Journal Roblimo's Journal: Fighting Terrorism is Law Enforcement, Not War 6
Right now, most terrorists worldwide are Muslims. Not that long ago, the biggest terrorist scourge was the Irish Republican Army. Japan and Chine have had terrorist incidents unrelated to either of these, and the U.S. has had its share of home-grown Christian and right-wing political terrorists in the past few decades, and once suffered a spate of terrorist activities by left-wingers.
The problem with talking about Islamic terrorists as if every Muslim in the world wants to kill all Americans is that this simply isn't true. One nut-case Muslim U.S. Army officer killing fellow soldiers is no indication that all Muslim soldiers are disloyal or murderous any more than Timothy McVeigh's actions meant that all disgruntled white Christian veterans were potential federal building bombers or that every bearded environmentalist was a potential Unabomber.
We have seen people convicted of statutory rape who claim they were not criminals because they were following Mormon doctrine, but most Mormons, including all the Mormons I've ever known personally, are law-abiding citizens.
War is, by definition, something you fight against an entire group or class of people, usually one that calls itself a "country" or "nation." Law enforcement is the art of finding the bad people within a country or group and targeting them -- and them only -- for punishment.
I have met plenty of peaceful, hospitable Muslims both here and abroad. I have met plenty of peaceful, non-murderous anti-abortion activists, plenty of peaceful, albeit disgruntled, veterans, and plenty of peaceful Christians. I've met Jews who didn't want to kill or oppress every Palestinian, and I've known Palestinians who didn't want to kill Jews.
Whether in the U.S. or Afghanistan, most people pretty much want to get through the day without trouble. Very few of us, no matter what our religious or political beliefs, have any desire to massacre our coworkers, neighbors or even the people down the street who play their music too loud when we're trying to sleep.
I'd like to point out that the military strategy proposed by most of our smarter generals for Afghanistan is essentially law enforcement, not war in the traditional sense. They advocated rooting out and killing or arresting the nasty people there, while turning the rest of the population into law-abiding citizens -- once they have well-enforced laws by which to abide.
This was the strategy behind the famous "surge" in Iraq, and it seemed to work better than any previous strategies we tried there. Yelling, "All Muslims are evil! Kill them!" may be good for talk-radio ratings, but it's no way to get Muslims to stop being terrorists. If anything, it has the opposite effect.
Muslim terrorists on trial? In public? In New York? Excellent! This may be crappy military strategy, but it's great law enforcement strategy and great PR, because it shows the rest of the world how we decide who is a criminal and who isn't, thereby giving the lie to every statement by a radical Islamist that "America is at war with all Muslims."
Our system of law enforcement is flawed in many ways, but it is far better, fairer, and more effective than its counterparts in most dictatorships. We need to let the rest of the world see it in action.
Of course, after the wheels of justice have turned, we ought to execute the lawbreakers who have attacked our country and our fellow citizens. This, too, is fair. I am not advocating appeasement or surrender here. Rather, I am advocating liberty and justice for all, a traditional American set of ideals we sometimes forget to practice in the heat of the moment.
----------------------------------------------------------
See more of my writing and videos at roblimo.com
Need a snazzy promo or instructional video? Check out my screencast samples.
WRONG! (Score:1, Flamebait)
The problem with talking about Islamic terrorists as if every Muslim in the world wants to kill all Americans is that this simply isn't true.
The problem with your explanation of the problem is that it's a straw man fallacy, because almost no one talks about Islamic terrorism like that.
War is, by definition, something you fight against an entire group or class of people
Yes, a class of people: radical Islamists. Not Muslims, but radicals who DO want to kill all, or at least many, infidels.
usually one that calls itself a "country" or "nation"
There's no reason it has to be any such thing.
Law enforcement is the art of finding the bad people within a country or group and targeting them -- and them only -- for punishment.
So you're saying we should not seek out radical Islamists who want to kill us, who are aiding other radical Islamists who do try to kill us, if we don't have evidence that can be used in a criminal t
Your title assertion would only be true... (Score:1)
Given border, war follows.
Your attempt to conflate two traditionally separated bodies of law is indicative of confusion.
You might as well preach "intellectual property".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The point I was getting at is the clear, historical dichotomy of diplomacy/policy/war verses internal law cases.
If a country is an organism, the border is the skin. I feel these utopians reject that internal/external dichotomy at our peril. If it was only their own hide at stake, it would be less worrisome.
Re: (Score:2)
So why weren't all the pilots and sailors hunted down, read their rights and carted off to Hawaii after bombing Hawaii in 1941?
There are problems with your statement. The top two (in no particular order) are: (1) It is absolute. (2) It is inaccurate.
Example:
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
War is generally reserved - or was, until Bush decided to use it for law enforcement - for dealing with governments that attack us
Shrug. It's all semantics. Technically, "war" is purely political, and the physical form it takes is a separate issue, and we never declared war under Bush.
War always results in the deaths of innocents
So does "law enforcement," when used against significant terrorist groups like al Qaeda.
and is generally only useful because it attacks on people in a nation undermine that nation's government
Or to prevent them from attacking you or your allies again.
a situation that is reversed when it comes to terrorists, who tend to be strengthened by attacks on the people they claim to fight for.
Irrelevant. Everyone knew that terrorism would increase in the short term after the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. The only question was -- and is -- about the long term, and we still don't know.
We have no more reason to throw away our system of justice ...
That never