Why is the President Lying ... again?

Hi Crash,Just a correction to this bit: ...especially the last part. For reference, border security budgets inside the DHS doubled between FY2002 and FY2003, and doubled again (more or less) in FY2004. The newest budget figures (for FY2005), which of course have not yet been approved, increase border security funding specifically by about 10% over FY2004. The initiatives include a fair amount of $$$ upgrade for the Container Security Initiative (which was started in FY2002, IIRC) and a number of other programs designed to enhance border security. For the FY2003 upgrades, see Border and Transportation Security, and for the proposed 2005 upgrades see Department of Homeland Security Announces FY 2005 Budget in Brief.President Bush may be open to criticism on many areas, but your critique here might be characterized charitably as, hmmm, hyperbole to say the least. (more later)

As a btw, the other issue on terrorist activity worldwide "doubling" since the Iraq war started is also not exactly accurate. According to the US State Department's most recent "Patterns of Global Terorism" Year in Review, released June 2004, there was a "slight increase" in terrorist acts worldwide in 2003 over 2002, but substantially less terrorism over 2001. Quoting from the article:

quote:

---

There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.

​

A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 3646 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, a sharp increase from 2013 persons wounded the year before. This increase reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on soft targets, such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties.

---

Again, be careful of hyperbole.As an aside, a quote from the end of the article is important to remember:

quote:

---

Most of the attacks that have occurred during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom do not meet the longstanding U.S. definition of international terrorism because they were directed at combatants, that is, U.S. and Coalition forces on duty. Attacks against noncombatants, that is, civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged to be terrorist attacks.

---

Err, no. Did you read the State Dept report that I linked to? The report quite clearly states there were fewer terrorist acts but substantially more people injured during that period, and even goes on to explain why this is the case. Waxman is very carefully blurring the line between the two statements in his letter to Powell that you linked for what he thinks are no doubt good and sufficient domestic political reasons. He does correctly bring up the issue - which is probably worth debating in its own right - of how terrorist acts are defined.Here's a link to a CRS report discussing some of the alleged problems with the 2003 Patterns: The Department of State’s Patterns of Global Terrorism Report: Trends, State Sponsors, and Related Issues June 1, 2004. You'll find the link useful because on page 11 is the breakdown of the data used in the criticized report. Make your own assessment.Oh, and btw, the report I linked to WAS the "revised version".

Are you sure about your interpretation? One of the things I thought came out clearly from Kerry is his rejection of the concept of pre-emption. He has been up front that he'd be willing to "go it alone" if necessary - so he's not a fanatical multilateralist like Clinton was - but one of the things that has been somewhat worrying to me is that he's been pretty plain that pre-emptive strikes are not in his lexicon. I've had the opportunity to listen to a lot of his speeches over the last couple of months (my job allowed me to spend a lot of travel time glued to CSPAN radio). He comes across as reactive and retributive as a distinction between the unilateral preemptive policy of the current administration. This isn't a criticism, necessarily. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. Maybe I'm simply misunderstanding him. I remember one speech where he stated words to the effect of "I will hunt down and punish any group that attacks the US." - a defensive, reactive policy, contrasted with Bush's "I will hunt them down and fight them overseas before they attack." That seems to be fairly consistent with his criticism of Bush on Iraq, among other policies. Preemption, AFAIK, is not sanctioned by international law in any way shape or form. If I'm reading Kerry correctly, he accepts that legal restriction.Maybe you can explain his actual position for me...?

Since I need to cogitate on Holmes' response a bit, I'll answer the easy one now... No. Or rather, the media and (IIRC) the administration called it terrorism in their rhetoric. It did not then and does not now fit either the internationally accepted definition of terrorism, OR the operational definition of terrorism used by US policy makers in making actual decisions. Note well the Patterns of Global Terrorism report I referenced earlier in the thread. Terrorism is a deliberate act of violence directed against non-combatant civilians for the sake of, well, fomenting terror. As such, acts of sabotage (for ex, against Iraqi oil facilities and pipelines) or guerrilla actions directed against purely military targets (like the Cole) are not terrorism. It is the target and objective that defines terrorism, not the nature of the act (i.e., not all suicide bombers are terrorists). 9/11 was a terrorist act, blowing oneself up to kill some Iraqi security forces is not - rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. Recommend you look back over the longish albeit truncated discussion holmes and I had in the "War on Terror" thread awhile back. You have something of a point here. Al Qaeda among others doesn't make the distinction - an enemy's civil populace is considered fair game. This is why I have no problem labelling the group as terrorist. OTOH, most of the so-called "terrorist groups" involved in the Iraqi insurgency aren't terrorists - they're insurgents. Some of the non-Iraqi rifraf that has joined the fighting ARE terrorists, however. However, I think that it's important for US to make the distinction where possible. Otherwise, we aren't much better than they are.

