Food for Thought
June 24th, 2006 | by Dr. Forbush |1) We are fighting them over in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them over here, right?
2) We just found seven guys in Miami planning an attack over here, right?
3) The Republicans are declaring victory, right?
There is certainly a problem here, right?
26 Responses to “Food for Thought”
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
No. I really don’t see the problem. Not at all.
Do you really think that “so we don’t have to fight them here” meant, was ever intended to mean, that we wouldn’t have to be vigilant about further jihadi attacks? Seriously? Just look at the structure of the thing: fighting in Iraq so we don’t have to fight at home. Sounds to me like he doesn’t want to be fighting jihadis at home in the same sense that we’re fighting them in Iraq. Right? I mean…we’re not, are we? Is there a war going on in Manhattan that I haven’t read about? No? Then maybe the President knows what he was talking about and it’s working.
And yeh. I’d call catching the guys long before they do any damage at all is a victory. I don’t know WHAT you call it.
By Tom Baker on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
I’d call catching guys in MIami a victor for America.
I’d also call it somethign that casts a long critical eye on a policy that creates terrorists in the Middle East as a way of “protecting” us here. What’s the need for starting a war in the wrong country for the wrong reasons, causing someting like Al Qaeda in Iraq to be created (remember that is POST war, not PRE war) then crowing about how your taking the fight to the terrorists (that you created) so they don’t take the fight to you (which they have and will). Seems like druken boasting not reality.
But I guess Craig, I’m supposed to believe what Bush says until reality hits and then I’m suspposed to know that it was figurative not literal.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Hey, even I’ve given up believing whatever Bush says. The “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” has sounded like huey to me ever since the London bombings and I have expected another attack here at home for a long time now but the fact of the matter is that we aren’t fighting them here. We’re hunting them down, infiltrating, catching them before they are attacking again without a shot fired. Believe Bush or not. That’s up to you. All I’m saying is it’s worked so far and thank God for that.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
Do you really believe that if you weren’t fighting in Iraq that there’d be war in America itself? Iraq is irrelevant to the current attacks foiled. It might, stress might, be one motivating factor but is hardly the only reason people are motivated to attack America. Iraq is creating new terrorists, as well as drawing them out, but if it wasn’t, they’d be in Afghanistan fighting a much broader, deeper and stronger coalition.
So we’re fighting them over there. But it hasn’t got a lot to do with fighting them over here. Especially as in both the London bombings and the Miami arrests, they were native citizens not foreign fighters.
By Steve O on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Aren’t any of you the least bit suspicious of the timing of all these “ter-er” arrests and undiclosed attempts to attack us here on US soil as far back as 2003?
This is the same tactic Rove used when he kept ramping up the terror alert. But since people caught onto this they had to figure out another way to get people afraid before heading to the polls or better yet before they open their wallets just in time for all the candidates to disclose their fundraising goals.
I can guarantee you that there is alot more of this stuff to come and then after the elections ::poof:: the threat disappears just like Kaiser Soze.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
I don’t predict the future. I don’t know what would be happening if what was happening now wasn’t happening. What I know is what’s happening now: there hasn’t been a successful jihadi attack on the homeland since 9/11 [yes, there was the anthrax thing but that doesn't seem to have been jihad related but some disgruntled scientist; who else could have weaponized anthrax?]
And that was the other point I made. There was never any question that we would have to be vigilant here at home or that there couldn’t be another successful attack. The administration spent more than a year trying to emphasize to us that we need to be vigilant. The administration pushed for and got passed the Patriot Act. What do you suppose that was for if not protecting us from exactly this sort of thing? Then, in secret, he set up all manner of no-longer secret programs to do exactly what was done here: track down and arrest would-be terrorists before they become successful terrorists.
All I’m saying is what I’ve said: 1) I don’t think that Bush meant what people seem to think he meant by “We’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here”; and 2) that he seems to have been right. So far anyway.
