The other morning, on a Boston talk show, the host joint-broadcast with a talk show from the BBC. They were discussing Guantanamo Bay, and the prison camps there. The BBC presenter (their term) was opposed to the camps, while the American host supported them. The Brits brought on Member of Parliament and odious snake George Galloway, then followed up with a man who had been held at Guantanamo for two years.
This reminded me of Ann Coulter’s recent book, and one of the points she brings up — the tendency of the Left to bring in victims to give their political points credence. The 9/11 widows, in Coulter’s most prominent example, use their personal loss to add credibility to their arguments. Coulter says (apparently) that this is done to disarm their critics, to personalize the principles and make a rebuttal an argument a rebuttal of their loss and their victimhood.
I find myself speculating that while Coulter might be on to something, there might be a bigger issue at stake here — one that is too close for her to see.
The left, over the last few decades, has grown more and more dependent on using the legal process to win their battles. Repeatedly rebuffed through the electoral and legislative systems, they now find their greatest successes when they can persuade one or a few judges to accept their arguments and impose their rulings on the populace. Witness the rise in prominence of advocacy groups like the ACLU, which pour the lion’s share of their resources into litigation, not legislation. Or consider how gay marriage came about in Massachusetts, when four of seven justices on a single panel made a decision for an entire state of about 6.3 million people. Or in California, where ballot measures overwhelmingly passed by the people are struck down.
These incidents are symptoms, I believe, of the over-litigation of our society. The court system is seen as the panacea for all ills. Whatever the issue, the best solution is to simply take it to court and get a judge (or panel of judges) to decide.
In this context, the left isn’t exploiting the victims’ loss for their political gain. They are expert witnesses, people whose credentials on the issue in question are impeccable. Who better to discuss the effects of terrorism than a woman who lost her husband in an attack? Who knows more about how unjust Guantanamo Bay is than someone who was held there?
The problem is that our court system is very ill equipped to deal with such situations as the war on terror.
By design, our legal system is reactive. It is punitive. It most often intervenes after a wrong has been committed, and acts to right it.
But in the war on terror, those are simply futile.
We know the names and identities of the 19 men who carried out the terrorist attacks in 9/11. By the legalistic model, they should be arrested, tried, and upon conviction punished for their deeds. But unfortunately, during the course of the attacks (indeed, as an essential part of the attacks), they placed themselves irrevocably beyond the reach of our legal system. They are literally answering to a higher authority.
Likewise, this mentality has been playing out over the death of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. We found the terrorist leader and dropped a couple of bombs on him. He’s dead. End of story.
But not to the supporters of the legalistic model. Why didn’t we try to capture/apprehend/arrest him? Were any of those others killed innocents? How long did he live after the bombing? Did we try to give him medical treatment? Did we abuse him and make him suffer more during his last moments of life? Did we beat him? Did we execute him?
I have the same answer to all those questions: I don’t care.
Yeah, it might have been nice to catch him, wring him for information, and then quietly, without any fuss, execute him and dump his body in an unmarked grave somewhere. But that didn’t happen.
Were any innocents who happened to be in the house also killed? Irrelevant. By international law, combatants have an obligation to keep themselves away from non-combatants. A combatant is always a legitimate target, and to hide among non-combatants is strictly forbidden. If they do so and any harm befalls the innocents, then the blame falls squarely on the target’s shoulders. And in this case, Zarqawi is already dead, so it doesn’t really matter.
Further, capturing someone is an up-close and personal thing. It would have put the forces trying to capture Zarqawi at risk. He’d proclaimed at least once that he would not be taken alive, and would detonate a suicide bomb to avoid capture. If the commanders on the scene decided that instead of risking a single American or Iraqi life, they’d rather just drop a couple of bombs on the house and fumigate the place that way, I’m not going to second-guess them.
I’m not sure of the best way to win the war on terror, but I do know one sure way to lose it: to fight a purely reactive war. To wait for the other side to violate some law, then bring the full force of our justice system down on their heads. All that will do is teach them how to operate within the framework of our laws until they are ready to strike.
