I don’t see the problem, ‘war’ on terror is a meaningless phrase (in legal terms). Rather, Bush is empowered by proclaiming a national emergency – nothing to do with ‘war’. It enables him to act domestically. What he’s doing at the moment is fighting conventional terrorism at home with extraordinary powers.
The US – and many other nations – have dealt with countries harbouring terrorists before. The legal precedents for that international dimension are well established.
What Bush does at home has no bearing on Pakistan (or any other country), as best I understand.
Having said that, I recall some international dimension being proposed (perhaps about boarding ships and the like in international waters) but I think we need more details before thinking about that one.
Sometimes I can be less than clear. I jump from first premise to final conclusion assuming everyone held on for the ride. When people do that to me I get lost. Golden Rule of argumentation, assume nobody else can read minds either.
Maybe. I’m a diplomacy first guy myself. You can always fight later. If we can get cooperation, why fight? Mousharraf (or however that is spelled) seems to be in an untenable position - like so many leaders in that part of the world. Ratcheting up the rhetoric is probably not going to help. It just agitates the radicals. Though I often point out Saudi Arabia’s support for terror, the same goes for them. London_Calling
“Well established,” would you elaborate on that? All I can think of is cooperation or war. Bush said you are “with us or against us.” Simple, but perhaps astute in the sense that we cannot act in another sovereign nation without cooperation, war, or some kind of covert operation, which could lead to war. Example, Afghanistan, when the Taliban turned us down, we had few options and no recourse in international law.
“War on terror” is not totally meaningless in a foreign policy sense. Bush has an authorization from Congress to act overseas against the perpetrators of the 9/11/01 attacks. Given the interconnectedness of some of the terrorist groups, and lesser contacts, who really knows the ultimate breadth of the original mandate? Frontline (PBS) did a story about a possible Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda. If proven true we might get another ‘regime change’ from the not totally meaningless “war on terror” language. Ari Fleischer was hinting around about Bush not needing a declaration of war today.
On the domestic front, I agree strongly. The war language is more like the war on drugs. It is mainly an assault against individual liberties. The whole laundry list of changes from PATRIOT Act to TIPs goes, here.
Generally, I don’t think anything is very clear right now. Certainly not clear in the way that WWII was clear. Soldiers wore uniforms and attacked military targets for the most part. Nations fought in the open and did not use surrogates except insofar as the partisans and resistance fighers were supported by states. I guess those groups would be the best parallel to terrorists in a modern sense. They were usually summarily shot. Not suggesting, just noting.
Jackmannii:
—The National Education Association pulled a similar maneuver in its response to criticism about controversial suggestions on its website: “We stand by our belief that the entire Muslim community cannot be held responsible for the actions of Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda terrorists.” (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).—
Actually, you’ve got this story quite wrong: but since the story itself was based on highly misleading accusations against the NEA, I forgive you for being taken in. The articles that sparked this controvery were written by Ellen Sorokin, and appeared in the Washington Times. I invite you to read them, and then to read the NEA site, and tell me if this criticism was fair, or even SANE. The specific charge: that the NEA was supposedly teaching that we should omit any reference to the groups responsible, is a ridiculous fabrication that could be cleared up simply by bothering to glance at their site. The ONE article that Sorkin claims says this is an obscure link (that comes way after links to the CIA, Homeland Security sites, speeches by President Bush and other presidents that are part of a “Patriot Pack”) to an essay by Brian Lippincott.
The passage that Sorkin claims is objectionable is this one (emphasis added): “4. Address the issue of blame factually. Explore who and what may be to blame for this event. Use non-speculative terms. Do not suggest any group is responsible…Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. However, explain that all Arab-Americans are not guilty by association or racial membership. Help kids resist the tendency to want to “pin the blame” on someone close by.”
Any fair reading of this passage shows that Sorkins quoting of that single sentance, “Do not suggest any group is responsible…” is a ludricruous misrepresentation of the passages thrust: which is, essentially, that we should explain to kids that not all Arab Americans are guilty of terrorism. Oh, the horrors!
And it gets worse. Because who should Sorkin choose to comment on this misrepresentation, but William S. Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation. Here’s his part of the article:
“A lot of what’s stated in these lesson plans are lies. None of what is mentioned in these plans are facts. It’s an ultimate sin to now defend Western culture. It does not matter today whether a student learns any facts or any skills. What matters now is the attitude they come away with when they graduate school.”
