cann4ing:
‘Congratulations, Anarcissie.  You have posted perhaps the most inane, idiotic remark I have ever read at TD.’

I think your response might be more interesting if you read more widely.

By Anarcissie, December 7 at 10:51 am #

KDelphi, the state is war.

____________________

Congratulations, Anarcissie.  You have posted perhaps the most inane, idiotic remark I have ever read at TD.

A state is a social institution by means of which a ruling class lays forcible claim to control territory and the people and activities which exist on the territory.

Anarcissie—It doesnt have to be.

KDelphi, the state is war.

Anarcissie—Yes, but if you read the (too long) post, you would see that I asid, “Kucininch is sincere…if not a realist”.

Almost same/same

Norman Soloman said this AM, that perhaps he could be appointed to a new dept., suggested by him and others—a Dept of Peace. That would be hope indeed..

If Kucinich was running in some expectation of actually winning the nomination and the election, then he is delusional.  There is no political infrastructure to support leftists!

If you met Kucinich,and spoke with him, you would see that he is sincere. Whether he is a realist , is another matter entirely. But, the saddest thing about Kucinich, is how the Democrats dissmiss him.

He had a speech prepared for the DNC, which, as many know, was cut mercilessly by the Dems. First off, he came out saying that his speech was for “Stephanie”.(Whom I loved very much—she was a personal heroine of mine)She had many doubts about continuing the “war on terror”, even about Obama—although, of course, in the end, she backed him—she was a Dem.. He had some things he wanted to say in her honor. He was not allowed to talk about the “war on terror”. It was cut. He back Dems anyway, because he thinks that they are better than the GOP. I would agree, (still? Now that THEY are the monied elite? who knows…), but, seeing people in my neighborhod, and all across the country, having so little voice in the process,while still paying the bills,continuing with the Dems, is not an option for me anymore. I just cannot do it.

There were turning points, but, I cant name them all. My diminishing “hope”,(after watching Clinton do welfare “reform”, sign NAFTA, etc) began with Dubya’a theft of the election in 2000 (and Gore’s asking the CBC to sit down, when they tried to stand up for him), jolted to attention at Hurricane Katrina, dipped lower still with FISA, the USA Patriot Act, etc. There is just a point,at which, to keep believing is to be a fool…“where else do progressives have to go”—nowhere yet. But, we shall have to create a place.

I respect Kunich, Feingold, Sanders, Kaptur, adn a few others. I would vote for them—-but my choice, year after year, seems to be Voinovich (not as bad as some Blue Dog Dems, actually), Turner or a Socialist. Why throw my vote away on Dems that dont even bother to campaign.Jane Mitakides ran against Turner this year—GAWD I wanted his ass gone! He “lives” in a gerrymandered district, and LOST as Mayor of Dayton, so he decided to buy hinmself a HofR seat. I called Dem Party Hdqrtrs. to volunteer for Mitakides—I figured, that, since, I had expressed a problem with “caampaigning for Obama”, I could help in other ways—-apparently not. My help was “not needed”. Would it have made a difference? Proably not, in the scheme of things—but it woud have made a difference to ME!

Obama has $30 million “leftover” right now. Why is he sitting on it? Could it have been put to use in Alabama, to win the Dem another seat? (Would he even have been allowed to do that? I dunno).

We have to GET THE MONEY OUT! Most politicans are already rich, by our standards. Have them make the jobs volunteer work. Youve done it, right? Makes you feel good. That’s your reward.Let it be theirs. It can count towards their Public Service Requirement, of we have to re-instate the draft.Even up your karma, Congerss.
Dont worry , it won’t happen—we’ll just keep using Blackwater et al…heres’ an application , peeps, if you like the war on terror, and cant find a job—-now THIS would be an ADVENTURE!)

LOL

https://secure.blackwaterusa.com/

Anarcissie, I met Dennis Kucinich during the early stages of the campaign; spoke to him at some length.  I do not believe he was running simply to be a symbol for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  To the contrary, he was quite serious in his attempt to pierce the corporate veil that prevents an airing of substance.

Because two things both have the same attribute, does not mean there is no difference between them.

Also, I think there is probably a significant difference between those who are actually trying to get elected with some chance of doing so and those who are engaged in symbolic candidacies.

By Anarcissie, December 5 at 6:46 am #

The main things politicians desire is power.
_______________________

I think you have to avoid overstatement, lest you reach the erroneous conclusion that there is no difference between politicians.  Ralph Nader & Cynthia McKinney both ran for president.  McKinney is a former member of Congress.  And, of course, Dennis Kucinich is both a member of Congress and a former presidential candidate.  That, by definition, makes all three of these individuals politicians.