We’re seeing signs of that tactic already. The terrorists who set off bombs in Madrid and London kept very low profiles, below the radar of the authorities, for a very long time before they struck.
Our legal system is based upon a profoundly simple concept: life has value. Freedom has value. It is the coercive power of our system to deprive people of life and liberty that is the “stick” used to coerce obedience to the law. If you don’t play by the rules, we will lock you up or kill you. (What separates this from pure tyranny is the consent of the governed; we can, directly and indirectly, shape the law that is so enforced, as well as how strictly.)
But the enemy we face now is immune from such factors. They are not only willing, but eager to die for their cause. Their goals and aspirations are not in this world, but the next. And while we have palpable threats we could use to counter their spiritual beliefs, our own civilized, legalistic ways restrain us from fully using them. Bringing up the legend of General Pershing burying Muslim enemies wrapped in pigskin, largely refuted as a myth, is pretty much guaranteed to provoke out howls of protest.
So the reactive model is pretty much ineffective. That leaves two choices: pro-active, or surrender. And President Bush chose the former.
Regardless of one’s feelings about Bush, one fact is undisputable: since 9/11, there has been a single terrorist attack within the United States, and it wasn’t even targeted against Americans. Meanwhile, the terrorists around the world have diverted their efforts from massive slaughter of innocent civilian Americans, and turned their efforts towards our military.
This is not necessarily a good thing, but a less bad thing. I’d be willing to bet that given their druthers, nearly every man and woman in the service would rather not be attacked. But if given the choice between being attacked themselves and seeing American civilians being attacked, they’d choose to be the targets. That is the core function of the military — to stand between us civilians and those who would do us harm. And they are the best equipped to not only survive the attacks, but to kill the attackers.
Of course, fighting the US military is not the safest of pursuits. There are far less risky jobs, such as bungee cord tester, shark bait, and crash test dummy. So the terrorists have turned much of their focus towards non-American civilians. But even that is starting to backfire on them. According to much of the mainstream media, Zarqawi had alienated large portions of the Arab world through his barbaric acts. (This didn’t come out much until after he was safely dead, but it’s nonetheless an encouraging sign.)
But I seriously digress. Back to my original point: the legalistic model for the war on terror is a comforting one. It is reassuring to think that no matter what happens, justice will prevail. That there is always a calm, reasoned, civilized venue for the settling of grievances. That the law is supreme, and that all men and women are equal before the bench.
It’s a comforting thought. It’s just a pity it simply isn’t true.
Les Nessman:
“Why does the Left hate the U.S. military so much?”
The draft during the VietNam war. Most of the left (Hilary et. al.) began during the sixties, when the draft was the dreaded enemy of life. Soldiers were baby killers, and napalm was their weapon of choice. Having gained control over the educational system in this country, they are able to perpetuate the myth. It’s kind of like McDonalds; “get um while their young”.
“We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia.” – Osama Bin Laden
The withdrawal from Beirut was a terrible mistake, and President Reagan was responsible for that. He should not have pulled them out. If Congress complained, he should have made his case, and only pulled them out if they put a gun to his head.
Similarly, President Clinton’s withdrawal from Somalia was a terrible mistake.
Bottom line: we at at war with a determined enemy, and showing weakness is a bad idea.
The same group spent $62.9 million lobbying the federal government from 1997 through 2000, when the federal government was working to convert several Gore Commission recommendations to regulations.” kevino (from article)
so from your own contrary evidence, the article says several recommendations were being worked on. Now this doesn’t say which recommendations, but clearly something was being done. And we all know gov’t is a verrrryy slow-moving animal, so this taking numerous years is not surprising.
Your other article is valid and certainly merits recognition and consideration. Maybe that explains the long duration to complete the regs. Although, Jay Tea always seem to be mocking the “Glob”, so how do I know I can trust that liberal rag? (sarcasm)
I also notice that my comments on Political Correctness and on the fact that Gore didn’t disagree with the failed Clinton Administration policies went unchallenged. kevino
Honestly, I have to agree w/ the political correctness part. When I was reading through the report, there’s a whole list of criteria and procedures to follow to make sure you don’t racially profile. It’s actually sort of funny.