As for Afghanistan, I’m with you there. I support the Iraq war but I think we disengaged from Afghanistan too soon. I won’t argue with anyone who wishes to complain that we’re still fighting Taliban forces in Afghanistan because we disengaged from there too soon.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Steve O,
Do you really think that that’s the important thing here? The timing of the arrests? I don’t. I don’t care if Rove himself gave the word to arrest them now as long as arresting them now doesn’t hinder the successful prosecution of these people. What? Do you really expect politicians to be anything other than politicians? I’m just glad they got them.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
I wasn’t aware I was asking you to predict the future. You’re saying the strategy is working because there have been no more Jihiadi attacks. It is true there haven’t been. But someone wearing a coffee cup on his head in Poughkeepsie to ward off tiger attacks could say it works because he’s never been attacked by tigers. Correlation is not cause and effect.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
No you didn’t ask me to predict the future. I was just saying that I don’t know what will happen in the future. We might well, at some point, be fighting a war here at home much as Israel has. I hope not but it could happen and if it does, it could be that Bush’s foreign policy could have something to do with it but it isn’t happening now.
You’re correct: correlation is not necessarily cause and effect but that doesn’t mean that it’s not.
By ken grandlund on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Craig notes that we’ve not had an attack in the US since 9-11. Well and true. He credits this solely for the efforts of the Bush administration, if I read correctly. Insomuch as we disrupted their operations with the Afghan action, and that we seem to have many countries tracking down terrorists in their countries as a result of 9-11, I will concur. Those actions have resulted in breaking up the cohesion of the central organization, al-Qaeda.
However, the domestic policy approaches taken by Bush have little bearing to the fact that the US has not sustained another attack. Rather, it seems to be the nature of bin Laden to be patient, waiting until all the pieces are exactly where he wants them before tipping the first domino. That he, and most everyone else, acknowledges that we will be hit again is a testament to the idea that it is not Bush or his wholesale onslaught against the Bill of Rights that is keeping us “safe” but instead the patience of bin Laden and/or his network.
As for the homegrown terrorist angle, this can be a big threat to countries in the west, as we have seen in Spain, England, Canada, and the U.S. In two cases, this led to destruction, in the other two prevention. However, no amount of limitation on civil liberties will prevent these things from occurring. In the former two cases, the cels achieved their aims because they managed to keep a lid on things pretty well and the groups were not infiltrated. In the latter, it was good old fashioned police work that disrupted the actions (or intended actions), not the unnecessary suspension of all civil rights. In all cases, affiliation with al-Qaeda did not occur. That these folks are operating on their own, albeit under an al-Qaeda influenced mindset. My point is that we are little more safe from al-Qaeda now than before 9-11, and no amount of civil liberty usurpation will change that fact.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
I’m not sure that I ever attributed the fact that there have been no attacks here since 9/11 solely to Bush’s efforts. If I did, I overstated the case I was making which is this: Bush didn’t mean what people think that he meant regarding the “fighting them there…” quote and that it has been working. On that second, I said that he’s been right so far.
As to why there’s been no attack, maybe Bush’s policies, foreign and domestic, have had no effect whatsoever but I don’t think that there’s any way to prove that either. If OBL would have wished to hit us before now, take, for example, a chemical device planted in New York’s subway system, but hasn’t, who’s to say that it hasn’t been in any measure due to our fighting “over there”? No one knows except OBL and I don’t think that he’s going to say so.
If Bush’s domestic policies have had a disputable effect on OBL’s plans, the same can’t be said about the efforts of other jihadis here in the US where plans have been discovered and disrupted.
I don’t think that we know what efforts led to the disruption of the intended destruction and arrests or what supposed rights onslaught might have played a part in them. Law enforcement would would not tell the press every step that was taken especially if steps were taken that might be considered to be an onslaught on our rights. They wouldn’t do it if for no other reason than that it would endanger the prosecution.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
Sorry, but just to check, are you really saying you don’t care if police break the law in order to catch the terrorists? Because that’s what you seem to be saying in the last paragraph.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
No. What I’m saying there is that Ken, in his last paragraph of his last comment, made comments to the effect that the successful law enforcement efforts, the ones that disrupted the intended destruction, had nothing to do with restricting or usurping rights. I’m questioning how he can possibly know that. We only know what was done in those things because of what we’ve been told by law enforcement involved and I’m saying that the law enforcement agencies are hardly going to make public every aspect of their investigation, particularly anything that they might have done that people who agree with Ken about Bush’s extraordinary investigatory policies might find questionable or objectionable and that they would not do that because to do so might endanger their prosecution.
