Magical Mystery Tour

Although we have a strong nostalgic streak,
we are a hard people who no less than the ancient Romans
entertain ourselves with a steady diet of throat slitting
and torture images that can only work
to pound the tenderness out of us 
--Try a Little Tenderness, Gordon Marino 

They offer me neither food nor drink -- 
intellectual nor spiritual consolation...
[Conservatism] leads nowhere; it satisfies no ideal;
it conforms to no intellectual standard, it is not safe,
or calculated to preserve from the spoilers

that degree of civilization which we have already attained. 

--On the Conservative Party, John Maynard Keynes 
_____________________

The first article ever presented on RangerAgainstWar was titled, "Terrorism -- Is It Warfare?" (first published in Military Police, 1985).  Because the question has never been answered definitively, the United States has been fighting in two countries for over a decade.  23 years later, the question is still in play.

The latest iteration occurs in context of the President ordering drone strikes against U.S. citizens for suspicion of terrorist activities.  Let's go back to the start and talk about the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the document being used as the justification for the recent drone killings.  The AUMF is NOT a declaration of war but rather a feeble effort to apply the logic and standards of war to the activity of terrorism by creating a nether zone between criminality and warfare.

But terrorism is not warfare; terrorism is a criminal activity and therefore, a law enforcement concern.  Congress may authorize whatever is on their agenda, but they may not alter the reality and definitions of what constitutes war. As terrorism is criminal behavior and not war, the President has no constitutional authority to apply the concepts of warfare to justify his assassination program.  Assassination is not a mete response to criminal behavior.

The President may or may not have the constitutional authority to use deadly force to counter a threat, but there is no law allowing him to act as judge, jury and executioner.  The President may order the military to use force in a legitimate manner, but may not order them (or the CIA or the FBI) to authorize extrajudicial deadly force missions.

There are no provisions in our U.S. code for preemptive executions.  We do not field adjudicate even miscreants like the spree shooters of late.  Though these defectives are just as heinous as terrorists, we still respect their right to Due Process.

How have we come to accept a death sentence sans trial as being appropriate for anyone? Why has the concept of "burden of proof" disappeared?  Why do we trust career intelligence analysts to give a "thumbs down" on someone's life?  Ditto sleazy CIA directors or political appointees?

If terrorism is warfare, then the Geneva Conventions would apply, and the terrorists would no longer be criminals, but would this re-definition be either smart or logical?  Assuming that terrorism = warfare (remember: it ISN'T!):

• Why do we kill in war?  Wartime killing is not limitless and does have parameters. Killing -- and each individual death -- should lead to victory; the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) cannot even define victory.

• Why do we have and abide by the Geneva Conventions?

• Wars without ends are a fool's gambit.

If terrorism is NOT warfare, then the U.S. actions vis-a-vis terrorists are criminal; if terrorism IS warfare, then our actions violate every principle of war that was ever taught to Ranger in any service school. Killing sans clearly defined goals is a greater criminality than is terrorism; minimally, it is indistinguishable from it.

While we cannot control the actions of terrorists, we should hold our leaders to civilized standards of conduct.  Killing to no purpose is not a building block of civilization.