Criminals and Warriors
Alongside the various nonsensical efforts to convince people that KSM is too scary to be put in trial, the right objects to bringing him to justice on the grounds that this represents a problematic “law enforcement” approach to terrorism. I think it’s pretty clear that international terrorism has some dimensions that go well-beyond ordinary law enforcement, but if you have to put the whole thing in either the “crime” box or the “war” box, there’s a pretty strong case for erring on the side of crime.
In political terms, the right likes the war idea because it involves taking terrorism more “seriously.” But in doing so, you partake of way too much of the terrorists’ narrative about themselves. It’s their conceit, after all, that blowing up a bomb in a train station and killing a few hundred random commuters is an act of war. And war is a socially sanctioned form of activity, generally held to be a legally and morally acceptable framework in which to kill people. What we want to say, however, is that this sporadic commuter-killing isn’t a kind of war, it’s an act of murder. To be sure, not an ordinary murder—a mass murder—but nonetheless murder. It’s true that if al-Qaeda were something like the “blowing up train stations” arm of a major country with which we were otherwise at war, it might make the most sense to think of al-Qaeda as fitting in with spies and saboteurs; criminal adjuncts to a warrior enterprise.
After all, do we really want to send the message to the world that a self-starting spree killer like Nidal Malik Hasan is actually engaged in some kind of act of holy war? It seems to me that we don’t. A lot of people in the world are interested in glory, and willing to take serious risks with their lives for its sake. Insofar as possible, we want to drain anti-American violence of the aura of glory. And that means by-and-large treating its perpetrators like criminals.
79 Responses to “Criminals and Warriors”
Leave a Reply
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Framing terrorism as an act of war justifies the invasion of nations and collective punishment.
November 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I’m not sure it would make much of a difference. The very act of giving publicity to spree killers tends to create a copycat effect. The publicity apparently validates the murderous feelings of the deranged, whether they conceive of themselves as warriors for a larger cause or as pursuing personal vengeance.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080121081458/http://hammernews.com/copycateffect.htm
November 15th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I don’t like to go in for blanket, conspiratorial statements like I’m about to make, but it seems painfully obvious that the right “likes the war idea” because it’s easier to sell war profiteering than crime profiteering. Both ends of the political spectrum have their share of corporate overlords, or whatever the populist demon du jour may be, but the right is very explicit about making continued profitability from war and its incidentals a plank in their platform.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Also, framing it as war implies we’re going to sit down with them someday to make peace, including exchanging prisoners and the like.
So it’s time we went back to classic definitions of “war,” and quit this infantile talk of “war on terror,” “war on drugs,” “war on obesity,” “war on …
November 15th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Under the GOP logic, that guy in Cleveland who’s house contained eleven bodies (so far) should be tried by a tribunal. What he (allegedly) did is certainly terrorism in his neighbourhood, isn’t it?
And we should have done the same with McVey, and the DC sniper, etc.
In fact I thought McVey should have been tried in OK state court, not by the feds. The end result would no doubt have been the same.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
It’s way simpler than the framing used by ideologues like Matt on the left and, say, Hannity on the right.
Those captured in military/intelligence ops – like KSM – should not be given civilian trials for a simple reason: they weren’t captured under the strictures of civil law, they weren’t “Mirandized” on capture, much (perhaps all) of the evidence against them is not “clean” (in a civil law sense).
Those taken within the US, under normal police procedure? Sure. try them, without regard to what they did – that’s why the trials of the 1993 WTC bombers made sense; they were captured in the US using normal police procedure.
KSM, and the others under discussion, were not captured that way. Defense lawyers, using civilian rules of evidence, are likely to have a field day – these sorts of things work better in a military tribunal.
For left and right, this is a political football. Neither side is actually making anything like a sensible argument. The left pretends that we can treat military/intelligence ops like a standard police thing, while the right brays about “making NYC a target”. It’s all posturing, and it’s all stupid.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I’m not in disagreement with the general theme of this post, but I don’t really think this argument applies to KSM, who neither blew up a train station nor went on a self-starting killing spree.
This is a man who has described himself as head of military operations of an organization that declared war on the United States. In this capacity, he helped plan an attack on the U.S. that killed over 3,000 people. This attack was unprovoked (war crime) and aimed at civilians (war crime).
While I think most counterterrorism efforts are and should be law enforcement efforts, I don’t think that applies here. I mean, the man was captured on the battlefield. He never even set foot in the United States.
I think it makes a lot more sense, given the facts of the situation, to try him as a war criminal rather than as a civilian.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
He was captured “on the battlefield” because we invaded Afghanistan as a response to 9/11.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
James Robertson
Good point, James.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
[IFF VS THE EMPIRE/ IRA VS THE EMPIRE]
There is no difference between the concept that the [IRA] Irish Republican Army, use the [TACTIC] of terror upon the English to obtain a Free, Independent Ireland, no English on Irish soil, or the [IFF] Islamic Freedom Fighters using the [TACTIC] of Terrorism, upon those that have invaded, displaced, murdered, tortured, and raped at will within the Islamic Crescent trying to seperate each part of the total war upon the Crescent into seperate wars, when they are theaters within one War.
One sides Warrior is the other sides Criminal, the Founding Fathers were criminals to be hanged by the Brits, but heros of the revolution.
