Shall we end the War on Terror charade? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 06-08-2005, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookman

Afghanistan did nothing wrong except cease the harvest of opium. We went to war in Afghan and there was no Bin Laden or anything but the Opium harvest is in full swing.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that then.

But a lot of people on the left side of the aisle disagree with you on this particular.

roachboy · 06-08-2005, 07:15 AM

on "terror":

1. what do you make of the notion of "assymetrical warfare" in general--faced with a very powerful, vertically organized military apparatus, the only way a small force can operate is to switch the rules of enagagement, yes?

the only way this strategy can be understood as other than rational is if you apply the term "terrorist" to such organizations--which simply reflects the fact that the folk who get to name such operations do not like this particular one--so they are terrorists-----but the same naming apparatus may well like another, more or less identical group and what it does---so they are something on the order of "freedom fighters"----this despite the fact that nothing seperates the two tactically.

if that is the case, then terror is not about a type of organization--it is a political designation the effect of which is to erase any political motivation behind what these smaller groups might do.

2. maybe these grounds operate:

"terrorists" kill indiscriminately.

but is not "total war" part of the understanding of any military strategy? under "traditional" war, are not civilian targets understood as fair game as a function of "morale breaking"? think about the development of this since the american civil war through the main "legitimate" euro-american wars (world war 1 and 2--the latter in particular)--the strategies behind the cold war...etc.. i make this distinction because if you think about the colonial actions of these same euro-american powers, you see pretty quickly that there were no such rules in those contexts. not really. there were always justifications floated for the mau mau, algeria, vietnam, nicaragua----but in the main, these were horrifically brutal wars in which the euro-powers operated without compunction, without regard for such rules of warfare as actually obtain(ed). .

but states cannot be terrorist, it seems.
so anything these powers do is therefore not terrorist.

in particular:

how and why is a homemade time bomb left in a public square more or less indiscriminate as a weapon for killing randomly than a large bomb dropped from a huge plane 5 miles high? from a smaller bomb dropped from a low-flying bomber? from the effects of an artillery barrage? from the effects of a fusillade from any number of terrified ground troops? what is the distinction?

is there really more to it than: faced with the choice between indiscrimiate killing carried out by people in uniforms and that carried out by people not in uniforms, you choose the uniforms. perhaps because you like uniforms? certainly not because one is more or less likely to kill civililans indiscrimately.

it is usually at this point that the objection arises, in one form or another: war is hell.
well yes. yes it is.

the word terrorist is very 1984. the empty organizing signifier around which contemporary variants of the group hate can unfold.
nice pctures of representatives of those irrational fellows who oppose the forward march of the neocolonial order appear on tv on a regular basis just so that you, in the comfort of your livingroom, can hate them. because they hate you.
you could argue that they are understood as irrational because they are labelled terrorist up front--that is the function of the term, that is why it is used.
so the term refers to the context that does the naming, not to the nature, goals or tactics of any particular group.

Pacifier · 06-08-2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Terror is not based on who does it, terror is based on who is targeted.

Quote:

the 400 or so violent actions each week - virtually all of which are directed at military targets, with about 70% directed at US armed forces.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF08Ak01.html

so 70% of the attacks are legal and no terroristic attacks?

Charlatan · 06-08-2005, 08:11 AM

I would argue that military targets (like it or not) are legitimate targets. It is only when civilians are specifically targeted that you verge into the realm of terrorism.

Therefore, if that number of 70% is to be believed, yes they are legit.

Ustwo · 06-08-2005, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF08Ak01.html

so 70% of the attacks are legal and no terroristic attacks?

Legal? No, there are no legal attacks. If I was in rebellion from the US government and shot a cop, it would not be legal.

