# Is Common Wisdom post 9-11 Actually 'Wise'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 26, 2002, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660 "2002-08-26T18:16:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2002, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/21 "2002-08-26T22:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\*Discussion (_not_ exclusive focus) on past policy is not only appropriate but necessary. \*\* Maybe, but it’s apt to turn into a pissing match IMHO. If a discussion of past policy errors includes errors of _omission_ as well as errors of _commission_, then we have opened Pandora’s Box. Maybe our key past policy error was Clinton’s failure to pursue war more vigorously. Maybe it was Bush’s (and the UN’s and Congress’s) failure to overthrow Saddam miltarily in 1991. Or, maybe the problem is EU support for Arafat. Or, maybe al Qaeda learned to hate America by listening to the “hate-America” leftists. Or, maybe anything. I don’t see much value in re-fighting yesterday’s internal battles. It’s hard enough to figure out what we need to do going forward and reach agreement on actions. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2002, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/22 "2002-08-26T22:37:18Z")
> [@](#): > > _from **Jackmannii** :_ > Unfortunately, the OP raises a straw man… > > …there are no cites to back up the OP’s claim. **xenophon** “invites all who believe in the proscription of certain subjects” (ostensibly his opponents) to respond. But in the linked Pit thread that’s got him upset, Milo and others (including me) were concerned about _selective limitation_ of discussion about 9/11. And when it was demonstrated to you that no such limitation was being imposed by the NEA I didn’t notice that it made any difference in your argument. But that’s the other thread. Please fight that battle where it’s being waged. > [@](#): > > It is also grotesquely strawman-esque to ask wonderingly why it is wrong to condemn bigotry against and scapegoating of Muslim-Americans. I invite the OP to find any Administration spokesman or supporters who have called for bigoted acts against Muslim-Americans. Fallacy of [Complex Question](http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/cq.htm). Please demonstrate, **Jackmannii** , how my observation that calls against discrimination have been characterized as “inappropriate” necessarily implies the reverse? I only have to show where condemnation of bigotry has been popularly portrayed as “inappropriate”. Ample evidence is found in the Pit thread, to which I linked. > [@](#): > > (the N.E.A. is actually being criticized for the proposal on its website that classroom discussions omit mention of any group or country having responsibility for the 9/11 terrorist attacks). Incorrect, as amply demonstrated in the linked thread. > [@](#): > > In the absence of convincing evidence that there is some sort of mass effort by Administration supporters to stifle discussion and brand opponents as traitors… Strawman. > [@](#): > > …I’ll add this observation: with the exception of isolated extreme voices on either side of the political spectrum (and the regrettable performance of John Ashcroft before Congress), there has been remarkably little demonizing… Yes, except for where it’s occured, it hasn’t occurred. Thank you. I disagree that these occurrences have been “isolated”. However, I acknowledge that the burden is on me to produce evidence that demonization occurs more than sporadically. (Thanks, by the way, for the Ashcroft mention. Do you consider our Att’y Gen’l an “isolated extreme voice”?) I’ll attempt to do so as the discussion continues. I expect many examples can be found within this message board (a public forum) and the editorial pages of the country’s daily newspapers. > [@](#): > > And to paraphrase someone I quoted in the other thread, despite the conviction by a few elements on the Left that there is a vast, repressive Jingoistic Patriotic Reserve just under the surface waiting to be tapped, there is no phantom menace confronting those who speak Inconvenient Truths. Strawman again. (Are you sure you understand what that term means? Here’s a [link](http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm).) _Popular disapproval_ of inconvenient truths hardly equates to some sort of organized Thought Suppression. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2002, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/23 "2002-08-26T22:40:32Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s hard enough to figure out what we need to do going forward and reach agreement on actions. YMMV. MMV. We have 200+ years of our own foreign policy experience (and the entirety of recorded history) to learn from. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2002, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/24 "2002-08-26T22:41:48Z")