The [IFF] Warriors are using the [TACTIC] of terrorism, in their war of self defense against the American-Israeli Empire’s War of Stimulus, War of Blood for Oil, War of Resourse and Markets, the War for pipelines on the Islamic Crescent.
Nidal Malik Hasan the [21st] Century, I am sorry I have but one life to give for my country.
[IFF VS THE EMPIRE]
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
HARD-CORE INDEPENDENT TEA-BAGGER
November 15th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Two other points I’d like to add:
1. I agree (as I implied above) that US counterterrorism efforts shouldn’t be framed as war. But the reality of the situation is, we did invade nations following 9/11! We have imposed collective punishment. We have troops overseas in combat situations.
While I detest the series of neverending, metaphoric wars on abstract concepts, I think a future where a belligerent United States is “always at peace,” despite the numerous “police actions” across the globe is just as disingenuous and potentially harmful. We should strive to call things as they are, even when they don’t conform to our ideological or political aspirations.
2. Likewise, the whole “[buying into] the terrorists’ narrative about themselves” canard? First, understanding your opponent’s world view should be the first step in crafting a strategy against them, so let’s not demonize that like they have on the right.
In addition, reality is what it is, and the United States government doesn’t have some kind of magical reframing machine that allows us to create our own.
People are going to view events like the Ft. Hood according to their ideological perspectives. Those inclined to interpret current events through the narrative of holy war are, on both sides, going to see such actions through that lens. Rather than worrying about how it’s going to play, we should look at the facts of the situation and react appropriately.
The fact of the matter is that a growing number of 21st-century conflicts are going to be asymmetric conflicts against non-state actors like al-Qaeda. The military is developing military strategies to use in these conflicts; I don’t think it’s too much to expect our civilian leaders to exercise similar honesty and responsibility in assessing and explaining the situation.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
we invaded Afghanistan as a response to 9/11.
Indeed, which strengthens the argument that 9.11 was an act of war.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
James Robertson–
Why is capture under civil law decisive? Why does it matter how the guy was detained? Isn’t what matters what he did–the legality of what he did?
If an offender/warrior is detained in a foreign country, does it follow that he should be tried in an international court?
In the usual course of affairs, an enemy soldier is captured on the field of battle and subject to detention till the war is over. Does that fit the circumstances of this case?
Your bottom line, I assume, is that no terrorist should be tried in a civil court, only in a military tribunal. But in this instance, the civil courts have made it known that they will review military tribunal proceedings and might find that they fail to meet the standards of due process. Isn’t this risk reduced by trying the accused in a civil court?
Learned Hand
November 15th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Neither solution really sounds adequate. Since these are international criminals, this sort of thing would be ideally taken care of in some sort of international criminal court, but certain parties have waged a campaign of delegitimizing international bodies, so any idea of having terrorists tried in an international court would go over like a lead balloon with the right..
November 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
It only strengthens the argument with tautology.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Sadly James Robinson the Left is so secretly enamored of the idea the KSM is some sort of “freedom fighter” and not in fact a self declared military enemy of all Americans that they refuse to distinguish between him and your standard American serial killer.
They are beyond reasoning.
What I want to know is why they think holding the trial in Manhattan is a good idea.
Seriously, what is to be gained by that?
And even more importantly does the Left think that holding the trials in Manhattan increase, by even the smallest amount the threat of terrorist attack?
If not they are delusional to the point of madness.
If they do recognize the risk then how can they possibly justify it?
It is the victory of crass exhibitionism over Obama’s supreme duty to protect our people.
On the other hand it will allow KSM to rightfully argue for a change of venue and if denied will yield his first “win”.
Eric Holder is insane.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
It only strengthens the argument with tautology.
You see that war over there? The one with the hills and the drones and the tens of thousands of US boots on the ground? What was the inciting event?
November 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
James, you have a consistent track record of supporting toture as well as having endorsed the unhinged ravongs of Dicj Chebey. Who cates what you think? We cannot risk listening to the opinions of moral failures like yourself who have been brainwashed by the republican madrassas.
Which brings us to the next point. While in principle, one can envision a role for military tribunals, the process has been tsiinted by the Bish/Chebey administration to create a parallel abd secret justice system on foreign soil that was unaccountable to public, civilian oversight. Repudiating this idea has merit in and of itself, as well as reasserting civilian control over the system that protects the nation. Leaving this process in the hands of the Chebeys of this world and their obedient accomplices is not a good idea. The process needs to be repudiated rather than “fixed.” The public needs to make a statement that the previous paradigm is being condemned in favor of a presumption of civilian prosecution and the primacy of civilian rule.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
The process needs to be repudiated rather than “fixed.” The public needs to make a statement that the previous paradigm is being condemned in favor of a presumption of civilian prosecution and the primacy of civilian rule.
I both agree with this statement and think it’s absolutely a terrible basis for making decisions.
I’m all for image management and damage control — I think it’s vitally important, actually — but once you start basing your decisions on manipulating perceptions rather than aligning with reality, you’re done.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Crime is bad for the right because the Supreme Court has given criminals too many rights. War doesn’t worry about rights, it worries about justice. The right is suspicious of the criminal justice system because the Supreme Court screwed around with it. I think that’s the problem, not whether one thing is more serious than another.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Sadly James Robinson the Left is so secretly enamored of the idea the KSM is some sort of “freedom fighter” and not in fact a self declared military enemy of all Americans that they refuse to distinguish between him and your standard American serial killer.