No 'law' says that a terrorist ONLY attacks civilians, in fact that would be silly. They want to weaken the will of the American people as well as the Iraqi's. Killing Iraqi children will not weaken our resolve, but strengthen it, so they kill our soliders as well, and if others get hurt, so what. Their main hope of course is that people in the US will just give up.

roachboy · 06-08-2005, 10:40 AM

so then "terrorists" are doing the exact same thing that clausewitz argued any modern military had to do in the course of war--to weaken "morale"--because morale is also a "legitimate" military target, yes? if you believe this nationalist mythology stuff that is (without it, military actions are functions of purely technical rationality--which seems obviously true, but no matter, let's stick with the mythology of nation), morale is what enables the conduct of war at all. so therefore anything that undermines morale serves properly military functions.

so if that is true, where does the distinction terrorist/not terrorist lay again?

chickentribs · 06-08-2005, 12:09 PM

The U.S. is a Dr. Frankenstein that has over and over again had to deal with the monster we build. In Iran, we financed the Shah's monarchy so that we had a political voice in the Mid-east and access to the oil. He was ousted by the moolahs so we buddy up with Saddam and give him all the weapons he needs (including chemical) for his 8-year war. We didn't care so much about what a tyrant he was then dropping bombs on his own people, as long as he kept Iran poor and preoccupied.

We buddied up with the taliban and taught them to fight and gave them weapons so they would fight off Russia who wanted to control the pipeline territory back in the 80's. (Rambo III, anyone?) Our military support of the oppressive Saudi royal family on holy land is the reason those planes were filled with Saudi nationals on 9/11.

Every orphan we have created in Iraq will be waiting for the opportunity to avenge his or her family. That kind of hate doesn't ever go away...

dlish · 06-09-2005, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Terror is not based on who does it, terror is based on who is targeted.

Ustwo,

so lets assume theres a group in iraq who's sole aim is to rid iraq of foreign occupiers. regardless of their political views or whether they are ex-saddam militia men, fundamentalists, foreign fighters, ex-presidential guard.

lets also assume that they decry the killing of innocent civilians, but they attack US convoys because the US is an occupier rather than a liberator. would these people be considered 'terrorists'?

i would think that any military occupying force would be a legitimate target in this case, whether its US or its allies.

Dragonlich · 06-09-2005, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so then "terrorists" are doing the exact same thing that clausewitz argued any modern military had to do in the course of war--to weaken "morale"--because morale is also a "legitimate" military target, yes? if you believe this nationalist mythology stuff that is (without it, military actions are functions of purely technical rationality--which seems obviously true, but no matter, let's stick with the mythology of nation), morale is what enables the conduct of war at all. so therefore anything that undermines morale serves properly military functions.

so if that is true, where does the distinction terrorist/not terrorist lay again?

What you don't mention, is that Clausewitz' idea of total war has been tried and dismissed. The west no longer fights a total war, and no longer has to kill large numbers of civilians in order to win a conflict. They tried that in WW2, by bombing cities; the results weren't as dramatic as expected. In fact, the morale wasn't going down as expected, but often went up. As in: they may break our walls, but won't break our resolve.

We learned from those mistakes. The terrorists haven't learned that lesson yet.

stevo · 06-09-2005, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

Ustwo,

so lets assume theres a group in iraq who's sole aim is to rid iraq of foreign occupiers. regardless of their political views or whether they are ex-saddam militia men, fundamentalists, foreign fighters, ex-presidential guard.

lets also assume that they decry the killing of innocent civilians, but they attack US convoys because the US is an occupier rather than a liberator. would these people be considered 'terrorists'?

i would think that any military occupying force would be a legitimate target in this case, whether its US or its allies.

What about when the occupying force has been asked to stay by the elected leaders of the country, is it terrorism then? What would you consiter attacks on iraqi security forces to be? What about fellows lined up outside police stations lined up for a job? Would those be terrorist acts? What about the bombing of the USS Cole? That was a military vessel, but the US Navy wasn't engaged in any war at the time.

chickentribs · 06-09-2005, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

What about when the occupying force has been asked to stay by the elected leaders of the country, is it terrorism then? What would you consiter attacks on iraqi security forces to be? What about fellows lined up outside police stations lined up for a job? Would those be terrorist acts? What about the bombing of the USS Cole? That was a military vessel, but the US Navy wasn't engaged in any war at the time.

If your enemies asked a thug to stick around to keep you in line in your own home, would that be something you could respect? The Sunni insurgency is no different than your right to bear arms in this country to protect you and your family from government imposition should that day arise. I hear it all of the time on these boards about gun ownership, and you think these insurgents are any different from you??

