I'm going to be chopping up your last three posts to create one coherent line of argument for myself while addressing all the different issues you've raised.
quetzal writes:
IF we start as I suggested with an honest appraisal of our own uses of this illegitimate form of war, and IF we can proceed from there to develop a more viable progressive war strategy in our own future conflicts — and by our I’m referring to the community of so-called civilized nations — then and only then can we realistically avoid falling into the trap you have mentioned. And then and only then will the benefits you listed of this paradigm be operationalized.
I actually understood this the first time you stated it. Apparently I didn't make my "counter" point well enough.
In a way I think we are talking past each other. It seems we both agree that:
1) Nations must recognize that they have been practicing unlimited warfare and that this sets the precedent for others to use it as well,
2) Nations must reassess and regulate the use of violent actions in warfare that directly target/affect civilian populations, and
3) Nations and the international community must recognize that TO's (and international CO's which use terrorism) require Nations to use certain methods beyond the limits of current criminal law to end their threat.
The question is how to achieve these ends and exactly what powers/methods are necessary for Nations as required by #3.
The comprehensive paradigm appears to start with #3 and works 1&2 in as part of the process. The narrow paradigm (as I am trying to suggest) recognizes all three at once but starts working on #1&2 first, before moving onto an international "legal" solution to 3.
Your first sentence in the quote above actually feels to me like you are supporting my position and that is what I tried to suggest to you... that concretely defining and legislating against terrorism does start with "an honest appraisal of our own uses of this illegitimate form of war" and so avoid the trap we are both wary of.
I understand that #3 is of EXTREME URGENCE, but I think most of our immediate needs can be addressed in domestic preventative measures (guarding prime targets) while quickly moving through #1&2 which realistically should be pretty quick to define (I think we could get it done within a month).
I am simply dubious that concentrating on the threat of TO's will ever result in bringing Nations to the table on 1&2. Okay, let me brutally honest. The US and Britain and Israel are who I am talking about. They have refused to discuss any international security measures EXCEPT in the context of threat to themselves and methods THEY need to address them.
I think the international community can begin to define #1&2 and force these three (with the possible exception of Israel) to a table. The Kyoto accords are a good example. While the US stayed out it did shame us and has forced us into some position of trying to comply with its reasoning.
It would also start the debate in public media which could be helpful.
quetzal writes:
However, the definition to me — albeit admittedly insufficient in and of itself — is not circular... All you have really done is substitute violent action for warfare. I would argue that this is a semantic distinction that may have no practical utility. For clarification, at what point does violent action become warfare?
Maybe circular wasn't the best term, but it was close to what I was trying to say. If one asks should terrorism be considered war or crime, it is a bit self-serving to start by using the term warfare, and perhaps a bit circular in that you are defining a kind of war with the term warfare.
This is why I said it begged the question of what "war" was.
I think your question at the end of the quote is exactly what I should have made clear. Let me do this using formulas...
Use of deadly force against another being=[violent action]
[violent action]+large numbers+uncoordinated/purposeless=[riot]
[VA]+large numbers+coordinated/purpose=[war]
As can be seen violent action is the base of warfare, thus we can use [war] to define certain actions (which may be a subset), or "[violent action]+". I think it is more accurate to use the most basic components for a definition.
Here are some examples why I think this...
[VA]+large numbers+coordinated/purpose+limited/sporadic harassment engagements(ie, irregular)=[guerrilla war]
[VA]+large numbers+coord/purp+lim/spor+targeting civilians for purpose of generating fear=[terrorism]
or is it...
[GW]+targeting civilians to generate fear=[terrorism]
In fact it, IF one defines "targeting civilans to generate fear" as a more general "criminal act", the definition could be...
[GW]+criminal act=[terrorism]
This may very well be arguing past each other again. We both seem to agree that terrorism involves both crime and some form of warfare. I simply believe it is better to view it (and treat it) as primarily a crime which is conducted during war, than as warfare which might be criminal.
Tomayto, tomahto? Perhaps, but I would argue that it pushes a mindset which is more inclined to find solutions to terrorism, rather than terrorists.
quetzal writes:
My belief — and I emphasize that it’s a belief, although defensible — is that by beginning with a candid reflection of our own guilt... for the use of terror, we can develop a new form of progressive war which will allow us to both take the moral high ground and develop effective humane... counters to states and organizations that continue to practice terror, and also to move our own strategy away from unfettered war.
I agree with this wholeheartedly and believe this is actually more of the narrow paradigm, which STARTS by condemning a criminal act, rather than defining the nature of the threat posed by the opposition.
Maybe I can convince you this is the major difference between the two, and that my starting point (and therefore my paradigm) is the better one?
quetzal writes:
If we can reach that point, then I think we do have the moral legitimacy to invoke the rule of law. However, this has little to do with how we confront and approach terrorist organizations, especially international organizations, and defend against them, in the interim. We may, at least on this level, be talking past each other. I’ll reserve opinion on that for the moment.
Well I do agree with this in spirit... including the emerging realization we are inches from each other in agreement, which is the only reason we are arguing.
I do argue though that if we approach and confront terrorist organizations merely because they pose a threat, rather than that the nature of that threat is indeed criminal not just a wartime enemy, we are less likely to discuss criminalizing terrorist acts.
quetzal writes:
In attempting to stake a position in opposition to the common misconception of terrorists as marginal nutjobs, I undoubtedly overstepped and overstated what I really believe.
Understood, and accepted as an explanation.
quetzal writes:
Terrorist — good enough. However, it’s not clear to me that it should be considered as a subset of guerrilla.My position is that once a guerrilla steps over the line into terror, they have forfeited any and all rights to be treated as a legitimate combatant under the rules of war —which I advocate for guerrillas
Well this is pretty close to my own assessment of why terrorism is less a subset of war than it is a major subset of crime. Kind of terrorism is to war (or guerrilla war), as terrorists are to guerrilla fighters...
quetzal writes:
My only question is why you continue to reference espionage or espionage organizations. I’m unclear as to how you are using the term. Perhaps you could provide an example? It’s a minor point, but it struck me as incongruous in the context of either irregular or conventional war.
Fair enough. The reason I used "espionage" as that in the context of warfare, they only utilize irregular warfare. For certain CIA types have been part of war forever (most famously its OSS predecessor). I realize intelligence agencies do many other things, but when in war they resemble TO's in assets, strategy, and tactics with the only exception that TO's concentrate on generating fear to cause disruption, rather than an espionage agency's generation of confusion and removal of enemy assets.
I hope this makes sense. I suppose I could have referred to them as "covert organizations".
quetzal writes:
I submit that you must, in fact, make the awkward consideration as a matter of course. It is fundamentally impossible to defend against the lone nutcase (although you can make it difficult in the extreme). Somewhat counterintuitively, it isn’t impossible or even impractical to defend against and proactively disrupt global organizations — merely difficult.
Agreed, but IF you agree that each act must be judged by law enforcement officials first whether they are act of war or just a crime, THEN it seems you are actually supporting the narrow paradigm.
I guess I view the comprehensive paradigm as resulting in a situation where by default every terrorist act must be considered an act of war, which is problematic along the lines I described.
If I am wrong about this then I am a bit confused as to why this debate started as a question of whether terrorism is an act of war or a criminal act. Certainly if it is criminal first, and later determined to be war or not, than it is basically a criminal act, right?
quetzal writes:
If it is at all possible to operationalize the concept, without indulging in hyperbole that can lead to the blank check and slippery slopes you refer to, I am all for using a different term. Remains, of course, to identify what that term might be.
I think coming up with new terminology may very well be needed. Perhaps this is exactly what we should be working on.
I think such terminology should center on words similar to those covering covert operations and foreign intelligence operatives... specifically those which cause harm.
Or maybe we should look at Ian Fleming novels to see what terms are used for minions of Dr No and all those other crazy organizations which are without question the very model of what we are fighting now.
quetzal writes:
The problem remains that military response is specifically disallowed if we go with a legal or law enforcement approach.
Okay, I will accept that the comprehensive paradigm does not necessitate military action alone, if you grant me that the narrow paradigm does not necessitate law enforcement alone.
The narrow paradigm simply says that the beginning and end result is the sphere of law enforcement. What happens in between may very well involve military action, and intelligence style information gathering.
quetzal writes:
However, even here you need to be clearer on what you mean by cooperation. I noted in my previous post the difficulties between law enforcement and intelligence approaches to data collection... I would be interested in hearing your views on how the different approaches, methodologies and objectives between law enforcement and intelligence agencies can be rationalized. In addition, it might be worthwhile to revisit some of my argument concerning the ineffectiveness of law enforcement outside the territorial limits of the nation.
Once it is determined via normal law enforcement information gathering techniques, that an individual is involved with a TO, or CO or army that uses terrorism, intelligence methods are allowed for gathering information.
This may mean that intelligence agencies take over, or that law enforcement agents gain greater power. This latter could be accomplished by writ from a judge or panel of judges. It's like a broader search warrant.
Of course intelligence agents are normally investigating TO's and may provide (share) intelligence with law enforcement agents in order to build the case that the individual is part of a TO, etc etc.
In the open court trial afterward (which I believe should be open court because actions are against civilians) evidence collected using intelligence methods, which may not normally be eligible in a court of law, can be admissable. Certain types of info may be qualified (much like lie detector results), but methods of accumulating evidence are much much wider.
I agree that local law enforcement agencies are incapable of fighting TOs outside their nation. That is when national level, or international law agencies should take over.
I am certainly hoping that the end result of 9-11 is the total revamping of how intelligence and evidence is handled and shared among organizations, both nationally and internationally.
Along these lines, there must be an international anti-TO organization. Much like NATO, but for nations wanting to promote "civilized" Nations against Nations and Organizations using illegitimate warfare methods.
Indeed, this would create the law body necessary to create real concepts of "warcrimes" which do not functionally exist today.
quetzal writes:
In one breath you label all terrorism a criminal act, and in the same breath you admit that in some cases it may be an act of war. By what criteria do you delineate the two?
I hope I've answered this to some extant already. In essence all acts of terrorism are acts of war in the broad sense of war. They are also in both the broad and narrow sense, criminal acts. The question of whether we should legally define any act of terror as an act of war (the legal definition of war, not the broad sense), comes down to the nature and intent of the perpetrator.
It is my contention that TO's, or anything less than a Nation or Rebel Army, are unable to meet the specific legal concept of War. They just do not operate that way, and so acts made by them while maybe an act of hostile conflict, should not be considered War. This could change if a TO is being used as an arm of another Nation (that would make the TO a specific covert army or intelligence organization of that Nation).
Acts of terror committed by anything less than a Nation, would have to use separate and new terminology. Again, perhaps that used to describe a covert agency's armed conflict against another Nation's covert organization.
Or maybe "crime against humanity" or "civilization" should be used. That would be pretty appropriate as it denotes who the victims are.
quetzal writes:
I would argue that deterrence or outright elimination of the threat is paramount. I would like to hear some additional argument from your standpoint as to why criminal prosecution is the preferred end state.
I am only arguing that a courtroom is the natural endpoint of the players involved with a terrorist act. I totally agree that elimination and deterrence of the threat posed by TO's is paramount.
This latter task can be accomplished by intelligence agencies, or new international legal agencies proactively investigating and prosecuting TO's.
I don't think military actions (even smallscale surgical operations) should be employed against an organization which has not officially become a TO. This means just because an organization looks extremist, if it has not committed a crime, extreme actions should not be taken against it.
To be honest, while law is reactive, especially with regard to any specific terrorist act, the law may very well be used to disrupt future operations.
Part of this whole new paradigm is recognizing that the individuals who commit a terrorist act are not the only guilty parties. If in a TO, all high ranking members should be held directly responsible according to law. They may then be approached and arrested for any act committed by the organization.
They may also be arrested for conspiracy to commit crimes as intelligence is collected along these lines. Repeated arrests based on conspiracy may very well break line of communication, or at least the stages of planning.
It would also be important to approach them with carrots, instead of just sticks. Why not empower members (especially the high level ones) to get some of their issues addressed. I don't mean terrorists should be coddled or their outrageous demands appeased. But there must be some recognition that it is desperation regarding some issue which has created the organization. It can be derailed from its course of a TO, by addressing the realistic portions of their issue.
After all I'd rather have an angry organization, than a TO.
Thus my answer is that law may be used as a proactive tool to some degree, based on the FACT that TO's are constantly planning and committing criminal acts. If intelligence techniques are allowed for collecting evidence in these matters, law is empowered to a much greater degree.
quetzal writes:
How do you convince a state such as the US (or France, or the UK, or whomever) that it is in their interest - they only way they'll accept such an idea - to accede to an international body of this nature?
France is ready. I can only think that the world's Nations accepting the idea of, and creating, something along the lines of NATO, but against terrorism, the US and UK would be shamed for not participating.
They may choose not to, but it could start a large world paradigm shift against the US as the cop people need to solve their problems.
quetzal writes:
If anything, the cellular structure of most global terrorist organizations has even greater implications for the inability of law enforcement to eliminate or reduce the threat from the organization as a whole. Arresting or eliminating any number of members, or even entire cells, has little effect on the organization as a whole. OTOH, it has been shown historically that disruption of the top leadership of a cellular organization has grave implications for the survival of the organization.
Absolute agreement. This is why I think while Nations must define terrorist acts as crimes, laws must be changed to recognize the different nature of criminal organizations (specifically those which are built on covert operation models). Maybe they should be called covert criminal organizations, to differentiate them from Mafia types which do not necessarily engage in terrorism (except against other mafia members?).
I think these changes only need to relate to collection of evidence, inclusion of organizational heads to the acts by their members, and expanded use of force when acting against members of the TO (which will undoubtedly revert to paramilitary mode in that situation).
On a side note: Pat Robertson--- after having already led a prayer offensive against the US Supreme Court--- has this week suggested (twice) that a small tactical nuclear device be used against the US State Department.
When will this jackass get treated by the public like the traitor he is?
------------------
holmes
™ Version 4.2