Despite some heavy opposition from JR, Chooch hands down wins stupidest statement in the thread. You’ve managed to create a single sentence so nonsensical that it seems like the argument you’re making flips completely around somewhere in the middle of the sentence. The left wants to build up KSM into some sort of freedom fighter so they want him tried as a common criminal? Like those famous progressive heroes Ed Gein and Ted Bundy? Do you even pay attention when you write? The people that are in favour of a trial in a civilian court worry that if terrorists are tried in a military court it will make terrorist organizations seem like legitimate military organizations. Seems like a great PR coup for their side! If on the other hand, you make the statement that you view a terrorist as nothing more than a common criminal, you take away the prestige and the glory of it, make it tougher to make them into martyrs.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
If KSM was captured on the battlefield, then we have to expand the definition of ‘battlefield’ to mean “anywhere outside the US.” He was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by the ISI. That’s hardly a battlefield. When we have criminals hiding out in other countries, they are often picked up by intelligence officers of that country and not the local city’s police. So who picks him up really hasn’t mattered before. And this really doesn’t affect Miranda as Miranda only applies to the US. As long as the person is in another country, he is subject to their laws not ours. Miranda doesn’t apply until the suspect sets foot in the US, and KSM has yet to do that. This could make make a confession difficult to admit, but the evidence is still fine. We’ve dealt with this issue thousands of times. It happens whenever we’ve extradited a suspect from another country. It’s really no an issue.
What is an issue is where the crimes were committed. And these crimes were clearly committed on US soil. That KSM never set foot on US soil during the planning means nothing. He ordered the crimes to be committed, so he’s guilty of those crimes as if he had committed them. This works just like any other murder for hire. A good example of this would be Manuel Noriega, who was tried in US federal court on drug trafficking, money laundering and racketeering charges. He was captured in a military operation, was a foreign national, and committed his crimes on foreign soil. Yet prosecutors were still able to convict. They had some trouble with witnesses telling different stories, but that has nothing to do with the legal issues of foreign capture. And it would be a problem with any criminal case.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I’m all for image management and damage control — I think it’s vitally important, actually — but once you start basing your decisions on manipulating perceptions rather than aligning with reality, you’re done.
I understand what you are saying, and I agree in principle, but in context, our system has been tainted to the point where we cannot have an honest conversation in good faith about the merits of a military or civilian trial, the public needs to publicly reasserting civilian control in order to sideline the criminals from the previous administration adamant about undermining the rule of law with secret prisons and secret trials without oversight.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
[...] warriors Yesterday I asked why putting terrorists on trial was such a big deal, looks like other people have been wondering as well. In political terms, the right likes the war idea because it involves taking terrorism more [...]
November 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
If on the other hand, you make the statement that you view a terrorist as nothing more than a common criminal, you take away the prestige and the glory of it, make it tougher to make them into martyrs.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107207/
But back to the large point: You. Can’t. Create. Your. Own. Reality.
People will view your actions according to their own perspectives. And they will judge you by your actions, and others according to theirs, not the other way around.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
the public needs to publicly reasserting civilian control in order to sideline the criminals from the previous administration adamant about undermining the rule of law with secret prisons and secret trials without oversight.
No doubt, but I think the key ingredient there is transparency, not necessary civilian control. In one sense, you can argue that over the last decade, civilians like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have been more detrimental to US efforts (both military and diplomatic) than their military counterparts.
I mean, this is how I feel: If the trial is successful, an important precedent will have been set, which is positive. But logically, I don’t find the argument convincing.
And it’s risky. There is an increased chance of a coordinated attack, however slight. There are probably going to be numerous issues with evidence and procedure, as James pointed out above.
And if KSM somehow manages to do the Clay Davis walk out of the courtroom, it’ll be an unmitigated tragedy…not just because aQ will get one of their most influential strategists back and newly-confident, but because Americans will be so inflamed that we’re unlikely to see any sort of limitations on detention and prosecutions ever again.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Perhaps the chances of another terrorist attack would be lower if we had been working to thwart terrorists instead of fighting insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Tyro,
You go on and keep punching that strawman. In the meantime, the real me will be over here, still figuring that Iraq was something we had to bring to come kind of conclusion once we started fighting there, that any kind of “victory” in Afghanistan is questionable, and that people captured by the military or intelligence ops don’t belong in civilian courts.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I think Tyro’s #23 sums up my feeling about it being a re-assertion of some kind of regular order after a period of anything-goes. It’s a flawed assertion, because of the venue-shopping with other detainees, but the politics demand no acquittals, given that you have lots of people like J-Rob who are measuring the president’s hip inclination with protractors.
The ‘military capture equals military legal procedure’ argument for KSM is certainly no less a shoehorning or veneering of process than the one that ‘mass killing done outside of war is a criminal act and requires a criminal trial’.
That also doesn’t mean that if you round people up in extra-legal (or dubiously legal) fashion, you should come up with an extra-legal or dubiously legal process to deal with them just for the sake of logical consistency.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I’m just afraid that this might corrupt the criminal justice system. I mean, considering that KSM and his fellows were very badly tortured, and that the same government (albeit under new management) assuring that the evidence it is presenting is untainted by torture also lied about said torture for years. Then there’s the issue of whether these trials don’t have to be rigged from the get-go. I mean, if any of these guys get acquitted, it would be the end of the Obama adminstration. The only question would be whether Obama makes it to January 20, 2013 without being driven out of office by the mass-rioting, insurrections, and impeachment proceedings that would be sure to come. Which means that even if they don’t take “precautions” to make sure that doesn’t happen, people will think they did.
