That concuding bit of decency toward Greenwald really struck me, considering how vile the dude is. Indeed, just take a look at Greenwald's post up this afternoon, "Can Attacks on a Military Base Constitute 'Terrorism'?":
The incomparably pernicious Joe Lieberman said yesterday on Fox News that he intends to launch an investigation into "the motives of [Nidal] Hasan in carrying out this brutal mass murder, if a terrorist attack, the worst terrorist attack since 9/11." Hasan's attack was carried out on a military base, with his clear target being American soldiers, not civilians. No matter one's views on how unjustified and evil this attack was, can an attack on soldiers -- particularly ones in the process of deploying for a war -- fall within any legitimate definition of "terrorism," which generally refers to deliberate attacks on civilians?More at the post, then this:
The obvious problem with answering that question is that, as even the U.S. State Department recognizes, "no one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance" -- despite the centrality of that term in our political discourse ....
... a large part of our "war" strategy is to kill people we deem to be "terrorists" or "combatants" without regard to whether they're armed or engaged in hostilities at the moment we kill them. Isn't that exactly what we do when we use drone attacks in Pakistan? Indeed, we currently have a "hit list" of individuals we intend to murder in Afghanistan on sight based on our suspicion that they're involved in the drug trade and thus help fund the Taliban. During its war in Gaza, Israel targeted police stations and, with one strike, killed 40 police trainees while in a parade, and then justified that by claiming police recruits were legitimate targets -- even though they weren't engaged in hostilities at the time -- because of their nexus to Hamas (even though the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem said the targeted recruits "were being trained in first aid, human rights and maintaining public order").Hey, that's some pretty professionalized moral relativism?
Is there any legitimate definition of "terrorism" that allows the Fort Hood attack to qualify but not those above-referenced attacks? The U.S., of course, maintains that it is incapable of engaging in "terrorism," by definition, because "terrorism" is something only "subnational groups or clandestine agent" can do, but leaving that absurdly self-serving and incoherent exclusion aside, how can the Fort Hood attacks targeted at soldiers be "terrorism" but not our own acts?
The difference, as anyone knows -- most of all a constitutional lawyer like Greenwald -- is that the U.S. is a sovereign state-actor, possessing a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, recognized under international law; and its military campaigns are internationally-substantiated legal actions in response to acts of war against this country. (See, "George W. Bush: Declaration of War on Terrorism.") Even Greenwald's own elaboration of the definition of terrorism infers the fundamental right of the U.S. to respond to attacks on its own terroritory and people.
So, what to do? Just denounce the United States as a terrorist itself. That'll do it. Raise a few rhetorical smokescreens and poof!, it's the American military that's the bad guy here, not a methodical fanatical Muslim who killed 13 Americans in cold blood.
You know, this morning Verum Serum used very strong language to denounce Anwar al-Awlaki, who hailed Nadal Hasan's ramage as a heroic act ("anyone who has empathy on any level for the actions of Hasan, or the views expressed by Al-Awlaki, does not deserve to be an American as far as I’m concerned," etc.).
I feel the same way about Greenwald, with all due respect for Patterico's generosity.
6 comments:
Are you saying that every single non-state actor that commits violence against military installations is now a terrorist? Someone should have told that to Reagan when the U.S. was backing the Contras in Nicaragua, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, UNITA in Angola, etc.
Actually, no, AJB, you are saying that...
Dr.D,
This is so clearly terrorism that the media, and the lefties are twisting themselves in knots trying to come up with some other explanation. It would be funny, but runaway PCism in this case, cost some people their lives. Why is that terrible leaders cost soldiers their lives? I have some first hand experience with this. It's too bad leaders don't lost their lives often enough.
Well, here's what you said:
The difference, as anyone knows -- most of all a constitutional lawyer like Greenwald -- is that the U.S. is a sovereign state-actor, possessing a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, recognized under international law; and its military campaigns are internationally-substantiated legal actions in response to acts of war against this country. (See, "George W. Bush: Declaration of War on Terrorism.") Even Greenwald's own elaboration of the definition of terrorism infers the fundamental right of the U.S. to respond to attacks on its own terroritory and people.
Let us put aside, for the moment, the distinction between state and non-state actors for a second and instead consider how the above pertains to the Iraq invasion. Iraq never attacked us, had no WMDs, and never posed a conceivable threat to the US. It was completely incapacitated by the Gulf War plus a decade of harsh sanctions and all its WMD had been destroyed in the late 90s. No major international organization or alliance approved of the war, not even NATO.
Since the the Iraq War was not a war of self-defense and because it was not recognized as such by most international legal authorities, then—according to your own definitions—we engaged in terrorism everytime we attacked military and dual-use targets during the course of the initial invasion.
No one in mainstream discourse is actually saying that the Fort Hood shooting was justified. All that is being questioned is the application of the terror label. You can call it a massacre, you can call it treason, but because it did not target civilians you really should not call it terrorism.
Andrew the Emo BoyToy claims Greenwald as an "ex." Talk about a "marriage" made between demons in a 21st century hell!
Greenwald is a waste of a human being, who goes to Brazil, it's said, to cavort among his fellow sybarites in perv heaven. To have a creature like that comment on the brave soldiers who defend his right to make absurd statements in favor of terrorists is another sign of the times.
Sorry, AJB, we can't "put that aside for a second." We were attacked on September 11. President Bush declared the attack an act of war. So, again, your comments are boilerplate leftism and obfuscation.
As for Iraq, the U.S. ejected Saddam from Kuwait in 1991 on authorization of U.N. Security Council Resolution 678, and thus under the auspices of international law. The 2003 Iraq war followed from Saddam's violations of all subsequent U.N. resolutions for an armistice.
So, wrong again, my friend.
Post a Comment