911/ - A Criminal Act or an Act of War?

911 - a criminal act - an act of war - a nuanced combination of both


  • Total voters
    28
On September 11, 2001, a terrorist organization launched a hugely successful, military precision style attack on American soil. Were the events collectively known as 911,..a criminal act or an act of war?

Can a terrorist organization declare war on a state and can we as a nation state declare war on a terrorist organization?

In hindsight was it wise (many thought otherwise way back then) for the leadership of this nation to use terms like Homeland and War, in regards dealing with 911?


---

I suggest that the answer lies in the in the nature and scale of the organization, the nature and scale of the event and whether any precedent exists to assist us in determining how to view those events.

1. The nature of the organization. We know that AQ is a multinational organization. It is large, diffuse and well funded. It clearly has the capability to reach into many countries to push its agenda and effect national and international events.

2. The event. The US has never known a more deadly event caused on its soil by a foreign force. In scale (human lives) it was large even than the attack on Pearl Harbor. In character, it was precisely the same as Pearl Harbor. A sudden and unannounced act of enormous scale. If Pearl Harbor was large enough to launch us into WWII, then 9/11 was large enough in scale to launch us into a "war."

3. Precedent. The precedent I see is the the pirates of the Barbary Coast in the early 1800s. See the 1st Barbary War. Although the scale of the events is not equal (9/11 was much greater), the organization was much the same as AQ. There you have an organization that was affecting international events. Piracy on the high seas. It is a "crime" much like terrorism. However, cover was to be had in lawless countries or in countries where protection could be purchased. Sound familiar? Ransom for ships and people were made much like was is occurring off Somalia now.

What was our response? We sent in the Marines. This is where the line in the Marine Hymn "....to the shores of Tripoli" comes from. Was it a "declared" war? No and neither is this. The President was given the power by Congress to deal with it militarily.

For me, this makes a compelling argument that we should deal with the perpetrators of 9/11 as an organization that has declared war on the US and we should respond as if the organization was a nation-state. Further, we should amend our laws to so that the existence of an extra-national actor makes sense in the context of those laws. Much of the divisiveness that has occurred over the Bush administration was because AQ and our struggle against them do not make sense in the context of our existing laws.

1.)Large? link::::: How large is al qaeda :::::: link in reality?
What national and international events has al qaeda's agenda effected (besides 911)?

2.)Here is where your argument gets a little too....um...wingnutty to me (sorry)...

The loss of civilian life at the WTC on 911 was high for loss on a single day. This is including the lives of heroic first responders and others who were anything but Objectivist with self interest as the main reason for their existing. The loss of life elsewhere on that day was not as high, but just as horrific in nature because of the type of attacks. I would not say the attacks themselves were of an enormous scale. Large maybe, but enormous? It's all subjective anyway, but exaggeration belies a sense of fear and hyper-sensitivity on your part. The terrorists hijacked a few planes at one time. A few planes used as missiles (I understand they were loaded with human beings as a way terrorize us)? Hardly an enormous attack.

The attack at Pearl Harbor was an attack on our ability as a nation to respond militarily. Our military was attacked and we would've lost more of our naval assets if the carriers were docked as the Japanese had thought was the case. The bombing of a building (even of a sky scraper) is not equivalent to a military attack on our forces. This relativism people use to beat the drums of war belittles things. The events known as 911 was horrific in nature, (I remember people being horrified because initial reports were of possibly 10,000 or more people being in the rubble).

Now there is the attack on the Pentagon (and the failed attacks of that day) which did attempt a crippling strike on the command and control of of military and civilian leadership. Those would've caused great anxiety but I do not think if successful that would've affected our ability to respond to something militarily.

---

Did we go after al qaeda militarily? First we asked the Taliban to hand them over. We had to go into Afghanistan to get at al qaeda, but who were most of the fighters that day,...al qaeda or Taliban and sympathizers and nationalists who resented a foreign power invading?

---


3.) Barbray Coast Pirates: we did not declare a war. One can say we went to war with the Pirates, but the Pirates were no military threat. You are saying the Barbary Coast Pirates declared war on the USA?

