Now we cry for preemption

So I'm listening to Condoleezza Rice testify in front of the 9-11 commission this morning, and some of it irks me. But I'll get to that in a second. First I want to lay some groundwork.

The whole premise for the 9-11 commission is fine by me. America was attacked. Let's take every opportunity to learn how the attacks happened and what we can do to stop them in the future. Along these same lines, let's look at how a terrorist network was able to pull off these attacks, or any for that matter, without being stopped by the people and institutions charged with protecting us. If ineptness is found at the top, or if a lack of response to overwhelming evidence of a coming attack is found, further action must be taken.

Now, onto the committee. Here's what rubs me wrong with the whole thing.

During her testimony, Rice fielded questions based on the Bush administrations previous knowledge about the coming 9-11 attacks. She made it clear that this was a problem spanning multiple presidents, influenced by both parties. Fine, whatever, that sounds like the truth to me. Because it's obvious the Bush administration had the power to stop the attacks, it's also key to note that the terrorists were living in our country during the Clinton administration. Yadda yadda, we already know all this. But here's where I get ticked about the whole argument. . .

To say that the Bush administration could have/should have stopped the 19 highjackers brings up, yet again, the hot topic of preemption. Groups like the ACLU say we can be free from government intrusion and secure at the same time. They claim the government should be able to preemptively stop any attack on America, but the government isn't allowed to gather information about the people inside our borders that might help in process. (Civil liberties vs. civil rights)
Here's the part that makes no sense about this whole preemptive notion.
While so many people are screaming at the Bush administration, or the government in general, about their failure to stop these attacks, can you imagine the uproar that would have occurred if, on Sept. 4, 2001, 19 people were arrested by military personal?! There would have been unimaginable outcries from the so-called civil liberties groups shouting discrimination, infringement of privacy and whole hosts of other crap that I'm not smart enough to know about. What if the 19 highjackers hadn't even been allowed in our country because of their terrorist affiliations? Can you imagine the protests that would have ensued. (All this, for men who would later instigate 9-11)

My only complaint with the 9-11 hearings are when questions revolve around preemption. The same people who want America to be secure are the same people who cry foul when the government takes preemptive action. For an example of how the ACLU's idea that we can be free and secure is full of crap, check out the next post. If you don't care about it, then peace out.