Personally, I don’t believe that any of the leaked programs are legally or constitutionally problematic or, at least, that issue is no where near settled and I am inclined to give the government a fairly wide latitude in it’s efforts to disrupt terrorists. Given that, I am not overly troubled by the legalities of any of Bush’s programs so I’m not concerned that law enforcement might have broken the law in investigating terrorists. That doesn’t mean, however, that law enforcement agencies would be trumpeting, for example, that one thing that helped catch the “Sears Tower” gang might have been phone records from the NSA phone records program or from a warrantless wiretap on an international phone call or from the text of an email from the NSA electronic surveillance program. Any or all of these programs (including the banking records program) might have been a part of their investigation but if they were, we’re unlikely to know about it so I simply don’t think that anyone can make the claim that old-fashioned police work, alone, is responsible for disrupting would-be terrorists or that policies that some view as objectionable contraction of rights are unnecessary. In my opinion, we simply don’t know enough to know that.
Now, I suppose, I am in for an onslaught over my support for the various leaked NSA and banking programs. Well, as they say here, “Bring It On!” Heh!
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Fair enough. I’m glad I didn’t do the police state rant I started on now.
By ken grandlund on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
You’re right Craig, I am making some assumptions, based somewhat on the limited information I’ve read about those various cases. I don’t know that those extra-legal methods aren’t being used, only that this administration likes to claim that their methods are necessary and effective and like to offer proof of that when they can. So far, nothing regarding those policies effectiveness has been made here. And I grant you that they shouldn’t necessarily reveal their tactics for tracking down would-be terrorists, but wouldn’t have to were all the methods legally sanctioned, and not just manipulations of legal methods.
However, I am not so quick to approve of any spurious methods despite the results. Yes, I want to catch the bad guys. No, I’m not willing to discard civil liberties for myself or the whole country to do so. I’m not willing to give the administration carte blanche to do what they want, how they want, or when they want to. Such powers are almost always turned against those they proclaim to protect. And what good is safety if you can only achieve it through creating a virtual prison of the mind and actions of a once free people?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Ken,
As often as you comment here at one of the bastions of liberal political commentary and post at your blog along with tens of millions of other bloggers, you make your bread and butter producing anti-administration political videos and, as I understand it, you’re running for office…do you honestly consider yourself to be in a “virtual prison of the mind and actions”? How much less free is your conduct of life today than it was six years ago?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 24, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
A good rant, now and then, is good for the soul…or so I’m told. :^)
By ken grandlund on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply
Craig- I don’t make my bread and butter producing anti-administration political videos. I do those for fun. I make my living producing non-political video products for a main stream television affiliate, their clients, and worthy public service projects. I can understand the confusion due to a response to you I made on another post…just clearing the record.
And no, I don’t consider myself to be in a virtual prison of my mind or actions…yet. But I can see where the writing on the wall is headed if this administation continues along its present course unchecked.
I can tell you that 6 years ago I wasn’t concerned about the government listening to my telephone calls. I wasn’t concerned about having a government dossier because of my political thoughts. I wasn’t worried that some overzealous agent of the government would moniter my political commentary and decide to conduct a sneak peak search of my home. Today, all of those are distinct possibilities.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply
Ken,
Sorry for the confusion about the videos. Do you do commercials, and such? By producing, if you don’t mind my exploring, what is it that you do? Scripting, filming, directing, fundraising, etc? Tell me it’s none of my business if it is. I’m just kind of interested.
I can understand your increased concern particularly during a Republican administration with whose policies you take such exception. I don’t mean to discount those fears. If Bush WERE doing those things, he wouldn’t be the first president to do those sorts of things so there is basis for the concern.
Of course, 6 years ago I wasn’t concerned about planes flying into buildings or chemical gas attacks in subways etc., so I guess we’re all a little more concerned about something these days. The next administration could be one to whose policies I am as opposed as you are to this one — of course, there are a number of THIS administration’s policies to which I rather strenuously object and have done so online so I could have a file, too. Of course, anyone listening in on my phone calls would generally be bored to death, if they want to sneak a peak at my place, they’ll find only one rather disorderly mess but no contraband and I figure as long as I don’t threaten the President’s life in my commentary or emails or joke about bombing some building or another, I’m confident that the first amendment is still strong enough that however much I oppose his policies, I’ll be okay.