The critics also have trouble with schools teaching about Islam, specifically when teachers describe it as a “peaceful religion.” Instead, they say, schools should warn children that the root of the problem lies in Islamic teaching.
“There is no such thing as peaceful Islam,” Mr. Lind said. “It says that followers should make war on those who believe that Christ is the Messiah.”
When the NEA responds to the criticism found in this piece, this is the sort of rhetoric that it is responding to. Far from making an unprovoked “manuever” on critics, it is responding to actual claims from actual conservatives questioning its failure to teach that “There is no such thing as peaceful Islam.” Let alone the gross misrepresentation that the Times article perpetrates, merely in the interests of taking a nice swipe at the NEA.
So, Jackmannii, I think you owe a retraction on this point.
Oh, and here’s the opening statement from Lipcott’s essay (which, just to point out again, is one link that is dwarfed both in order and in attention by countless patriotic history lessons and verbatim quotation of administration speeches about the war on terror): “The terrorists caused tremendous harm because they acted violently against innocent people out of blind hate.”
Hmm… so this article, clearly, is all about how we cannot pin the blame on anyone, right? Right? This essay truly deserves the criticism its getting as to supposedly saying that we can’t hold anyone responsible. Right? When it starts out by pretty clearly blaming “the terrorists” for “acting violently against innocent people out of blind hate.”
—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—
It isn’t about causation. It’s about supposed claims of desert, which are what the supposed liberal charge “America had it coming” cleverly sneaks in.
Even conservatives make causation claims that target American foriegn policy as being the cause (for instance, when Clinton is criticized for failing to take out Osama, stirring up mismanged messes in the Middle East, letting the terrorists run rampant, etc.). But, apparently, only when a liberal makes a disparaging comment about how irresponsible American foriegn policy might have empowered the terrorists to attack do they get accused of thinking the attacks were justified. Simply blaming American foriegn policy for getting us into a mess is pretty uncontroversial. It’s only the recent subrational attempts to link that to the idea that any such blame is equivalent to thinking America deserved what it got that really fire people up.
So where the hell are they? Thousands of hard-eyed Al-Kayda fanatics, eagerly rushing to throw themselves bodily at the Great Satan… Where are they?
In our 8th? 9th? month of Hightened Alert status and then Enemy has thrown at us…a couple of brain dead cheesewits, one of whom is armed with a bomb in his tennis shoes that he cannot detonate, and another who may very well have been planning something Really Really Bad. Which we have reason to suspect might very well have been possibly a “dirty bomb”! Cue CNN.
Can it be that the war on/in/over Afghanistan actually accomplished its aim, and ever last one is dead?
Well, then, the innocent victims of “collateral damage” might well rest in peace, knowing that their sacrifice has been of such benefit to the American cause! They might well nod in somber contentment, knowing that the last full measure was given for such a fine and noble people.
It’s rather a pity, of course, that they couldn’t have been more directly consulted, but they were largely preoccupied with starving to death and couldn’t be contacted. However, we negotiated on thier behalf, in thier stead, and we mutually concluded that thier sacrifice on our behalf was entirely justified.
Otherwise, of course, we could not have proceeded. For we are a civilized people, are we not?
Beagle Well, terrorism inside our borders is simply crime. Outside our borders, it’s a matter for Interpol if the country of origin is friendly and the military if it is not. And diplomacy to make these options clear. :Rattles sabres:
elucidator: Al Qaeda typically delivers an attack about every 2 years. They may have hoped to increase recruitment following 9/11; this apparently has not been successful. For a number of reasons, presumably.
It is unfortunate that innocent Afghanis shared their country with an organization which trained militants to attack Western targets and a government which chose to protect those militants. Nonetheless, methinks that the US actions were appropriate, as the right to self-defense is absolute.
OP #1: I’m old-fashioned. I think it’s best to know thy enemy. That implies evaluating various perceptions of US foreign policy.
OP #2: Good questions. In 1), I conveniently side-stepped the militants themselves. I might observe that the POW model is problematic, since terrorists organizations cannot credibly surrender (as they don’t control territory). POWs are typically returned after hostilities end; identifying that end date when the opponent is as amorphous as Al Qaeda seems difficult. Maybe we should send them to a Siberian work camp (internal exile, with visitation rights) or an appropriate and secure free-trade zone (Libertaria behind barbed wire?).
