Terrorism was once defined as "Criminal acts performed for political purposes."
If we had the political will to have the police of all countries really share information,
terrorists couldn't hide anywhere in the world and we'd soon be done with them.
Instead, with Bush Jr. we start the "War on Terror". However, we aren't really at "war' (to whom might we surrender?).
Therefore, there ought not be such entities as "enemy combatants", with limbo for a legal status.
And, this war is never-ending, since there is no formal enemy to surrender or surrender to!
If we simply use the higher moral authority we claim by actually living within the rule of law, all would be much better!
Instead, the Obama administration declares an unarmed, unprotected OBL to be a casualty of our war on terror.
They therefore are conveniently using the "at war" line when they need to justify their actions,
and "let's try them in NYC" line when they know that's the moral and legally correct thing to do, with a path paved with prior success.
How surprising they have it both ways, so that those who can never be tried for lack of acceptable evidence, but are too dangerous to let loose, can now rot in Guantanamo.
America has fallen short in moral standing for several reasons:
The whole idea of an "elective" or "pre-emptive" war is totally immoral, illegal and ought to be totally unacceptable.
"Fight them over there" Can anything be less moral?
Not following the rule of law by failing to apprehend instead of assassinate Osama bin Laden.
Torture, special rendition, and all the rest.
I despair regards my countrymen's glee.
--
Frish
end_of_the_skype_highlighting