I know it’s kind of trite and you probably get it all the time from conservatives but I really am not concerned about what anyone snooping into my finances, my mail, my online activity, etc., because I know that they won’t find anything there to act on because I don’t do anything actionable. I’d rather risk a wiretap on my phone if tapping phones will catch terrorists in the planning stages rather than them having to do their investigation AFTER an attack. Likewise those other concerns. Obviously, I can’t speak for you or for what you should prefer. I’m just saying where I’m coming from. I guess I’m one of those people responsible for allowing an incredible, shrinking Bill of Rights. I just firmly believe, based upon what I think is sound evidence, that this is a time of emergency and that, in times of emergency, particularly in times of war, that liberties DO shrink and must.
By ken grandlund on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply
Craig-
Yes, I primarily do commercials, but also some longer form projects from time to time. I have most of an editing studio at home where I can create stuff like the video posted here at BIO.
As for what I do, specifically, I work through concept with clients and script the copy. I also do most of my own videography, on site audio, lighting, and directing. Then, I edit the footage per the script, add any visual effects and graphics elements, and edit the sound as needed. I also provide voice-overs when requested. In essence, I’m a one-man band serving a sales department of 12. That in addition to promotional work that I do for the station group I work for. I have a lot of client interaction, which has enabled me to fine tune my ability to understand what people want and then make sure they get it. While nearly all of my commercial work is for small businesses with low budgets, I’ve managed to earn several nationally recognized ( at least within my industry and the related advertising industries) awards over the years, if I may toot my own horn softly.
As for the differing things we worry on…which is more likely to happen on a given day? An airplane crashes into the tall building you happen to be in…or the government listening to your personal communications without a warrant, contrary to the Constitution? That’s right. The second, because it happens EVERY day. The other has never actually happened to you, else we’d not be chatting now.
We could both well be unhappy with the next administration. I am not a party loyalist to the degree that I automatically think a democratic president would be leaps and bounds better than Bush. I admit I’d be surprised if they weren’t, as I feel Bush hasn’t done much to benefit America, or the world for that matter. I take a wait and see attitude because politicians are seldom what they appear to be.
The “If they listen to my calls they’d be bored to tears” argument is a bit droll IMO. The point is not whether they are listening, but whether they have a legal right to do so under the Constitution, even in a time of ‘war.’ We are a nation of laws. I know it because I hear the president say it all the time. As such, I would expect, at the very least, that the president would do his utmost to uphold and operate within those laws rather than look for every way possible to skirt around them or just flat ignore their intent and letter. Therefore, it does not matter if you are ordering some flowers for your mother or making a deal for an ounce of smack. You have the presumption of innocence in this country, and can not be searched without a warrant (which includes wiretapping and sneak peaks). You may choose to suspend those rights for yourself but you can’t choose that for me. Or for anyone either.
We do disagree here, as I believe that one of the goals of our enemy is to fundamentally change our way of life, either through our destruction by them or by our own hand until we resemble them. They probably prefer our destruction in a very real and measurable way. But to me, if our fundamental society changes because of our capitulation to fear, if our adherence to the freedoms of man as brought forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights become mere shadows of themselves, or even worse, become discarded altogether, then the terrorist enemies will have won as well.
I personally can’t hunt them down and bring them to justice. I have to rely on the actions of my government to do so in such a way as to not make a bad situation worse. Unfortunately, I see my government doing the opposite and at the same time dismantling the very freedoms and laws that define who we are and distinguish us from the very foes we face.
