Clark explains why the "War on Terror" is un-American in NYT editorial.

[calteacherguy]

New York Times OP-ED
Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers

By WESLEY K. CLARK and KAL RAUSTIALA
Published: August 8, 2007

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. 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.

<snip>

The second major problem with the approach of the Bush administration is that it endangers our political traditions and our commitment to liberty, and further damages America’s legitimacy in the eyes of others. Almost 50 years ago, at the height of the cold war, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the “deeply rooted and ancient opposition in this country to the extension of military control over civilians.”

A great danger in treating operatives for Al Qaeda as combatants is precisely that its members are not easily distinguished from the population at large. The government wields frightening power when it can designate who is, and who is not, subject to indefinite military detention. The Marri case turned on this issue. Mr. Marri is a legal resident of the United States and a citizen of Qatar; the government contends that he is a sleeper agent of Al Qaeda. For the last four years he has been held as an enemy combatant at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C.

<snip>

Cases like this illustrate that in the years since 9/11, the Bush administration’s approach to terrorism has created more problems than it has solved. 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.

We train our soldiers to respect the line between combatant and civilian. Our political leaders must also respect this distinction, lest we unwittingly endanger the values for which we are fighting, and further compromise our efforts to strengthen our security.

Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO, is a fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles. Kal Raustiala is a law professor and the director of the Burkle Center.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/opinion/08clark.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[speedoo]

1. K&R, and bookmarked.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. This is brilliant

It demolishs the entire basis for the Bush Administration's approach to fighting terrorism, and undermining our constitution in the process. I have not seen anyone else show the courage to make this case:

"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."

This editorial calls Bush's bluff, he can't have it both ways. If terrorists are criminals they fall within civilian law and must be dealth with using civilian law. If instead they are enemy combatants, then they can not be prosecuted for actions such as attacking the Cole.

[Texas_Kat]

3. A bit of further discussion at NY Inquirer

I admit I don't know much about this site, but they expand on WKC's description of terrorists as pirates. I thought it was quite interesting.

http://www.nyinquirer.com/nyinquirer/2007/08/a-terrorist-fig.html

A Terrorist Fights, But Is He A Soldier? It Depends on Who You Ask.

In short, he argues that terrorists need to be considered more like "modern-day pirates than warriors."

At first glance, "modern-day pirate" may seem like a flilppant phrase, but it is tough to get one by Clark, considering that he not only graduated valedictorian of his class at West Point but also took a master's degree in military science from the Command and General Staff College. In fact, the term "pirate" is used with deft attention to character.

A pirate is a criminal on the high seas. The latter fall under the jurisdiction of no nation, and the former, therefore, work on behalf of no sovereign. It is an interesting parallel to draw with a roving terrorist organization like al-Qaeda.

George II's administration has chosen to treat captured terrorists as enemy combatants. Clark writes, "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."

[calteacherguy]

10. That is interesting.

When I first read that analogy I was a little surprised, but didn't take the time to really think about it. Clearly, the word "pirate" was chosen for very good reasons.

[Tinksrival]

4. I love how Clark lays things out.

I wish he was drafted again to run in '08.
He is our best hope.

[elleng]

14. Help draft Clark.

Lots are similarly interested. Look into it, don't let him pass us by.

[ArkySue]

5. K & R

n/t

[libodem]

6. Fascinating

and so informative. Bush has ignored the Geneva Conventions because the insurgents don't wear uniforms therefore insurgent's don't fight fair. So no rules of engagement, just gorilla warfare with heavy collateral damage. No one can tell civilians from soldiers in this misbegotten 'War on Terra'. It's like shooting at ghosts. It is so wrong. So destructive. And the wrong avenue to avenge 9/11.

[mykpart]

7. I just emailed this article to my RW sister.

Thank you for posting it.

[Disturbed]

8. I have felt this way since 2001.

It is logical. The Busholini Regime cast their Illegal Invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan as a "War On Terror" for their agenda of controlling the flow of oil & the domination of other resources such as natural gas & water. I have been saying this for years. That is why this "War On Terror" is a scam. Hell, even Newt G. has come around to saying this. The American people have been fooled by a Fascist Regime that is now moving toward a Police State. Most of Congress sits by with their thumbs up their asses & lends their complicity to this Criminal Regime.

[Clark2008]

15. Isn't it amazing how rightwingers actually will listen to him?

Maybe he was slyly correct about being Faux's military analyst for two years.

[treestar]

9. Kick

:kick:

[deacon]

11. kick

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. International law is important to Clark

He feels we have perhaps a decade or two to get it right, now while the cultural standards of Europe and The United States still strongly influence attitudes in the world, prior to the full emergence of China, India, and other ascendent economies. We have time to establish international institutions as a natural mediator between regional and world powers, and legal expectations as the norm for most conflict resolution. Failing that Clark fears a return to a 19th century model of international relations, with shifting power blocs seeking to off set the influence of each other in revolving and unstable alliances. That would be a dangerous model for a 21st century world.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Even in his OP-Ed two days after 9/11, he stated that terror crimes

should be handled as exactly that!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=122187

[Schema Thing]

13. k&r

[Glimmer of Hope]

16. He is super smart. I would sleep better at night knowing he was in charge.

[Wesin04]

17. I, too, want him in charge

It needs to happen.

[Norrin Radd]

18. k+r

[BootinUp]

19. Sometimes it seems that nearly all the intelligence

in the US has been transferred to the brain of General Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

20. LOL!

But I think you may be right.......!

[bullwinkle428]

22. Too bad it's too late to allow a recommendation - he makes an

absolutely brilliant series of points that are bound to leave wingnuts sputtering! I'd love to see Insannity try and "debate" him over the content of this editorial.