Do you think a desire for power is the primary motivator for any of those three individuals?  Since they are all politicians and George W. Bush is a politician does that mean they are all alike—all thirsting for power?

The main things politicians desire is power.  That is why they are politicians.  Bush used the opportunity afforded by 9/11 to vastly increase the powers of the government, especially the presidency.  The Democrats did not seriously oppose this project then, and now that they are in power, there is even less reason for them to oppose it.  Moreover, even if some of them did want to oppose it, it would run counter to the profoundly conservative instincts of the party to make many changes or to head off in some new direction.

cann4ing—I took this article off my fridge the other day—I was throwing stuff out—Finally!! And this seemed to apply somewhat, and, even then, I thought it was worth “pasting up” (I put other stuff there—dont know why—I knew Bush would be really bad—my brother in law knew him when he was in S&B;, but, he was, of course, much worse)...I knew we were in for the shit of our lives. I just didnt know that the Dems, once they had regained a little power, would sell us so far up the river..now, the Dems have it all, essentially…the time is now to say, “Which side are you on”

Dayton Daily News, November 10, 2002, David Broder—“Lack of Nerve Hurt”  (By Refusing to speak out against his policies , Dems enhanced Bush’s image)
“Call if affirmation or reaffirmation, the midterm election has given a powerful boost to Pres Bush, the conservative agenda, and the long-term prospects of the Republican Party ...The GOP we met(at the polls) had a clear reason to back Bush; demonstrating their loyalty to the commander in chief of the war on terrorism… (Back then), Democrats had not received any similarly clear and compelling signal from their party leadership. And, in the end, the issues the Dem hierarchy hoped would energize its constituency—the shaky economy, coprporate greed, runaway drug prices—-never were given enough of a partisan dimention to work”

Note here that the word “partisan” is not a curse word…note also, that they are the SAME issues, and they are STILL not being given clear msesages as to how they would be resolved/helped…He goes on..

“Bush is the opposite of a status-quo conservative. Even without the benefit of a clear electoral mandate, he pushed for and largely achieveed sweeping and even radical changes in education , fiscal policy, defense and foreign-policy doctrine….also…shift (ed) the boundaries in church-state relations, changed Medicare and social security, (whew!—at least it wasnt privatized), and alter the makeup of the judicial branch…”

Do people realize just how far RIGHT we have gone?? I do NOT feel that now is the time for “consensus”

“The fecklessness of congresional Democrats—who lacked the nerve to say what most of them really believe about either the Bush tax cuts or his path to war with Iraq (Is that true? Do they really belive what we would like to think they believe?)—made it easier for the president to look like the rare politician with the courage of his own convictions…”

We do not want to show that the Dems are NOT—again—do we??

This is not a time for pragmatism. This is not a time for concensus. It would be a time for action—by all of us, but, most especially those with power and a bully pulpit.

People need to stop and think—-“faith based initiatives”? “war on terror”? Duopoly approved ultra-conservative judges? Huge gifts to the “insurance/medicaton ” industry—but we cannot afford single payer? The Wall St Bailout vs. Big Three Bailout? The Dems forsaking the Union?

The Dems have to decide. The things listed, above, did not exist before. We should do away with it now…

Others have come to similar conclusions, KDelphi:

As noted by Norman Solomon in War Made Easy, quoting the New Yorker’s Nicholas Lehman, “war on terror…has entered the language so fully, and framed the way people think about how the United States is reacting to the September 11 attacks, so completely, that the idea of declaring and waging war on terror was not the sole, inevitable, logical consequence of the attacks just isn’t in circulation.”  Indeed, Solomon continues, contracting “war on terrorism” into “war on terror” involves much more than saving headline space.  “’Terror’…is a word fraught with numerous meanings…; among the subtexts of the shortened term are vague notions to the effect that we can somehow effectively wage war on our own fear, a nuance that…hardly suggests an auspicious strategy.”  As noted by Bill Moyers, “the paradigm of the ‘war on terror’” is employed “to elicit public acquiescence in [the administration’s] policies while offering no criterion of success or failure, no knowledge of the cost, and no measure of democratic accountability.”

