to America and then go after more people.
This was disturbing, but worth watching. I understand a little better where people like Giuliani and Mukasey is coming from now, and it scares me. Telling quote: "...we give people we capture enough justice so it doesn't look like a kangaroo court, so that we can continue to maintain the cooperation of our allies..."
member. 
