"That isn't an ideology . . . "
Charles Paul Freund | July 7, 2005, 11:30am
London Mayor Ken Livingstone, speaking in Singapore where he had been working in support of London's successful Olympics bid, said of the attacks in his city that, "This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty or the powerful, it is not aimed at presidents or prime ministers, it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners.
"That isn't an ideology," he said, "it isn't even a perverted faith, it's mass murder."
"Black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindus and Jews, young and old," the bombings were an "indiscriminate attempt to slaughter irrespective of any considerations for age, class, [or] religion . . . "
Livingstone sees the "objective" of the attacks as "to divide London."
Peter K. | July 7, 2005, 12:25pm | #
Well at least Sullivan is better than Juan Cole who turns to Mike "renditions work" Scheuer:
"I heard Michael Scheuer, the former CIA Bin Laden analyst, a couple of times this morning, once on NPR's Morning Edition and once on the Diane Rehm show. I thought his comments compelling.
He found the statement issued by a "secret jihad" web site similar in form and content to typical al-Qaeda communiques, including the threats against other countries (Italy and Denmark). He was sure this was an al-Qaeda operation.
He noted that Bin Laden had called off any ceasefire and had several times threatened to hit the United Kingdom.
He said that "chickens were coming home to roost" for US and UK politicians who had obscured the nature of the al-Qaeda struggle by maintaining that the organization attacks the West because "they hate our values."
Scheuer believes that al-Qaeda is an insurgent ideology focused on destroying the United States and its allies, because its members believe that the US is trying to destroy them. Al-Qaeda members see the Israeli occupation and oppression of the Palestinians, backed by the US; US support for military regimes like those of Pakistan and Egypt; and US military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence of a US onslaught on Islam and Muslims aimed at reducing them to neo-colonial slavery. That is, specific Western policies are the focus of al-Qaeda response, not a generalized "hatred" of "values."
Scheuer opposes any attempt to configure the struggle against al-Qaeda as simple crime-fighting. He believes that they must be addressed through a thorough-going counter-insurgency effort.
All of this seemed sensible to me, and more sensible than most other analysts I heard."
http://www.juancole.com/
This isn't exactly blame the vicitims, but the victims may have voted for the politicians who are misrepresenting al Qaeda's grievances ... according to Cole and Sheuer. So perhaps according to Cole the victims are partially to blame. This is worse than Sullivan saying Galloway is a terrorist, if he in fact said that.
David T | July 7, 2005, 12:59pm | #
My own favorite reaction, from http://www.lnreview.co.uk/news/005167.php
A Letter To The Terrorists, From London
July 07, 2005
What the fuck do you think you're doing?
This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us.
Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you're trying to do, it's not going to work.
All you've done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don't get rewarded for this kind of crap.
And if, your MO indicates, you're an al-Qaeda group, then you're out of your tiny minds.
Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we've got news for you. We don't much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We'll deal with that ourselves. We're London, and we've got our own way of doing things, and it doesn't involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.
And that's because we're better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub.
So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city.
Mark Bahner | July 7, 2005, 9:33pm | #
"Mark Bahner, it seems to me that you're overlooking some aspects - namely, that the ultimate objectives are political (in the case of war and terrorism, i.e. they're trying to get us out of the middle east and to adopt Islamic law) rather than personal (in the case of run-of-the-mill crime, in which the objective is some satisfaction or material gain to the perpetrator - gains the terrorists may get - but without political implications for the rest of us)."
No, I don't think I'm overlooking anything in this case.
Look at Timothy McVeigh. His goal was...well, who really cares? But his goal was definitely *political.* He CONSIDERED himself to be "at war" with the U.S. government. Did that MAKE him "at war" with the U.S. government? No, it didn't. His pretensions don't matter. The Constitution (and treaties such as the Geneva Conventions) don't recognize him as anything more than a criminal.
The same could be said for the Symbionese Liberation Army. The may have CONSIDERED themselves as "soldiers" and their goals were political. But they were just criminals.
Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth had political motives, for that matter. That didn't turn them into soldiers.
"Likewise, bin Laden wants to tell us where we can and cannot send our military and he also wants to impose his Islamic doctrine on the people of the United States (see my comments here, namely where I quote from bin Laden's writing about 4/5ths of the way down the comments)."
Yes, I agree those are bin Laden's motives. And if he should ever get control of a government, then the U.S. Constitution would recognize his government as being at war with the U.S. government. Until then, he and his followers are criminals. They are NOT soldiers, and they deserve none of the protections that treaties such as the Geneva Conventions afford them.
"That's what makes this a war, against a new but nonetheless political enemy,..."
No, the Constitution and treaties such as the Geneva Conventions don't recognize people who are not affiliated with governments as "soldiers" who can be "at war"...anymore than the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Red Army Fraction (aka the Baader-Meinhof gang) were "soliders" at "war."
Mark Bahner | July 7, 2005, 10:49pm | #
"I'd be interested to hear where exactly the Constitution has a definition of who is and isn't a soldier, and what is and isn't a war. I'll wait."
OK. But I also wrote that treaties such as the Geneva Conventions define who is and is not a soldier, under U.S. law. (Remember, the Constitution says both the Constitution and treaties constitute the Supreme Law of the Land.)