In other words, this is going to stink to high heavens no matter what happens, partly because of the Bush administration’s criminal actions and partly because of who we’re dealing with. Better that it stink outside the civilian criminal justice system than inside it.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Sadly for tyro and the anonymous coward, military tribunals have a long history in the US – they are hardly extra-judicial. They are a system of justice set up specifically to try acts deemed contrary to the laws of war, and to deal with military level justice in general.
November 15th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
People will view your actions according to their own perspectives. And they will judge you by your actions, and others according to theirs, not the other way around.
Totally agree. But the thing is that even if we try terrorists in a civilian court, they will still see themselves as “heroic freedom fighters fighting for freedom with their Islamic army.” We can’t really change that. What we can do, however, is do something for our benefit, which is to set a precedent for civilian trial with public oversight. What we shouldn’t do is waste time trying to worry about how this will look to Osama bin Laden or what he thinks of it.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Under the law of homicide, the attack on the Pentagon doesn’t differ from the one on the towers.
Under military law–should one mistakenly accord the likes of KSM the status of solider–since the Department of Defense and directs the armed forces of the United States, might it not be argued to some effect that an attack on the Department was justified under the laws of war?
if the laws of war are allegedly vi9lated, should not violations be tried in an international court? Victors’ justice is no justice at all, it might be held.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
the Left is so secretly enamored of the idea the KSM is some sort of “freedom fighter”
What can one possibly say in response to a ridiculous declaration like that? It’s a waste of time and energy to argue with people like ChooChoo because they’re actually quite ingenuous and fervently believe in the reality of their absurd straw creations.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
But the thing is that even if we try terrorists in a civilian court, they will still see themselves as “heroic freedom fighters fighting for freedom with their Islamic army.”
Exactly the point I was trying to make.
What we can do, however, is do something for our benefit, which is to set a precedent for civilian trial with public oversight.
True. But in addition to the costs I detailed above, that’s not the only thing we can do to establish a positive precedent. A fair and transparent military tribunal could have much of the same effects, and by classifying KSM as a POW, we might be able to make some progress on that whole “Geneva Conventions don’t apply in this war” mess the last administration left us to clean up.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Under military law–should one mistakenly accord the likes of KSM the status of solider–since the Department of Defense and directs the armed forces of the United States, might it not be argued to some effect that an attack on the Department was justified under the laws of war?
The attack was an aggressive, unprovoked action; there was no causus belli, hence no justification.
if the laws of war are allegedly vi9lated, should not violations be tried in an international court?
I would have no problem sending KSM to the ICJ. They do good work, and get convictions.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
It’s a waste of time and energy
Then maybe….don’t expend either and just ignore the fool?
November 15th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
When things “work better in a tribunal”, thats just another way of saying the evidence isnt clear and the US did not adhere to its own laws about not torturing or randomly abducting people in foreign countries….
November 15th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
When things “work better in a tribunal”, thats just another way of saying the evidence isnt clear and the US did not adhere to its own laws about not torturing or randomly abducting people in foreign countries
Um, yes. Exactly. This is the issue at hand.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Maybe it’s just that an empire can’t have the same justice system for the internal (citizens) criminals and the crimes against the empire itself; it just won’t work. Imperial politics requires two different standards. Maybe it’s just that simple.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Point taken, but the right isn’t big on fair trials for ordinary murderers either. Lock em up. Throw away the key. Trials are for rich people unless you’re OJ Simpson.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Perhaps the Right should be reminded of the very clear precedent set 20 years by a Republican president when George HW Bush sent the US military to Panama to capture Manuel Noreiga, who was then flown to the US and tried in a civilian court in Miami.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Perhaps the Right should be reminded of the very clear precedent set 20 years by a Republican president when George HW Bush sent the US military to Panama to capture Manuel Noreiga, who was then flown to the US and tried in a civilian court in Miami.
I’m by no means on the Right, but perhaps my brethren on the Left should be reminded that Noreiga didn’t declare war on the United States.
Look, as I mentioned upthread, in the future much of the U.S.’s military action (and that of other nations as well) is going to by provoked and directed against non-state actors. And, heaven forbid, should we again find ourselves in a protracted military conflict with a non-state actor on foreign soil, it would behoove us to call it like is instead of dropping back into this “Don’t mention the war!” posture.
The same argument used to deny that 9/11 was an act of war (i.e., war can only be waged by states, not organizations) is the same argument used to deny prisoners captured in the war fundamental human rights. It doesn’t conform to reality, and it’s capable of doing harm.
