Newt Gingrich was on the Daily Show yesterday, and he suggested that the idea of trying terrorists within the U.S. criminal justice system is “radical”:
*Stewart: Why do we suggest using our justice system is radical?
Gingrich: Because it defines the terrorist within a criminal context instead of a war context.*
I’ve heard this viewpoint a fair bit, and I’m still baffled at why it’s so important to some people. Why is it so critical that the “war on terror” be rigidly characterized as a war? Gingrich says it’s because terrorists are our mortal enemy who is clearly seeking to kill us. Fine, I’ll agree. But the question stands: why does it have to be a war?
The common argument seems to be that terrorists aren’t a country or other type of clearly identifiable group with whom we could have a traditional war. Some also feel it would be a good example to the world if we were to go through a legal process even with the clearly guilty (such as the “underwear bomber”). Seems to me that bringing down the hammer on people without any sort of due process is exactly what we criticize other countries about (I’m thinking China here).
I’ll be interested to hear other viewpoints, but here’s my answer to the question: people like Gingrich are vindictive. And while that’s certainly understandable, it’s not good policy. I think those who must have it be a “war” want us to be able to do whatever we want to those we hold responsible for terrorist attacks as simple revenge, no matter the harm it may cause us in the long term.
What is amusing is the degree to which the modern American right venerates Margaret Thatcher, who was adamant that IRA terrorists be treated like criminals, and even allowed multiple convicted criminals to starve themselves to death in a refusal to treat them differently to other murderers and thieves.
So hang on, it’s important to maintain the absurd abstract - that a ‘war on terror’ is even possible, rather than bring the issue into the domain of the real world?
The phrase never made any sense except as a slogan for the hard of thinking, and now it should be preserved in favour of . . . I give up, shoot me now.
Petty politics from one of the few American politicians I’d call evil.
Don’t look for an underlying rationale related to the particular choice; it’s not there. The absolute underlying guidance is simple: object to Obama. What comes afterward is a pretense. This is not unique to the right, but at the moment the tactic is at an ascendancy and practically required.
I certainly support trying terrorists in Federal court to the maximum amount practicable, but I think it is silly to get hung up on the significance of the word “war.” If you don’t want to call what we’re doing to Al Qaeda a war, what do you propose calling it when we send the military out into the field to attack and kill people who are trying to kill them/us?
How about calling it “a bad idea”? Has any of the military actions we’ve taken in the so-called War on Terror done anything to minimize or stop terrorism? Or even to shut down Al Qaeda?
Instead, we’ve opened up a country to Al Qaeda that was previously devoid of and ideologically opposed to them. We’ve managed to keep the general area around Kabul free of Taliban. We’ve treated innocent Iraqis and Afghanis so terribly under the guise of a war footing that we’ve probably created more Al Qaeda members in the last 10 years than we killed.
As to the OP: The only real reason to call it a war (other than the fact that is how it is viewed when your military goes forth) is to treat any prisoners differently than you would if they were otherwise criminals.
That was a different political atmosphere. If we had a large groundswell of domestic terrorism we would surely treat them as mere criminals.
In the respect that we have the armed forces deployed to foreign countries and conducting military operations, it is a war. In the sense that governments continue to support or at least tolerate the presence of terrorist organizations, it is a war.
However, I am with most of you when you say that the “War on Terror”, like all the other “wars” that we have engaged in (most especially drugs), are an exercise in futility. That doesn’t obviate the need to refer to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as what they are, though.
Because if we call it a war then we’re taking it seriously.
Never mind that wars are fought between countries. Never mind that by making such a characterization we are conflating terrorist organizations with legitimate governments and thereby giving them undue dignity.
If we don’t call it “war” then we’re just not doing everything we can, right? Also, wouldn’t it indicate we take terrorism less seriously than we do poverty and drugs?
So they can dichotomise it into an us them black white good evil your for us or you against us no sacrifice is too great we’re at war ya know kinda thing.
If we consider them criminals, we might have to take their traumatic childhoods at the hands of rogue governments into account, could be embarrissing.
Who were we at war with when McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City? If this was just a simple (i.e. criminal) act of terrorism, what is the difference between this act and September 11th and Al Qaeda? Is there a hard and fast line where it is an act of war on one side and a criminal act on the other, and if so, what defines the line?