From their POV, they have worked hard, educated themselves, built businesses, made Iraq what it is through sweat and blood. Now, these unappreciative, uneducated, lazy, backwoods Shia are taking everything away, just like they did in Iran. Only this time the U.S. is holding the gun to my head while we sit here and watch our whole lives destroyed. They have nothing left except to fight.

Of course they are terrorist now. They weren't a year ago. But terrorist doesn't refer to motive or right or wrong. Terror is your weapon, and if you make the violence seem random enough, and innocent people needlessly die, your terror will last a long time. 9/11 was horrible, but it was the fear of the unknown, the nothing that ever came, that crippled this country.

stevo · 06-09-2005, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickentribs

If your enemies asked a thug to stick around to keep you in line in your own home, would that be something you could respect? The Sunni insurgency is no different than your right to bear arms in this country to protect you and your family from government imposition should that day arise. I hear it all of the time on these boards about gun ownership, and you think these insurgents are any different from you??

From their POV, they have worked hard, educated themselves, built businesses, made Iraq what it is through sweat and blood. Now, these unappreciative, uneducated, lazy, backwoods Shia are taking everything away, just like they did in Iran. Only this time the U.S. is holding the gun to my head while we sit here and watch our whole lives destroyed. They have nothing left except to fight.

Of course they are terrorist now. They weren't a year ago. But terrorist doesn't refer to motive or right or wrong. Terror is your weapon, and if you make the violence seem random enough, and innocent people needlessly die, your terror will last a long time. 9/11 was horrible, but it was the fear of the unknown, the nothing that ever came, that crippled this country.

what????? you really lost me on this one.

chickentribs · 06-09-2005, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

what????? you really lost me on this one.

I did kind of ramble... The insurgents are blowing things up because we have come in and taken everything from them, and put their enemies (the shia) in control of the government. We call it democracy, they call it the lazy and dumb are running the asylum now. Terrorist aren't born, we have made a lot of them and we continue to.

MSD · 06-10-2005, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

eleminate the injustice that had led to terrorism instead of creating more injustice sounds like a good idea to me.

The inherent problem is that, although this is theoretically the solution, eliminating injustice (without getting into the topic of exactly what that term encompasses,) it may decrease anti-US sentiment among populaitons that are free enough to learn of what we are doing, but it will do nothing to stop a militant who believes that the only just way of life is a totalitarian theocratic state.

If you haven't done so already, the al-Quaeda training manual (http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=90135) that was foudn in the home of an arrested al-Quaeda member has been posted online by the Department of Justice, and gives an insight into what a terrorist thinks and how he acts. I know there is debate about the term, but I think you'll agree with me that what is describedi n this book qualifies as terrorism.

As upsetting as it is to see our soldiers dying, I cannot condemn Iraqi insurgents who attack only military targets as terrorists. Many of them are glad to see Saddam's government gone, but are unwilling to allow a foreign occupying force to control their country. As much as I hate many of the people who are running my country now, There is no doubt in my mind that I would take up arms against any foreign occupying force that threatened our soverignty. This is why our only hope in Iraq is to show those who want us gone that we will only be there until the country is self-sufficient and run by a legitimate government that will be safe from fringe groups who do not accept its legitimacy after we leave. I can't tell you how it can be done, I don't think that it will be easy, but I do think that it's our only chance.

Dragonlich · 06-11-2005, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickentribs

I did kind of ramble... The insurgents are blowing things up because we have come in and taken everything from them, and put their enemies (the shia) in control of the government. We call it democracy, they call it the lazy and dumb are running the asylum now. Terrorist aren't born, we have made a lot of them and we continue to.

So, in essence you're stating the well-known fact that these "resistance fighters" are killing innocent people because they're angry they lost their power.

Screw 'em.

IMO, terrorism is *never* acceptable. Killing random people and destroying random things in order to spread fear is bad, m'kay. Now, if these insurgents are attacking the army/police/government, I can sort of understand it (even if I oppose it!). But blowing up car bombs in crowded streets is just unacceptable, no matter what the goal may be.

roachboy · 06-11-2005, 01:35 PM

from today's washington post, an article that dimantles teh administration's claims that the "war on terror" has been a success--this in the context of the recent cowboy george roadshow centered on trying to resell the patriot act.