I’m not saying we don’t have a choice in the venue….but given the choice trying KSM in a military tribunal makes sense and is unlikely to have negative repercussions.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
You go on and keep punching that strawman. In the meantime, the real me will be over here, still figuring that Iraq was something we had to bring to come kind of conclusion once we started fighting there, that any kind of “victory” in Afghanistan is questionable
Well, you’re the one who went on an unhinged tirade against Kerry and Gore when they spoke out against the wrong-headed policies pursued by Bush and Cheney, which you nevertheless made some full throated support in favor of. You claim to have views that might be characterized as anything less than brain-damaged, but when push comes to shove, you get in line behind the malefactors whom you serve, either because youj’re too stupid or cowardly to do otherwise. So why should anyone listen to you? You’re a Bushist/Cheneyist douchebag/coward who spent 01-09 crying in a corner screeching unhinged right-wing talking points to make yourself feel better. You were too stupid and cowardly to do anything useful then, so why should we listen to you now? You lack any moral judgment but still want to be taken seriously: supporters of the right can’t be taken seriously, because people like you will always support criminals when given the chance and speak out against anyone talking good sense in order to get pleasure from the thrill of hating hippies– and if people have to get tortured and killed for it, it’s all in the service of your moral blindness.
So, really, who cares what you think? You wasted your life on endorsing the views of a bunch of criminals and screeching against the sane politicians who opposed them at the behest of right-wing talking-points demagogues, all because you were too much of a coward and political/moral ignoramus to do otherwise.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Attorney General Holder says that he has access to super-secret KSM evidence not obtained by torture. I think he’s basically bluffing. KSM has already said he wants to plead guilty, which means there won’t be a trial.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
“and that people captured by the military or intelligence ops don’t belong in civilian courts.”
By that standard, nobody captured outside of the US could every be tried in a civilian court. The reason is our civilian authorities don’t have jurisdiction outside the US. Any effort to find a criminal who skipped bail and fled the country requires intelligence operations. You can put out an Interpol bulletin, but local police forces will only care about that if they already have someone in custody. If you want to find they guy, you’ll use the NSA to eavesdrop on him, and that’s an intelligence operation. And it requires at the very least, cooperation of a foreign government to get extradition. Say a pot grower skips bail, flies to Columbia, we track him with the NSA, find him, and then ask the local authorities to pick him up. Is he now a war criminal, or should he simply be extradited and tried in a civilian court like we’ve always done? You are insisting on the former because it involved an intelligence agency cooperating with civil authorities. And that just creates a mess. Our military courts are not set up to deal civilian crimes, yet you want to make them do it. On the other hand, our civilian courts do know how to deal with terrorism, and have a very good conviction rate.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Still don’t see how fighting terrorists is different from fighting other organized crime. The mob embraces lawbreaking and is a quite small subset of an orderly society. Terrorists are the same.
There are differences – terrorists are far more violent and cross international borders. However, they don’t have the same ‘in’ with a neighborhood that the mob has gained by providing outlets for ‘victimless’ crime, like running numbers.
Both can be penetrated effectively through undercover work, and our greatest success capturing terrorists has happened just that way.
Of course that method isn’t as cinematic as flattening neighborhoods with daisy cutters.
November 15th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
If someone kills lots of people, he is starting a war?
November 15th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
“Still don’t see how fighting terrorists is different from fighting other organized crime.”
Often, it’s the same organizations. There are organization in South America that plant bombs, run guns, run drugs, launder money, and kidnap people. Terrorism is only part of their racket. So do we separate them out and try the drug crimes in civilian court and the terrorism crimes in military court? That would be a huge legal mess with two court systems bickering over evidence, habeas corpus, and jurisdiction. The civilian courts can handle all of those, the military ones can’t. Military courts should stick to actions committed by soldiers and actions committed on foreign soil. I’m fine with the military prosecuting Maj Hasan and the Cole bombers. That’s certainly their jurisdiction. But terrorism committed on US soil really isn’t the military’s jurisdiction.
November 15th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
They are appealing to the crazies otherwise known as their base. Their reasoning on this is absolutely without merit.
Sure, one could have preferred a military trial, but do Republicans really believe that these people will be given rights and then just released, or that there will be some grand terrorist rescue plot right out of the tv show 24?
Republicans have got to stop this stuff. They are scaring the bejesus out of already easily scared people.
Projecting all of these fantasy based scenerios onto this trial really does elevate KSM and all terrorists as super terrorists that can’t be brought to American soil because they are so dangerous, so scary, so powerful, that we the American people will be in grave danger just by them setting foot in this country.
You are correct Mr. Ygelsias, the rights rhetoric really does elevate these terrorists to the status that they want to occupy in the American mind, as all powerful enemies, that terrorize the American psyche.
It is pretty silly yet disgusting stuff.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Re: I’m by no means on the Right, but perhaps my brethren on the Left should be reminded that Noreiga didn’t declare war on the United States.
Al Qaida is not a governmment; not even in its own fantasies does it pretend to be a government. Therefore it can’t declare war on anyone since that requires a government, or at least something with pretenses to be a government.
And if the Mafia or the Medallin cartel or some backwoods looney-tune militia were to declare war on the US government, committing sundry acts of depraved violence, would this argue against trying the perps as criminals? I think not.
But if you’d like another example (albeit one from a foreign nation), try this: Adolf Eichmann. Clearly a war crminal, and captured not by civilian police but by Israeli special intellgence (the Mossad). Nevertheless he was tried, publicly, in an Israeli non-military court with the defenses that Israeli law allows. Eichmann was quite explicitly an agent of a legitimate government, and his atrocities make Al Qaida look like a pack of cub scouts. Still, he was given a formal civilian trial.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
James Robertson,
I don’t but your “military/intelligence ops” vs. “law enforcement” conceit. It would be more accurate to characterize the issue as “law enforcement/intelligence operations” vs. “military operations.”