Uh, that’s a pretty specific statement that I would like very good evidence for. I’m sure that Osama and company detest western attitudes and practices regarding sex, women, etc., but you’re really gonna have to show evidence if you want to say that’s why Al Qaeda attacked the US.
I think that US foreign policy is generally the reason that we were targeted, and in particular our support of Israel. I’m not saying that US deserved to be attacked, but the US’s influence and actions the middle-east strikes me as the most logical reason for it. European countries have generally similar attitudes towards sex, women, etc., and they were not targeted. In fact, many European countries are even more liberal with sexual mores; nude beaches grace countries like Italy and France, which is definitely not in league with the need to cover up women.
The US has been Israel’s strongest supporter, and that more than anything is probably why we were targeted (I suppose our other adventures into random countries also help stir up hatred). Sorry that I can’t provide more evidence than this, but it makes sense given that Israel receives the brunt of terrorist attacks, and that the US gets nicked as well for supporting it).
It’s ironic, I think, because the US interventions in Latin and Southern America seem to be much more of a sin (to me) than the support of Israel. The School of the Americas (try www.soawatch.org) has trained many dictators and military personel (in the name of democracy vs. communism) that have in turn brutally oppressed their peoples. Funneling military assistance to proven human rights abusers (Colombian govt.) also strikes me as very bad. I wonder when some folk in the south american region will decide to blame the US (and rightly so, in some cases), and do the terrorist thing (never the right thing, but i could understand it better than the current Osama mission). Perhaps it’s not in their nature, as they don’t have a religion that allows for that sort of thing (no jihad clauses in Catholicism, the dominant religion in many south american nations), and US shares that religion to a large extent.
Sorry for the lack of links; if the above is not well known to folks here, I guess I may swing back and add some. Or better yet, if some of you want to do that for me
If you try, xeno, really try, I think that what I said may penetrate. Not that it’s inappropriate to have a discussion of intolerance in America’s past, but to encourage an obsession with self-blame while obliterating all mention of those responsible (group or country) for the 9/11 attacks. It shows a ludicrous lack of proportion to dredge up the internment of Japanese-Americans over half a century ago (perhaps you can demonstrate relevance by showing me the current calls for mass imprisonment of Arab-Americans?) but not want to talk about who planned, carried out and supported the 9/11 attacks.
No matter how badly you may wish to win an argument, trying to distort the meaning of my remarks to suggest I am a bigot is a low tactic, for which an apology is in order.
I do think the combo of unilaterally and arbitrarily proclaimed authority and the Patriot Act is a very dangerous mix – what price the Constitution ?
Sure, extradition or UN Resolution usually provide the legal framework. Outside of that conventional legitimacy is the equally well-established doctrine of doing ‘what the hell we like’. Case in point…say Libya and Lockerbie (see below)
I think Fleischer’s arguing (yesterdays WPost ?) that 1991 Gulf War (Congressional) Resolutions are still active – however, they were themselves based on UN Resolutions which, it could be argued, are a tad stale. If so the premise is obviously undermined. But who’s to say…
Regarding current Congressional authorisation to act overseas, I suspect we’re back to the Libya/Lockerbie scenario of making the legal rules up as we go along. Here’s how that went:
Criminality:
The legal basis for, ermmm, impressing upon Libya the need to cooperate with international law (read: US/UK ad hoc policy) was UN Resolution 731 of 1992 - Worth a quick read
"The Lockerbie cover up is a clear example of how honesty and justice have no place on the agenda of international politics. There are no rules in international jurisdiction except the ones that powerful countries like the USA make up as they go along.
With regard to Lockerbie, UN Resolution 731 of 1992 set a legal precedent. America and Britain demanded that Libya hand over two accused men for trial. Given that no extradition treaty exists, this demand has no legal basis. Under the Montreal Convention of 1971 suspects should be tried in the country to whose laws they are subject - Libya. Despite that, the UN Security Council has demanded that the two be handed over and has threatened further punishment against Libya for not obeying its orders.
It seems that the USA and other Western powers can have their cake and eat it. They can enforce resolutions that have no legal precedent; yet Libya’s offer to hand the men over to the International Court of Justice was dismissed because it has no precedent. International law is really the law of the jungle, under which might is always right and the angels are assumed to be on the side of the big battalions. That is why any trial of the two Libyans anywhere in the world would be a parody of justice. "
“Last month, it was revealed that the Libyan government has been negotiating with lawyers representing a large proportion of the families who are suing Libya for the deaths of their loved ones on Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. This is far more interesting than a typical settlement, however - for it is really a three-corner deal.