Uhh, since I don't support Bush, and have even stated that I intend to vote for Kerry, I think YOUR comment here is "besides the point". In fact, I've never even mentioned Bush in this context. You appear to be dragging in irrelevancies rather than addressing the substance of my remarks - very unlike you, Crash. I think I said that. Yes. The soldiers were "legitimate" targets. The civilians were victims of terrorists. Specious?! Specious!! When have you ever known me to use a specious argument? You might disagree with me, but you need to do better than simply denigrate the argument. Try showing how I’m wrong. Oh, and again, I’ve never even mentioned Bush. Whether or not we are in better or worse shape now than before the last election is a completely different topic — and one which I haven’t even broached. You need to re-read my posts.To substantiate my contentions, let’s see some definitions of terrorism:This one emphasizes the civilian nature of the target, but shows the indirect nature of terrorist acts: This is about as close as the UN has come to a definition although I find it rather vague. Note the emphasis on civil targets. This one is perhaps a bit broad, and it is arguable whether or not warfare is an appropriate characterization, but also emphasizes the civilian nature of the target. And of course, US law states: Terrorism in general (as opposed to international terrorism) is defined by US law (USC 22.256.f.d.) as I actually don’t agree with this definition, simply because it seeks to absolve States of the moral responsibility and consequences of deliberately targeting civilians. And yes, I include acts such as the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo — acts deliberately targeted at a civilian population in order to achieve a political or ideological objective — as terrorist acts. Hamas, before they slipped over the line and started blowing up school buses, was a legitimate guerilla group, for example.However, my lengthy point here is that there is a single thread running through the vast majority of definitions: attacks against non-combatants. There is no moral calculation, rather an attempt to objectively separate freedom fighter or guerilla or revolutionary from terrorist. All too often the term is used simply as a way to demonize the opponent, rather than recognizing the special status of the perpetrator by keying on the target, rather than the method.For further reading, I suggest: Henri Boshoff, Anneli Botha and Martin Schnteich 2001 Fear in the City, Urban Terrorism in South Africa, especially chapter 1 THE MULTI-HEADED MONSTER: DIFFERENT FORMS OF TERRORISM contains an excellent overview and discussion of what terrorism is. Available on-line here

Yeah, I probably overstated the case. However, the UN (and others) is creeping toward an operational definition (see the GA resolution I quoted to Crash above). Basically, the problem is almost a West vs East ideology. In the West, there appears to be at least a general (if not the specific wording) agreement on a relatively narrow definition, whereas in the East (as characterized by, for example, the Ayatollah Tashkiri's definition often quoted by Middle Eastern sources) is IMO way too broad. Tashkiri appears to lump ALL anti-government efforts or acts of violence into the terrorism category. I don't see much hope of getting a solid, useable concensus any time soon. I totally agree with the first part of your statement. As I noted to Crash, the US (and btw several other Western country) definitions tend to reserve the right to absolve themselves of the moral responsibility for targeting civilians by restricting the definition to non-statal actors. I disagree with this policy. Until EVERYBODY agrees that targeting civilian populations is an illegitimate act, States will continue to use this abhorrant form of action when it suits their purpose. Not a good way to gain concensus and put a stop to it, IMO.As far as the specific cases you mention, in none of them do I see "terrorism" as I've defined it. Infrastructure - including state-controlled media outlets, etc - have long been considered legitimate targets. Might their destruction kill civilian (i.e., non-military) personnel? Yes, obviously. However, the intent was not to terrorize civilians, but rather to impede or destroy some element of the enemy's (using the term loosely) capabilities. I'll admit I'm not clear on the military necessity of destroying a water treatment facility, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it as a military target per se. As to the Contras, well, fomenting revolt and/or supporting guerrilla groups fighting against a country someone doesn't agree with has a rather long history. Now providing funding and support to a group whose entire purpose is terror or who use terrorist tactics to accomplish their aims WOULD be tantamount to terrorism. The Contras are a case in point - most were simply rebels. Some were little more than bandits, and some were terrorists. I think it would be a mistake not to make the distinction when we support such groups. I'd say the term insurgent also has a fairly long history. I'm not sure of the etymology of the word, nor when it was first introduced, but insurgents are generally considered "legitimate" combatants - unless they're goring YOUR ox, in which case they're either bandits or terrorists . But honestly, as long as they stay on the right side of the terrorist/guerrilla divide, demonizing them as "terrorists" is simply propaganda. Interestingly, there appear to be both in Iraq right now. Most of the Iraqis fighting the Coalition forces are probably rightly termed insurgents, rather than terrorists. Most of the "volunteers" there and in Afghanistan from other countries appear to be more in the nature of terrorists as I've defined it.On the collateral damage issue (isn't that a quaint euphemism? Sort of makes the mess all clean and fluffy while glossing over the horrors of living in a war zone), anytime civilians are killed it's a tragedy. It's also a practically unavoidable consequence of war, or if you prefer, military action in a built-up area. However, I would maintain that there's a very important distinction to be made between accident (whether caused by negligence or bad luck) and deliberately carpet bombing a city. The latter would be terrorism. Again, we can argue over specific cases, but that doesn't really further the dialog that's needed to be able to discriminate between the tragic costs of war and deliberate acts of terror. I'm honestly not clear on the point you're attempting to make here and in the subsequent paragraph. If you're asking me whether I consider the deaths of civilians caught in the cross-fire or killed by stray ordinance are morally equivalent to acts conducted by persons or groups who are deliberately targeting them, then I'd have to say, "No, I don't, tragic though it may be." If you're asking me whether I think that the Coalition forces are randomly throwing ordinance downrange regardless of the potential for civilian casualties on the off-chance they'll hit something important, then again I'd have to say, "No, I don't." Maybe you could clarify what you mean, and I'll try and answer your point.

Okay, I see and understand your point. Obviously, I do draw a distinction between accident and deliberate targeting of civilians. I think to change my mind you'd have to show that the amount of civilian casualties caused by US/Coalition forces is actually representative of "wanton recklessness". I simply don't think the media coverage to date is in-depth enough to make the case, but I'm open to convincing. It would be quite uncharacteristic of our military to operate in that fashion today (in the past, possibly different story), both because of technological advances and substantial doctrinal changes over the last couple decades.

Now we’re getting into a highly technical discussion area concerning jus in bello and the principle of proportionality. Besides being OT, I’m not sure we need to go there, although I’d be happy to discuss them on a different thread. I’ll content myself with agreeing with your underlying point (for the nonce) that the location of the bar as you put it is the key element. I’ll also agree that if there is evidence that the proportionality rule has been systematically violated (as you seem to be suggesting), whether through negligence or design, then we are looking at a legitimate case for war crimes accusations (among other possible results). I’ll finish up (for this thread) by restating the point on which I disagree with you: I consider the deliberate targeting of civilians (i.e., terrorism) both qualitatively and quantitatively different from accidental death due to war. Although, as RAZD so succinctly puts it, dead is dead, and the loss of non-combatant lives should be viewed as a tragedy regardless of reason..

Or alternatively, as the report suggests, a shift from now-hardened targets to "softer", more vulnerable targets. I couldn't have made a more obvious statement if I'd tried. Congratulations on your ability to turn a discussion into triviality. I never would have guessed...

It's not clear to me that your rant has anything whatsoever to do with anything I've ever said. I never characterized Waxman's letters as "lying", nor did I imply it, for example. I do think his arguments have more to do with domestic politics than anything else, but that's an opinion. I have also never disagreed with your statement that Bush lied - or at least strongly overstated or understated his case - at various times. One of the several reasons I don't plan on voting for him.What's with you, anyway RAZD?? Whatever won't respond, so you feel the need to virulently attack anyone who disagrees with you on any point? Get a grip.

In this one, I guess we'll agree to disagree. Although, I don't actually completely disagree with you - rather I think the jury's still out. The accusations of reckless disregard are exceptionally serious ones, and I would need substantial evidence (beyond simply a list of "mistakes") that the problem is systemic or based on deliberate policy before I'd join in that accusation, is all.

Great article, schraf. I think this paragraph: ...says it all. Since as far as I can tell, the answer to all the questions appears to be "no".