Jim Stillman
Nevar
Acts of terrorism should be investigated, prosecuted and punished as criminal offenses
May 25th 2009 15:28
In a previous post, I suggested that the way to best challenge and defeat terrorists would be to use well established and experienced civilian law enforcement agencies to investigate, arrest, prosecute, and, if appropriate, punish and incarcerate those convicted through the regular judicial system.
Almost ten years ago, the United States General Accounting Office published a report studying the manner in which Canada, France, Germany, Israel, and the United Kingdom addressed the issues. Certainly, no one can doubt that the United Kingdom has had years of terrorist acts by the I.R.A. and Israel has been under the threat of imminent attacks from the day it was established
The G.A.O. summarized its findings that these countries do not use military personnel or operations as an initial approach. Among the findings,
In the instances of terrorist activity in this country, we have had the most success when our regular law enforcement agencies did what they do best, investigate the specific crime involved, locate and arrest the perpetrator and, after affording him or her a fair trial that follows our legal and moral guidelines, punish the guilty. Thus we can combat acts of terrorists and the terrorists while keeping to our values of due process, prompt trial or at least a judicial review of the reasonableness of the arrest and detention, the right to counsel and so forth.
Example: the bombing of the Federal Alfred Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was bombed by Timothy McVeigh in 1995. He was apprehended, tried, convicted and, on June 11, 2001, executed.
Earlier this month, four Muslim men plotted to bomb synagogues in New York as well as fire a missile and destroy an airplane.
Those involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center were extradited, tried and convicted in a Unites States court.
A number of apparent terrorists have been tried in a United States court, all with fair and just proceedings, adjudication of guilt and legally appropriate sentences.
So we know the system works. We know that are values would not be compromised. It seems like a win-win proposition.
The Rand Corporation, a "think-tank" used by the United States to advise the military and civilian agencies on policy and approaches to issues, an organization universally respected as being non-partisan, has issued a report stating that the "War on Terror" is ineffective and will not reduce the threats caused by terrorist organizations. The Report continues, in part:
See: Really Long Link
Following 9/11, the nation demanded action. I submit the use of war as that action was ill-advised.
We will not “win” a conventional “war” and more people will die unnecessarily because of that.
Almost ten years ago, the United States General Accounting Office published a report studying the manner in which Canada, France, Germany, Israel, and the United Kingdom addressed the issues. Certainly, no one can doubt that the United Kingdom has had years of terrorist acts by the I.R.A. and Israel has been under the threat of imminent attacks from the day it was established
The G.A.O. summarized its findings that these countries do not use military personnel or operations as an initial approach. Among the findings,
The five countries we examined have similarities in how they are organized to combat terrorism.
The countries have clearly designated who is in charge during a terrorist incident—typically their national or local non-military police.
The countries have national policies that emphasize prevention of terrorism. To achieve their policies, the countries use a variety of strategies, including intelligence collection, police presence, and various security measures such as physical barriers at the entrances to public buildings.
These countries primarily use their general criminal laws (e.g., those for murder or arson) to prosecute terrorists. The countries also have special terrorism-related laws that allow for special investigations or prosecution mechanisms and increased penalties.
The countries have clearly designated who is in charge during a terrorist incident—typically their national or local non-military police.
The countries have national policies that emphasize prevention of terrorism. To achieve their policies, the countries use a variety of strategies, including intelligence collection, police presence, and various security measures such as physical barriers at the entrances to public buildings.
These countries primarily use their general criminal laws (e.g., those for murder or arson) to prosecute terrorists. The countries also have special terrorism-related laws that allow for special investigations or prosecution mechanisms and increased penalties.
Your text goes here
In the instances of terrorist activity in this country, we have had the most success when our regular law enforcement agencies did what they do best, investigate the specific crime involved, locate and arrest the perpetrator and, after affording him or her a fair trial that follows our legal and moral guidelines, punish the guilty. Thus we can combat acts of terrorists and the terrorists while keeping to our values of due process, prompt trial or at least a judicial review of the reasonableness of the arrest and detention, the right to counsel and so forth.
Example: the bombing of the Federal Alfred Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was bombed by Timothy McVeigh in 1995. He was apprehended, tried, convicted and, on June 11, 2001, executed.
Earlier this month, four Muslim men plotted to bomb synagogues in New York as well as fire a missile and destroy an airplane.
Those involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center were extradited, tried and convicted in a Unites States court.
A number of apparent terrorists have been tried in a United States court, all with fair and just proceedings, adjudication of guilt and legally appropriate sentences.
So we know the system works. We know that are values would not be compromised. It seems like a win-win proposition.
The Rand Corporation, a "think-tank" used by the United States to advise the military and civilian agencies on policy and approaches to issues, an organization universally respected as being non-partisan, has issued a report stating that the "War on Terror" is ineffective and will not reduce the threats caused by terrorist organizations. The Report continues, in part:
"All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members
"All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory.
"All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory.
See: Really Long Link
Following 9/11, the nation demanded action. I submit the use of war as that action was ill-advised.
We will not “win” a conventional “war” and more people will die unnecessarily because of that.
| 72 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Nevar
Is Why
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
But consider the alternative, all-out war which has not worked.
When the Twin Towers and Pentagon were struck in 2111, there was virtually universal clamor – from liberal and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans – that there be massive retaliation against the perpetrators (even though the terrorists were all Saudi nationals and at least partially supported by our friends, the Saudis). In the end, we invaded a nation that had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack, but that’s another story.
What has resulted from our “shock and awe”?
• We proved we can reduce an 11th century country to one resembling a 9th century one.
• We have further destabilized the entire region.
• We have provided a recruiting tool for terrorists and they have been adept at using it.
• We have given al Qaeda prestige by furnishing the might of the U.S. as an opponent.
• We have stretched our military to a breaking point
.
Would we be in a much worse shape if we had kept our troops home, with minor exception, and allow our F.B.I. and other experienced police agencies act?
Comment by Randy Inman
Waxing Political
Football Dogz
NCstuff
Comment by Nevar
Is Why
Comment by Randy Inman
Waxing Political
Football Dogz
NCstuff
Comment by Nevar
Is Why
Comment by Someone
Evil Pleasures
Random Musings on Life, Love and Everything
Let's Get Down To Business
Take Indonesia for example. In the wake of the 2002 Bali bombings, Australian federal police came to assist Indonesian police in the investigation. The perpetrators were caught, tried in Indonesia, and (eventually) executed. I shudder to think what might have happened had Australia tried to intervene Afghanistan-style.
I was under the impression that the US went to war in Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to extradite terrorists? I'm probably wrong....
Comment by Jeff Musall
And Jim - there's not nearly as much money in police and law enforcement to be made as there is in war....