That is, the Libyans seem to think that they can use the plaintiffs in the civil suit as a way to get the United States and the United Nations to lift their sanctions. If Libya succeeds, it would be one of the first times that a tort settlement explicitly drove national and international policy. The question is, is this a good precedent?”
I suppose, in a sense, Lockerbie blurs the distinction between common and garden terrorism and State sponsored terrorism to the point that the distinction hardly matters. Except, as Windwalker notes, characterising terrorism as being State sponsored and then acting against it rather invites a degree of mirth or incredulity given the past history of the US (and others).
Well, let me get this straight, Jack. If the NEA had included one sentence, just one, to the effect that the attack was carried out by Al-Kayda, a fanatic Muslim group, your redwhitenblue panties would not currently be in a bunch? Thats it?
And the failure to include that is what you mean by “…obliterating all reference…” So it was there in the first place, but they removed it? Mightn’t they have assumed that pretty much every cognizant being in America already knew who carried out the attack? Do you know anybody who didn’t, anybody who was at risk of ignorance specificly because the NEA didn’t 'fess up?
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
Flowbark
Oh, really? You are privy to some information as to the membership rolls of Al-Kayda? And from whence, pray, comes this information? Does Al-Kayda have formal membership policies, lists of dues paying members, etc? And it has fallen into your hands?
Indeed, it is unfortunate, and has been noted with grave solemnity. “A tragedy” says Mr. Rumsfeld. “Well, can’t be helped” says the man who loads the bombs. “Can’t make an omlette without breaking eggs” says the pilot.
Nice coding. Poor summary of the NEA position, however; extremely poor to the point of dishonesty.
Jackmannii, you may be the last Doper still sticking to that mischaracterization. I know it’s tough to admit you were wrong, but give it a try. It only hurts for a moment. Trust me.
Hey, I’ll show you how it works. In my OP, I asked the question “If some discussion of response is appropriate, why must it not contain or criticize historical American policies, and why must it not include condemnation of bigotry or scapegoating of Muslim Americans?” Subsequently, I’ve been shown quite clearly that the second clause of that question does amount to a strawman argument, as today’s Political Correctness absolutely allows such condemnations (as long as America’s name isn’t muddied). So I retract that clause ("…why must it not include condemnation of bigotry or scapegoating of Muslim Americans…"). And I apologize to anyone I offended by the implication that they discouraged antidiscrimination rhetoric in connection with September 11.
London Calling: Thanks for the Lockerbie links. They support the argument that ‘international law’ is a fluid set, and that a “war on terror” could be just as slippery in terms of rules of engagement and conduct, domestic and foreign. I can see why this could be attractive to a hegemony-driven President, but I can’t see why the idea should have such popularity in a country where most of us have a fairly deep distrust of too much governmental power.
xeno, apology accepted. Now if we can only get you to accept the concept that all subjects must be on the table (not just the ones unflattering to the U.S.) in order to have a free-wheeling discussion related to 9/11. To acknowledge that a critique of silliness is not to be regarded as a sweeping plot by the Evil Forces of Jingoism to stifle dissent. And to provide some concrete examples for your Part 1 exposition.
—If the NEA had included one sentence, just one, to the effect that the attack was carried out by Al-Kayda, a fanatic Muslim group, your redwhitenblue panties would not currently be in a bunch?—
That’s half the problem. The NEA’s site contains numerous references to Al Queda, including links to lots of government sources on who they are and what’s been done about them, and what’s being done. It’s not an issue of the NEA covering up who is responsible: it’s apparently an issue of one relatively obscure article that the NEA links to not naming Al Queda by name, instead reffering to them as “the terrorists” who “caused tremendous harm because they acted violently against innocent people out of blind hate.” Oooo… there’s some real liberal heresy there!
The article supposedly tells teachers to quash debate, and yet the offending paragraph starts out with “Address the issue of blame factually. Explore who and what may be to blame for this event.” In what doublespeakland is a statement like “address the issue of blame factually” (presumably using the “facts” that are obvious and assumed by everyone, except, perhaps the Washington Times?) equal to “don’t address the issue of blame (factually?)” How does any fair reader of this article get from it saying “explore who and what may be to blame” to the claim that it is saying: “Don’t explore who is to blame.”
The NEA responded to the criticism, quoted in that very same WT piece, that “the NEA site is full if lies” (where exactly? It lists three Bush addresses in the same grouping as the Gettysberg address, FDR’s speeches, etc. It links to the CIA and Homeland Defense, and on and on…) and goes on to only once state one explicit example of what they think is an NEA lie, which is this: “there is no such thing as peaceful Islam.” Given this, is it illegitimate for the NEA to repeat that they reject the scapegoating of Muslim Americans (which is what the article is about), when as far as they can tell, that is the only substantive criticism being leveled at them?
And that’s sort of what is so sad: the bigots accusations at least accuse the NEA of doing something they actually DID, which was to advocate not scapegoating religions, races, and nationalities. The other people are simply making accusations that it’s pretty hard to even understand unless you are very familiar with how certain circles misrepresent and spin to create partisan controversies out of perfectly banal and unobjectionable content.
See, this is where I think you just need a better imagination. I’ll argue this forever. I am not saying that I can point to any past examples. The future is a long time.
Jackmannii, did you follow that link I provided that explained the Strawman fallacy? I fear you may not be as firmly grounded in logic as perhaps you should be. On the one hand, you seem to recognize this fallacy on occassion when your opponents exhibit it. On the other hand, you seem to be blithely unconcerned with your own numerous straw constructions; in fact, this seems to be your preferred method of argument.
But I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll stop directing you to fallacy definitions if you’ll either stop employing fallacies, or if you can show even ONE instance where I’ve either argued against including “all subjects” from 9/11 discussions, or where I’ve theorized some sort of organized plot by “Evil Forces” to stifle dissent.
If you want to be taken seriously, Jack, I suggest you clean up your act. Retracting your ridiculous assertions regarding the NEA would go a long way toward that goal.
See the link in the OP to a thread you’re quite familiar with. That thread contains links, helpfully provided by you, to OpEd pieces exhibiting an intolerance for mention of unattractive American history. Do I really need to provide examples of posters/pundits reacting negatively to criticisms of American foreign policy? Look through page 1 of this thread.
There is a real “Victim Status” being pushed in this country since 9-11, where Americans seem to believe our past sins are irrelevant and we have been given a free pass to Fight Terrists however we please. Discussion of our policy failures and morally questionable practices IN NO WAY demeans those 3000 murder victims who died on September 11. Nor is such discussion IN ANY WAY exculpatory of the monsters who planned and carried out the attacks, and some of whom may be planning worse.
Whoa. Initially you were protesting that some people (your opponents, jingoists, assorted no-goods) wanted to proscribe certain subjects and make them off-limits to debate. Now you’re condemning those who “react negatively” to arguments from your side of the fence.
You’re free to bring up anything you want about 9/11, from thoughtful critiques of Administration policy to loony conspiracy theories. If being criticized for those views is intolerable, you’re living in the wrong country.
And you’re still heaping fresh bales atop your strawman. No discussions critical of the N.E.A. that I linked in the other thread said that we mustn’t talk about certain ideas. I’ll leave readers of that thread to decide just who it is that wants to place uncomfortable facts off-limits to discussion.
Jackmannii, the next time I see you fairly characterize the postion of one of your opponents will be the first time. My actual words are in the OP; you are welcome to quote me directly from the OP to make your point.
Let’s start with the summary I provided of Part 1: “So my first series of questions is in regard to the ‘common wisdom’ that discussions of tolerance, presentations of Arab or Muslim points of view, and especially historical examples of American actions which could be viewed by some parties with antipathy are off-limits in relation to the September 11 attacks specifically and in some cases the ‘War on Terror’ in general.” This summary condenses the verbiage I used to develop the argument, in which I talked about the common disapproval of mixing discussion of 9/11 with American policy, the labelling of such information as inappropriate and shameful, the popular opinion that reminders of American misdeeds are unwelcome after September 11.
I made it abundantly clear in the OP what my argument was and which questions I hoped to have answered. I’ve even made the questions more palatable by striking a clause which falsely portrayed an uncommon sentiment as a popular one. Yet I note with derision that, aside from denying the factuality of my complaint (you’re the only one in the thread who --so you say-- doesn’t think it’s a real phenomenon), you’ve made no attempt to substantively address Part 1.
Until you decide to debate fairly, Jackmannii, I’ll let your lies lay without further response.