Look at KSM. There was no firefight. There was no battlefield. He wasn’t in a unit that got surrounded, or discovered under a bush trying to cross a wood by a squad of marines on patrol.
Investigators followed clues and leaned on informants to track him down, and then a team drove up to his house, knocked down the door, yelled “Put your hands in the air,” and cuffed-n-stuffed him.
The fact that he was, ahem ahem, “not read his Miranda rights” (let’s just call it that for now, because the idea of my government torturing people is going to make me start throwing stuff again if I let it) was a consequence of the criminal inclinations of the Bush administration, and not the inherent nature of counter-terrorism efforts, nor the specifics of how KSM was apprehended.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
perhaps my brethren on the Left should be reminded that Noreiga didn’t declare war on the United States.
This is precisely what Panama did and is one of the reasons Bush used to justify the invasion.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Isn’t Bin Laden more like Charlie Manson than like … trying to think of a world leader who is not like Charlie Manson…
Not so much a criminal or a soldier but a cult leader.
One wonders how Waco played into the dynamics of how the response went down. Wasn’t Timothy McVeigh obsessed with Waco, and his experience in Iraq?
Given the religious extremism of many Republicans including many in Congress, I can see why they would not want the response to 911 cast as a police action against a violent anti-American cult. A little to close to home!
November 15th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
scythia’s argument seems to revolve around the idea that we captured KSM as part of “aprotracted military conflict with a non-state actor on foreign soil.”
That may describe Taliban war criminals, but KSM? The 9/11 attacks were “a protracted military conflict on foreign soil?”
Once again, look at how KSM was captured; it was an arrest.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
scythia, look at it this way:
Imagine that we didn’t invade Afghanistan after 9/11. We limited ourselves to using air power to assist the Northern Alliance, and there were never more than a couple hundred American soldiers in the country.
However, we did crank up the G-men. FBI, CIA, DIA, they’re all listening at doorways and going undercover as jihadist pomegranate salesmen and bugging hotel rooms and, every once in a while, calling in a team of Delta Force or the local equivalent to grab some guy.
The capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed would have happened exactly the same way under my alternate scenario, so I don’t see that it’s actually the same thing as the boots-on-the-ground, battlefield-type war we’re fighting against the Taliban, the remnants of the Iraqi Army, the jihadist version of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, etc. The “War on Terror” includes some things that are actual, non-metaphorical war, but it includes a lot more that are not war, but more like what the FBI and Interpol do.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
INTERNATIONAL OR EMPIRE KANGAROO COURT?
[Empire Kangaroo Court]
Now, once again we have been reading an article on, [www.ThinkProgress.Org.] by Matthew Yglesias, [Criminals and Warriors],about the up coming Kangaroo Court trial, in the Empire and make no mistake this is in fact nothing more than a sham trial. The accused will be found guilty, and given the ultimate sentence of death which will be carried out. But after what this human being has been thru that act will be a walk in the park. This [IFF] Islamic Freedom Fighter has been beaten, water-bordered, given [Special Enhanced Interrogation], all under the laws of Empire, [Tortured], no [SS] were treated in this manner and their crimes were judged by an International Court, made public, and proven without a reasonable doubt with the best councils they could be given and all evidence open to view.
[IFF VS THE EMPIRE/ IRA VS THE EMPIRE]
There is no difference between the concept that the [IRA] Irish Republican Army, use the [TACTIC] of terror upon the English to obtain a Free, Independent Ireland, no English on Irish soil, or the [IFF] Islamic Freedom Fighters using the [TACTIC] of Terrorism, upon those that have invaded, displaced, murdered, tortured, and raped at will within the Islamic Crescent trying to separate each part of the total war upon the Crescent into separate wars, when they are theaters within one War.
One sides Warrior is the other sides Criminal, the Founding Fathers were criminals to be hanged by the Brits, but heroes of the revolution.
The [IFF] Warriors are using the [TACTIC] of terrorism, in their war of self defense against the American-Israeli Empire’s War of Stimulus, War of Blood for Oil, War of Recourse and Markets, the War for pipelines on the Islamic Crescent.
Nidal Malik Hasan the [21st] Century, I am sorry I have but one life to give for my country.
[A CRY FOR JUSTICE]
The Dreamers, Thinkers, and Workers of the [21st] Century if there is to be a [22nd] Century must cry out and demand justice for the accused Nidal Malik Hasan, that the accused be bound over for trial by the International Court in the Hague, that the injustice done upon him the abuse the torture, be taken into consideration at his trial, that all evidence be provided to council, and then and only then should they the International Court decide his fate. And if proof that this the accused has been the victim of torture and abuse at the hands of his captors they should be held accountable to crimes against humanity and bound over for trial. Justice must be served upon the one or if denied will be denied to all the citizens of the Community of Nations. The American-Israeli Empire has sent a new standard in criminal behavior of that of a Rogue Nation, the question that the Dreamers, Thinkers and Workers of the [21st] Century must ask will this be allowed to stand as a standard of Justice in the [21st] Century, or will you to be abducted by its agents the [CIA] Central Intelligence Agency and face such a trial, how many have been and have been released after such abuse, and is this the new standard. The Independent Tea-Baggers Dreamers, Thinkers and Workers of the providence/states outside the Empire, that this will not be used upon them, and what is to ensure that it doesn’t, first the enemy without and then the enemy with in the Empire. Ask not for whome the bell tolls its tolls for thee.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
HARD-CORE INDEPENDENT TEA-BAGGER
November 15th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Not only was KSM’s capture an arrest, he was already under federal indictment for his participation in the 1995 Bojinka Operation and he already had Interpol bulletins requesting his capture. The arrest was clean and should pose no legal problems (unlike his subsequent treatment). The Bojinka Operation never happened because it was disrupted through a combination of police work (local and Interpol) and intelligence operations. It would have been more deadly than 9/11, and we didn’t even have to go to war against some randomly selected country to stop it. And if fighting a war against Iraq is supposed to prevent terrorists from planning such an attack, why didn’t the Gulf War accomplish that?