The corporate media role in ensuring that “public acquiescence” was pivotal.  The media had to choose between competing images.  One image, the one that would not be shown until years later in Fahrenheit 911, was captured at a time when the fires were raging and people were leaping to their deaths from the upper stories of the Twin Towers.  It was the unscripted and embarrassingly long moments when a stunned George W. Bush, having just been informed of the attack, sat motionless listening to a teacher reading My Pet Goat; a thunderstruck idiot who would spend the remainder of the day flying about the country, leaving the very able Richard Clarke in charge at the White House—a fortuitous circumstance which permitted the quick-thinking Clarke and Armitage to prevent a reckless Pentagon decision to go to DEFCON 3 from escalating into nuclear Armageddon.  Then there was the carefully scripted image—George W. Bush, leader of the free world, standing tall at Ground Zero, arm around a firefighter, bull horn in hand, ensuring that “the people who knocked down these buildings will hear from us real soon.”

The corporate media chose not to present the former just as it chose not to question the ambiguity in the words “war on terror.”  The rationale was explained by Dan Rather when interviewed by BBC television on May 16, 2002.  “It starts with a feeling of patriotism within oneself.  It carries through with a certain knowledge that the country as a whole—for all the right reasons—felt and continues to feel this surge of patriotism within themselves.  And one finds oneself saying:  ‘I know the right question, but you know what?  This is not exactly the right time to ask it.”

The message of the corporate media entailed much more than a failure to ask the right questions.  It was a statement that what was required of the American people was blind obedience, a point underscored by a remark made by Rather on David Letterman’s show just six days after the planes struck the Twin Towers:  “George Bush is president.  He makes the decisions….Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where.  And he’ll make the call.”  This call for blind obedience was made against a backdrop of near continuous renditions of The Star Spangled Banner and America the Beautiful sung not only before sporting events but at half-time or the seventh-inning stretch, often beneath the roar of streaking F-16s—televised spectacles reminiscent of 1930s German torch-lit parades, with the American flag not merely appearing as newsroom backdrop but in pin form on the lapels of commentators and guests alike.

Contrary to OM’s assertions, “war on terror” is not a legal concept.  It is a propaganda device.

Well, once upon a time there was a “war to end war”.

Debbie Steele—Thanks—I am glad that someone else got a similar reaction to the books…

This seems to have gone off in the direction of whether there is any use in a “war on terror”—I am not an attorney (I dont play one on tv, either, and this is above my pay grade), but , you would have to admit , that, sometimes an outsider’s pov helps, right? It seems to me, that if you buy the concept of a war on terror, (a war on a concept or state of mind),you become what you are fighting. A ‘war on terrorists” is much the same-who gets to decide who is a terrorist? Who is an “enemy combatant”? This was originally a battlefield distinction.

If we leave it up to Reagan, (and apparently , both parties do today—cause he “brought us together!”), “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. We are not talking about battlefield logistics here. If you are “at war”, and , you are armed, and, a person points a gun at you—shoot them. Or, ask for conscientious objector status, because you will end up dead. Unless you wish to be dead..

Now, back to the “war on drugs”, the “war on fundamentalism”, the “war on fascism” and the ever popular, “war on communism”.

The best one I’ve heard, is the “war on hate”...how about a “war on anger”? Or a “war on ” the “war on terror”? I know that that is absurd, and, that is precisely the point…

Gotta do better than that, OM.  The “issue” when we began this colloquy is whether the logical response to 9/11 was a legal one or the waging of a so-called “war on terror.”

By cann4ing, November 27 at 9:34 am #

By optipessi mist, November 26 at 3:11 pm #

Chris- buddy Just two words Mumbai, India
__________________________

Short-sighted stupidity.  The question is not whether either 9/11 or Mumbai involve “acts of terrorism” but whether a “war on terrorism” is either an effective or even a logical response to what amounts to crimes—especially heinous crimes but crimes nonetheless.

By optipessi mist, November 27 at 2:38 pm #

The short-sigted stupidity is in your thinking that when facing men armed with weapons of violence(guns and bombs) we should direct them to the nearest court to face justice.

and:

It is one thing for an armed criminal(s) to commit illegal acts for personal gain, revenge, etc. It is quite another for armed men to commit illegal acts in order to overthrow a sovereign state, and state in no uncertain terms that this is their aim.  The former requires police action.  The latter requires armed conflict to defeat an enemy of the state.

By cann4ing, November 28 at 8:52 am #

...since when does the law enforcement entail merely “directing” armed men to the nearest court of law?  If a couple of guys stage an armed bank robbery and are then confronted by a SWAT team as they attempt to flee, the police don’t handle the situation by saying, “Gentlemen, please turn yourselves in at the nearest court.” They say, “Freeze!  Drop your weapons!” And if the perps fail to heed the command, or if they try to fire, the police shoot the perps right on the spot!