I can’t fight the foe abroad, but I can sure fight the ones here. Democracy and freedom, once given ( and especially when born into) are hard fought to retain once they are perceived to be in danger. If it were just me, perhaps I’d not be so adamant. As you can see, there are a lot of people who share my perception.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply
Ken,
I get you, I do, but during WWII, thousands of Japanese Americans were interred, without charge or even any evidence, just suspicion. The Congress agreed and the Supreme Court declared it Constitutional. Why? How? The Bill of Rights was in place. In peacetime such a thing could never have been done. In wartime, it was. Yes, apologies were later made but no one has said that this wasn’t legitimately within the President’s power to do, or to do again to Muslim Americans in this country if we start experiencing Palestinian intifada type attacks upon US cities. Lincoln imposed blockades and captured private sailing vessels laden with goods bound for the South and a number of other invasive steps which both Congress and the Supreme Court countenanced. I guess that one of the things that makes war hell is the restriction of liberties that goes with such times. Our society’s liberties have always expanded and contracted in times of emergency. This is not some invention of Bush’s administration. It is par for the wartime course. The problem, I guess, is that it’s been 60+ years since we’ve had these kinds of constrictions of liberties. We’ve culturally forgotten that this is par for the course. In WWII we had much less evidence than we have today that there are enemy agents in this country, agents tied to Al Qaeda and ones only ideologically and tactically aligned with AQ without any formal ties to the organization, that are plotting attacks. Frankly, I think Bush has been extraordinarily light in his restrictions of liberties when compared to past conflicts, those in which there were reasons to suspect that there were enemy agents in the US, anyway.
No. I know we’re not going to agree here. I just like advancing arguments [not that I don't believe these arguments, mind you] to see how thoughtful people respond. Sometimes I learn stuff this way.
And don’t get me wrong. My concern about terrorist attacks has nothing to do with fearing that I’ll be killed or mamed in one, at least that’s not a fear at this point. I’m much more likely to be killed by an airplane’s landing gear landing on me than I am to be killed in a terrorist attack — somehow I don’t see Fort Wayne, IN being a high priority target for the jihadis. I just have a strong, negative reaction to people killing Americans, any Americans, whether I know them or not. Frankly, if I die tomorrow in a terrorist attack, I’m confident that I’ll be going to heaven, so my own life or death is of no great concern to me.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply
Oh, and about you job, very cool. It sounds like you love what you do.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
The problem is America isn’t at war. Or if it is it’s acting very strangely in running up a huge defecit and still cutting taxes that will impair it’s ability to fight said war. The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs, it’s a rhetorical war, not a legal war. The President doesn’t have special powers, and even if he did, how long would they last for? How long until a vague emotion and military tactic that has been used long before Muslim extremeists got hold of it surrenders or is defeated? Did the President have all these powers during the Cold War? Did he have them during the War on Drugs? I didn’t think so.
Another problem is thinking that Muslim terrorism is the only kind dangerous to America. I don’t think Timothy McVeigh (the previous holder of most successful terrorist attack in America) was a Muslim. Or the Unabomber. Or the nutters who blow up abortion clinics. In fact, most of them are white and Christian. Maybe all extremeist Christians or anti-government ‘militiamen’ should be rounded up and put in holding camps?
In the UK we’ve been fighting terrorism for years. We have a law (the Prevention of Terrorism Act) that allows us to use methods that would not be used in any other circumstance against terrorists (Granted at the moment there is some bad drafting that allows the police to pretend they thought you were a terrorist as far as certain powers go, but there is a lot of outcry over this and it may change. I don’t think it was the intention. I certainly hope not.). Every year this law expires and Parliament has to give its assent for it continuing. Hasn’t been a problem so far. We know we’re at risk, but we are not at war with terrorists, and the law is still to be obeyed.
This is part of the reason you and Europeans can’t understand each other on this. You see this as a war; we see it as criminal activity. But that might be because Europe has had a lot more terrorism against it than the US. We’re more used to it. And our methods have worked against our terrorists. It doesn’t mean they’ll work against these terrorists, but they are successful methods.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
I respect you but if you think America isn’t at war, I don’t know what you define war as. I don’t know what else to say about that.
Whether running up huge deficits while cutting taxes is a good idea or bad, I don’t think that that has any bearing on whether we are at war or not.
You’re welcome to call Afghanistan a rhetorical war against terrorists if you want to but it looks an awful lot like war to me and not like the war on drugs, either. I mean that it looks a lot like traditional warfare. I guess that you and I see different things when we look at the same thing. As for Iraq, granted that much of the violence and fighting in Iraq is not against terrorists but much of it is. That fighting, too, looks much more like traditional warfare to me than it does like a metaphor.
I’m sorry to disagree with you but the executive of any country has always had special powers during time of war and emergency that have gone beyond what they can exercise in time of peace. The Constitution even recognizes this. Take internment of American citizens and legal immigrants of Japanese descent durring WWII. Whether one thinks it to have been an overreaction that was not warranted by the situation or not — and I think that it was — it was a power that the president had the authority to do, an authority that was confirmed by Congress and declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. This is just one of the many special powers that presidents have exercised in times of war or emergency that they do not legitimately have at other times.
