Jim Stillman
Nevar
The naming it a “War on Terror” creates a problem
May 25th 2009 15:21
Several years ago, I wrote of our proclivity to use the term “war” when we really mean focusing our resources to address a societal problem. Thus we have had a “war on poverty”, a “war against drugs”, a “war against inflation” and others. These are not real wars in the conventional sense; no one seriously expects to totally eradicate drugs or poverty, for example but there is no real harm in using the term.
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
The use of the term, “war on terror”, however, causes all manner of difficulties and creates a conundrum that has the President taking a position that is clearly outside of the country’s values. To his credit, President Obama has not reversed all of the prior administration’s policies and he is insisting that these policies be modified so as to make them consistent with American values of judicial review. For example, military tribunals will continue but procedures before those tribunals will have traditional civil rights attached.
However, President Obama used a term last week that I find disturbing, “prisoner of war”.
There are no individual or groups that would argue that the United States and other western nations are not threatened by groups that find our freedoms and values inconsistent with their values. There is, further, no rational doubt that those groups wish to undermine and destroy western countries replacing them with regimes consistent with their beliefs.
The Muslim fanatics-terrorists have attacked this country and there is little doubt in my mind that more acts of destruction and horror will follow. In response to this very real threat, the United States declared a "War of Terror". I submit that this terminology is misleading and, more, is counter-productive. It has led to indefensible positions and arguments.
The conflict we now face is one that has become prevalent since the Vietnam era. In fact, the Vietnam experience has, apparently, taught us nothing about the changing nature of war and international conflict. We are engaged in a different kind of war, one where the opposition is an ideology and not another country.
Conventional "war" is a fight between nation-states; it has a definite start and a definite conclusion, the latter being the surrender by or utter destruction of the losing entity. War, in its classical definition, was fought by formal military forces. Warring parties capture and hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war. The War on Terror has none of these attributes; our adversaries are part of no nation-state, albeit some nations give them financial and logistic support. Terrorists are not part of a formal army or military unit. And, far more important, there is no central authority which could end the war.
It is accepted under United States and international law that “prisoners of war” are enemy combatants who may be incarcerated, detained, whatever the word, until the war has ended.
How will we know when the War is over? When the last persons bearing animus against western civilization has died?
In discussing the status of "detainees" at Guantanamo, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield had said, years ago, that some detainees even without judicial or quasi-judicial oversight or even if acquitted in criminal proceedings, may remain in detention "for the duration of the conflict." When asked to specify when, in his view, this would be, he replied, "when we feel that there are not effective global terrorist networks functioning in the world." President Obama, last week, said the same thing. The President said that the detention could last, perhaps, ten years.
This policy has at least an arguable basis in the laws of war. According to the Geneva Conventions, captured combatants may be detained without charges until the end of active hostilities. The justification for this rule is that a government involved in an armed conflict has an obvious interest in ensuring that enemy soldiers are kept away from combat for the duration of the conflict.
In an ordinary war, it is fairly easy to determine when hostilities have ended. This current conflict, however, as least as framed by the Pentagon, is no ordinary war. There has been enormous debate over when the war began - was it with the attacks on New York and Washington, the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center during the Clinton administration, or with the commencement of the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan?.
In other words, at what point must the "war on terrorism" be understood simply as a rhetorical formula, like the "war on drugs" (or, back in the idealistic past, the "war on poverty")? And an even more preliminary question is whether terrorism, even in its most extreme manifestations, should be recognized as a form of conventional war.
As Rumsfeld's comments suggest, the Bush administration's views on this issue were unequivocal. U.S. officials claim that the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were acts of war; that the war on terrorism is a real war, not a rhetorical device; and, apparently, that the Guantanamo detainees may be held without trial until the war on terrorism is over.
Georgetown Law Professor David Cole puts it, to say that we will hold the Guantanamo detainees until the war on terrorism is over means that "we're going to keep them for eternity because there are going to be terrorist organizations as long as there is a common cold."
This is different from, but certainly related to, the issue of preventative detention, where the detainee may indeed have has an independent review of his or her detention.
I suggest that the issues posed by the “war” terminology are unnecessary. I further suggest that combating acts of terror as a “war crime” creates more trouble than it’s worth.
Especially since there is an alternative, one that has been successful in this and other countries, one in which we have history and traditions.
The following post will explain that, if the investigation of criminal acts were made the province of non-military law enforcement agencies, our safety would not be compromised, those who would attack us would lose prestige and standing in their world, and would be deprived of a recruitment device.