By cann4ing, November 29 at 11:56 am #

Anarcissie—the difference is not merely one of scale.  Optipessi mist is suggesting that it is motive that defines whether an act amounts to a crime or an act of war.  His definitional distinction means that if a single individual blows up a building to steal what is inside, the appropriate response entails law enforcement yet if an individual blows up a building with the established aim of overthrowing the government, then the response must be “war.” The short answer to this superficial distinction—Tim McVeigh.

There is a basic gap in Optipessi mist’s logic that arises from an illegitimate distinction.
————————& #8212;———

Unable to meet the “issue” head on, OM, you resort to irrelevancy.  Pretty pathetic!

You may confuse alot of people with your inability to state your issue clearly and concisely.  JD(1973), LLM International law(1976).  I am not here to conduct a law clinic on actus reus, mens rea, the principle of causation, or international law.

Your issue is you are not happy with the present status of the law.  Write your congressman. It is your opinion.  Opinions are like assholes.  Everybody has one.  And, everydoby thinks everyone else’s stinks.

OM—thanks for the primer on intent and motive.  I have not had to wade through something so basic since my first year in law school nearly 33 years ago.  Intent is a critical element in defining the type of homicide ranging from justifiable (self-defense) to first degree murder—premeditation.  However, even then the law will manufacture a fictionalized form of intent—e.g., the felony murder rule where, if a group of individuals are engaged in a felony, such as bank robbery, and a victim dies (e.g. a teller suffers a fatal heart attack) all of the conspirators in the robbery will be charged with first degree murder even if none intended to kill anyone.

But let’s turn to the issues at hand, shall we.

“You” were the one who offered the distinction between an act carried out to effectuate a change in government and an act carried out for pecuniary gain.  “You” were the one who suggested that only the former could qualify as an act of terrorism—making motive the key qualifier for determining the nature of the act—as opposed to intent as an element of the crime.  (If you blow up a building and someone dies, under the felony murder rule, you are guilty of murder irrespective of whether you intended to commit a robbery or intended to overthrow the government).

And you have deliberately ignored the core issue—that a so-called “war on terror” is an irrational and ineffective response to the issue of terrorism.  But that’s okay, OM.  I recognized early on that logic is not your strong suit, so I really didn’t expect a coherent response and why your incoherent mumblings about definitions contained in DoD guidelines do not come as a surprise.

“The [DoD] defines it as ‘An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict.’”

So then did the DoD become a terrorist organization when it sought to overthrow the duly constituted government of Iraq by armed conflict?  And why would any thinking individual allow the Pentagon to define reality?

cann4ing- “Motive” and “intent” are two separate concepts.  Motive is the possible why of a crime.  It can be incidental or irrelevant depending on the facts. However, without proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt you have a different crime. In other words, the individual insurgents may each have a different motive for committing the crime.  But the intent to commit the crime(to overthrow a sovereign state) is only one.  If you don’t believe me try reading some law books.  It is after all the method of law that you are espousing as the preferable method in dealing with insurgents.

Now regarding the word “insurgents” and its definition under present international law.

The distinction on whether an uprising is an insurgency or a belligerency has not been as clearly codified as many other areas covered by the internationally accepted laws of war for two reasons. The first is that international law traditionally does not encroach on matters which are solely the internal affairs of a sovereign state (although recent developments such as the responsibility to protect is starting to undermine this traditional approach). The second is because at the Hague Conference of 1899 there was disagreement between the Great Powers who considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture and smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants. The dispute resulted in a compromise wording being included in the Hague Conventions known as the Martens Clause after the diplomat who drafted the clause.[5]

The Third Geneva Convention, as well as the other Geneva Conventions, are oriented to conflict involving nation-states, and only loosely address irregular forces:

“Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements…”[6]

The United States Department of Defense (DOD) defines it as “An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict.” [7] The new United States counterinsurgency Field Manual,[8] proposes a structure that includes both insurgency and counterinsurgency[COIN]. (italics in original)

Insurgency and its tactics are as old as warfare itself. Joint doctrine defines an insurgency as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict.[7] These definitions are a good starting point, but they do not properly highlight a key paradox: though insurgency and COIN are two sides of a phenomenon that has been called revolutionary war or internal war, they are distinctly different types of operations. In addition, insurgency and COIN are included within a broad category of conflict known as irregular warfare.

This definition does not consider the morality of the conflict, or the different viewpoints of the government and the insurgents. It is focused more on the operational aspects of the types of actions taken by the insurgents and the counterinsurgents.

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) definition focuses on the type of violence employed (unlawful) towards specified ends (political, religious or ideological). This characterization fails to address the argument from moral relativity that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” In essence, this objection to a suitable definition submits that while violence may be “unlawful” in accordance with a victim’s statutes, the cause served by those committing the acts may represent a positive good in the eyes of neutral observers.