And I’ll sort of agree with you on the failed Clinton policies. I don’t have a clear recollection of everything they agreed/disagreed on, but you’d expect the VP to follow the Prez’s lead on issues of national security. Or in Bush’s case, he followed the VP’s lead.
And as far as those close to him saying they were happy he wasn’t Prez at the time, do you specific quotes associated to individuals, or was it the Washington special, the “unnamed source”?
Considering it only applies to American citizens — it’s also a bit of a red herring. MikeSC
Well, seeing how the Administration was playing around with Padilla’s legal status, it does apply to US citizens. But the quote you use:
This may be true, but a system of law where man has certain unalienable rights and is entitled to a fair trial is one of the most important pillars of our society. sean nyc/aa
really is true of all Western society, not just the US, so it’s not a red herring at all. The hyperbole I presented of abolishing the amendments would apply only to US citizens, but again, all (I’m pretty sure) Western countries have something similar in their constitutions, so to show them (Iraqis, Afghans, etc) the strength of democracy, we must (at least attempt to) live up to these ideals. Just discarding them from the start would be a serious mistake, which, unfortunately, is the impression places like Gitmo and actions like rendition give to the world.
Most other Western countries don’t have binding constitutions. They have traditions and precidents but there really isn’t an equivalent that we can assume exits that serves anything even remotely like the same function as our constitution serves.
Most Americans find this shocking. We *assume* that everyone has Constitutions that they have to adhere to. They don’t.
The draft during the VietNam war. Most of the left (Hilary et. al.) began during the sixties, when the draft was the dreaded enemy of life.
Yeah, the draft, but mostly the funny haircuts.
Most Americans find this shocking. We *assume* that everyone has Constitutions that they have to adhere to. They don’t. synova
I am surprised by that. But doesn’t the EU have some sort of generalized constitution-ish thingamajig that all member states must adhere to? that would cover the lack of constitution for those that didn’t have one.
RE: Gore Commission recommendations
There are numerous articles and data points to show the point: airline travel money went to prevent new regulations that they didn’t like. “Working to convert” says that they we supposed to be working or in the process, not that anything got done.
In any case, even if you believe that some good was done, albeit s-l-o-w-l-y. Your thesis is that Vice President Gore was an agent of change, and this is a data point to show that he was not very effective at all.
[Sidebar: On a personal level, I really hate what happened with the Gore Commission. I used to work for the Federal government. My family had contacts with the FAA. It’s a textbook example of big business throwing money at politicians instead of safety to get what they want.
I remember being in a room full of people watching the WTC burning. The news media couldn’t reach any high-ranking officials in the Bush administration to interview. One lady said, “They ought to get out there and talk to us. I said, “Maybe they’re busy.” Later, the Media reached members of the Clinton Administration, instead. When it became known how the planes had been taken over, a Clinton official (whose name escapes me) said about airplane security: “I thought we had that covered.” The (mostly liberal) crowd was not thrilled with that remark.
Bottom line:
1. As P.J.O’Rourke [sp?] once said, “When Government controls what is bought and sold, the first thing that is bought and sold are politicians.”
2. Government is not very good at even basic services. Don’t even think about relying on them for your safety.]
RE: Remarks from Gore’s friends and advisors
It was widely reported in several newspapers at the time, but the sources (his friends) were anonymous. I tried to google it, but couldn’t get a reference. Sorry.
sean:
The EU constitution has not been ratified and probably won’t be — ever. Very few countries have written constitutions with specific protections for individual rights. Our consitution is a particularly radical document. Consider the exclusionary rule: “The Court-pronounced exclusionary rule, for example, is distinctively American. When we adopted that rule in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961), it was “unique to American Jurisprudence.” — Justice Scalia, Roper v. Simons
Particularly in the Middle East, it doesn’t make sense to expect the Arab Street to understand the American view of justice. Most of them live in terribly autocratic systems dominated by tribal loyalties and fundamentalist Islamic law.