Let's start with the fact that the Constitution only authorizes wars that are first declared by Congress:
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Now, is it at all logical that the Founding Fathers had in mind that the Congress could declare a war that:
a) was against "Islamic terrorists" anywhere in the world (i.e., "There are some terrorists living next door to Tony Blair...let's bomb 'em"?), or
b) would last forever? (Think about it...the "war on terrorism" will absolutely NEVER end, because there will always be terrorism. That's unlike any war with a government, which ends when the government is overthrown.)
Now, let's turn to the Fifth Amendment, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
If the U.S. can be "at war" with terrorists who are not affiliated with any government, does that mean that anyone who the U.S. government thinks is a terrorist does not have a fifth amendment right not to be deprived of life without due process of law?
For example, suppose the U.S. government thinks there was someone who helped plan the September 11 attack, who is now living in Detroit. Can the U.S. government blow up their house, because we are "at war" with terrorists?
But the Geneva Conventions have much more clear definitions of who is and who is not a person who is protected by the Geneva Conventions. First, the person must belong to one of the signatories of the Geneva Conventions (which were governments, not private individuals). The person must wear a uniform or some insignia that identifies them as soldiers. They must report to an established chain of command. Al Qaeda was not a signatory; they don't wear insignia; they don't have an established chain of command. In short, they don't meet any of the characteristics that afford them protections under the Geneva Conventions.
They're criminals, not soldiers.
Mark Bahner | July 8, 2005, 12:18pm | #
Steve writes, "OK, Mark, we get your point. But you're arguing semantics, and you're arguing a tautology -- a war is a fight between states, sez the dictionary (or sez Mark Bahner). Therefore, we can't be at war against Al Qaeda."
I'm not arguing a "tautology". (A "tautology" is a silly statement that's true by definition, such as "triangles have three sides.")
I'm arguing from simple logic. Since the Constitution says that wars can only happen after Congress declares them:
1) Is it logical that the Founding Fathers ever intended Congress to make a declaration of war such as, "We are now at war against Islamic terrorists anywhere in the world...no matter which country in which they reside?", or
2) That Congress would ever be able to declare a war that will NEVER end? (That's the absolutely inescapable conclusion of the concept that we can be at war with "Islamic terrorists," because there will ALWAYS be "Islamic terrorists.")
Steve continues, "I don't see WHY it is automatically inappropriate to respond militarily against non-state actors."
It is automatically inappropriate because it violates our most basic legal structure. If the U.S. government thinks there is someone in another country who is in some way involved in a crime, the U.S. government, under U.S. law, should go to the GOVERNMENT of that country to deal with the person. The U.S. government should demand that the other GOVERMENT find the person and extradite him.
There is absolutely nothing in our law that supports the idea that the President can direct the military to "take out" someone in another country who the President suspects of being a terrorist, because: 1) Congress hasn't declared war, and the President can't constitutionally wage war without a Congressional declaration, and 2) it violates the very fundamental legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty."
Let me give a concrete example. After 9/11, many people--including many libertarians!--said that we should go into Afghanistan and just "take out" Osama bin Laden...but leave the Taliban government in place.
I say that is the exact OPPOSITE of what is supported by U.S. law! The ONLY action supported by U.S. law, if the Taliban knew where Osama bin Laden was but refused to turn him over, was to declare war on the Taliban government and take THEM out. (And to put in place, or allow to be elected, some government that either could find Osama bin Laden and arrest him, or would be willing to help us look for him.)
Or let me give an even BETTER concrete example: after the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Bill Clinton "took out" a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan (killing one man in the process, and possibly killing hundreds or thousands due to lack of medicines). That was an absolutely BLATANT violation of U.S. law. He had no Congressional declaration of war. There was clearly NO "clear and present danger," because it was a pharmaceutical plant. (And even if it HAD been a chemical weapons precursors plant, he had allowed it to operate for many, many months before he destroyed it, so it clearly could NOT have been a clear and present danger.)
Steve continues, "And your appeals to the Geneva Conventions aren't helping. The Conventions state that terrorists aren't entitled to the protections that soldiers are."
Yes, Steve, that is exactly my point. SOLDIERS are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists-people who do not wear insignias, who don't report to an established chain of command, and perhaps most importantly, who are NOT signatories of the Conventions--are NOT protected by the Geneva Conventions. No non-state actors were signatories of the Geneva Conventions, so non-state actors can NEVER be protected by the Geneva Conventions (except as civilians).
If you or anyone else wants us to be "at war" with terrorists, then the terrorists become enemy "soldiers." We do NOT want them to be "soldiers." We want them to be what they truly are...criminals.
The MISperception that we are "at war" with terrorists makes us LESS safe...because: 1) it elevates the terrorists to a status they do NOT deserve, and 2) it lets the GOVERNMENTS in the countries in which the terrorists reside "off the hook."
This is precisely what Israel has done wrong with the Palestinian Authority (PA). Israel has conducted extrajudicial executions of "terrorists," in contravention of very basic law. Meanwhile, they did NOT "take out" Yasser Arafat, when he was running the PA. So Yasser Arafat (and everyone else in the PA) had NO incentive to stop the terrorists within their midst. In fact, the PA had an incentive to actually HELP the terrorists, because that made the PA look like heroes in the eyes of their people.
We want the U.S. government to deal with other governments. We do not want the U.S. government to deal with private individuals in other countries. And we definitely don't want private individuals in other countries to deal with us! (Unless it's for pleasant reasons!)