November 15th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
[...] raises a question whether by terming terrorism as war you end up justifying (at least in part) the declarations of [...]
November 15th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
The true irony would be exposed if it were to go down like this: KSM is tried in a civilian court, but due to certain massively illegal actions performed by the Republican administration toward KSM, he cannot be convicted. The right would of course go apeshit, saying that they always knew he should be tried by a military tribunal and that obama is soft on terrorism or some such dreck. Conservatives want him in a military tribunal, or some other quasi- or extra-judicial system to cover up their own mistakes! They fucked up bad and need Obama to give them cover. Sadly, to this point Obama has done nothing but oblige them.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Sadly for tyro and the anonymous coward, military tribunals have a long history in the US – they are hardly extra-judicial.
Sadly for suburban compoundista J-Rob, he appears to be either arguing against a man of straw or suffering from severely bad reading comprehension.
Just because properly-constituted military tribunals have legitimacy as part of a properly-established military justice system doesn’t mean that holding military tribunals retroactively legitimizes the extra-legal or dubiously legal steps (see: 52) that preceded them.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
If you take terrorism seriously, there is only one serious criterion for defining the effort to quell terrorism as “war” or “law enforcement” (or something else), and that’s the question of what strategy might work to extinguish terrorism at the level where its power resides: in its ability to recruit jihadists from societies brimming with discontent. Abstract definitions to satisfy Americans emotionally should be beside the point. This is where Matt Yglesias’s post is on the right track: Jihadists see themselves as soldiers, endowed with the dignity of heroism. Rob them of the incentive of engaging in war with the United States, and you reduce the appeal of joining in the first place. The more that the world defines what they do as a criminal act, the less legitimacy it can acquire. The more that Americans call this a war, the harder that is to do. This is why the chief of police in London more than two years ago gave a speech exhorting people to stop calling it a “war against terror”. He then defined terrorists down instead up, referring to them essentially as the scum of the earth, not fit to be called warriors. Some Muslim societies have already grasped this reality. Percentages of Indonesians regarding suicide bombing as a legitimate means of struggle have declined from about 1/3 to not much more than 10% in the last few years, mostly because Indonesians don’t see bombing Marriott hotels as a proud form of struggle. Obama could accelerate the destruction of terrorist legitimacy by proposing that acts of terror be defined as crimes against humanity, and recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court as the right venue to try the worst of them. Then the world would be on record as regarding terrorists as, indeed, the scum of the earth.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
I totally and completely agree, T-Paine, but please shove some paragraph breaks in there next time!
November 15th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
So Sasquatch was Khalid Shaq-Mohommad all along? Who would’ve ever known, ingenious disguise.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:43 am
This is why the chief of police in London more than two years ago gave a speech exhorting people to stop calling it a “war against terror”. He then defined terrorists down instead up, referring to them essentially as the scum of the earth, not fit to be called warriors.
This was the approach to the IRA as well — fitting, because they were (and are) basically criminal gangs with a side business in car bombs. Of course, at the time, good ol’ Oirish-Americans like Pete King (R-NY) were calling them soldiers, drinking with them in Ireland, and passing the hat for them in the US.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Well, although getting crazier, at least Herc is getting more succinct.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:39 am
Re: KSM is tried in a civilian court, but due to certain massively illegal actions performed by the Republican administration toward KSM, he cannot be convicted.
KSM’s torture-induced confessions almost certainly will not be admissible. But there’s reams of hard evidence not produced by torture that suffice to convict him. I cannot imagine the Obama administration would put him on trial if they didn’t have an airtight case.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:57 am
wiley says: “Framing terrorism as an act of war justifies the invasion of nations and collective punishment.”
It also justifies massive defense budgets.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Any act of legislation or assertion of state power is a “creation” of a “reality.” See the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. The question is will people act on it?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:05 am
I agree, that’s also why KSM is the only prisoner they’re talking about bringing to trial right now. He has said he wishes to plead guilty, so with him they can easily avoid all the messiness of what is and is not admissible. Holder and Obama would not start any trials they could possibly lose, that would be a debacle of astronomical proportions. Although, again, it wouldn’t be their fault, it would be the fault of the previous administration. But surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, Obama would get the blame.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I agree completely and have been trying in vain to make sense of the far right’s arguments. They must be suddenly realizing that information gathered during torture is inadmissible as evidence in a court of law.
I used to live in Spain, and even after decades of ETA terrorism no one refers to them as war criminals. To paraphrase Zbigniew Brzezinski, that would be crazy talk.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
In political terms, the right likes the war idea because it involves taking terrorism more “seriously.”