Right: The Republicans had the White House and the Senate, but they did the will of the Democratic House majority. Gotta blame it on somebody; can’t blame it on Reagan.
Civics 101: So, WHO controls the pursestrings in Congress?
Hint: Not the Senate.
-=Mike
How in god’s name does this argument make any sense at all? How is our military in Iraq preventing terrorists from gaining access to the US? Are you actually suggesting that terrorists who could enter the United States are choosing to go to Iraq instead? You’ve got some Iranian or Saudi or Afghani Taliban dude, and they’d commit a terrorist act against civilians in the US…except they’d rather fight our military in Iraq? Or target Iraqi civilians? That’s just stupid. I mean honestly. That’s just plain dumb. If they could attack us here, they would. It’s that simple.
How come this theory doesn’t work in Israel? The anti-Israel terrorists are much more likely to attack Israeli citizens than the Israeli military. The reason is obvious. And the only way that Israeli troops can keep terrorists out is by their physical presence stopping terrorists from entering Israel; and our troops in Iraq are certainly not serving that purpose. In fact, we’d be safer if they patrolled our borders than Iraq’s.
So why is it that you think the anti-American terrorists would rather attack our military instead of our citizens? That’s a pretty idiotic strategy, even for a terrorist. Especially as you admit that they’d prefer non-military targets. So they’d rather attack Iraqi citizens than US citizens?? And this makes sense to you, how?
Honestly, leave all the rhetoric aside and really think about this for alittle bit. It’s absurd. Silly. An insult to your intelligence. Terrorists would much rather attack us here in America than to attack anyone in Iraq. And the only reason why they don’t do so is because they don’t think they could do it. And our troops in Iraq aren’t preventing that. While they might be a magnet for terrorists, they’re not drawing away terrorists that would otherwise attack us here.
And then when you add in the statistics which show that we have more anti-American terrorists now than we used to, and you see how silly the whole argument is. By attacking Iraq, we’ve made more enemies and have given more credence to Bin Laden’s absurd idea that we’re trying to conquer Muslim countries. But what would I know? I actually think that democracies should have a legal system. Silly me. Due process, and all that. So outdated. If only we could have an easy enemy, like the Soviets. Heck, the only thing we had to worry about back then was the destruction of the entire planet in one afternoon. We could afford a court system back then. Damn those terrorists.
“I forget; just when did Iraq attack the United States?” astigafa at June 13, 2006 09:46 AM
Just for the record… I know Jay already addressed this issue, but I felt the need to bring it one step further.
Iraq invaded Kuwait. Kuwait pleaded with the world. “HELP US, HELP US!’
The U.S. and a buncha allies went in and whipped Saddam but good. Saddam lost the battle, but not the war.
Sanctions were put into place and a whole buncha stuff on top of that, no fly zones, weapons inspectors, umpteen million U.N. resolutions dictating what the dictator had to do, which I might add he rarely complied with.
So the answer to your question. The world decided to side with the U.S. when Iraq invaded Kuwait. He lost. The U.S. and the world gave Saddam the benefit of the doubt after the First Gulf War(By letting him stay in power). He didn’t abide by the rules set for him. When you lose a war, you don’t get to do what you want when you want. You abide by the ruling of your international peers(nations) whom you offended. I.E. Germany’s rehabilitation after WWII. The lack of a “true” army in Japan, and it’s rehabilitation after WWII.
The war in Iraq IS over and has been ever since Saddams capture.
All we’re doing now is rehabilitating it(Even though those damned fanatics keep trying to stop it), just like the U.S. did with the Axis powers after WWII.
So, you’re right in your simplistic statement, when did Iraq attack U.S. Forces? They didn’t. But we were asked to liberate an innocent country from tyranny.
When did Germany attack The U.S.? They didn’t, but we went and kicked their ass anyways. I won’t even go into the bone headed move the Tojo did at Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto said it best. Now the Terrorists are learning that it’s not wise to awaken the sleeping giant, and fill him with terrible resolve.
BRAVO, Darby!