– Michael F. Morris[9]

OM, you pile one illogical statement upon another.  First, you advance the artificial distinction that makes murder an act of war based on motive—desire to overthrow a government rather than for pecuniary gain.  When that flaw is exposed, you pile on another artificial distinction—McVeigh was a U.S. national—a domestic terrorist who blew up a building killing many individuals—which you apparently believe can appropriately be handled as a federal crime—which is precisely how his case was handled.  You seem to imply, however, that if the same act were carried out by a foreign national, that would make it an act of war.  Where is the logic in that?  Nationality of the Oklahoma City bomber would have been irrelevant to prosecuting the individual under U.S. law for committing crimes that violate U.S. law.

As to international law, the U.S. has, to date, refused to become a signatory of the World Court—if it had, George Bush & Dick Cheney could be brought before the bar of international justice for the state terror campaign they unleashed on Iraq, violating the most fundamental of international laws established by the Nuremberg tribunals—the initiation of a war of aggression.

And, of course, you continue to ignore that waging a “war on terror” is an ineffective and illogical means for responding to the question of “terrorism” that increases rather than decreases the likelihood of future terrorist incidents.

optipessi mist:
’... Please tell me again, “There is a basic gap in Optipessi mist’s logic that arises from an illegitimate distinction.”’

I wouldn’t call it a gap in logic so much as a bad definition which has dubious moral consequences.

You appear to want to define a lot of things as war that other people want to define as crime-and-police-work.  (We don’t seem to have a single noun for the latter but we need one here.)  As I pointed out, war and crime-and-police-work are politically similar.  However, the rules of engagement are different because wars take place between states and state-like entities, which are very powerful compared to individuals and small groups.  In war, one is allowed to kill, maim and terrorize large numbers of innocent non-combatants because, in theory, one has no choice, whereas in police work one is supposed to be careful to avoid harming the innocent.  This is what makes war such exciting fun and police work so dreary; in the former you can blow up buildings and machine-gun people, whereas in the latter the most tedious care must be taken with each act of force.  Most people would not think of hurling 2000 pounds of explosives on a crowded city to deal half a dozen bank robbers or child abusers, but such things are all right if the target is “Serbia” or “Iraq” or perhaps in the present case “Pakistan”.  War is morally excused (by some) because the defenders have no alternative: the whole power of a state has been thrown against them.  But non-state actors, while they can do a lot of damage, don’t fall into the same category, because they simply don’t have the same powers as a state.

Or maybe they do.  This is what you and your fellow believers still need to show—that war is a reasonable, moral and appropriate response to terrorism.  Reciting the horror of individual cases doesn’t get it—we’re discussing the future killing of thousands of more people who have had nothing to do with the terrorism and who will be disposed of verbally as “collateral damage” once the desired war has taken place.

This is to say nothing of the political risks of handing over a permanent war, and all that it excuses, to an executive.

cann4ing

Optipessi mist is suggesting that it is motive that defines whether an act amounts to a crime or an act of war.  His definitional distinction means that if a single individual blows up a building to steal what is inside, the appropriate response entails law enforcement yet if an individual blows up a building with the established aim of overthrowing the government, then the response must be “war.” The short answer to this superficial distinction—Tim McVeigh.

Are you so naive as to believe that the FBI and the military did not gather extensive intelligence on McVeigh prior to his trial?  McVeigh is a US national not a foreign national.  A distinction and its significance lost on those unfamiliar with matters of international law. 

The law is primarily concerned with establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of “intent” as listed by statute and buttressed by centuries of case law.  Not motive. 

But all of that aside

  Then the toddler and the caretaker who rescued him from the terrorist attack boarded a jet along with the bodies of his parents and four other Jews slain at the Chabad House to fly to Israel — a place the curly-haired 2-year-old had never seen.
Tiny Survivor Leaves IndiaAP5 photos   A 2-year-old boy who saw his parents killed in the Mumbai massacre attended a memorial service for them Monday and then flew to Israel with his grandparents. Moshe Holtzberg clutched a toy basketball and wailed for his mommy throughout the service.

“There are going to be thousands of people at this funeral,” Katz said. “This couple wasn’t living in the West Bank. They weren’t settlers. They weren’t occupying anyone’s land. They were killed because they were Jews, simple and plain.”

So now we can add genocide to the crimes of these insurgents. 

Please tell me again,

There is a basic gap in Optipessi mist’s logic that arises from an illegitimate distinction.

