4 ms·

This is a good analysis but I think it misses the mark a bit. The problem is very much one of terrorism. The basic idea of terrorism is to erase the boundaries

This is a good analysis but I think it misses the mark a bit. The problem is very much one of terrorism. The basic idea of terrorism is to erase the boundaries of the battlefield. The worst possible reaction to that is to do the same, but that's increasingly what we've been doing. In order to be capable of fighting a war effectively (even while acting purely defensively) the rules of the battlefield must necessarily be very much different from the rules of civilized society. Increasingly the ideas that police should act like soldiers, that soldiers should be used for policing, and that the protections inherent in the criminal justice system are now outmoded and no longer useful in fighting terrorism have taken hold. But this has occurred concomitant with the expansion of the "battlefield" in the "war on terror" to encompass no less than the entirety of human civilization. The result is that while the terrorists may have knocked a few holes in the walls we have put up between civilized society under the rule of law and the near-anarchy of the battlefield the governments of the world have gleefully participated in shooting vastly more holes in those walls.

atdepth 13y ago
The governments of the world aren't the only ones responsible; much of this has been cheered on and done with the gleeful support of their citizenry.
- Centigonal 13y ago
  I don't recall a pro-expansion-of-governmental-power stance becoming the majority in any country after late 2005. I could be forgetting something, but my impression has been that (at least in the US) the public response to the war on terror was, for a short while, overwhelmingly positive and then, for a much longer period, in favor of more governmental restraint.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    The war on terror was never controversial. Iraq was controversial because it was seen to be totally irrelevant to the war on terror and because it cost American money and lives. Aside from a liberal fringe who quickly decided gay marriage and the symbolism of having a black president was more important than extraordinary rendition and torture, no one cared about anything else.
ordinary 13y ago
While the definition of the term 'war crime' is fairly recent, the murder of civilians (only one of many types of war crime) during times of conflict is hardly a new phenomenon. The only thing that's new to us who have not lived though World War 2 is that a few times, civilians from the West were killed within their own borders. Islamist terrorism, while inexcusable, immoral and criminal, has not erased the boundaries of the battlefield. History shows that even if there were ever any borders on the battlefield, they were erased long ago.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Historically battlefields have occasionally been quite expansive, but generally one knew whether or not one's country was "at war" with another. This allowed people to plan and take actions accordingly, including political action. Today the idea of war is increasingly omnipresent. It is never ending and all encompassing.
tsotha 13y ago
>The basic idea of terrorism is to erase the boundaries of the battlefield. The worst possible reaction to that is to do the same, but that's increasingly what we've been doing. I disagree. That's the only effective response. bin Laden said as much in communications to his underlings. I agree we should have them arrested where it's possible, but if it isn't a drone strike is the right thing to do.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  A response which includes fighting conventional wars is, I think, justified, but tossing our freedoms out the window is not and never will be "the only effective response" to terrorism.
  - tsotha 13y ago
    Going to a foreign land to plot against your home country isn't one of your freedoms.
    - g8oz 13y ago
      Due process is
      - tsotha 13y ago
        You can't apply due process on foreign soil when the local government isn't willing or able to arrest the person in question. Did Confederate soldiers get due process on the battlefield?
        g8oz 13y ago
        Thats the thing about democracies. Sometime they sacrifice efficiency in their operations for their values. At least thats how its supposed to work.
        tsotha 13y ago
bigiain 13y ago
It's interesting to read those comments while thinking of the "other war" the US (and the militarized police force) is fighting. What are the battlefield boundaries of "the war on drugs"? How can the "rules of that battlefield" and "the rules of civilized society" be any different?
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
I think that's exactly the point. The initial aim of any totalitarian Government is to find a "total enemy". An enemy who -using your own words - "encompasses no less than the entirety of human civilization." Nazists have found this enemy in Jews and Communists. They are a threat and they are everywhere. That was their logic behind the machine of terror, behind the camps, behind starting the WW2. They had to stop Jews and Communism from "destroying the Western Civilization". The Communists had their "total" enemy too. Namely the rich, the burgoise, hence the never stopping struggle of the "class war". Which must be won by the internatinal proletaryat. Hence the gulag system, hence the terror, hence the police state. You say it's uniqe to to sa called "terrorists" and I say this is unique in history to any government that's want to have a total control and total war. The Totalitarian Government.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  I think it's a mistake to imagine that it is a requirement that individuals in power with a megalomaniacal or fascist inclination is a necessary precondition for the creation of the sort of government which is functionally identical to a police state and which runs roughshod over any concept of individual liberty. Indeed, I think such an idea is not only limiting but actively harmful, because in reality the destruction of our freedoms can quite easily take place at the hands of people operating on good intentions, with no great desire for power, and indeed with the personal perception of a great love of freedom. Edit: I'll reply here instead of carrying the thread further. The important point I'm trying to make here is the idea that comparing the movements today which are eroding individual liberties with Nazism or Stalinist Communism is unhelpful, because they are not such. And it just gives their supporters the opportunity to go "oh, well, this isn't Nazism or Stalinism, so I can dismiss these complaints" and then have those objections bounce off without affecting them whatsoever.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    >I think it's a mistake to imagine that it is a requirement that individuals in power with a megalomaniacal or fascist inclination is a necessary precondition for the creation of the sort of government which is functionally identical to a police state and which runs roughshod over any concept of individual liberty. I have never claimed that. >Indeed, I think such an idea is not only limiting but actively harmful, because in reality the destruction of our freedoms can quite easily take place at the hands of people operating on good intentions, with no great desire for power, and indeed with the personal perception of a great love of freedom. Exactly, I agree 100%. Remember, each communistic state had "Democratic" in its name. The USSR Constitution was so liberal that it granted more freedoms than the US Constitution. You had freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion. So, again, this reminds of this what the US Government does today. It is pursuing the total state fighting "war on terror" and this draws all the other laws irrelevant. Exactly, exactly again, like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia where the point the Governments were making was: as soon as we get rid of this "threat of Jewery/Communism/burgoise", all the Constitutional laws will be put back in effect. The Communists for sure thought of themselves of "good people" who had to do all these barbarian things to be able to live in a better world and society. The same goes to Nazis. EDIT: reply to your EDIT reply so to speak: No, no, no. I don't care about the label on the box. I care about the contents of the box. Namely: kill lists, torture, raping the Bill of Rights, human rights, like imprisonment without trail, killing citizens without trial, spying on all communications, wars, censorship, lies, etc. I could care less what -ism you put on the box. Another thing is - how do you know really if Obama isn't a mass murderer? My God! Journalists are not allowed into war zones nowadays. The Government learned from Vietnam. Remember, most of the people governed by Stalin and Hitler thought of them as great leaders too who would never let any wrongdoings to happen. They were all shocked to learn about gulags or the camps. Some, still don't believe. Would you sign off drone attack on 16-year old child of a suspected terrorist. Obama did! Without a trial. Now, imagine the personality type.
madaxe 13y ago
Surely drone strikes are terrorism, by both your above assertions, and any reasonable definition of the term?