> [@](#): > > I commend your tolerant and reasonable request from Gobear for cites as to the “leftist refrain”. A lesser man might have responded along the lines of “OK, you rabid little war-monger, put up or shut up!” To your credit, you are above such hi, just a note. I, like any sensible person, oppose war , especially the war on Iraq the Bush administration seems determined to foment. The action in Afghansitan was a failed attempt to apprehend the organizers of 9/11 and punish the oppressive government that sheltered them. You may weep for the Taliban regime, but I do not. I further think that the Bush administration is shirking its obligation to frepair the damage it caused in Afghanistan and help the Afghan people rebuild their shattered nation. But I am not a “rabid little warmonger,” and I’d be obliged to you if you would insult me more accurately, if you really feel the need. And as has been noted, I may disagree with the OP, but I’d like to think it’s a friendly disagreement. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2002, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/25 "2002-08-26T23:32:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > **Fallacy of [Complex Question](http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/cq.htm). Please demonstrate, Jackmannii, how my observation that calls against discrimination have been characterized as “inappropriate” necessarily implies the reverse? I only have to show where condemnation of bigotry has been popularly portrayed as “inappropriate”. Ample evidence is found in the Pit thread, to which I linked.** So where, oh where, have calls against discrimination been characterized as inappropriate, in the Pit thread? Cite me an example. Who in general has said that it is wrong to fight discrimination against Arab-Americans? Any of your opponents on the SDMB? The Bush Administration? Nasty pundits? I suggest you stop raising this strawman, or imaginary threat if you prefer.\*\* > [@](#): > > I acknowledge that the burden is on me to produce evidence that demonization occurs more than sporadically…I’ll attempt to do so as the discussion continues. I expect many examples can be found within this message board (a public forum) and the editorial pages of the country’s daily newspapers.\*\* Please do so. And demonstrate that “demonization” or “proscription” of certain subjects doesn’t just mean that you face potential criticism for your opinions on them. I suggest that it is just as wrong to intimate that one’s opponents on the subject of 9/11 policy are bigots or mindless jingoists, as it is to insult the patriotism of those who question government policy. Thankfully, people who do such things seem to be in a tiny minority. As to the latter, you’ve yet to provide evidence to make your case. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2002, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/26 "2002-08-26T23:32:25Z")
You only get the one apology. More than that would be put me at risk of internal hemorrage. As for my “weeping for the Taliban” shall we gloss that over lightly? In the spirit of civility, and all? Save for that, I am in entire agreement with your first paragraph. But as I cast my mind back, I recall Our Churchill’s speech. You remember the one, where a roomful of rich white men got more aroebic excercise in one hour of standing ovations than in the previous year. Remember that speech? Remember the glow on his face as he basked in unmitigated approval? How the pauses were built in to the speech to allow sufficient time for the gutless sycophants who comprise our legislature to be televised in thier wholehearted support of WAR! WAR! WAR! Did you hear any grave doubts? Any hint of regret that innocent lives were to be put at risk? Any sense of reluctance, of having exhausted every possible recourse? 'Cause I sure didn’t. BTW, I commend your gradual movement towards the side of Light and Reason. Naturally, I credit the clarity of my arguments as the impulse to your enlightenment. Either that, or you have a new squeeze who walks the Path of Truth, and won’t put up with any crap. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2002, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/27 "2002-08-26T23:47:28Z")
> [@](#): > > BTW, I commend your gradual movement towards the side of Light and Reason. Naturally, I credit the clarity of my arguments as the impulse to your enlightenment. Either that, or you have a new squeeze who walks the Path of Truth, and won’t put up with any crap. Or that there are more than two choices on a philosophical spectrum–Searching for Osama was justified and I stand by our actions in Afghanistan even as I deplore the impending war in Iraq. And if you think you are the path of Light and Reason, I suggest that you and **December** are soulmates under the skin. I’m just a mortal, and I just try to figure out events as best I can. I’ll leave the Light, Reason, and Truth to your Olympian self. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/28 "2002-08-27T00:17:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > This is what everyone is saying, but I can’t find any bulleted reasoning to support the “new type of warfare” assertion. I’m hoping someone, hopefully well versed in international law and/or military strategy, can explain to me why al Qaeda specifically and terrorism in general requires any type of “warfare” versus cooperative police work (including, as I mentioned before, military action where appropriate). The actions of a-Q don’t “require” anything. ‘Warfare’ is purely a unilateral and arbitrary designation by the president enabling him to proclaim a ‘national emergency’ and invoke special powers. It’s a device he’s chosen to utilise in order to take the detainees out of the criminal justice system (they were outside Geneva anyway). I found this interesting,[I’d recommend this article](http://www.firstliberties.com/enemy_combatants.html)as: One – It highlights the arbitrarily nature of the (currently designated) legal status of current detainees and, perhaps, illuminates your question, and Two - it seems to present the problems in a balanced manner. Example quote: “An indelicate balance now exists between the precepts of the Constitution and victory in the war on terror. When we talk about constitutional protections during wartime, it is important to distinguish three categories of action: crimes, acts of war and illegal acts of war.” FWIW, I’ve looked at this at some length and everything points back to Congress having to address the coach and horses gaps revealed to exist as between the constitutional relationships of the Executive Branch, the Law and Congress. In short, you’re in uncharted territory with these ‘illegal combatants’ and Bush can do as he wishes until it’s addressed, unless the Courts intervene of Congress enacts relevant legislation. Why are you in uncharted territory ? – because the precedents all deal with conventional warfare: From the horses mouth [(the Office of Legal Counsel):](http://www.icasinc.org/w2002/w2002jcy.html) “It (9/11) was also an unprecedented event for constitutional lawyers. As the President’s and the Attorney General’s advisors on questions of constitutional law, OLC has been called upon repeatedly, in recent weeks, to answer legal questions that, in earlier times, had been asked primarily by academic, and only for hypothetical reasons. Unfortunately, those questions are hypothetical no more.” It’s the blind leading the blind becuase the president has chosen to follow this course of action not because the prisoners \*have \* to be treated in this manner. [Further reading from the Cato Institute:](http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-358es.html): "Unfortunately, the Constitution defines presidential powers very generally; and nowhere does it define, much less limit, the power of a president to rule by executive order—except by reference to that general language and the larger structure and function of the Constitution. The issue is especially acute when presidents use executive orders to legislate, for then they usurp the powers of Congress or the states, raising fundamental concerns about the separation and division of powers. The problem of presidential usurpation of legislative power has been with us from the beginning, but it has grown exponentially with the expansion of government in the 20th century. In enacting program after program, Congress has delegated more and more power to the executive branch. Thus, Congress has not only failed to check but has actually abetted the expansion of presidential power. And the courts have been all but absent in restraining presidential lawmaking." ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/29 "2002-08-27T00:19:03Z")
xeno says: > [@](#): > > This is what everyone is saying, but I can’t find any bulleted reasoning to support the “new type of warfare” assertion. I’m hoping someone, hopefully well versed in international law and/or military strategy, can explain to me why al Qaeda specifically and terrorism in general requires any type of “warfare” versus cooperative police work (including, as I mentioned before, military action where appropriate). Well, I don’t know if I’m “well-versed” in international law and/or military strategy, but I can try to give you an answer. There are essentially two kinds of “conventional” action we can take here. One would be to declare good ol’ fashioned war on… umm… Hmm. On who? We don’t have a nation that we can declare war _on_. In the beginning, we could kind of argue that we were declaring war on Afghanistan, but that wasn’t entirely accurate, because aside from the existence of Al-Qaeda there, we really didn’t give a fig about Afghanistan. We cared about the terrorists that lived there, and we cared about the regime that supported them. The Taliban wasn’t about to hand over Bin Laden, or cooperate in any way, so we took them out, and installed a friendly government that would allow us better clean out the remnants of terrorist cells. So now what? Well, I guess we could rely on the police force that you mention. Oh, wait, there’s a problem, though. The places where terrorists like to hang out tend to be places that don’t really like the US. Places like Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and so on. Do you think if we asked Saddam really nicely to please kick out the terrorists, he would comply? We kind of have the cooperation of places like Pakistan, but Pakistan lacks the facilities to adequately monitor it’s own country. So police work is out, which brings us back to conventional war. But against who? Surely you don’t suggest that we just declare war on, say, Syria? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Pakistan? We need something new here. Something that isn’t quite normal war, something that isn’t quite police work. Something that’s sometimes one, sometimes the other, as appropriate. Also a problem is what to do with these terrorists once we find them. They’re not really criminals in the normal sense. As far as they’re concerned, they’re at war with us, and their MO is to kill as many civilians as possible. But they’re not really normal combatants, either, as they represent no nation. They commit war crimes, too - the blatant targeting of civilians - that keep them from being normal, lawful combatants. They don’t really fit into our court system, but they don’t fit into the Geneva Convention either. And they can’t (or won’t) really surrender, either. Terrorism as a whole will never “give up” - there are no concrete specifications that tell us when we’re “done” here. They’re a new breed of bad guy. They’re like a band of James Bond supervillains. **December** is right - we need a new list of rules to handle these guys. elucator proclaimeth: > [@](#): > > But as I cast my mind back, I recall Our Churchill’s speech. You remember the one, where a roomful of rich white men got more aroebic excercise in one hour of standing ovations than in the previous year. Remember that speech? Remember the glow on his face as he basked in unmitigated approval? How the pauses were built in to the speech to allow sufficient time for the gutless sycophants who comprise our legislature to be televised in thier wholehearted support of WAR! WAR! WAR! > > Did you hear any grave doubts? Any hint of regret that innocent lives were to be put at risk? Any sense of reluctance, of having exhausted every possible recourse? Why would you want to hear doubts in a speech from a leader who’s trying to rally support for doing the right thing? What kind of reaction would you expect from, “Well, we’re not sure this is a good idea, but I think we’re probably gonna kinda have to declare war. If nobody minds, that is.”? When a leader announces that his nation is going to war, I would darn well expect him to try to rally the support of his people. Anything less would be irresponsible. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/30 "2002-08-27T00:43:27Z")
Moving on as well to Part 2 (and studiously avoiding the wreckage of Part 1), to me the critical question at this point is: When will Congress reassume the responsibility for declaring war? In Iraq we have about as well-defined and non-precipitous a situation as could be imagined, and an Administration still claiming it has no obligation to seek a Congressional war declaration (but uh, maybe it’ll “consult” with members of Congress). The perversion of Constitutional authority with regarding to warmaking powers has proceeded under numerous previous Presidents; now the stakes are higher than ever and I still don’t hear determined voices in Congress saying that the buck stops here. Never mind “new kinds of warfare”, I want to know who has responsibility for the old kind, in the way I believe the Founding Fathers intended. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/31 "2002-08-27T00:57:28Z")
…and then move onto to determine with some legal certainty what the hell are ‘illegal act of war’ and whether conventional (executive) wartime powers should apply – once they are themselves defined… BTW, IMHO this isn’t only a problem for the US. Hence my interest. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/32 "2002-08-27T01:05:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElJeffe \* > > …Why would you want to hear doubts in a speech from a leader who’s trying to rally support for doing the right thing?..I would darn well expect him to try to rally the support of his people. Anything less would be irresponsible. So, there was some kind of problem rallying support? Some deeply ironic apathy for the reborn Churchill to dispel? Patriotism was thick in the air, it ran in streams down the streets! Pigeons would splash about in pools of Patriotism, and become deluded into believing themselves hawk, and begin sharpening thier talons on the curbside! Can you pictue Lincoln giving that speech? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/33 "2002-08-27T01:16:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\* > Can you pictue Lincoln giving that speech? \*\* No, but thanks to you I have a good idea of what oratory from the love child of Emma Goldman and W.C. Fields would sound like. Cripes, **elucidator** , go to bed and sleep it off. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/34 "2002-08-27T01:17:08Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > There’s a big difference between people who think that U.S. foriegn policy was irresponsible and led to the attacks, and actually thinking that the U.S. _deserved_ to be attacked (which is what “had it coming” suggests). > > Please explain to me the difference? If there is more than a razor’s width of difference between “American foreign policy led to the attacks” and “American foreign policy caused the attacks,” the subtlety escapes me. OK, let’s try it this way: a woman walks through a wooded area by the banks of the Anacostia at 2 a.m., and gets raped. Two things are obvious: (1) She did **not** “have it coming to her” simply by virtue of being where she was at that hour; but (2) her making the bad decision to stroll through that part of town at that time of night certainly **led to** the unfortunate attack. I am not suggesting any _analogy_ between my example and the events of 9/11, but I hope this firmly establishes the existence of a general distinction between doing things that “lead to X happening to you,” and doing things that mean “you had X coming to you.” ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/35 "2002-08-27T01:32:04Z")
> [@](#): > > I am not suggesting any analogy between my example and the events of 9/11, but I hope this firmly establishes the existence of a general distinction between doing things that “lead to X happening to you,” and doing things that mean “you had X coming to you.” Oh, I grant you the general distinction, but that analogy is not equivalent to the arguments of the left. The comparable argument would be “C’mon, she was drunk and rubbing up against the guy; besides she was known to be a tramp. If she got raped, well, she was asking for it.” They are saying that American foreign policy invited the 9/11 attacks. Besides being offensive, it’s not even accurate. We would have been attacked even if we had been perfectly pro-Arab–bin Laden hates us because we are secualr, because of our movies, and our unveiled women, and our cultural influence. Bin Laden’s goal is the destruction of the West and its conversion to Islam. He’s like Ann Coulter with a beard. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/36 "2002-08-27T01:35:58Z")
I just wrote a rather lengthy reply to **Jackmannii** answering his query “So where, oh where, have calls against discrimination been characterized as inappropriate, in the Pit thread?” The board ate my reply. Briefly, my response is to admit fully that I’ve not read any pundits, posters or letters to the editor _recommending_ discrimination, or failing to describe discrimination --as a general concept-- in negative terms. What I have seen, and what I specifically complained about in my OP (it’s right up there at the top of the page, **Jackmannii** ), is that any mention of historical examples of discrimination are deemed to be ‘inappropriate’ by a considerable faction. To illustrate this, since I’m tired of linking back to that Pit thread, I’ll just quote **Jack** himself from the mentioned thread (it’s linked in the OP above). “It must take a special sensitivity,” said **Jack** , “to want to take a day of remembrance for 9/11 and obliterate all mention of those responsible, while indulging in self-flagellation over the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII. This portion of the NEA’s recommendations strikes me as grotesquely stupid and **inappropriate**.” Later, **Jackmanni** goes on to complain of “…the NEA’s ludicrous zeal to… [encourage] discussion of largely imaginary or remote U.S. sins.” (If you find the truncated quotation unfair, you’re welcome to cite the whole passage, **Jack**.) Still later, the OP of that thread codifies the Rules of Proper Discussion: “…encouraging students not to act out against Arabs or Muslims because of 9/11 is a good message. Expounding on it during the Sept. 11 Remembrance Day, talking about Japanese Internment camps and the Gulf War, strikes some as a bit odd.” Certainly not as condemnatory as **Jack** , but definitely disapproving. The OP, however, immediately clarifies: “WE WERE THE VICTIMS. COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY. I laugh at people who are so uncomfortable with that fact, they have to find convoluted ways to still find fault with America, when discussing the topic at hand.” So the message in that thread appears to be that we should teach kids discrimination is bad, but that showing historical examples of the Bad Thing in America is… what was the word? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/37 "2002-08-27T01:46:32Z")
“No, but thanks to you I have a good idea of what oratory from the love child of Emma Goldman and W.C. Fields would sound like.” “He’s like Ann Coulter with a beard.” Its gonna take more than chamomile tea to expunge those images from my mind. [sub]Oh, Jack? Jo momma![/sub] ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/38 "2002-08-27T01:54:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*from **Jackmannii** : > In Iraq we have about as well-defined and non-precipitous a situation as could be imagined, and an Administration still claiming it has no obligation to seek a Congressional war declaration (but uh, maybe it’ll “consult” with members of Congress). The perversion of Constitutional authority [regarding] warmaking powers has proceeded under numerous previous