How long do they last? I don’t know the answer to that. I suspect that they last as long as the emergency or war last. That’s not a question that can be answered by saying “Three months”, “A year” or “Three years”. It is a case by case proposition.
I suspect that the presidents during the cold war both had and exercised extraordinary powers. A recent president, not Bush, for example, ordered warrantless wiretaps and searches of foreign a diplomat. I don’t pretend to be an expert on such matters, but I think that, at least during the Cold War, presidents did exercise extraordinary powers, and did so legitimately. That the war on terror is not analogous to the war on drugs, I’ve already addressed above so whether the president has any extraordinary powers in the war on drugs or not is, I think, moot.
I don’t think that anyone thinks that Islamic terrorists are the only terrorists to be concerned about. Certainly not I. Nor, do I suspect, is that the case with the president and his administration. The Patriot Act, for example, is not directed solely at Islamic terrorists. I don’t believe that Muslims should simply be rounded up and interned as Japanese Americans were. At least, I don’t believe that we’re anywhere near that point yet. I don’t even think that it was a necessary step during WWII but that doesn’t stop me from recognizing that it was legitimately within the president’s power to do. However, it isn’t even the case that every Islamic terrorist or would-be Islamic terrorist is rounded up and sent to GITMO, for example. Only those that have a verifiable connection to Al Qaeda, for example, if they’ve spent time at Al Qaeda run terrorist camps learning bomb-making skills or if they’ve had contact with, given support to or received support from Al Qaeda, they are legitimately considered to be a part of the same gang that orchestrated 9/11 and under the Authorization to Use Force in the War on Terror, they can be rounded up and detained in holding camps.
Not knowing much about the situation in Britain, legally, I can’t comment intelligently on the laws there so I won’t. It maybe that such a law would be better than anything that we have in the US. I won’t argue that one way or another. However, to the extent that there are troops from Great Britain in Afghanistan and Iraq and to the extent that they fight terrorists, Britain IS at war with terrorists.
Even Europeans recognized and have supported and continue to support Afghanistan as legitimate war against terrorism. However you may be right about the difference of understanding in general between America and Europe. I have nothing remotely intelligent to say on that matter, so I won’t say anything about it.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
I think I may have accidentally misled you, which as I respect you, even if we don’t agree, is unfortunate. Afghanistan is definitely a war. Absolutely no question. Iraq also is. But that does not mean the War on Terror is. Both the other wars have definite enemies: the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, forces you can define and beat. Is the war on terror against Al Quaeda? Or all terrorists? Or all terrorists who are fighting countries we like? Who is the enemy? Because you can’t fight “terror” it’s an emotion. You can’t fight “terrorism” it’s a military tactic. Who are we at war with? This is rather key when talking about rounding up and detaining people. If what you say about Gitmo is true, why have hundreds of people sent there been released? I mean, if these people are known, proven, dangerous terrorists, why let them go?
Britain, and much of Europe, has been fighting terrorists for decades. It’s not a war. Just because the army is involved, doesn’t make it a war. Thinking of the War on Terror as a war, and using standard military tactics against the terrorists, will fail because if it is a war, it is one unlike any we’ve fought before. Our technical superiority does not give us an advantage because what we have to do is find and kill the terrorists, without killing so many civillians that we lose their support. In Iraq, that may be too late. I hope not, and would be very happy to be wrong, but I fear it is the case that a lot of Iraqis do not see us as friends.
I don’t deny that there are emergency powers in place in all countries. What we disagree about is whether the current situation counts as sufficient grounds for their indefinite and widespread implementation. Because widespread indefinite emergency powers is a pretty good definition of a police state. I don’t mean “until the end of the war” indefinite, I mean, “until the end of a war that cannot be finished”. If the powers were tightly focused and overseen, then I doubt anyone here would have half the issues we have with them. It’s the catch-all nature (from what we know as we still don’t know exactly what the programmes are) of the programmes that is concerning us.
I used the example from the UK as an example of a) how other countries react to terrorism and b) to highlight the problem I see with what’s happened in America: that all this has been implemented without debate and without the public being aware of it. There is an argument for the details being kept secret, no question, but I can’t see an argument for keeping Congress ignorant of these policy changes.