Quote:

Few Terror Convictions in Cases Since 9/11
Less Than Half of the People Charged Had Demonstrated Connections to Terror Groups

By Dan Eggen and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 12, 2005; A01

First of two parts

On Thursday, President Bush stepped to a lectern at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy in Columbus to urge renewal of the USA Patriot Act and to boast of the government's success in prosecuting terrorists.

Flanked by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."

Those statistics have been used repeatedly by Bush and other administration officials, including Gonzales and his predecessor, John D. Ashcroft, to characterize the government's efforts against terrorism.

But the numbers are misleading at best.

An analysis of the Justice Department's list of terrorism prosecutions by The Washington Post shows that 39 people -- not 200 -- have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security.

Most of the others were convicted of relatively minor crimes such as making false statements and violating immigration law -- and had nothing to do with terrorism, the analysis shows. Overall, the median sentence was just 11 months.

Taken as a whole, the data indicate that identifying terrorists in the United States has been less successful than the government has often suggested. The statistics provide little support for the suggestion that authorities have discovered and prosecuted hundreds of terrorists. Except for a small number of well-known cases -- such as truck driver Iyman Faris, who sought to take down the Brooklyn Bridge -- few appear to have been involved in active plots against the United States.

In fact, among all the people charged as a result of terrorism investigations in the three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, The Post found no demonstrated connection to terrorism or terrorist groups for 180 of them.

Just one in nine individuals on the list had an alleged connection to the al Qaeda terrorist network and only 14 people convicted of terrorism-related crimes -- including Faris and convicted Sept. 11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui -- have clear links to the group. Many more cases involve Colombian drug cartels, supporters of the Palestinian cause, Rwandan war criminals or others with no apparent ties to al Qaeda or its leader, Osama bin Laden.

Many people appear to have been swept into U.S. counterterrorism investigations by chance -- through anonymous tips, suspicious circumstances or bad luck -- and have remained classified as terrorism defendants years after being cleared of connections to extremist groups.

For example, the prosecution of 20 men, most of them Iraqis, in a Pennsylvania truck-licensing scam accounts for about 10 percent of individuals convicted -- even though the entire group was publicly absolved of ties to terrorism in 2001.

"For so many of these cases, there seems to be much less substance to them than we first assume or have first been told," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads the Washington office of Rand Corp., a think tank that conducts national security research. "There's an inherent deterrent effect incracking down on any illicit activity. But the challenge is not exaggerating what they were up to -- not portraying them as super-terrorists when they're really the low end of the food chain."

Justice Department officials say they have not sought to exaggerate the importance or suspected associations of those prosecuted in connection with terrorism probes, and they argue that the list provides only a partial view of their efforts.

Officials said all the individuals were first put on the list because of a suspected connection or allegation related to terrorism. Last week, they also said that the department had tightened the requirements for including a case on the terrorism list.

Barry M. Sabin, chief of the department's counterterrorism section, said prosecutors frequently turn to lesser charges when they are not confident that they can prove crimes such as committing or supporting terrorism. Many defendants also have been prosecuted for relatively minor crimes in exchange for information that is not public but has proven valuable in other terrorism probes, he said.

"A person could not have been put on this list if there was not a concern about national security, at least initially," he said. "Are all these people an ongoing threat presently? Arguably not. . . . We are not trying to overstate or understate what we're doing. You don't want to put language or a label on people that is inconsistent with what they have done."
The Numbers

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Justice Department database has served as the key source of statistics on the status of terrorism investigations in the United States and has been cited frequently in official speeches and testimony to Congress. But since releasing a limited version in late 2001 with fewer than 100 names on it, the department has declined to provide further details.

The list obtained by The Post includes 361 cases defined as terrorism investigations by the department's criminal division from Sept. 11, 2001, through late September 2004. Thirty-one entries could not be evaluated because they were sealed and blacked out. (The list does not include about 40 cases filed since then, that account for Bush's total of about 400). The Post sought to update and correct data whenever possible, including noting convictions or sentences handed down within the past nine months.

The list of domestic prosecutions does not include terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison or at secret locations around the globe. Nor does it include many of the approximately 50 people the Justice Department has acknowledged detaining as "material witnesses," or three men who were held in a South Carolina brig.