Many agencies agree and my following post will discuss those benefits
Really Long Link
Really Long Link
The use of the term, “war on terror”, however, causes all manner of difficulties and creates a conundrum that has the President taking a position that is clearly outside of the country’s values. To his credit, President Obama has not reversed all of the prior administration’s policies and he is insisting that these policies be modified so as to make them consistent with American values of judicial review. For example, military tribunals will continue but procedures before those tribunals will have traditional civil rights attached.
However, President Obama used a term last week that I find disturbing, “prisoner of war”.
There are no individual or groups that would argue that the United States and other western nations are not threatened by groups that find our freedoms and values inconsistent with their values. There is, further, no rational doubt that those groups wish to undermine and destroy western countries replacing them with regimes consistent with their beliefs.
The Muslim fanatics-terrorists have attacked this country and there is little doubt in my mind that more acts of destruction and horror will follow. In response to this very real threat, the United States declared a "War of Terror". I submit that this terminology is misleading and, more, is counter-productive. It has led to indefensible positions and arguments.
The conflict we now face is one that has become prevalent since the Vietnam era. In fact, the Vietnam experience has, apparently, taught us nothing about the changing nature of war and international conflict. We are engaged in a different kind of war, one where the opposition is an ideology and not another country.
Conventional "war" is a fight between nation-states; it has a definite start and a definite conclusion, the latter being the surrender by or utter destruction of the losing entity. War, in its classical definition, was fought by formal military forces. Warring parties capture and hold territory, which they can win or lose; and each has a leading person or organization which can surrender, or collapse, thus ending the war. The War on Terror has none of these attributes; our adversaries are part of no nation-state, albeit some nations give them financial and logistic support. Terrorists are not part of a formal army or military unit. And, far more important, there is no central authority which could end the war.
It is accepted under United States and international law that “prisoners of war” are enemy combatants who may be incarcerated, detained, whatever the word, until the war has ended.
How will we know when the War is over? When the last persons bearing animus against western civilization has died?
In discussing the status of "detainees" at Guantanamo, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield had said, years ago, that some detainees even without judicial or quasi-judicial oversight or even if acquitted in criminal proceedings, may remain in detention "for the duration of the conflict." When asked to specify when, in his view, this would be, he replied, "when we feel that there are not effective global terrorist networks functioning in the world." President Obama, last week, said the same thing. The President said that the detention could last, perhaps, ten years.
This policy has at least an arguable basis in the laws of war. According to the Geneva Conventions, captured combatants may be detained without charges until the end of active hostilities. The justification for this rule is that a government involved in an armed conflict has an obvious interest in ensuring that enemy soldiers are kept away from combat for the duration of the conflict.
In an ordinary war, it is fairly easy to determine when hostilities have ended. This current conflict, however, as least as framed by the Pentagon, is no ordinary war. There has been enormous debate over when the war began - was it with the attacks on New York and Washington, the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center during the Clinton administration, or with the commencement of the U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan?.
In other words, at what point must the "war on terrorism" be understood simply as a rhetorical formula, like the "war on drugs" (or, back in the idealistic past, the "war on poverty")? And an even more preliminary question is whether terrorism, even in its most extreme manifestations, should be recognized as a form of conventional war.
As Rumsfeld's comments suggest, the Bush administration's views on this issue were unequivocal. U.S. officials claim that the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were acts of war; that the war on terrorism is a real war, not a rhetorical device; and, apparently, that the Guantanamo detainees may be held without trial until the war on terrorism is over.
Georgetown Law Professor David Cole puts it, to say that we will hold the Guantanamo detainees until the war on terrorism is over means that "we're going to keep them for eternity because there are going to be terrorist organizations as long as there is a common cold."
This is different from, but certainly related to, the issue of preventative detention, where the detainee may indeed have has an independent review of his or her detention.
I suggest that the issues posed by the “war” terminology are unnecessary. I further suggest that combating acts of terror as a “war crime” creates more trouble than it’s worth.
Especially since there is an alternative, one that has been successful in this and other countries, one in which we have history and traditions.
The following post will explain that, if the investigation of criminal acts were made the province of non-military law enforcement agencies, our safety would not be compromised, those who would attack us would lose prestige and standing in their world, and would be deprived of a recruitment device.
Many agencies agree and my following post will discuss those benefits
| 47 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Nevar
Is Why
Calling it a world wide war on radical Islamic Jihadi's would have been more accurate and focused.
Comment by Randy Inman
Waxing Political
Football Dogz
NCstuff
Frankly I am less and less sure that keeping people locked up without trial is the right thing to do. Once it is done to others it can be more easily done to our own citiizens. And if somebody wasn't a terrorist when he went to Gitmo he will be when he leaves.
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
Comment by Randy Inman
Waxing Political
Football Dogz
NCstuff
I think lower taxes makes for more jobs for example. I think we should have a well trained, large military and a government that does not meddle with our citizens or anyone elses.