atdepth 13y ago

The governments of the world aren't the only ones responsible; much of this has been cheered on and done with the gleeful support of their citizenry.

Centigonal 13y ago
I don't recall a pro-expansion-of-governmental-power stance becoming the majority in any country after late 2005. I could be forgetting something, but my impression has been that (at least in the US) the public response to the war on terror was, for a short while, overwhelmingly positive and then, for a much longer period, in favor of more governmental restraint.
- philwelch 13y ago
  The war on terror was never controversial. Iraq was controversial because it was seen to be totally irrelevant to the war on terror and because it cost American money and lives. Aside from a liberal fringe who quickly decided gay marriage and the symbolism of having a black president was more important than extraordinary rendition and torture, no one cared about anything else.

ordinary 13y ago

While the definition of the term 'war crime' is fairly recent, the murder of civilians (only one of many types of war crime) during times of conflict is hardly a new phenomenon. The only thing that's new to us who have not lived though World War 2 is that a few times, civilians from the West were killed within their own borders. Islamist terrorism, while inexcusable, immoral and criminal, has not erased the boundaries of the battlefield. History shows that even if there were ever any borders on the battlefield, they were erased long ago.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
Historically battlefields have occasionally been quite expansive, but generally one knew whether or not one's country was "at war" with another. This allowed people to plan and take actions accordingly, including political action. Today the idea of war is increasingly omnipresent. It is never ending and all encompassing.

