Since taking office in January, Obama has announced plans to close the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to halt the military trials of suspected terrorists there, and to make CIA officers follow the Army field manual’s rules on interrogations. Cheney said the administration appears to be returning to the pre-2001 model of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, rather than a military problem.
Why go back to the “pre-2001” model? Because it is the correct model. Terrorism, as The Oklahoma City bombing made clear, is a law enforcement issue and not a military one. Terrorists are terrorists precisely because they do not have control or access to state power, and only an enemy state properly constitutes a problem that requires for its solution the massive resources of the military. The confusion about what type of issue terrorism is—a confusion Bush’s administration deliberately doubled by, one, the term “enemy combatant” (the confusing of a nonstate actor with a state actor), and, two, the attempt to officially equate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards with Al-Qaeda (confusing a state institution with a terrorist gang)—resulted in this mess:
About $700 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, has been appropriated from the 2003-09 fiscal years. Taking into account operations for fiscal year 2010, the price tag is about $800 billion.
In fact, the law-enforcement model is the ONLY model that has ever made a significant dent in terrorism. Holy Wars are even stupider and more medieval than the terrorists who prompt them these days.
Part of the problem is that Americans have no real idea of what terrorism is, something we can all be grateful for.
The 9/11 attacks give a misleading impression due to their unprecedented scale. Comparing them to the daily life experience of people in Israel, Northern Ireland and Spain during certain periods give a better sense of perspective. Those societies were crippled by terrorists, but post 9/11 the US was crippled by fear of terrorists.
Which Law Enforcement Agency should arrest the terrorists responsible for the attack on the USS Cole in Aden? What court should hear the case?
Once again, Fnarf for the insightful win.
Oh, and we prosecuted those guys, Brent. It’s called the Rule of Law – I know your comrades in the Bush Socialists forgot it for the past eight years, but you might want to check in to it.
Ex-fucking-actly, Charles.
@3 The same people that would be responsible for investigating an attack on a US military installation within US borders. If those terrorists are hiding in a foreign country and they are not agents of that country’s government, you work with that country toward extradition of those criminals. If that country is being a dick or the terrorists are agents in the employ of that country, you confer with the international community, convince them that your cause is just, and you get their approval to throw your weight around with the offending country.
If you don’t get that approval, then maybe your cause isn’t as just as you think it is and you need to rethink your argument.
It’s actually laid out in domestic and international law and it’s pretty easy to follow. Unless, of course, you think your shit doesn’t stink and you’re out to prove to the rest of the world that your dick is bigger than theirs.
This is mainly smoke and mirrors.
Is extraordinary rendition still part of the “law enforcement model”? Because Obama still allows that.
And closing Guantanamo while Obama expands Bagram: what’s the big difference?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew…
Oh right, Afghanistan is a “sovereign” nation that is only coincidentally run by a former CIA agent, while Guantanamo, though outside the US, was never properly outside US law, because it isn’t technically in another nation (we only “lease” it!)…
Charles,
I disagree. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. The perpetrators of 9/11 thought of themselves as warriors. It wasn’t just the enormity of 9/11 but the fact that it was a concerted effort (multiple staged suicide missions in one day) and that other terroristic events subsequent to 9/11 (as Bali, Madrid, London, Moscow and Mumbai) on behalf of Al-Qaeda and radical Islam to wage “holy” war on the Occident have followed. A war requires a miltary response. It is a war on Terror that we are fighting.
@7 From a legal standpoint, war is conducted between nation-states. The “war” on terror or the “war” on drugs, is only a figure of speech. Al Qaeda is an organized crime network, not dissimilar to the Mafia in its structure, if not its goals. You fight criminals with police.
If there is a war on terror, what is the endgame? With whom is peace declared? Can there ever be peace? It is generally acknowledged that there will always be crime and there will always be a need for police to combat it. However, war is something entirely different and requires a vastly different expenditure of national resources and manpower. No state can prosper or even exist in a state of perpetual war.
It doesn’t matter what the terrorists call themselves. They are not warriors, they are thugs who need to be arrested, tried, convicted and locked up.
“If you don’t get that approval, then maybe your cause isn’t as just as you think it is and you need to rethink your argument.”
Wait for other countries’ approval to defend ourselves?
Fuck.
That.
Noise.
@9: Getting revenge is not the same as defending yourself.
9: Do you kick people’s asses for looking at you funny or saying things you disagree with?
Same thing in international law. It is legal to engage in conflict when attacked. It is illegal under international law to preemptively attack another nation that has not declared or made war. That’s what you need permission for. You never need permission to defend yourself.