The Post identified 180 cases in which no connection to al Qaeda or another terrorist group could be found in court records, official statements, the 9/11 Commission Report or news accounts. Even some of the other casesfeatured early allegations of terrorist connections that were dropped.

Of the more than 142 individuals with a demonstrated relationship to a terrorist group, 39 were convicted of a crime related to terrorism or national security. More than a dozen defendants were acquitted or had their charges dismissed, including three Moroccan men in Detroit whose convictions were tossed out in September after the Justice Department admitted prosecutorial misconduct.

Not surprisingly, minor crimes produced modest punishments. The median sentence was 11 months, and nearly three dozen other defendants were given probation or deported. The most common convictions were on charges of fraud, making false statements, passport violations and conspiracy.

Two life sentences have been handed down so far: to Richard Reid, the British drifter who was foiled by passengers in his attempt to blow up an aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean; and Masoud Khan, a Maryland man convicted of traveling to Pakistan and seeking to fight with the Taliban against U.S. forces. Two others convicted of terrorism-related crimes face life sentences: Abdel Sattar, an Egyptian-born postal worker convicted of conspiring to kill and kidnap in a foreign country; and Ali Timimi, a Northern Virginia spiritual leader convicted of encouraging others to attend terrorist camps. (Timimi was indicted in late September and was not on the list obtained by The Post.)

Only 14 of those convicted of crimes related to terrorism or national security have clear links to bin Laden's network, most notably Moussaoui and Reid. Others include Faris, an admitted member of al Qaeda who sought to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, and six Yemeni men from Lackawanna, N.Y., who were convicted of providing material support for terrorists by attending an al Qaeda training camp before Sept. 11.

In addition, Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh, who is most closely associated with Afghanistan's deposed government, trained at an al Qaeda camp.

The patterns discovered by The Post are similar to findings in studies of Justice Department terrorism cases by New York University and Syracuse University, each of which examined different sets of data.

More than a third of the cases on the list arose from a post-Sept. 11 FBI dragnet, which resulted in the arrests of hundreds of Muslim immigrants for minor violations unrelated to the hijackings or terrorism.

"What we're seeing over time is the equivalent of mission creep: cases that would not be terrorism cases before Sept. 11 are swept onto the terrorism docket," said Juliette Kayyem, a former Clinton administration Justice official who heads the national security program at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "The problem is that it's not good to cook the numbers. . . . We have no accurate assessment of whether the war on terrorism is actually working."
Tracking Al Qaeda

In the years before the Sept. 11 attacks, many veteran U.S. counterterrorism officials assumed that al Qaeda sleeper cells were hiding in the country, awaiting orders to launch attacks. The strikes -- carried out by 19 hijackers who arrived in the United States and trained here undetected -- prompted an aggressive campaign by the Justice Department, the FBI and other agencies to identify al Qaeda operatives on U.S. soil.

The results from the Justice Department database, however, raise the possibility that the presence of al Qaeda operatives and sympathizers within the United States is either limited or largely undetected, many terrorism experts say. In a recent assessment of al Qaeda's presence in the United States, for example, the FBI and CIA conceded that U.S. authorities had not identified any operational sleeper cells akin to those unearthed over the past year in Britain, according to officials with access to the document.

"These kind of statistics show that we really don't know if they exist here in any significant way," said Martha Crenshaw, a professor of government at Wesleyan University in Connecticut who has studied terrorism since the late 1960s. "It's possible that they could have sleepers planted here for a long time and we could always be very surprised. But I'd say that's less likely compared with them trying to repeat a 9/11-style infiltration from the outside."

Other experts and government officials say the relatively small number of domestic terrorism prosecutions is partly the result of the administration's strategy to handle some of its most dangerous terrorism suspects -- such as Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- outside U.S. courts.

As a result, only a limited number of potentially significant cases have been pursued publicly in U.S. courts.

"After 9/11, they shifted focus from prosecution to prevention. That would mean that they are seeking to have their greatest effect by arresting, disrupting and detaining those who they believe have ties to terrorist activities," said Douglas W. Kmiec, a former Justice Department official who teaches law at Pepperdine University.