tsotha 13y ago

>The basic idea of terrorism is to erase the boundaries of the battlefield. The worst possible reaction to that is to do the same, but that's increasingly what we've been doing. I disagree. That's the only effective response. bin Laden said as much in communications to his underlings. I agree we should have them arrested where it's possible, but if it isn't a drone strike is the right thing to do.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
A response which includes fighting conventional wars is, I think, justified, but tossing our freedoms out the window is not and never will be "the only effective response" to terrorism.
- tsotha 13y ago
  Going to a foreign land to plot against your home country isn't one of your freedoms.
  - g8oz 13y ago
    Due process is
    - tsotha 13y ago
      You can't apply due process on foreign soil when the local government isn't willing or able to arrest the person in question. Did Confederate soldiers get due process on the battlefield?
      - g8oz 13y ago
        Thats the thing about democracies. Sometime they sacrifice efficiency in their operations for their values. At least thats how its supposed to work.
        tsotha 13y ago

bigiain 13y ago

It's interesting to read those comments while thinking of the "other war" the US (and the militarized police force) is fighting. What are the battlefield boundaries of "the war on drugs"? How can the "rules of that battlefield" and "the rules of civilized society" be any different?

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

I think that's exactly the point. The initial aim of any totalitarian Government is to find a "total enemy". An enemy who -using your own words - "encompasses no less than the entirety of human civilization." Nazists have found this enemy in Jews and Communists. They are a threat and they are everywhere. That was their logic behind the machine of terror, behind the camps, behind starting the WW2. They had to stop Jews and Communism from "destroying the Western Civilization". The Communists had their "total" enemy too. Namely the rich, the burgoise, hence the never stopping struggle of the "class war". Which must be won by the internatinal proletaryat. Hence the gulag system, hence the terror, hence the police state. You say it's uniqe to to sa called "terrorists" and I say this is unique in history to any government that's want to have a total control and total war. The Totalitarian Government.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
I think it's a mistake to imagine that it is a requirement that individuals in power with a megalomaniacal or fascist inclination is a necessary precondition for the creation of the sort of government which is functionally identical to a police state and which runs roughshod over any concept of individual liberty. Indeed, I think such an idea is not only limiting but actively harmful, because in reality the destruction of our freedoms can quite easily take place at the hands of people operating on good intentions, with no great desire for power, and indeed with the personal perception of a great love of freedom. Edit: I'll reply here instead of carrying the thread further. The important point I'm trying to make here is the idea that comparing the movements today which are eroding individual liberties with Nazism or Stalinist Communism is unhelpful, because they are not such. And it just gives their supporters the opportunity to go "oh, well, this isn't Nazism or Stalinism, so I can dismiss these complaints" and then have those objections bounce off without affecting them whatsoever.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  >I think it's a mistake to imagine that it is a requirement that individuals in power with a megalomaniacal or fascist inclination is a necessary precondition for the creation of the sort of government which is functionally identical to a police state and which runs roughshod over any concept of individual liberty. I have never claimed that. >Indeed, I think such an idea is not only limiting but actively harmful, because in reality the destruction of our freedoms can quite easily take place at the hands of people operating on good intentions, with no great desire for power, and indeed with the personal perception of a great love of freedom. Exactly, I agree 100%. Remember, each communistic state had "Democratic" in its name. The USSR Constitution was so liberal that it granted more freedoms than the US Constitution. You had freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion. So, again, this reminds of this what the US Government does today. It is pursuing the total state fighting "war on terror" and this draws all the other laws irrelevant. Exactly, exactly again, like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia where the point the Governments were making was: as soon as we get rid of this "threat of Jewery/Communism/burgoise", all the Constitutional laws will be put back in effect. The Communists for sure thought of themselves of "good people" who had to do all these barbarian things to be able to live in a better world and society. The same goes to Nazis. EDIT: reply to your EDIT reply so to speak: No, no, no. I don't care about the label on the box. I care about the contents of the box. Namely: kill lists, torture, raping the Bill of Rights, human rights, like imprisonment without trail, killing citizens without trial, spying on all communications, wars, censorship, lies, etc. I could care less what -ism you put on the box. Another thing is - how do you know really if Obama isn't a mass murderer? My God! Journalists are not allowed into war zones nowadays. The Government learned from Vietnam. Remember, most of the people governed by Stalin and Hitler thought of them as great leaders too who would never let any wrongdoings to happen. They were all shocked to learn about gulags or the camps. Some, still don't believe. Would you sign off drone attack on 16-year old child of a suspected terrorist. Obama did! Without a trial. Now, imagine the personality type.

madaxe 13y ago

Surely drone strikes are terrorism, by both your above assertions, and any reasonable definition of the term?