In the film The Assassination of Richard Nixon, Sean Penn’s boss advises him that Nixon was the greatest salesman of all time, because in two successive elections he hoodwinked the American people with the same promise: that he would end the war in Vietnam.  Eric Holder must have been Penn’s understudy.
The Huffington Post reports that the attorney general and supreme representative of his people told the UN Secretary-General’s Symposium on International Counter-Terrorism Conference “Tuesday that the Obama administration will do its utmost to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay before next year’s presidential elections.” Bloggers on the Left and the Right have noted Holder’s hypocrisy. None has yet reported that this recycled 2008 campaign promise came as part of a speech that invited the UN to create an “international legal and policy framework” for waging the War on Terror in “civilian courts,” and which pledged to redistribute taxpayer dollars to fight such “root causes” of terrorism as global income “inequality.” Eric Holder vowed to bring terrorists to the mainland, diminishing U.S. wealth to the Third World, and UN norms to the halls of power.
Advertisement-content continues below
As the centerpiece of this feckless conference, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced the creation of a new UN anti-terrorism center — financed by Saudi Arabia.
On Monday, Holder addressed the United Nations Secretary-General’s Symposium on International Counter-Terrorism Cooperation. Holder asserted on 9/11 world leaders agreed “to respond to national challenges with international action, with global solutions, and with a renewed commitment to collaboration.”
In this work, the United Nations has led the way – by developing an international legal and policy framework to foster collaboration and information sharing, to promote the rule of law, to protect civil liberties and – ultimately – to enhance our capacity to identify and combat terror threats. Let me be very clear: The United States is firmly committed to the rule of law approach enshrined in this framework and to strengthening the capacity of civilian courts around the world, which have time and again shown their effectiveness at bringing terrorists to justice.
Advertisement-content continues below
Holder added, in addition to trying the perpetrators of international terrorism, the United States must “just as importantly, endeavor to eliminate its causes as well.”
The UN cannot even agree on a definition of terrorism, slightly complicating efforts to eradicate it. If it could, vast segments of its membership believe in systematically targeting civilian populations for political ends, rendering nominal opposition to terrorism disingenuous.
Yet they vigorously and sincerely approve of redistributing U.S. taxpayer dollars under UN auspices, whether in the guise of stopping environmental degradation or ending terrorism.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself stated: “Effective counter-terrorism requires a combination of social, educational, economic and political tools that target those factors that make the terrorist option appear attractive. The strategy also recognizes that human rights are an intrinsic part of the fight against terror, not an acceptable casualty of war.”
The globalist socialist agenda is described in greater detail in the documents promoted at the conference: the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, adopted five years ago, and the Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism, which Ban Ki-moon urged members to complete then ratify.
The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and its lengthy Annex focus on expanding UN authority into virtually every aspect of human endeavor. The Strategy instructs nations to “do all they can to resolve conflict, end foreign occupation, confront oppression, eradicate poverty, promote sustained economic growth, sustainable development, global prosperity, good governance, human rights for all and rule of law, improve intercultural understanding and ensure respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures.” It is, in other words, a mandate for the developed world to interfere in every component of national government in creation.
It endorses the Millennium Development Goals, pursuant to which the UN has proclaimed, “combating [income] inequality at all levels, is essential to create a more prosperous and sustainable future for all.” Ending global wealth disparity is a key belief of the worldwide socialist movement, one proposed by Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren, who believed the hemispheric wealth transfer should take place through a global carbon tax.
The Annex’s first priority is enhancing UN power and allowing the UN to intervene in as many conflicts as possible. It vows to “strengthen and make best possible use of the capacities of the United Nations in areas such as conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, rule of law, peacekeeping and peacebuilding.” That means more UN interventions around the world, manned by U.S. soldiers. But not all militarism makes the grade. The Annex plans to eliminate the “illicit arms trade, in particular of small arms and light weapons,” another term for global gun control.
The price tag is sure to be steeper before the Third World signs off on an international treaty, even one it has no intention of enforcing. During the negotiations over the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, Pakistan demanded nations address terrorism’s alleged “root causes, such as poverty, illiteracy, inequality, and injustice.”
President Obama’s new chief economic adviser, Alan B. Krueger, rigorously discredited the thesis that ignorance and poverty cause terrorism. In a 2003 paper he co-authored with Jitka Maleckova for the Journal of Economic Perspectives, he concluded:
The evidence we have presented, tentative though it is, suggests little direct connection between poverty or education and participation in terrorism. Indeed, the available evidence indicates that, compared with the relevant population, members of Hezbollah’s militant wing or Palestinian suicide bombers are at least as likely to come from economically advantaged families and have a relatively high level of education as to come from the ranks of the economically disadvantaged and uneducated. Similarly, members of the Israeli Jewish Underground who terrorized Palestinian civilians in the late 1970s and early 1980s were overwhelmingly well-educated and in highly regarded occupations.
Obama’s foreign policy team ignores his chief economic adviser, obligating the taxpayer to foot an extravagant and futile round of global funds transfers.
The Liberal Establishment’s Seal of Approval
These costs do not give the liberal foreign policy Establishment a moment’s pause. An issue brief from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) entitled, “The Global Regime for Terrorism,” instructs the world to fulfill the Strategy and “unite all aspects of counterterrorism under one legal umbrella,” which its proponents describe as “a comprehensive regime.” (Again, John Holdren used the same term to describe his own Utopia in his 1977 book, Ecoscience.) The elitists groused, “The role of the UN General Assembly is limited by its inability to pass binding resolutions” — one of its few redeeming qualities. It lauds Obama’s adoption of the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine to justify the war in Libya. Holder’s speech would find a significant pool of support in high places.
Closing Gitmo: Hey, We’ll Try!
In the midst of a political season, headlines at home understandably focused on Eric Holder’s quasi-promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama campaigned on it, and as president he signed an executive order on January 22, 2009, promising to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay no later than one year from that date.
Since missing his own deadline, Obama has cautiously raised the issue on sporadic occasions. With the president losing popularity among liberals, Holder promised to close Gitmo last Sunday, on the tenth anniversary of 9/11.
But his speech Monday indicated even Eric Holder does not believe Holder. “We will be pressing for the closure of the facility between now and then,” he said, referring to the 2012 presidential election, “and after that election, we will try to close it as well.” Translation: This is campaign rhetoric; all but the most trusting left-wingers are free to ignore it.
That is not to say Obama, et. al., would not like to close the detention facility, bring the terror-tied detainees to American soil, and give them full civilian trials. The administration simply cannot figure out the logistics. An unnamed administration official admitted in 2009, “There’s one category [of prisoners] that we can transfer. There’s one category that we can try. The third category can’t be transferred, can’t be tried.”
What does Herr Holder propose to do with the third class of detainees — the one he apparently intends to lock up forever? Obama threatened to use executive power to place terror suspects in the heartland before reversing himself. With re-election behind him, he could feel bold enough to defy the law openly.
Citing Monday’s conference, he could claim he is merely enforcing the will of the United Nations, whose experts agreed this is the best way to keep Americans safe. As with the successive federal and UN condemnations of Arizona’s immigration law, Obama again wants to cloak his aggressive left-wing agenda under the light-blue mantle of the UN flag.
1. In fact, through his policy of Vietnamization, Nixon ended the U.S. military presence in Vietnam, his famed “Peace with Honor.”
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.