Viet D. Dinh, a Georgetown law professor who headed the Office of Legal Policy at Justice before and after the attacks, said the primary strategy is to use "prosecutorial discretion" by charging suspicious individuals with minor crimes as a way to detain them.

"You're talking about a violation of law that may or may not rise to the level of what might usually be called a federal case," Dinh said, referring to credit-card fraud, document violations and other offenses. "But the calculation does not happen in isolation; you are not just talking about the crime itself, but the suspicion of terrorism. . . . That skews the calculation in favor of prosecution."

Bush administration officials have frequently compared the strategy to the anti-Mafia campaign by former attorney general Robert F. Kennedy, who vowed to prosecute mobsters for crimes as minor as spitting on a sidewalk. But many defense lawyers and civil liberties advocates argue that the Mafia analogy is misplaced.

David Z. Nevin represented Idaho graduate student Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, a Saudi national who was acquitted of federal terrorism charges in a closely watched trial last summer but agreed to be deported rather than fight immigration charges. Nevin said there are key differences between current counterterrorism cases and the prosecutions of gangsters such as Al Capone, who was famously convicted of tax evasion to get him off the street. "Everybody knew that Al Capone was committing murders and was doing all sorts of things. They just couldn't convict him," Nevin said.

"That's fine if you take it as a given that you have the devil here," he continued. "The problem is that you end up with people like Sami Al-Hussayen. . . . Whenever you live in that realm, you're going to make mistakes and you're going to hurt innocent people."
Using One Case to Build Another

In the end, most cases on the Justice Department list turned out to have no connection to terrorism at all.

They involve such people as Hassan Nasrallah, a Dearborn, Mich., man convicted of credit-card fraud who happens to have the same name as the leader of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite group also known as the Party of God. Abdul Farid of High Point, N.C., was arrested on a false tip that he was sending money to the Taliban and was later deported after admitting he lied on a loan application. Moeen Islam Butt, a Pakistani jewelry-kiosk employee in Pennsylvania, spent eight months in jail before being deported on marriage-fraud and immigration charges.

And there is the case of Francois Guagni, a French national who made the mistake of illegally crossing the Canadian border on Sept. 14, 2001, with box cutters in his possession. It turned out that Guagni used the knives in his job as a drywall installer. He was deported in March 2003 after pleading guilty to unlawfully entering the country.

"His case had nothing to do with terrorism, as far as I've ever been told," said Guagni's attorney, Christopher D. Smith.

Some of the cases, however, remain murky. The question of involvement in terrorism lingers even after formal allegations of such ties have been dropped.

Consider the case of Enaam Arnaout, director of the Illinois-based Benevolence International Foundation, who was indicted amid great fanfare in October 2002 for allegedly helping to funnel money and equipment to al Qaeda operatives on three continents. Ashcroft called the group a source of "terrorist blood money" that was used to "fund the work of evil." The charity was shut down.

Less than a year later, prosecutors dropped six of the seven charges against Arnaout, and he pleaded guilty to a single count of racketeering for funding fighters in Bosnia and Chechnya. During a sentencing hearing in August 2003, U.S. District Judge Suzanne B. Conlon told prosecutors they had "failed to connect the dots" and said there was no evidence that Arnaout "identified with or supported" terrorism.

The administration views the case differently. Bush, in a speech Friday at the National Counterterrorism Center in Northern Virginia, said investigators had "helped close down a phony charity in Illinois that was channeling money to al Qaeda."

Sabin, the Justice Department's counterterrorism chief, said he could not discuss the specifics of most cases because of restrictions posed by ongoing criminal proceedings. But he said one case in particular illustrates the government's strategy: the conviction of Abdurahman Alamoudi, who admitted to taking $1 million from Libya and using it to pay conspirators in a scheme to kill Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

Alamoudi, who once worked with senior U.S. officials as head of the American Muslim Council, has agreed to cooperate with federal investigators as part of a plea agreement. Sabin said the case is "a significant success story" that shows how prosecutors can use one case to help build others.

"We have been successful in obtaining information and fueling our intelligence gathering efforts with many of these cases, Sabin said.

source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061100381.html

charade it is.

Dragonlich · 06-11-2005, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

from today's washington post, an article that dimantles teh administration's claims that the "war on terror" has been a success--this in the context of the recent cowboy george roadshow centered on trying to resell the patriot act.

