homicide-erumpent
Notebook

Wesley Clark calls terrorists simply “criminals”

August 9th, 2007 by Double Tap

Retired general Wesley Clark, joined by Kal Raustiala, pens an editorial in the New York Times that declares that terrorists shouldn’t be called soldiers. I’m down with that, but I’m going to have part ways with the two of them on a couple of points. Let’s start with the areas we do agree on:

Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the law of war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill the enemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so. They must, however, carefully distinguish between combatant and civilian and ensure that harm to civilians is limited.

OK, so far, so good. I agree that an irregular force like a terrorist group is far from being in any position to be afforded the status as soldiers. However, it’s around this point that Wesley and I part company. Clark doesn’t like the term “illegal combatant”, now commonly used by the U.S. government. In fact, he doesn’t like the term “combatant” at all.

Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the law of war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill the enemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so…

…By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state’s responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status.

OK, I kind of see his point - sort of. But, what do you call a force that employs not only small arms, but large explosives and military rockets and missiles, and attempts to destroy people and infrastructure of a government and people it has publicly pronounced are its enemies? For the most part, criminal organizations don’t do that - but insurgents and terrorists do. But what does Clark call these people? Well, “criminals” of course.

…terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures.

That, of course, assumes the terrorist act was performed domestically. It does us little or no good when dealing with an embassy bombing in Africa.

Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities “war.” The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven…

Yeah, except for the fact that our enemies in Al Qaeda have declared war on us - way back in 1998, when Slick Willy was still president.

…Labeling terrorists as combatants also leads to this paradox: while the deliberate killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it is legal to target a military installation or asset. Thus the attack by Al Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000 would be allowed, as well as attacks on command and control centers like the Pentagon. For all these reasons, the more appropriate designation for terrorists is not “unlawful combatant” but the one long used by the United States: criminal.

Where I’m really having a hard time with Clark’s assertions is that he is completely ignoring the Geneva conventions as it pertains to “lawful” and “unlawful” combatants. A lawful combatant could be an insurgent or even a terrorist - as long as he belongs to an actual militant organization and wears some sort of uniform. That uniform could be as simple as everyone wearing the same arm band or hat during their operations. Terrorists, as a rule, don’t wear any kind of uniform. That’s how the U.S. government is coming up with its rulings concerning the legitimacy of someone who is captured fighting U.S. forces - the Geneva conventions. This concept seems to be lost on the left, to include a former general - who should know better.

We need to recognize that terrorists, while dangerous, are more like modern-day pirates than warriors. They ought to be pursued, tried and convicted in the courts. At the extreme, yes, military force may be required. But the terrorists themselves are not “combatants.” They are merely criminals, albeit criminals of an especially heinous type, and that label suggests the appropriate venue for dealing with the threats they pose.

Referring to Al Qaeda or any of its wanna-be followers as criminals is foolish. Criminals perform criminal acts for self-gain. Terrorists commit their acts for what they perceive as a greater political or social goal, hoping to change a government’s policies or bring that government down completely. Individual terrorists aren’t in it for the money.

Treating terrorist as criminals might work here in the United States, where law enforcement agencies have the legal wherewithal to investigate criminal behavior by U.S. citizens or those living here. That makes sense. But, to try to translate that law enforcement mindset to the mountains of Afghanistan or the urban squalor of a Baghdad suburb is ridiculous. Plus, other countries have a say in how we investigate and apprehend the so-called “criminals” in their countries. If they don’t want us in there, there’s damned little we can do as police.

Plus, in our country, you can’t be convicted unless you are tried and convicted by a jury of your peers, by a preponderance of the evidence. Just try to collect that kind of evidence or get any decent witnesses against a road-side bomber in Iraq.

While I agree that some of the cases of captured terrorists have ended up being legal grey areas, simply attempting to label all terrorists as criminals - no matter where they are in the world - is exactly how we got into this position with Al Qaeda. It’s pretty well known fact that the Clinton administration was afraid to take action against Osama Bin Ladin - even when Sudan offered him up - because they couldn’t prove beyond a doubt that he was involved in terrorist acts against the United States. It’s that kind of legaleze bull crap that allowed Al Qaeda to prosper and 9-11 to happen.

tag Category : Terrorism, liberals
tag Tags : , , , , , , ,
tag Similar Posts:

Leave a Reply

Subscribe without commenting