---

"Further, we should amend our laws to so that the existence of an extra-national actor makes sense in the context of those laws." --- Sure, but we have to do so in a context that takes into account the law, both national and international. We cannot declare war against a non state unless the definition of the laws are redone. We have signed agreements on what constitutes war. It is very important that we are all, reading from the same page.

funny, this reminds me of the fight over the term marriage (gay marriage). only many cons are now on the opposite side of where they would be if principle were being used instead of ideological war. :lol:



"Much of the divisiveness that has occurred over the Bush administration was because AQ and our struggle against them do not make sense in the context of our existing laws."

wrong. The Bush administration went with making up their own rules. Here is an example of some disagreement with your view:

:::::::::::::
Analysis
Senior Military Lawyer Was Leery of Tribunals

All Things Considered, June 29, 2006 · In the weeks and months immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a working group of top military lawyers began meeting at the Pentagon to consider how to handle captured prisoners. The lawyers knew the prisoners would present new challenges.

But the lawyers were not comfortable with a total overhaul of the established military justice system. What the military legal team didn't know is that White House lawyers were working on a plan to create a whole new system of military tribunals for "enemy combatants."

Retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy at that time, was part of the Pentagon group. All along, Admiral Guter says, he had strong reservations about war crimes tribunals. And he says he's not surprised that the Supreme Court has issued a ruling saying they should not go forward.

Guter is currently the dean of the Dusquesne law school.

::::::::::::::::::::
 
Last edited:
1.)Large? link::::: How large is al qaeda :::::: link in reality?
What national and international events has al qaeda's agenda effected (besides 911)?

2.)Here is where your argument gets a little too....um...wingnutty to me (sorry)...

The loss of civilian life at the WTC on 911 was high for loss on a single day. This is including the lives of heroic first responders and others who were anything but Objectivist with self interest as the main reason for their existing. The loss of life elsewhere on that day was not as high, but just as horrific in nature because of the type of attacks. I would not say the attacks themselves were of an enormous scale. Large maybe, but enormous? It's all subjective anyway, but exaggeration belies a sense of fear and hyper-sensitivity on your part. The terrorists hijacked a few planes at one time. A few planes used as missiles (I understand they were loaded with human beings as a way terrorize us)? Hardly an enormous attack.

The attack at Pearl Harbor was an attack on our ability as a nation to respond militarily. Our military was attacked and we would've lost more of our naval assets if the carriers were docked as the Japanese had thought was the case. The bombing of a building (even of a sky scraper) is not equivalent to a military attack on our forces. This relativism people use to beat the drums of war belittles things. The events known as 911 was horrific in nature, (I remember people being horrified because initial reports were of possibly 10,000 or more people being in the rubble).

Now there is the attack on the Pentagon (and the failed attacks of that day) which did attempt a crippling strike on the command and control of of military and civilian leadership. Those would've caused great anxiety but I do not think if successful that would've affected our ability to respond to something militarily.

---

Did we go after al qaeda militarily? First we asked the Taliban to hand them over. We had to go into Afghanistan to get at al qaeda, but who were most of the fighters that day,...al qaeda or Taliban and sympathizers and nationalists who resented a foreign power invading?

---


3.) Barbray Coast Pirates: we did not declare a war. One can say we went to war with the Pirates, but the Pirates were no military threat. You are saying the Barbary Coast Pirates declared war on the USA?

---

"Further, we should amend our laws to so that the existence of an extra-national actor makes sense in the context of those laws." --- Sure, but we have to do so in a context that takes into account the law, both national and international. We cannot declare war against a non state unless the definition of the laws are redone. We have signed agreements on what constitutes war. It is very important that we are all, reading from the same page

funny, this reminds me of the fight over the term marriage (gay marriage). only many cons are now on the opposite side of where they would be if principle were being used instead of ideological war. :lol:



"Much of the divisiveness that has occurred over the Bush administration was because AQ and our struggle against them do not make sense in the context of our existing laws."

wrong. The Bush administration went with making up their own rules. Here is an example of some disagreement with your view:

:::::::::::::
Analysis
Senior Military Lawyer Was Leery of Tribunals

All Things Considered, June 29, 2006 · In the weeks and months immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a working group of top military lawyers began meeting at the Pentagon to consider how to handle captured prisoners. The lawyers knew the prisoners would present new challenges.

