Nature of the Beast

Oily Terror
_______________

Even a lefty paper can't get it right.

"Even if the White House loses on the Mohammed trial because of its poisonous politics, President Obama has to insist on maintaining the long proven system of trying terrorism cases in federal court. People captured in battle may, of course, be held as military prisoners."

There is no "may" to it: Those captured in battle are covered by the Geneva Conventions and must be treated with due diligence -- no standard solitary confinement, waterboarding, humiliating acts, secreting them off, etc.

Regarding NYC rejecting venue for the trial:

"While Mr. Holder blew the politics, he was right about the policy. Apart from the principle, the military tribunals don’t have the experience, rules or qualified lawyers for such a case (The K.S.M. Files)."

Nor do they have jurisdiction. If they were captured in battle, they are Prisoners of War, plain and simple. If they were arrested carrying out non-military crimes of terror, then the alleged perpetrators do not come under the purview of military courts. Terrorists are seldom, if ever, captured on the field of battle since this is not the nature of the beast.

Military courts are precisely that, and should not address any activity not military in nature. It is duplicitous to say Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a military court candidate since he planned the attack on the Pentagon; what proof do we have of the allegation that did not flow from a water tap?

The threat facing the U.S. is not terrorism, but rather the overreaction to terrorism. It is wrong to believe that Secret Courts or secretive military tribunals are the tool to legally deal with arrested terrorists.

If one of modern history's greatest criminal enterprises -- Nazi Germany -- was dealt with via open trials, then so can this openness be applied to the crime of terrorism. When trials are secretive and evidentiary rules downplayed, the U.S. loses and the terrorists score a new victory.

KSM will remain a hero regardless of his treatment by the U.S. to a portion of the world's population, therefore, U.S. efforts to vilify or humiliate him will continue to be counterproductive.

Why is the U.S. unwilling or unable to deal in a rational, legal way with this issue? What are we hiding from? If truth and justice is the product of our legal system, it is time to turn the cards face up.

Streets Without Joy

[P]roliferation problems are so complex that we would be
foolhardy to think that they can be resolved by becoming
Fortress America or going on a rampage of thinly veiled
unilateral preemptions.
-- Amy Smithson, Center for Strategic and International Studies


There are only a few things you can get me to do by
hitting me over the head. At some point, I have to believe
that what you want me to do is in my interest too.
Military power and influence are not the same thing
--Bruce Jentleson, Dir. Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke

The worst policy is to attack cities.
Attack cities only when there is no alternative.
--Sun Tzu
__________

Is terrorism a threat that could destroy the American way of life and with it, our existence as a nation state?

Contrary to the alarmist pap forced down our throats by this administration, terrorism is not a major threat to the average American taxpayer. (The nontaxpayers among you are a different story.) The chance of contracting AIDS is a greater threat to your well-being than terrorism.

What is a danger to America is state-sponsored terrorism, which is a category that is not commonly used in present dialog on the topic.

Clearly, Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism is an irritating and obvious manifestation. This was deadly, but insignificant far as being a nation-level threat. Indicators exist that the East German Stasi supported the Red Army Faction of the 60's through 90's. Again, not a national threat. They were petty criminals (terrorists) acting out a nihilist agenda.

Today's terrorists are groups like Hezbollah, thousands of members strong, backed by Iran and possibly even elements within the U.S.-supported Iraqi regime.

Indicators exist that link Syria, Iran and North Korea in an alliance of rogue states cooperating to create nuclear and chemical weapons that can be operationally employed by terrorists. (The rogue state of the U.S.A. is out of this loop.) This is a definition of state-sponsored terrorism, which is a great threat not only to the U.S. but the entire civilized world. That would be the Coalition of the Willing -- you know, Britain and America.

The indicators are that Russia and China are also cooperating in this endeavor. Certainly, the question of Pakistan's complicity should be explored.

In a little-covered story stateside, a 12-yr. U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations counterterrorism expert David Gaubatz was sent on a mission to track down suspect WMD sites in Iraq. He said he found heavily fortified bunkers, but when two congressmen -- Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Curt Weldon -- requested his reports, all 60 of them had disappeared.

The NYT dismissed him, and few other outlets have touched it, perhaps because of the lethal incompetence implied. From London's The Spectator:

"Mr Gaubatz verbally told the Iraq Study Group (ISG) of his findings, and asked them to come with heavy equipment to breach the concrete of the bunkers and uncover their sealed contents. But to his consternation, the ISG told him they didn’t have the manpower or equipment to do it and that it would be ‘unsafe’ to try.

‘The problem was that the ISG were concentrating their efforts in looking for WMD in northern Iraq and this was in the south,’ says Mr Gaubatz. ‘They were just swept up by reports of WMD in so many different locations. But we told them that if they didn’t excavate these sites, others would.’

"That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learnt from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria. The location in Syria of this material, he says, is also known to these intelligence agencies. The worst-case scenario has now come about. Saddam’s nuclear, biological and chemical material is in the hands of a rogue terrorist state — and one with close links to Iran ("I Found Saddam's WMD Bunkers.")

And I know Glenn Greenwald and the left half of the blog world would dismiss this agent's findings as balderdash, using some fine ad hominum needlework, but what if there is some validity to his allegations?

Where does that leave U.S. policymakers vis-a-vis terrorism? Will terrorism ever destroy America? If we presume an Iranian/Syrian/North Korean nexus, the solution cannot be unilateral U.S. action. The U.S. policy has been to portray this problem as a them-vs.us, Hatfield and McCoys-type feud. But this is not the reality.

The entire U.N. should be invited to counter this global threat. All of NATO, to include France, Spain and all of Europe, have a horse in this race. America is not alone, although a cowboy has done his best to isolate U.S. interests in the world arena, plundering 200+ years of goodwill in the process.

The U.S is currently fighting wars that focus on minutiae, while the bigger picture is summarily ignored. We are so blindsighted by the bijou pictures: Rudy on the heap of 9-11 rubbish, smoke swirling about him. That, my Republican associates assure me, will get him elected.

What is the solution to the actual threat? Clearly the answer is above Ranger's pay grade, but somebody needs to develop a comprehensive statement of policy that accurately reflects the realities of the threat. At this point, it is still containable, and from this side can only be addressed with a national, non-partisan approach.

The U.S. is riven by party differences while the external threat will only continue to fester and grow, until it is systemic. Fiddling while Rome burns. Not just fiddling, but actively fanning the fires, and creating a larger enemy than before.

Osama bin Laden is not a major threat unless a nation-state arms him and points him in our direction. Preventing this occurrence should be the focus of U.S. policies.

Forget Afghanistan and Iraq. These are dead-end streets.