One of the interesting (a very loaded and often understated word, as in “May You Live in Interesting Times”) aspects to events of the last year-and-change has been an examination of the dividing line between war and peace. And, more specifically, how we deal with the opposition in each.
The US is very proud, and rightfully so, of its criminal justice system, or, more particularly, of the rights and protections afforded folks by that system. Sure, there are problems. But they are problems, in general, not in the system, but in how it is used (or, more often, abused).
The sticky part that’s come up over the last year has been how the “War on Terror” changes this. Wartime carries different restrictions than peacetime. The military acts under different rules than the police and DAs. “Combat” is not the same as “Law and Order.”
The extremes are easy. If someone is wanted for shoplifting, the police may not fire a missile into his car as he commutes to the office. On the other hand, on the battlefield, the military have free rein to fire a missile at a truck-load of enemy soldiers.
But in a “War on Terror,” the big grey areas between those extremes get pretty murky. Where is the battlefield? Who are the enemy soldiers? When is it proper — to carry on the example — to fire a missile on someone and blow them up?
The case in hand, of course, is the remote-control killing of Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, et al., in Yemen the other day. Al-Harthi was a suspected member of al Qa’eda, an associate of bin Laden, and implicated in various ways with the suicide bombing of the USS Cole.
In a true James Bond moment, the CIA has revealed that it was behind the destruction of the car that al-Harthi and several others were in, through use of a missile fired from an unmanned Predator surveillance plane. And there was much rejoicing.
Still, was this the equivalent of killing a soldier on the battlefield? Or of killing a criminal without due process? Certainly the way this CNN poll is titled seems to indicate how they feel — Was the U.S. right to execute terror suspects without a trial?
On the battlefield, there’s no question of a trial. Trials are for suspects in a crime, provided to civilians to ensure due process, to establish the facts of the case, and to mete out proper justice. If Al-Harthi was a criminal, then the answer is obvious: no, it’s never right to execute someone without a trial.
The folks taking the (non-scientific) poll seem to disagree, by the way, with the classification, at least implicitly (as do I). If Al-Harthi is an enemy soldier on the battlefield, it’s perfectly legitimate to kill him (insofar as it’s okay to kill in war). A “trial” doesn’t enter into it.
The underlying question here, of course, is, outside of the clear battlefield, what sort of level of proof (or trust) do we hold the CIA (and the Administration) to in deciding whether someone is, in fact, an enemy soldier, not an innocent victim.
The debate continues on other fronts as well, of course, with the detainment of folks by the US as “enemy combatants.” Again, enemy soldiers on a battlefield aren’t entitled to a trial, just a bullet (or, if they’ve surrendered, internment). Suspected criminals, however, most definitely must be tried, otherwise nobody is safe.
The problem is, who gets to decide? A court? The Administration? The Armed Forces? What level of accountability should there be? Or can there be? We can’t just throw out the Constitution for the sake of convenience; by the same token, as has been commented, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and wartime, particuarly when our own soil is one of the battlefields, does rightfully require different circumstances.
But what is this war? Who’s actually fighting in it? Who gets to decide who the bad guys are, or when it’s over?
If I had any easy answers here, believe me, I’d share them.
On a related note, we were watching an old Mission: Impossible TV episode last night. The Impossible Mission Force always had one unstated rule: they could never, themselves, kill anyone. Bad drama, don’t you know — watching Barney sitting up in a tree with a sniper rifle, waiting to plant a round in Colonel Francisco’s head as he leaves on his way to overthrow the rightful government of Costa Brava may be practical, but it’s dull TV, and confronts the viewer with some moral issues 60s TV didn’t want to address.
So, on more than one occasion, the IMF tricked the bad guys into offing each other. On last night’s episode, callow Commie weasel Martin Sheen is clearly tricked into gunning down clever, ruthless Commie intelligence chief Anthony Zerbe, ending the threat to a double agent in the unnamed “enemy” country. Martin Landau could have just as easily done the deed, especially since it was to be hushed up, but that would have violated the rules.
So, was the IMF still guilty of murder? Or was there a “war” on?
And, if not, was it a different matter when they maneuvered organized crime figures into capping each other? Entrapment and murder?
What Would Jim Phelps Do?
What level of proof would you require to be convinced of an individuals being the commander of a terroristic act? Say an intelligence source had HUMINT (still a BIG part of intelligence) from an informant showing this is what he did and this is where he’s at right now. Now say that because of public opinion, the intelligence agency revealed the source. Could you accept and live with the informants death because of your being jaded with our government? And what about commanders? Most commanders are not part of an apparent battefield (removed a safe distance). Do they deserve trial while the grunts in the field are shooting at each other? If the lives of many soldiers can be saved by eliminating the command and control, isn’t it worth it?
I agree fully. Wars (and intelligence) cannot be fought with full transparency. Well, they can be fought, but they’ll be lost. Badly.
My concern is that, at some point, we open up the door for abuses of secrecy — and, sooner or later, secrecy is always abused. If foreign terrorist commander X can be assassinated based on [information classified], then others can be, too, unjustifiably but under the aegis of national security and classified data. If terrorist plotter Y can be detained in prison as an “enemy combatant” indefinitely because of [information classified], the others can be, too, for lesser (but equally unaccountable) justification.
The problem is one of trust. We know we cannot trust the powerful with indefinite, unlimited lack of accountability. But we we also know we cannot have full accountability. We can only have the pendulum swinging back and forth in the middle, as threats and betrayals force the dividing line of trust one way and the other.
I like nice, sharp, well-defined answers. I don’t like ambiguity. Unfortunately, we live in an analog world, not a digital one.
I’d like to live in a world where adults controlled the war machine, not overgrown chest-thumping frat-boys.
I vote no-confidence – can we get new management, please?
Dave: I agree with limiting the abuse of power by hiding behind secrecy. And questioning the motives behind actions is never a bad thing. But as Jenns post so accurately depicts, would any amount of proof be acceptable to our jaded society as reason for action? Or would the Ralls of the world pick it apart and chalk it up to conspiracy?
Jenn: Would you rather have busty sorority girl? Say someone as balanced and collected as a 60’s Jane Fonda? Or how about Barbara Streisand? Her recent comments show how rational and unemotional she can be. Or maybe Bill back in office? After all, he didn’t inhale. Just like Bush and the coke.
Well, that’s part of what today’s all about.
I actually worry less about how the Administration is handling “the war machine” than how its handling the domestic security machine (“ineffectively” and “dangerously” come to mind).
To tangent just a bit, this is exactly why, Adam, the folks who in the past who have betrayed the public trust — and those, today, who look to an immediate “good cause” to do so — bear the burden of an even heavier sin than they realized at the time.
Trust, once lost, is extraordinarily difficult to regain. Folks are today willing to believe almost any conspiracy theory (that matches up with their ideology) simply because you can point to documented cases where folks in power did incredibly stupid stuff, not realizing that the truth does, eventually, come out.
So, for example, the fabrications in the Gulf of Tonkin incidents had implications far beyond the justification of US entry into Viet Nam, regardless of whether the folks involved thought that was a good cause or not. Because it meant that people now have a level of doubt about any justification for war. Viet Nam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Bill’s personal improprieties, all had implications far beyond the immediate and short-term reasons why they occured, because, knowing them, people now mistrust any government. Which, ultimately, can paralyze the government from doing what must be done, simply because it’s not believed and therefore not supported.
Trust is incredibly fragile. Too many folks have thrown it away, and that haunts every Administration now.
Very well said. Unfortunately, I think ALL of our political leaders (dems and repubs) lack the backbone to do what must be done to begin earning trust back. But I think that’s only part of the problem. I think that our cultures callousness, crassness, and suspicious nature compound the issues. We want drama in our lives, be it politics, television, or celebrities. I don’t think we’re capable of accepting anything at face value, there always has to be an alterior motive or secret behind big brothers actions.
Well, apart from discussing (endlessly) of legitimate it is for secret agencies to kill, I’d like to ask two questions:
Why did the US government finance and train all the terrorist that now is “fighting” ? (I put the inverted commas because it is only fighting those they don’t like, and they continue to support the ones favorable to them.
On the other hand, that secrecy and “need” for “security”, I believe, is being used to instaurate a real despotic government. Just look, you americans can nos be arrested and retained without evidence or trial, and control is tighter every day. Is that freedom? I believe it is not.
Moreover, the excuse of having to “defend” your country has given mr. Bush the chance of eliminating any social benefit… thus furhter strengthening the coroporation and weakening the individual.
When I was a child I used to think that governemts cared for the wellbeing of their citicens…
Just one more thing: Dave, do you really believe those things that “must be done” ? I don’t believe them. It’snot that I look for ulterior motives, it’s that I cannot believe the reasons that mr Bush (mr Aznar, in my case) forwards.
*sigh*
I advice you to watch “bowling for Columbine”
Top Notch, I assure you.
My best wishes to you all.