Most of this is in the Project for the New Am Century—these ass clowns had it all planned , long before they decided Dubya woudl be a good ass-puppet.

Maybe we need to look back on this—to learn—as the “Rove Administration”. I dont think Dubya was classically stupid—I just think he wanted power—and, as always, with power—more money.. He said, that being a “war president” was the position to be most hoped for as CIC, because it gave him a chance at “greatness” (he actually said some of this stuff—I can try to find it)

We didnt “end up in the wrong country” as some assert. The neo-cons didnt “mess up”. Everything worked just as they had hoped. The only problem they MIGHT have is, fear of the people rising up (nope) or, the next Administration holding them accountable—looks definitely like nope!—-they fear being sued much more than prison.

We need to take their money. Who will do this for us?

The USAns need to sue the Bush family—anyone got a good lawyer? (My brother in law is not a trial lawyer) We had better do it before he GOP backed NEW (and deadlier to class action suits, which are necessaary because the US refuses to regulate sanely) Class Action Lawsuit Reform law is passed and signed!http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/003354.php
This is from 2006:

“In one of his first votes, Obama voted for the eminently sensible Class Action Fairness Act. This hypothetically annoys the litigation lobby (though they can be expected to support Edwards in 2008) and the cast of usual suspects who opposed the bill;...”

Until there is “fair” regulation,(we have almot nothing! Corporations walk all over citizens here, and the whole world knows it!) any attempt to reign in class action is unconscionable. If you arent harming anyone, why would you have anything to fear? That is what supporters of FISA say….

You make a momentous mistake in defining a criminal act as an act of war based on the number of criminal conspirators or the size and scope of the criminal act, Anarcissie.

9/11 produced an intriguing colloquy from a surprising source at Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings.  Senator Lindsey Graham (R.SC):  “Do you believe the attacks on 9/11 against our nation were a crime or an act of war?”  Judge Alito:  “That’s a hard question to answer—“  Graham cut him off, making it clear this was not the answer he was looking for, then asked:  “Do you doubt that our Nation has been in an armed conflict with a terrorist organization since 9/11, that we have been in an undeclared state of war?”  Judge Alito:  “In a lay sense, certainly we have been in a conflict with a terrorist organization.  I am just concerned that in the law all these phrases can have particular meaning….”

While one can analogize “war” and “crime” from a lay perspective, the fundamental distinction between “war” (ordinarily entailing armed conflicts between nation-states, with revolutions and civil wars being noted exceptions) and criminal acts is of fundamental importance within the U.S. Constitutional and legal framework.  The Bush men understood this, which is precisely why they chose the phrase “war on terror.” 

An American president’s power is considered at its zenith in times of war.  While, as recognized by Gen. Odom, waging a “war on terror” is meaningless from a practical standpoint (as is a “war on drugs”) from both its propaganda value and from the maximization of presidential power, a “war on terror” is exceedingly effective precisely because it entails war without end—a permanent restructuring of the U.S. government towards dictatorial presidential power, unchecked by Congress or the Courts.  Alito, the author of Unitary Executive theory, understood this only too well, which is precisely why he evaded Sen. Graham’s question, lest revelation of his true designs prevent his being confirmed.

cann4ing:
Anarcissie—the difference is not merely one of scale.  Optipessi mist is suggesting that it is motive that defines whether an act amounts to a crime or an act of war. ...

I know what O.M. is saying (I think).  I was giving my view.  For me, what we generally call crime is a small-scale political act.  If I am robbed, for example, the robber has imposed a polity on both of us in which he gets to take my stuff.  It’s a little temporary state.  A bigger-deal robber, a mafiosi, might impose the robbery as a permanent condition—“protection money”.  And then there are taxes….  We are right to be especially concerned with those who use violence for ideological or religious ends, like terrorists and statesmen, because they aren’t satisfied with merely taking stuff for personal use, but want to impose their whole world on us.  But if they do not have state backing, then the appropriate response is still police work, not war (unless you consider the work of the police to be a kind of war, which is a possible interpretation).

Anarcissie—the difference is not merely one of scale.  Optipessi mist is suggesting that it is motive that defines whether an act amounts to a crime or an act of war.  His definitional distinction means that if a single individual blows up a building to steal what is inside, the appropriate response entails law enforcement yet if an individual blows up a building with the established aim of overthrowing the government, then the response must be “war.”  The short answer to this superficial distinction—Tim McVeigh.