Doctor Biobrain,
You missed or ignored one of the most fundamental principles of military strategy. That is, to win a war you attack the enemy’s strategically important infrastructure or territory. By doing so you pull the enemy into a battle for that infrastructure or territory. Yes, terrorists would rather attack U.S. citizens, but they can’t afford to lose in Iraq, so their strategy is to defeat the U.S. in Iraq and then they’ll be able to attack U.S. citizens at their leisure. The decision to attack Iraq and then publicly challenge the terrorists with the “bring it on” statement is one of the factors that has kept the U.S. safe from attack since 9/11.
The reason why Iraq is so important to terrorists is that there are very few places in the would where they can base their operations from, and without a base, they can’t mount effective attacks. The loss of Afghanistan and Libya makes winning Iraq vital to the future of terrorism. A free and democratic Iraq that’s friendly to the U.S. would put terrorism on the defensive all around the world and likely destabilize terrorist friendly nations like Iran and Syria.
The terrorist know they cannot defeat the U.S. military, so they have to undermine the political will of U.S. citizens to continue to fight in Iraq. With the help of U.S. fools and liberals, the terrorists are making good progress in achieving that goal, but they know that an attack on the U.S. would greatly boost support for the war in Iraq. To win, the terrorists need your help, but if they win, you’ll be just as much a target as I would be.
What you missed is that there’s a fundamental difference between being anti-American and being an Islamic terrorist. It seems that it’s almost a requirement of citizenship for French people to be anti-American, but that doesn’t make them Islamic terrorists. Certainly, when someone’s family member is killed in war, the remaining family becomes anti-other side, but that doesn’t mean they are going to take up arms and kill others indiscriminately. If that were the case, we would still be seeing terrorist attacks because of WW2, Korea and Vietnam. History proves that just doesn’t happen on a significant scale.
That is, to win a war you attack the enemy’s strategically important infrastructure or territory.
Iraq wasn’t part of the terrorist’s infrastructure…not before the war, anyway.
The reason why Iraq is so important to terrorists is that there are very few places in the would where they can base their operations from, and without a base, they can’t mount effective attacks.
Incorrect. Terrorists do not need a base of operations. An effective cell can be run with a handful of people, independent from anyone. They can be your next door neighbors, and can be anywhere. Terrorists do not need a headquarters nor do they require leaders; and most often, these things would interfere with a proper terrorist cell. A properly run terrorist cell runs independently.
Secondly, Iraq would be a horrible, horrible base to run anti-American terrorist acts out of. A better base would be within the US or Canada. Iraq is the last place a terrorist wants to base his operations, assuming he wants to attack Americans or other westerners. But it would be a good place to be if they honestly want to protect a Muslim country from outside invasion.
The terrorist know they cannot defeat the U.S. military, so they have to undermine the political will of U.S. citizens to continue to fight in Iraq.
And yet you just said they were in Iraq trying to defeat our military. If they were trying to undermine our will, why wouldn’t they attack us directly? Wouldn’t that be far more effective? To continue attacking American cities until we pulled out of Iraq? Of course. Your argument makes no sense.
What you missed is that there’s a fundamental difference between being anti-American and being an Islamic terrorist.
Uh, I said “anti-American terrorists” and I meant it. There are more anti-American terrorists than before the Iraq war. The fact that there are also more non-terrorists who are anti-American doesn’t help any.
If that were the case, we would still be seeing terrorist attacks because of WW2, Korea and Vietnam.
Sadly, no. Nobody is suggesting that the attacks would continue after our wars with them stopped. Were we to pull out of Iraq, it is unlikely that the average Iraqi’s bloodlust would carry them to attack us here in America. Freakos like Bin Laden and his crew would still be attacking us, but they already were. The rest of these people just need to be convinced that we’re not trying to conquer them and destroy their way of life. The Bush Doctrine doesn’t do a good job of doing that.
Overall, my point stands. There is no reason to believe that our troops are serving as a magnet or decoy protecting the US. Nor is there reason to believe that Iraq helps our war against terror. And there are many reasons to believe that it’s made things much worse.