And don’t worry about not responding intelligently. I certainly don’t let it deter me.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 25, 2006 | Reply
Paul,
Thanks for the clarification. After sending my previous comment, I had to get off the computer for a while. After thinking about it for a while, I realized that I had probably misunderstood you along the very lines that you make in your comments immediately above. I just hadn’t had the chance to make corrections to my previous comments in a new comment when I read your comment above. So, with my new, corrected understanding of your point, I’ll attempt to address it again.
I never liked the “Global War on Terror” (what kind of label is GWOT, anyway?) as a label for what we’re doing. As you say, terror is not an enemy that can be identified. Terrorism describes tactics and terrorists describe those who use terrorism tactics. I prefer “War against Militant Islamists” (WAMI is a much better label for the war and it has the advantage of naming specific people against whom the war might be fought). At present, I see the war part of the WAMI as being limited to those who are named in the Authorization to Use Force (the first one used to go to Afghanistan), namely, Al Qaeda and any nation or group aligned with and having protected or having fought for or with. Thus, the Taliban forces are legitimately a part of the WAMI (aka GWOT). They gave safe harbor to, refused to cooperate in the arrest of OBL and Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and then fought in defense of Al Qaeda when we decided that we would not let the Taliban government get away with protecting those who attacked us on 9/11. As Bush put it, we are at war with the terrorists that struck us on 9/11 and any nation that protects them, gives them safe harbor. Thus, in my opinion, the present war in Afghanistan IS one front in the non-metaphorical WAMI.
Iraq was not legitimately a part of the WAMI and any efforts to conflate the two, pre-war, were either self-deception on the part of those who tried to make that connection or were deliberate deception on their part. I don’t make a judgement on which of these two are the case with the administration spokespersons who may have advanced that argument. However, once we went to Iraq, the terrorists came flooding into Iraq from numerous Islamic nations and their leader that emerged was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Now Zarqawi fought in Afghanistan against our forces seeking OBL and Al Qaeda. That made him a legitimate target in the WAMI. His later affiliation with Al Qaeda merely formalized what was always true, that Zarqawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq, once they set themselves against our forces, in my opinion, are a second front in the non-metaphorical WAMI.
As long as there are Al Qaeda connected, financed, directed and supported sleepers in this country, THEY are legitimately, I think, targets in the non-metaphorical WAMI. I don’t think that anyone questions that such sleepers, directly connected to Al Qaeda and therefore legitimately covered by the first Authorization to Use Force, exist in this and other countries or that they continue to wait and plot further attacks in America. They are, in my opinion, enemy agents in a non-metaphorical WAMI.
As for those who have been detained in Guantanamo or those who have been released, I simply don’t have sufficient knowledge to answer your question. I think that some have been released because it was recognized that they were never actually connected to Al Qaeda. Of course, more than one released detainee has been caught or killed plotting or carrying out further terrorist attacks, which probably explains why more have not been released. As I understand it, only a very small fraction of the detainees were proven to be connected to Al Qaeda. I don’t defend their original detention nor their continued detention — although the argument has been plausibly advanced with regard to some of them that we can’t send them back to their homelands because they’d be tortured or killed and no other country is interested in taking them. Again, I have no solution to offer for this situation so I won’t try to formulate one. I’m not particularly interested in having them released into the United States, either. I don’t like it.
I think the powers of which we speak ARE tightly focused and always have been, to a limited degree, overseen. I don’t see evidence of their being used for any other purpose than for detecting Al Qaeda connected terrorists in this country and in other countries. I think they’ve been illegally leaked (that the leakers should be searched out, arrested, tried and, if found guilty, should spend much of the rest of their lives behind bars as traitors), and wildly overblown by an anti-administration press but I don’t expect many here to agree with that estimation. It is, however, my estimation.
But I do agree that there is a metaphoricallity to the war against militant Islamists as well as against non-Islamic terrorists, the existence of which I do not at all deny. You will notice, as I argued above, even most of the Islamic would be terrorists that have come to light have been treated as law enforcement efforts and have or will be tried in civilian courts as terrorists but as criminals, as was Timothy McVeigh.
I hope that clarifies the situation as I understand it and more directly addresses your points.