Presidents; now the stakes are higher than ever and I still don’t hear determined voices in Congress saying that the buck stops here. Never mind “new kinds of warfare”, I want to know who has responsibility for the old kind, in the way I believe the Founding Fathers intended. I agree totally, both with the situational assessment and the desire for accountability. > [@](#): > > _from **London Calling** :_ > In short, you’re in uncharted territory with these ‘illegal combatants’ and Bush can do as he wishes until it’s addressed, unless the Courts intervene [or] Congress enacts relevant legislation. > > Why are you in uncharted territory ? – because the precedents all deal with conventional warfare… > > It’s the blind leading the blind becuase the president has chosen to follow this course of action not because the prisoners _have_ to be treated in this manner. I agree (obviously, I think) with this assessment as well. > [@](#): > > _from **El Jeffe** :_ > Surely you don’t suggest that we just declare war on, say, Syria? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Pakistan? We need something new here. Something that isn’t quite normal war, something that isn’t quite police work. Something that’s sometimes one, sometimes the other, as appropriate. But that _isn’t_ anything new. The military operation in Afghanistan is an example of limited term military engagement in pursuit of lawful goals, sanctioned and recognized by a coalition of our allies. No declaration of war against terrorists was necessary. If at some point a sovereign nation openly sponsors (or can be proven to sponsor) terror attacks against the US, a clear declaration of war can be made against that nation. ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/39 "2002-08-27T02:03:28Z")
I think terrorism is some kind of mutant offspring between war and crime. Some terrorism is almost pure crime, except with a political motive. Some terrorism is a nation state using criminal methods to wage war and not suffer the consequences. Basically, I am confused as to how to deal with the latter and combinations of the two. I do not envy John Ashcroft in this regard. One problem is summarized by this hypothetical: Country X decides to send some actors to Country Y. While in country Y, the actors from X put anthrax in a cropduster and dust a major city with aerosolized anthrax. **If** Y can prove X did it it is an act of war. Or, I think it is. Problem, other than the obvious issues of proof, how to treat the actors from X within Y if they are caught. To me it is not as simple as saying they are soldiers or merely criminals. That is why I theoretically suggested that war crimes might have some bearing. Might. It is easy to cook up other hypotheticals were some rogue state actors or terrorists aided by such commit acts of terror. What then? Do we declare war on Pakistan because some of their intelligence agents aided al Qaeda or the Taliban. Maybe, maybe not. What if some of them are caught in this country? You can keep turning the prism as we said in law school and cook up lots of confusing situations both legally and from a security perspective. Some terrorist acts can cause more damage than a squadron of B-52s loaded with 500 pound bombs. Some terrorists are simply too dangerous to approach with traditional law enforcement methods. It is not simple to figure all this stuff out. When I said that some folks in the so-called war on terrorism are combatants I was mainly thinking of Taliban and U.S. soldiers. It is hard to call a ‘regime change’\* law enforcement just as it is hard to call arresting Richard Reid (the shoe bomb suspect) a military action. \*My favorite new buzzword. It sounds like we are holding elections. Example: The regime change may have caused some collateral damage according to military intelligence. You would never know that a bunch of civilians just died in a war. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2002, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660/40 "2002-08-27T02:18:36Z")
> [@](#): > > _from **Beagle** :_ > It is easy to cook up other hypotheticals were some rogue state actors or terrorists aided by such commit acts of terror. What then? Do we declare war on Pakistan because some of their intelligence agents aided al Qaeda or the Taliban. Maybe, maybe not. What if some of them are caught in this country? You can keep turning the prism as we said in law school and cook up lots of confusing situations both legally and from a security perspective. Yes, exactly. Does declaring a “war on terror” act to unnecessarily undercut the government’s flexibility in dealing with sticky diplomatic issues (e.g. the Pakistan example)? > [@](#): > > When I said that some folks in the so-called war on terrorism are combatants I was mainly thinking of Taliban and U.S. soldiers. It is hard to call a ‘regime change’\* law enforcement just as it is hard to call arresting Richard Reid (the shoe bomb suspect) a military action. Understood. (Now. After the first flush of anger.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-common-wisdom-post-9-11-actually-wise/125660.md?page=3)