There is a basic gap in Optipessi mist’s logic that arises from an illegitimate distinction.

optipessi mist:’... It is one thing for an armed criminal(s) to commit illegal acts for personal gain, revenge, etc. It is quite another for armed men to commit illegal acts in order to overthrow a sovereign state, and state in no uncertain terms that this is their aim.  The former requires police action.  The latter requires armed conflict to defeat an enemy of the state.  One is an illegal act against persons or property.  The other is an ilegal act against a people’s freedom.  Two completely different acts. ...’

On the contrary, there is no distinction except one of scale.  Personal crime is an invasion of one’s personal rights; aggressive war on a state level is the same thing on a state level.  Conventional war is necessary if one’s community is attacked by the entire machinery of another state.  Terrorism is usually defined as state-like acts of hostility by non-state actors.  Since the terrorists are not backed by a state, there is no other state to attack as in conventional war. (If there is, then one is not dealing with terrorism as usually defined but acts of conventional war.)  Instead, they have to be suppressed by appropriate means, that is—on the level of what is usually defined as terrorism—police work.  I know police work isn’t as glamorous as full-blown war, but that’s show biz.

A couple more points, my pessimistic friend, since when does the law enforcement entail merely “directing” armed men to the nearest court of law?  If a couple of guys stage an armed bank robbery and are then confronted by a SWAT team as they attempt to flee, the police don’t handle the situation by saying, “Gentlemen, please turn yourselves in at the nearest court.”  They say, “Freeze!  Drop your weapons!” And if the perps fail to heed the command, or if they try to fire, the police shoot the perps right on the spot!

How does “motive” (political vs. monetary gain) alter the character of the crime committed?  Murder is murder whether carried out as part of a robbery, sexual assault or for political purposes.

Logic doesn’t appear to be one of your greater strengths.

Short-sighted stupidity?  How’s that “war on terror” of yours working out after 8 years?  Is there less terror in the world today than there was on 9/11/01? (Hint—even our own NIE reveals a greater global threat from terrorism today than in 2001).  The same Afghan Mujahideen that Ronald Reagan once referred to as “freedom fighters” and who were supplied with U.S. made Stinger missiles by the CIA morphed into al Qaeda.  Assuming 9/11 was not, at least in part, an inside job, it was a case of blow back for U.S. imperialism and our military presence in other countries.  Do you really think invading other peoples’ countries, resulting in massive civilian deaths, is going to “reduce” the threat of terrorism, especially when it is our very presence on those countries that gave rise to it?

Your argument that international tribunals do not work in times of war assumes that 9/11 was an act of war rather than a crime.  You reveal yourself incapable of thinking outside the “war on terror” frame—a frame that envisions a perpetual war that never ends, thereby justifying, in your tiny mind, the end of the rule of law—which is precisely the illogic applied by the Bush men to justify torture, extraordinary rendition and the assault on our separation of powers.

Apply the word “terrorists” and the uninformed, like you, are so badly shaken they lose the ability to think.  You hear the word “terrorist” and it conjures in your mind an amorphous threat that is everywhere and anywhere at all times—the perfect “enemy” for the wealthy elites to justify endless military expenditures even though those military expenditures, in reality, make the world less safe—not more safe.

The word “terrorism” is often used by those in the position of power as a substitute for the more accurate description of the tactic of guerrilla warfare—the classic tactic of the weaker opponent against entrenched government forces.  The Nazis described the resistance fighters throughout occupied Europe as “terrorists.” (Others would refer to them as patriots).  Franco’s fascists applied it to the remnants of Republican Spain who continued the fight after Franco, with Nazi assistance, seized control of Spain.  The Israelis use the same word to describe any armed resistance in the illegally occupied West Bank & Gaza.  What you do not hear is the word “terror” used to describe the wholesale slaughter of thousands of civilians during the second assault that nearly wiped away Falluja, a town the size of Cincinnati.

No, optipessi mist, war is not the answer.  Genuine international cooperation, an end to U.S. imperial aggression and the application of the rule of law (which may require an armed international police action in which the armed criminals who carry out act of terror are killed our captured) is the answer.

cann4ing-

The short-sigted stupidity is in your thinking that when facing men armed with weapons of violence(guns and bombs) we should direct them to the nearest court to face justice.  What do you suggest we use, harsh words, as they shoot us down in the street.  Maybe you should ask the survivors in Mumbai.  Or the families of those who died on 9/11.

It is one thing for an armed criminal(s) to commit illegal acts for personal gain, revenge, etc. It is quite another for armed men to commit illegal acts in order to overthrow a sovereign state, and state in no uncertain terms that this is their aim.  The former requires police action.  The latter requires armed conflict to defeat an enemy of the state.  One is an illegal act against persons or property.  The other is an ilegal act against a people’s freedom.  Two completely different acts.