...

charade it is.

Or, alternatively, it turns out it's extremely difficult to convict people for something they were planning to do, as long as they're careful enough.

In our country, quite a few people have been tried for terrorism, and only a few (if any) have been convicted. There's usually too little evidence; and what little evidence there is, is too secret or cannot be independently verified. There's always an innocent explanation for their "terrorist plans", and when there's doubt about guilt, people will not be convicted.

But what's the alternative: not doing anything, and only prosecuting terrorists who successfully carried out their plans?

roachboy · 06-12-2005, 07:59 AM

convicting someone who can afford a good lawyer of conspiracy is in fact quite difficult, yes.
but the administration's argument concerning the "success" of this ludicrous war on ghosts in concrete terms is the convictions under the patriot act.
without that, what can they say to sell their "reponse"? that they round up "suspects" in "terrorist activities" largely on the basis of--well waht, really?--and avoid the problems of conspiracy charges by keeping them indefinitely without trial in places like guantanomo, or better yet sending folk for a litel vacation in a syrian resort or something on that order?

the entire logic of this "war" is a joke--it benefits only teh present administration, which has used it and doubtless will continue to use it as a justification for any and every ideologically motivated action they have taken. the logical problem with this kind of "war" is well-posed at the beginning of the thread--there is no war, thereis no enemy, there is no space of conflict--instead the "enemy" is everywhere and nowhere, constantly threatening yet always invisible---it is about generating and maintaining an anxious population and using that anxiety to push for more repressive, more absurd responses like star wars, like increasing military spending, like the creation of private armies in the states that operate as mercenary contractors whose actions fall outside the provisions of international law defining war, and on and on.

the war on terror is probably the most troubling parallel between bushwrold and fascism in its traditional mode of operation.
then, as now, i suspect your general attitude toward it is in part a function of whether you understand yourself to be among the "us" being "protected" from "them"--or if, as a function of associations with the features of the boogeyman of the moment, you find yourself being position amongs the them--i dont know why--not for anything active, but by association, you know. the drivers behind this discourse are racism and/or a "logic" of religious war (christians vs. infidels, very song of roland, really)...the "war" itself is but an orgnazing point, helping to crystallize and direct these lovely traits of racism and so forth.

06-08-2005, 07:15 AM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	on "terror": 1. what do you make of the notion of "assymetrical warfare" in general--faced with a very powerful, vertically organized military apparatus, the only way a small force can operate is to switch the rules of enagagement, yes? the only way this strategy can be understood as other than rational is if you apply the term "terrorist" to such organizations--which simply reflects the fact that the folk who get to name such operations do not like this particular one--so they are terrorists-----but the same naming apparatus may well like another, more or less identical group and what it does---so they are something on the order of "freedom fighters"----this despite the fact that nothing seperates the two tactically. if that is the case, then terror is not about a type of organization--it is a political designation the effect of which is to erase any political motivation behind what these smaller groups might do. 2. maybe these grounds operate: "terrorists" kill indiscriminately. but is not "total war" part of the understanding of any military strategy? under "traditional" war, are not civilian targets understood as fair game as a function of "morale breaking"? think about the development of this since the american civil war through the main "legitimate" euro-american wars (world war 1 and 2--the latter in particular)--the strategies behind the cold war...etc.. i make this distinction because if you think about the colonial actions of these same euro-american powers, you see pretty quickly that there were no such rules in those contexts. not really. there were always justifications floated for the mau mau, algeria, vietnam, nicaragua----but in the main, these were horrifically brutal wars in which the euro-powers operated without compunction, without regard for such rules of warfare as actually obtain(ed). . but states cannot be terrorist, it seems. so anything these powers do is therefore not terrorist. in particular: how and why is a homemade time bomb left in a public square more or less indiscriminate as a weapon for killing randomly than a large bomb dropped from a huge plane 5 miles high? from a smaller bomb dropped from a low-flying bomber? from the effects of an artillery barrage? from the effects of a fusillade from any number of terrified ground troops? what is the distinction? is there really more to it than: faced with the choice between indiscrimiate killing carried out by people in uniforms and that carried out by people not in uniforms, you choose the uniforms. perhaps because you like uniforms? certainly not because one is more or less likely to kill civililans indiscrimately. it is usually at this point that the objection arises, in one form or another: war is hell. well yes. yes it is. the word terrorist is very 1984. the empty organizing signifier around which contemporary variants of the group hate can unfold. nice pctures of representatives of those irrational fellows who oppose the forward march of the neocolonial order appear on tv on a regular basis just so that you, in the comfort of your livingroom, can hate them. because they hate you. you could argue that they are understood as irrational because they are labelled terrorist up front--that is the function of the term, that is why it is used. so the term refers to the context that does the naming, not to the nature, goals or tactics of any particular group. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-08-2005 at 07:19 AM..

06-08-2005, 08:11 AM	#44 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I would argue that military targets (like it or not) are legitimate targets. It is only when civilians are specifically targeted that you verge into the realm of terrorism. Therefore, if that number of 70% is to be believed, yes they are legit. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-08-2005, 10:40 AM	#46 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so then "terrorists" are doing the exact same thing that clausewitz argued any modern military had to do in the course of war--to weaken "morale"--because morale is also a "legitimate" military target, yes? if you believe this nationalist mythology stuff that is (without it, military actions are functions of purely technical rationality--which seems obviously true, but no matter, let's stick with the mythology of nation), morale is what enables the conduct of war at all. so therefore anything that undermines morale serves properly military functions. so if that is true, where does the distinction terrorist/not terrorist lay again? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-08-2005, 12:09 PM	#47 (permalink)
chickentribs Addict Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night	The U.S. is a Dr. Frankenstein that has over and over again had to deal with the monster we build. In Iran, we financed the Shah's monarchy so that we had a political voice in the Mid-east and access to the oil. He was ousted by the moolahs so we buddy up with Saddam and give him all the weapons he needs (including chemical) for his 8-year war. We didn't care so much about what a tyrant he was then dropping bombs on his own people, as long as he kept Iran poor and preoccupied. We buddied up with the taliban and taught them to fight and gave them weapons so they would fight off Russia who wanted to control the pipeline territory back in the 80's. (Rambo III, anyone?) Our military support of the oppressive Saudi royal family on holy land is the reason those planes were filled with Saudi nationals on 9/11. Every orphan we have created in Iraq will be waiting for the opportunity to avenge his or her family. That kind of hate doesn't ever go away... __________________ Oft expectation fails... and most oft there Where most it promises - Shakespeare, W.

06-12-2005, 07:59 AM	#58 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	convicting someone who can afford a good lawyer of conspiracy is in fact quite difficult, yes. but the administration's argument concerning the "success" of this ludicrous war on ghosts in concrete terms is the convictions under the patriot act. without that, what can they say to sell their "reponse"? that they round up "suspects" in "terrorist activities" largely on the basis of--well waht, really?--and avoid the problems of conspiracy charges by keeping them indefinitely without trial in places like guantanomo, or better yet sending folk for a litel vacation in a syrian resort or something on that order? the entire logic of this "war" is a joke--it benefits only teh present administration, which has used it and doubtless will continue to use it as a justification for any and every ideologically motivated action they have taken. the logical problem with this kind of "war" is well-posed at the beginning of the thread--there is no war, thereis no enemy, there is no space of conflict--instead the "enemy" is everywhere and nowhere, constantly threatening yet always invisible---it is about generating and maintaining an anxious population and using that anxiety to push for more repressive, more absurd responses like star wars, like increasing military spending, like the creation of private armies in the states that operate as mercenary contractors whose actions fall outside the provisions of international law defining war, and on and on. the war on terror is probably the most troubling parallel between bushwrold and fascism in its traditional mode of operation. then, as now, i suspect your general attitude toward it is in part a function of whether you understand yourself to be among the "us" being "protected" from "them"--or if, as a function of associations with the features of the boogeyman of the moment, you find yourself being position amongs the them--i dont know why--not for anything active, but by association, you know. the drivers behind this discourse are racism and/or a "logic" of religious war (christians vs. infidels, very song of roland, really)...the "war" itself is but an orgnazing point, helping to crystallize and direct these lovely traits of racism and so forth. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite