Thoughts on Dealing with Terrorism

To begin with, the comments that follow exclude consideration of the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq since I believe there are established rules with which many agree. There is little stretch, in my view, necessary to effectively apply the existing criminal law and procedures in the United States to deal with terrorism directed at Americans outside of these two conflicts. I will discuss some of the relevant elements that seem to be used to define "the threat."

I am not persuaded that the religious identity and religious motivation of the actors affects the consequence of their conduct. The intended or resulting death and destruction are already defined by criminal sanctions in existing law. Religious fervor motivating criminal acts does not necessarily create a substantive category (unless we chose to elevate it so) as much as it may merely indicate the relative intensity of the motivation. We all recognize other motivations in criminal conduct such as greed or revenge. These stimuli also vary in intensity from impulse to the point of rage so intense as to void all reasoning. Nothing about religious motivation or identity suggests to me that existing criminal laws could not or should not be used to punish the offenders. It is not insignificant to continue to ascribe terrorist conduct to a particular religion. We began and continue to hold the concept of religious freedom a core value within our system. “Islam” has become almost a pejorative classification in our conversations. Not that long ago the IRA was simply the IRA and not the Irish Catholic Republican Army. There is no justification to equate Islam as a religion with terrorism. I have pointed out that Mongols, Jews, Muslims, Christians and other groups have committed genocide under direction of their god. We need to back away from generalization of Islam because it is right to do so and because it is in our best interests. I'll address political motivation below.

Nor does the circumstance that acts are committed against selected national identities change my view. Importantly, we are one of so many that there may be little substantive distinction among the targets of terrorism. "Islamic terrorist" attacks have been directed against citizens of Australia as well as European, African and Middle Eastern countries, India and even (broadly defined) China. To my knowledge, each of these other nations has dealt with the terrorists within their own justice systems. Nothing about the fact that Americans are the target of the crimes convinces me that we need to establish a new process to bring them to justice. It is important to remember that Justice is the objective; not revenge; nor solely deterrence; nor solely intelligence gathering; nor gulag confinement. The Soviet State imprisoned Polish, Lithuanian, German and other foreign nationals along with their own citizens by establishing a separate process within which they defined categories of individuals as continuing threats to the Soviet State. Frankly, many were threats to the existing Soviet State. To dismiss the comparison because our motives are self-defensive and “righteous” is to ignore the substantial danger of abuse once the precedent is established. There are too many examples within our own national experience to deny the threat. During past periods of threats to national security our freedoms have been curtailed. To be sure, our national values were "reinstated" at some point. Each of these instances were circumscribed by circumstance and experience to have a defined duration. The "war on terror" has no defined point of termination barring an early "second coming." Most importantly, these past cycles are no evidence that a reestablishment would follow any usurpation of our freedoms.

Nor am I persuaded by contentions that existing procedures for interdiction, seizure and prosecution are inadequate. Existing U. S. law provides and allows for relatively efficient mechanisms to extradite or return by other methods those who have committed terrorist acts, conspire to do so or direct their conduct. The coordination of all nations in intelligence gathering, interdiction and seizure is, of course, essential. This coordination also tracks the ongoing parallel efforts in coordination to effectively deal with growing international fraud, drugs, extortion, etc., that is, criminal conduct.

The highest levels of any, including “Islamist,” terrorist organizations are driven by political motivation. However, the makeup of cannon fodder has not changed through human history. Whether running at the opposing cavalry or running with sword into the guns or pressing a self-destructing button, the political objectives are not paramount in the actor's mind. Certainly, the upper echelons recognize and utilize the coercion explicit in the act toward political objectives against us as a sovereign power. However, it is the “act” and the resultant death and destruction and not the political cause that constitutes the harm. If we acknowledge a need for a new process to deal with “Islamic terrorism” we inject their “political cause” into the process. Once we accept cause as a qualifying element we open current and future situations to subjective qualification. Let’s assume that American students housed in a hotel in Gaza City are killed by a bomb set by a group of radical Israeli settlers who had targeted a Hamas leader in the hotel. The act is clearly one of terrorism but many, I suggest, when hearing the facts would begin to distinguish their “political cause.” Even were we to discard the “Islamic” qualification it would be manifest in the conduct of the new process, the targets and our manifest objectives that we were out for the Islamic terrorists: a distinction with no difference.

Response to Friends: Say No to a Holy War

For some time in recent months I have exchanged views on various issues with a number of friends for whom I hold the highest respect for their inspiring and challenging intelligence. I plan to add to this Blog those of my responses which may still be relevant to current issues. I recall making this same statement of intent in an earlier entry. I mean it this time. This entry is just one regarding Islamic terrorism from a discussion today. My friend said, in the course of his argument, “This is a war, and it will be a really long war….. Given 1400 years of history, it may never end except for an unlikely collapse of will by the combatants or a catastrophe of world scope.”

My response: You seem to be espousing a crusade, a Christian Holy War against Islam. I believe history does not support your premise nor will history have to come close to your apocalyptic projection. However, one way to assuredly make this future more likely is to agree to definitions of nations as single repositories of the one true religion to the physical expulsion or cultural/political condemnation of any one or all others. This seems to me particularly stupid in the long run when the religions share the same God and only the current interpretations of the “founding books” by a minority of believers are initiating the current violence. The following is an interesting twist from “Democracy in America” by de Tocqueville.

"Mohammed professed to derive from Heaven, and has inserted in the Koran, not only religious doctrines, but political maxims, civil and criminal laws, and theories of science. The Gospel, on the contrary, speaks only of the general relations of men to God and to each other, beyond which it inculcates and imposes no point of faith. This alone, besides a thousand other reasons, would suffice to prove that the former of these religions will never long predominate in a cultivated and democratic age, while the latter is destined to retain its sway at these as at all other periods.

"In continuation of this same inquiry I find that for religions to maintain their authority, humanly speaking, in democratic ages, … they confine themselves strictly within the circle of spiritual matters, ….

"The preceding observation, that equality leads men to very general and very vast ideas, is principally to be understood in respect to religion. Men who are similar and equal in the world readily conceive the idea of the one God, governing every man by the same laws and granting to every man future happiness on the same conditions. The idea of the unity of mankind constantly leads them back to the idea of the unity of the Creator; while on the contrary in a state of society where men are broken up into very unequal ranks, they are apt to devise as many deities as there are nations, castes, classes, or families, and to trace a thousand private roads to heaven…..

"It seems evident that the more the barriers are removed which separate one nation from another and one citizen from another, the stronger is the bent of the human mind, as if by its own impulse, towards the idea of a single and all-powerful Being, dispensing equal laws in the same manner to every man. In democratic ages, then, it is particularly important not to allow the homage paid to secondary agents to be confused with the worship due to the Creator alone. Another truth is no less clear, that religions ought to have fewer external observances in democratic periods than at any others….

"Those who have to regulate the external forms of religion in a democratic age should pay a close attention to these natural propensities of the human mind in order not to run counter to them unnecessarily….” http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/ch1_05.htm