In conditions of conventional war , the time for international war crimes tribunals is after the enemy has been defeated.  Jeopardizing the security of a sovereign government and critical intelligence gathering by conducting them through a judicial process designed for times of peace is irresponsible.  It is too slow and cumbersome when matters of national security are involved.  It is designed to bend over backwards to protect the rights of the accused citizen of a country. Not hostile foreign nationals who do not recognize that country’s judicial process as legitimate or having jurisdiction over them.  Their acts against persons and property are designed to overthrow a sovereign government. That places them in a completely different category, outside the everyday criminal due process system. 

In the case of terrorists acts to overthrow a sovereign government the war crimes cases would of necessity extend any time deadline for speedy trial.  Issues of national security and intelligence gathering outweigh that right.

Finally, all of us have had to give up some of our personal right to privacy, etc. due to these acts of terrorism.  Our freedoms have been impaired.  So in some way these organized individuals have won a small victory.  This is a violent strategy of attrition that we cannot afford to lose.  Example, if you place a frog in boiling water it will jump out.  If you place it in room temperature water it will stay there as the temperature is slowly brought to boiling, and it will die.

By optipessi mist, November 26 at 3:11 pm #

Chris- buddy Just two words Mumbai, India
__________________________

Short-sighted stupidity.  The question is not whether either 9/11 or Mumbai involve “acts of terrorism” but whether a “war on terrorism” is either an effective or even a logical response to what amounts to crimes—especially heinous crimes but crimes nonetheless.

The Bush regime’s so-called “war on terror” merely created new generations of terrorists.  As Gen. Wm. Odom (U.S. Army-ret.) astutely observed, “Terrorism is not an enemy.  It cannot be defeated.  It’s a tactic.  It’s about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we’re going to win that war.  We are not going to win a war on terrorism.  And it does whip up fear.  Acts of terror have never brought down liberal democracies.  Acts of parliament have closed a few.”

As I noted earlier, the appropriate response to both 9/11 and now Mumbai is not “war” (or torture) whether waged in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, but a coordinated, international application of the rule of law.  Those engaging in “acts” of terrorism must be brought before the bar of an international tribunal.

Finally, while the killing of innocent civilians in Mumbai is despicable, so too is the killing of innocent civilians by American-made bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza where the Israelis are engaged in a form of collective punishment.  Violence begets more violence.

Chris- buddy Just two words Mumbai, India

Joseph, your critique is misplaced.  The topic addressed by Chris Hedges entails “U.S.” imperialism and the military-industrial complex.  These are issues that predate the very creation of the state of Israel.  While it is perfectly valid to provide critical analysis of Israel, AIPAC and Zionism, there is no obligation to mention it in “every” article dealing with imperialism and the U.S. military-industrial complex—unless that is, you are anti-Semitic and are incapable of accepting “any” analysis that does not include some secret Jewish conspiracy. 

Believe it or not, there are many, many occasions in which the U.S. has engaged in military conquest, both covert and overt, over the past sixty years that have had absolutely “nothing” to do with Israel, AIPAC or Zionism.

Kdelphi,

I didn’t wish for it.  It was just a reaction.  In real life I wish for the opposite.  I would never join the military.

By robertsgt40, November 24 at 10:10 am #

You were doing pretty good til page two when you mention our problem with terrorism.  In fact the terrorists are inside the gates.  No nation can withstand treason from within.
________________________

By “terrorists…inside the gates” are you referring to George W. Bush & Dick Cheney?  Or are you asking that we surrender our civil liberties, turn the national treasury over to the weapons manufacturers and risk nuclear Armageddon on the “possibility” of some sleeper cell existing somewhere, everywhere?  Ooh, we should be scared!  There’s a terrorist behind every rock.  Surrender your freedoms to the neocons.  After all they know what’s best for us.

You were doing pretty good til page two when you mention our problem with terrorism.  In fact the terrorists are inside the gates.  No nation can withstand treason from within.

Sodium—Very well thought out, researched, and, best of all empathetic, arguments.

If you will look at my post again, I am obviously a “fan” of Hedges, and simply would not have lavished quite as much priase on this particular article. I agree with most of what you say about him. I have been following him for years, also.

I never fail to learn something, to feel, mostly,  that I have been “understood” , on some level, and, he always sparks great discussion—look at the thread!

Otherwise—thanks for the research, while still maintaining heart. Hedges may be brought to task by some for the first (alot of his work is not really amenable to statistical analysis, anyway), but hardly ever for the last. He most certainly DOES give a rat’s butt!