Funny,they didnt take it seriously when Clinton was in office.
“wag the dog”?
The right likes the idea of war because its a money makerand a nationalistic galvanizer.
And I might add we were terrorized by the right {faking color code alerts}so you could say they take it as seriously as Al-Quada.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
As if the criminal proceedings will not offer plentiful opportunity for these bastards to exhibit their self-aggrandizing fantasies – I’m sorry, to promote their “narrative” (in PoMo speak).
Was 9/11 an act of war? Well, it certainly was intended to a) kill as many people as possible, b) strike existential fear into the hearts of every American, and c) bring our economy to its knees. It succeeded to some extent in all of those aspects. It is irrelevant whether it was perpetrated directly by a sovereign state – though the actors certainly had the financial and logistical support of some such states. If the left cannot see that as an act of war, then there really is no reason to trust you with our national security.
The appropriate forum for punishing these acts was clearly spelled out in the bipartisan Military Commissions Act – a brief, non-flashy tribunal with a limited set of procedural safeguards for the defendants (though extensive safeguards for protecting national security), followed in very short time by capital punishment. KSM et. al. would have no opportunity to garner headlines or recruit followers. I suspect the proceedings would take less than a week for all five.
With the criminal trial, I am 100% sure we will still be awaiting the conclusion one year from today. The New York Times will get miles of columns out of this, and Islamists worldwide will eat up every word. Oh I know, this is the administration’s first foray into direct support for the dead-tree media!
November 16th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
[...] usual suspects — Glen Greenwald, Adam Serwer, Matt Yglesias and Marcy Wheeler among them — have been busy posting in favor of the president’s [...]
November 16th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Tom Paine Says:
Obama could accelerate the destruction of terrorist legitimacy by proposing that acts of terror be defined as crimes against humanity, and recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court as the right venue to try the worst of them. Then the world would be on record as regarding terrorists as, indeed, the scum of the earth
TRIATHLON SAY: Acts of Terror have been, are and will be legitimate acts of War, the Burning of Atlanta, The Fire Bombing of Dresden, The [Zippo] burning of Vietnamese Villiages, The British murdering of hundreds of Irish by the Black and Tan in the Soccer Stadium Massacre, the list is long of attacks against [CIVILIAN] populations, to get their attention that war has consequences, the concept that [IFF} Islamic Freedom Fighters are Scum is what will make this a [1K] One Thousand year war. And by not recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court as the right venue to try the worst of them, as [IFF] Soldiers, destroys the Rule of Law, and Justice Denied is Justice not served.
The British considered the Founding Fathers the Scum of the earth and hung them Patrick Henry, rounded up citizens in one town village placed them in there own church and burned it down another act of military terrorism.
The Greatest Generation understood this and that is why the Nuremberg were considered so important as setting the standard for future generations.
The Catholic Church used torture to kill millions of women, for witch craft in the dark ages are we now to return to those times and once again, claim Justice is arrived by torture, that an accused is simply [Scum] and not a human being, a family man, a son, a father, a soldier in defense of his family, his community, his religious beliefs.
The German [SS] called the Jew “Pigs” so the American-Israeli Government de-humanizes the [IFF] vice “Pigs” as [Scum], who need not be given the rights of others. Should we once again just call Blacks “Niggers” and see Justice as a Lynching? Who will be the next group who is to be de-humanized, beaten, tortured, to give false confessions, Irish, Jews, Women, Niggers, or do we follow the standard set by the Greatest Generation, an INTERNATION COURT OF LAW AT THE HAGUE, with the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY SERVING JUSTICE.
Or, simply Burn the Witch, Put the Jew in Concentration Camps, and Hang the Niggers, and [IFF] their just Scum?
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
HARD-CORE INDEPENDENT TEA-BAGGER
November 16th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Triathlon, if i can pick out the few kernels of meaning from that wordpile, you are in favour of trying terrorists in an international court. that’s gotta be a very minority opinion among the “hard-core independent tea-bagging” (great name btw) crowd eh? They have, after all, been spending the last few years busily deligitimizing the ICC so that their own crimes wouldn’t have to be addressed.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
[...] responding to international terrorism in the manners and metaphors of war makes sense to me. He writes that in approaching terrorism within the framework of war, “you partake of way too much of the [...]
November 16th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
I’ll agree with MY when a drug lord kills 3,000 people in a single day in the streets of NYC. The aim of KSM is to bring down the US and Western civilization, not make a buck off drug addicts who freely buy his product. It was an act of war, pure and simple, by any definition. How to react is the issue and pretending these vermin are citizens deserving of trials, with all its attendant procedure is to give them a legal standing undeserved.
As to giving the world the example of American justice by trying these terrorists is also unproved. We proclaim freedom of religion and have the most religious country (even Muslims are impressed by it). Does any Middle Eastern Muslim country give any degree of religious freedom. NO, so much for that example.
How about freedom of expression and freedom of the press. No opposing press there, no opposition parties in most countries. Nothing but riots over a free press publishing cartoons. So much for the Western example of freedoms.
They only understand POWER, we show weakness and a loser attitude which they detest. We just apologize and act shamed.
November 19th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
[...] being acquitted. I don’t think the trial is an enormous security risk. I understand that there would be advantages to treating terrorists as criminals, rather than validating their conception of themselves as [...]