But the lawyers were not comfortable with a total overhaul of the established military justice system. What the military legal team didn't know is that White House lawyers were working on a plan to create a whole new system of military tribunals for "enemy combatants."

Retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, the Judge Advocate General of the Navy at that time, was part of the Pentagon group. All along, Admiral Guter says, he had strong reservations about war crimes tribunals. And he says he's not surprised that the Supreme Court has issued a ruling saying they should not go forward.

Guter is currently the dean of the Dusquesne law school.

::::::::::::::::::::

I looked at the opinion piece you cited for the size of AQ. It wasn't very compelling, at least not to me. I think most estimates variously place the size at about 20k - 50k. The 50k I would view as a bit crazy but I can believe 20k - 30k all told tail and tooth. The size is not important in the "fighting formation" way. Or the "nation-state" way. These are asymmetrical warriors only. You won't find them fighting force on force unless we surprised them in a large number somewhere. The significance lies in the reach. There are not 20k sitting in Afghanistan waiting to be taken out by an air strike. There are hundreds in Germany. Hundreds in the UK. Hundreds in France. And, on and on. Cells of loosely allied, but centrally trained and financed groups. Although there does not appear to be good top down direction, we know that the ops officer of AQ often called the "3rd in command" sometimes develops operations and finds groups to staff them. So there is some top down command.

Events? Madrid, London, US Embassy in Kenya, USS Cole, Khobar Towers in SA, the Indonesian bombing to name a few.

2) A little too wing nutty? Hmmm...well it I come across a little strong on that, it might be because I was there. I was 3 blocks from the Pentagon in Crystal City when it got hit. I was crossing Army-Navy Drive when the F-16 scrambled from Langley AFB arrived on scene supersonic (sonic boom and everything). I was standing on a hill overlooking the Pentagon as the smoke from 184 burning bodies blew in my face. So sorry if I'm a little wing nutty on the size of the attack.

That aside, the human toll was more than Pearl Harbor. That makes it, as I said, the largest etc etc. Your point about military ability to respond is, of course, correct. However, I think you give short shrift to the economic effect of the attacks. How much economic damage did AQ do that day? How did that effect our ability to respond. How much weaker are we because we had to borrow money to prosecute the war? I think you need to take in the mindset of the enemy and what he was trying to accomplish and how much he succeeded or not. I'm not convinced we were completely back to normal in a year. I think there were lingering effects.

I'm not sure where you were going with the gay marriage thing and how that got in here.

You say I was wrong about the difficulty Bush had and the laws issue, but then you go on to elucidate my point. So, I'm a little unsure about how what you said makes me wrong. My point was just what you were saying. Bush had to do something with the laws on the books and conforming them to meet an unanticipated situation. He did it his way, obviously. There were others who would have done it another way. I make no contention that Bush did it the "right" way. (and never have). My point was that something needed to be done because what was occurring did not fit squarely within our laws. "Doing something" falls squarely upon the President. He did something. I would say objectively he erred on the side of safety and control. His choices allowed him to stay in control of most of the levers of power and he did not make choices that could have resulted in an undesirable result (in his eyes). If he had, he may have deflected a lot of criticism (like getting Congress involved instead of making unilateral decisions). But he would have done that at the possible risk of safety for the people. Something he chose not to risk.

So, ultimately, it was his choice he takes the hit for not doing it better. But, on the other side, he also gets the credit for the safety. How much that means remains to be seen. I would say it doesn't mean much if we move away from Bush's scheme and nothing happens. I would say it means a great deal, if we move away and we are heavily hit again.

Hopefully that explains my point a little more.
 
Last edited:
The numbers games with alqaeda and terrorist organizations in genera:. this reminds me of the old FBI fed myths about the American Mafia. What constitutes a member, an associate, somebody affiliated with? Is teh Mafia a world wide organization or a group of like minded loosely associated groups or a coalition of crooks? Myths. That is what that site was about....myths. Just one site of many.

you wrote: ::::::::::1. The nature of the organization. We know that AQ is a multinational organization. It is large, diffuse and well funded. It clearly has the capability to reach into many countries to push its agenda and effect national and international events.:::::::::::

:::::::::::
me: What national and international events has al qaeda's agenda effected (besides 911)?

you: Events? Madrid, London, US Embassy in Kenya, USS Cole, Khobar Towers in SA, the Indonesian bombing to name a few.
:::::::::::

Those are attacks. What events have those attacks effected? As in, 911 effected our national interest so we went into Afghanistan. (al qaeda's actions---cause and effect)


:::::::::::

Hmmm...well it I come across a little strong on that, it might be because I was there. I was 3 blocks from the Pentagon in Crystal City when it got hit. I was crossing Army-Navy Drive when the F-16 scrambled from Langley AFB arrived on scene supersonic (sonic boom and everything). I was standing on a hill overlooking the Pentagon as the smoke from 184 burning bodies blew in my face. So sorry if I'm a little wing nutty on the size of the attack.
::::::::::: - as I always say "context is everything" so I see and I apologize. I would not knowingly say anything that belittles or challenges your personal exoeriences on that day.

the economic attack was overlooked by me. al qaeda understands very well how to engage us in an economic war that we cannot win if we choose to take their bait as we have been doing. waging a huge war on terror which drains our national resources in money, manpower and more is reminiscent of what happened with the old USSR.

the marriage thing? just when people try and convince me that they stand on principle (as lots of con Christians here have done on the marriage issue) I tend to wonder why principle doesn't carry into all of their arguments. it wasn't meant as a personal observation of you...more an amusing generalization. arguing to amend things so they make sense in a new context is one of the basic arguments (principle) of the gay marriage proponents.
 
Last edited:
You say I was wrong about the difficulty Bush had and the laws issue, but then you go on to elucidate my point. So, I'm a little unsure about how what you said makes me wrong. My point was just what you were saying. Bush had to do something with the laws on the books and conforming them to meet an unanticipated situation. He did it his way, obviously. There were others who would have done it another way. I make no contention that Bush did it the "right" way. (and never have). My point was that something needed to be done because what was occurring did not fit squarely within our laws. "Doing something" falls squarely upon the President. He did something. I would say objectively he erred on the side of safety and control. His choices allowed him to stay in control of most of the levers of power and he did not make choices that could have resulted in an undesirable result (in his eyes). If he had, he may have deflected a lot of criticism (like getting Congress involved instead of making unilateral decisions). But he would have done that at the possible risk of safety for the people. Something he chose not to risk.

So, ultimately, it was his choice he takes the hit for not doing it better. But, on the other side, he also gets the credit for the safety. How much that means remains to be seen. I would say it doesn't mean much if we move away from Bush's scheme and nothing happens. I would say it means a great deal, if we move away and we are heavily hit again.

Hopefully that explains my point a little more.

I agreed with a principle, but you are redefining what that principle is if you think Bush had the power as Chief of the Executive Branch to change laws. He did not and therein lies the problem with Bush and what he did...not how he did it.


The safety things gets overplayed by what I consider Bush-apologists. I refuse to believe that any other American sitting in the oval office on 911 (figuratively) would not have made us safer than we were starting on 912.

President Clinton was on watch when the Olympic plots were foiled and he did what could be done within the constraints of the day. America and Americans were living in a different world pre-911. There is no blame...it is the way things were. Innocence lost more than ignorance and denial.

Many people disagree with Bush's scheme. We can be safe without living in constant fear. We can be safe without breaking our own laws. We can be made safe without questioning the patriotism of other Americans who disagree with policy. We can be safe without having to make our enemy larger than life to justify acting badly and stupidly.

We would've most likely have crushed al qaeda in Afghanistan had we not gone into Iraq when we did. I say this fully admitting I supported going into Iraq. I supported going into Iraq 100%, and I still do not think going in was a mistake. Staying and doing what cons and neo-cons support was the mistake.

:cool:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top