Re: Re: "a new war on terrorism"

On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 04:02:09PM -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> >Second, 'war on terrorism' is not clever at all. It's dangerous, for
> >reasons I discussed above. This was not a war, it was a crime.
> 
> >Let's take an example that should be clearer for you; let's imagine an
> >American, say an American Jew, goes to Israel and sets up a settler's
> >life, colonizing some new cantonized area of Palestine, as has been
> >happening for years. This American Jew, now living in Israel, finally
> >goes a bit nuts, perhaps fueled by a hateful distorted version of
> >Judaism, and he decides to take matters into his own hands. He goes
> >into Gaza, releases some sort of bio-agent into the water supply, and
> >5,000 Palestinians die, over the course of a week, slow, agonizing,
> >horrible deaths.
> 
> >Okay, so would you support the Arab world declaring war on Israel?
> >Would you support them invading and bombing Israel? Further, would you
> >support them declaring war on the US, since the US harbored him and
> >supports Israel?
> 
> >No, you'd quite rightly want it treated as what it was: an act of
> >crime, surely even a crime against humanity, as were the terrorist
> >acts.


> This is an improper analogy.  In this case mentioned above, the state 
> of Israel would surely prosecute the man responsible for these crimes, 
> convict him, and he would receive a high penalty.  

Well, maybe. So do you really think that if the Taliban decided to try
bin Laden according to their religious-based legal system that would 
satisfy the U.S.? I find that exceptionally unlikely.

  In addition, the 
> United States has not "harbored" this terrorist.  While it is true that 
> he lived in the United States, he did not take refuge there in an 
> effort to escape punishment for the actions he has committed.  

Nor has the vast majority of Al Qaeda, yes? Besides, it is not always 
clear in all of these countries that there is much practically the gov't
can do to capture the terrorists in question; i.e., the devil's in the
details.

Further, and this is the scary part, the word 'harbor' is being thrown
around a lot, but it's very vague and I haven't seen a single American
official give it any kind of specificity. Is it enough to wage war on Sudan,
again, that Al Qaeda has a cell there? 

I suspect many of these countries 'harbor' Al Qaeda cells in the sense
that Al Qaeda cells are thought to *exist* in these countries; but if
that's true, then we'll have to bomb Germany and Florida too.

  if he 
> flew to the United States after doing this, we would certainly not 
> allow him to stay in the country without fear of being extradited, as 
> Ussama Bin Ladin, and we certainly would not facilitate him in 
> committing further terrorist acts, as the Taliban has. 

What precisely has the Taliban done to *facilitate* terrorism? You have to
be specific.

Further, American Jews do sometimes run off to Israel to avoid being 
extradited. We haven't declared war on Israel because of it, and I suspect
we wouldn't even if they'd committed an act of terror. Israel would certainly
extradite, but that would be more to protect the relationship that secures
them $20B in US aid.

It's simply a fact that extradition is *not* a legal obligation; the Taliban
is well within its rights to try and punish Bin Laden itself. Refusing to
extradite a criminal cannot extend the US's only right to use force against
Afghanistan without US authorization, namely, the right of self-defense.

> Also i think that a distinction needs to be found between a criminal 
> action and a violent action by a state.  

Well, that's precisely the distinction that Bush has obliterated, both
rhetorically and politically, and it's the distinction that I referred
to in my response explicitly.

Further, it's not hard to understand or apply here, except that it seems
to block the so-called need of the American people to seek vengeance against
entire countries, rather than the actual perpetrators.

  There is no set rule about 
> exactly what actions will bring security to a state that fears for the 
> safety of its citizens, and thus no guidebook that leaders, good or 
> bad, can turn to in times of crisis.  

No, there are few set rules of that social complexity, but so what? There
are very set and clear rules about the *legal* international use of force,
and I can't see any indication that the U.S. is going to follow them; of
course, that's nothing at all *new*, it's just that the scale of the illegal
use of force this time is significant.

> In the example of Israel, the attacks on the Palestinian leaders is 
> based on the concept of destroying the capability of terrorist groups 
> and suicide bombers to make war.  

I suspect that's wrong on the facts; but even if it is, so what? It's still
clearly extra-legal violence to secure a political end, which is terrorism.
That it's done by a State seems, unless you have an ideological axe to
grind, irrelevant.

  Sanctions against Iraq are based on 
> the idea that it is the most effective way to destroy, or at least 
> reduce, Sadaam Hussein's ability to make war against his neighbors 
> and/or develop weapons of mass destruction.  

Again, wrong on the facts, but even if not, that capability, along with the
entire civilian infrastructure of the country -- leading predicatably to the
preventable deaths of maybe 1,000,000 people -- was utterly destroyed after
the Gulf War. Many UN Weapons Inspectors report that capability has been
destroyed for some years, and yet the sanctions and the deaths of innocent
people continue.

  Both of these methods harm 
> innocent civilians, but so do all other alternatives.  

That's not true either. There's an Iraqi democratic opposition based in
London that pleaded with Bush to put it into place at end of Gulf War. He
refused. The Kurds tried to overthrow Hussein at the very end of the Gulf
War, in direct response to Bush's plea for them to rise up, and instead of
supporting them with the massive military presence we had on the ground
then, Bush let the Iraqi Republic Guard slaughter Kurds like shooting
turkeys in pen.

The Western forces that fought the Gulf War explicitly destroyed Iraq's
water supply, and facilities and material to rebuild it have been embargoed
every since; that's the source of many of the deaths of children.

I take all of that to have been an alternative, and this is to say nothing
of the fact that Hussein existed in Iraq at all at the pleasure and support
of the U.S.

  Some argue that 
> these methods are effective at acheiving their goals, and some say that 
> they aren't.  There will be that kind of disagreement no matter what 
> policy is pursued.  

Which is why I said several times you were wrong on the facts. All of these
policies have been very effective in achieving precisely the predictable,
desired results. In that sense, they are not mistakes; they are moral
obscenities, but not mistakes.

  The question that isn't discussed though is whether 
> these actions are in any way different from the actions of terrorists.  
> If they are the same, then it puts nations like israel between a cylla 
> and charibdis.  

Heh. That's funny. This about the country that's been seriously debating for
years not *whether* to torture Palestinians in the West Bank, but how often,
how ferociously, under what conditions, and so on.

I submit that once you rid yourself of the propagandistic pseudo-distinction
between State violence and 'real terrorism' you'll see that in the Middle
East region the two most dangerous and deadly forces are Israel and the
United States.

  If they can not choose any method of response since no 
> matter what it will have some effect on innocent lives, then, most 
> believe, their choice becomes to give in to every demand of the 
> Palestinians or watch their country be destroyed while they do nothing 
> to stop it.  

Again, nonsense. There has been international consensus on how to "fix" the
Palestinian-Israeli situation since the mid-70s; and by international
consensus I mean that every country, essentially, but the United States and
Israel agrees it's the appropriate fix. The US and Israel, but especially
the US, given its permanent role on the Security Council, and its Imperial
stature, have practiced an unflinching policy of rejectionism of this
international policy ever since.

> As has been said you can't prosecute a suicide bomber.  the only 
> solution to this kind of political trap is to formulate some sort of 
> international guideline as to what steps are morally and legally 
> justified for the preservation of your state and the way of life for 
> your people.  

Yep, it's been around since 1949, it's called the UN Charter (and all the
associated apparatus of international law, including the ICJ, WC (both of
which the US scorns utterly)) and it's very clear about what can be done
and what can't be done.

Too bad the US treats it with complete disdain.

Despite all of your response, you've not given the slightest reason why
pursuing this matter as act act of crime is insufficient, inappropriate, or
impossible.

*That's* an alternative that will surely mean less loss of innocent life.

  To use the current situation, the response to the attacks 
> serves two purposes:  it serves justice by punishing the perpetrators 
> and it serves to preserve the state by defending the state against 
> further attacks.  The action taken by the United States must accomplish 
> both of these goals, and at the same time be ethically and legally 
> correct.  

  What options does that leave? you have said that one can't 
> declare war on a state because you necessarily destroy the way of life 
> of the people within.  

I said no such thing. 

  Sanctions also harm the innocent, sometimes more 
> then bombings do.  

Well, especially the way we've practiced them against Iraq. We have Pakistan
under sanctions, but not ones that constitute a total siege warfare.

  Clearly, you do not believe in targeted attacks 
> against groups, such as goes on in Israel.  

I support arresting criminals when we have specific, credible evidence that
they are plotting to kill people. If they resist, the arresting officers can
defend themselves.

That is not what I take Israel to have been doing. That is *not* what a
political assassination is.

  But if all of these things 
> are void, then what options are left open?  As far as i can see there 
> are none left, barring persuading everyone involved to voluntarily come 
> to the united states to stand trial, which seems unlikely.  

The first thing that can be done is to state publicly and as a matter of
executive order that 1) nukes and 2) carpet bombings are off the table,
period. And stop talking about 'acceptable levels of collateral damage'.

Second, go to the Security Council and ask for authorization to back up
militarily, if need be, an international investigatory effort to apprehend,
try, and convict the people and organizations responsible for this crime.

Third, upon developing and making public credible and dispositive evidence
that a State authorized or materially aided these attacks, Bush could ask
the Security Council for authorization for an appropriate plan of response.
I do not know exactly what that response would need to be since I don't know
what, if any, countries were involved to that degree.

> Given the above, what responses are morally and legally available to a 
> state which has been attacked and perceives a threat to its continued 
> existance?

If attacked by another State on its territory, a State may legally defend
itself, to repel the attack and safeguard itself. No one is suggesting
otherwise.

The "perceives a threat to its continued existence" is the tricky part;
those terrorist attacks, as awful as they were, at no point constituted a
threat to the *existence* of the U.S. The problems that motivate terrorism
are long-term problems, more about colonialism and oppression than religion.
If we're going to abide by the UN Charter, which we're supposed to do,
legally, I think Article 33 is pretty much on point here.

Kendall Clark