Procrustes Stretched
"intuition and imagination and intelligence"
- Thread starter
- #61
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.
"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: