|
henny -> RE: Supreme Court Gets It Right (6/13/2008 4:22:57 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
On a civilian charge this is true, but this is war.
If the war on terror is, in fact, a "war" in the real legal sense of the word (and not just a rhetorical flourish, like, for example, the "War on drugs" or "the war on obesity"), I think the legal ramifications of this still need to be hashed out.
Personally, I don't think the term "War" has much meaning at all when applied to terrorism, as the way terrorism operates is different enough from our traditional understanding of "war" that it requires new definitions. The Bush administration seems to understand this, but it hasn't prevented them from rather cynically taking advantage of the ambiguity of the term within the context of terrorism to suit their agenda.
I think the case of Guantanamo is a good example of their contradictory view of the term, and how they wish to "have it both ways" when it comes to it's legal application. On the one hand, they have argued that the "war on terror" constitutes a "War" in the traditional sense, and because of this, the president, acting in a time of "war," can take advantage of certain additional powers to protect the people. However, on the other hand, as this case points out (and in direct contradiction of their original stance), they have also attempted to argue that "enemy combatants" in this "war" are not subject to the same laws under which we have traditionally conducted "wars" in the past. Or in other words, the "war on terrorism" is not really a "war" in the traditional sense at all.
So while they have employed the idea of "War" in certain contexts when it suits them, in other contexts they are just as ready to claim that the war on terrorism really isn't a "War" at all. Which should worry people, as I think it basically shows that they really aren't interested in the law as much as they are interested in doing what they want regardless of the law.
The climate of fear and paranoia after the 9/11 attacks basically allowed them to do what they want (I really do see September 12th 2001 -not September 11th - as our nation's most vulnerable time in centuries, not because of any outside threats that terrorism posed, but rather because of how the climate of fear that terrorism created allowed for certain groups to take advantage of that fear in order to further their own agendas). I do think we are starting to wake up from this though, and I think people are starting to be more cynical when it comes to the politics of "fear" (which is a good thing, as I don't think people think straight when they are terrified and hysterical).
I personally am completely fine with passing news laws to give our government the tools they need to combat terrorism, just as I understand that certain laws will be applied differently in a time of war, but I am entirely skeptical of using the rhetoric of "war" (as it has traditionally been defined) to classify how we deal with terrorism. Mainly because, I don't think we've tested what exactly "War" means in terms of terrorism. When, for example, does the war on terrorism end? What constitutes victory? Who are our enemies?, etc, etc. All of these questions are easily answered when it comes to traditional war, but I'm not sure they can be applied in the same way to terrorism.
If winning the war on terrorism means eradicating all forms of terrorism entirely, then the USA will never and can never win the war on terrorism. Which I think is why it's absurd to talk about terrorism in terms of "War" as well as in terms of "winning and losing." It's a war we'll never win, mainly because it really isn't a war in the first place. There will always be terrorism just like there will always be crime. We can lessen and prevent terrorism, but as long as some nut has the ability to strap a bomb to himself and blow people up, or to open fire on a shopping mall, etc, etc, there will always be terrorism. Defining our fight against terrorism as "War" in the traditional sense should worry people, just because it basically opens the possibility that a president can claim "war time" exceptions/rights perpetually.
And as a final note, I really don't see any of this as a "conservative" vs "liberal" issue. Rather, I see it as a "Bush administration/neocons" versus "The American people" issue. There's been enough conservatives that have come out against the administration's policies post 9/11 (i.e. the patriot act, Gitmo, Iraq, etc, etc), that I don't think a lot of his actions square all that well with conservative ideals (and a lot of his actions are really aimed at giving the government MORE power, so it kind of boggles my mind why so many conservatives supported a lot of this stuff in the first place. Although there were many democrats who basically laid back and gave him a blank check to do whatever he wanted after 9/11 as well, so I won't claim that they are any better).
|
|
|
|