Wednesday, June 18, 2008

The Crime of Terrorism: A question of Perception

(or, How to Marginalize the Bogeyman)


In listening to the back-and-forth repartee between Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican candidate John McCain, as well suffering the past seven years worth of rants by the current US political administration, on the topics of “Terrorism,” and how to handle “Terrorists,” I've had to revisit some of my long disused earlier education to make sense of it all. It doesn't make sense.

Terrorism, as much as the US' current political administration would have us believe otherwise, is not a singular enemy associated with a singular political mindset or religious philosophy. There are recorded instances of terrorism historically in the Talmud, The Bible, The Q'uran, the Book of Mormon, other major and minor religious works, and most secular histories. There are recorded instances of terrorism in most countries, on all continents, under all types of political and religious structures, in nearly all revolutions, and for all sorts of reasons.

However, what the current US administration doesn't tell us, and really doesn't care for you and me to understand is that terrorism is a tool, nothing more, and is most often employed by criminals, fanatics, reactionaries, revolutionaries, and other sundry miscreants, as a last resort when all other methods, legitimate or otherwise have failed.

Remember this: Terrorism is a tool, not an enemy. Once we have that concept nailed and internalized, it becomes rather moronic (pathetic?) to consider fighting a “War on Terror.” Such a “war” has the equivalence of a carpenter declaring war on his competitor's hammer, or a farmer declaring war on his neighbor's harvester. Neither the hammer nor the harvester can do anything without the carpenter to swing it, nor the farmer to drive it. Though, in these instances, the tools can be used either constructively or destructively, whereas acts of terror cannot. Terror, like a bomb or an assault rifle, is a tool of crime or war, not the enemy itself, and can only be used destructively.

Most civilized nations have solid conventions against the use of terror, and also have discrete means of dealing with terrorists -- capturing them, trying them as common criminals, and sentencing them to either death or lengthy prison terms. And believe me, a terrorist would last about as long in a prison's general population as a would child molester.

The point here is that I believe we should take the “War on Terror” off the front burner, deny alleged terrorists their media political forum for potential martyrdom, and try them as the criminals they truly are. The more we hype the “War on Terror,” the bigger the forum we provide.

If we were to reverse that mindset, and begin treating suspected terrorists as common criminals with petty ambitions, then we acknowledge the act, but marginalize actor, and thus deny him his day in the light as a martyr. Were that to occur often enough, the enthusiasm for jihad might indeed fade to a manageable level. It worked in Europe with the Red Brigade, in Ireland with the IRA, and in the US with the Weathermen and other mad bombers. All were terrorists, employing the tools of terror. They were eventually trivialized, treated as common criminals, and their organizations have, for the most part gone away.

All that said, I believe Mr. Obama's approach to handling terrorists and combatants captured and held in Guantanamo and other places is right on the mark. We need to sort the wheat from the chaff in Guantanamo and whatever other various prisons we maintain around the world.

For combatants captured on the field of battle, we need to treat them as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, with full access to humanitarian organization scrutiny.

For terrorists, and terrorist conspirators, we need to move them to US jails or prisons, try them as the common criminals they are, and sentence them to lengthy prison terms in some of our nastier general populations. They're no longer “terrorists,” and they don't become martyrs – just common criminals serving their time, and badly at that. They're trivialized and marginalized. Then, watch terrorism die – for now...

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Going back twenty years or so, the so called "terrorists" in my country (who embarked on some horrific attacks)were looked on as "freedom fighters" by many from their own country And their funding and arms came from pseudo-religious nuts in your country.
Simplistic perhaps, true nonetheless. If the US stopped interfering in other countries affairs (when it suits them) the world would be a safer place. Furthermore, they might not attract so much hate from other countries.

But its a phoney war anyway. I mean, how many people have died in terrorist activities in the last seven years. Just a small handful methinks compared with the lies, rhetoric and propaganda we've been led to believe.
It really doesnt matter who wins the next american presidential race as they're both puppet fascist conspirators controlled by big petro-chemical/arms/communications/food businesses, imo

Duck and Cover, you know it makes sense

(Louis mountbatten)

Anonymous said...

The comment that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter are as much true now as they were then. While I cannot personally sanction either the tool or the financiers, I can at least see the reasons for the application.

And again, you're correct about the numbers who've died directly by "terrorist" acts since the declaration of the "war on terror"-- damned few.

I don't count the Iraqis in that though, because, bloody hell!, they're fighting to throw-off a very oppressive invader and his occupation. Break up their police and their military, and suborn their government, and what's left to them?

Again, much of this has to do with our upper strata's non-politics of "Get what you can and get out. To Hell with the rest..." Once upon a time,didn't a suggestion about "cake" start a revolution?

Duck and cover? Gees, man! If you've seen it, its already too late...