Sacrificing rights: The defense of democracy vs. terrorism

[FeatherFall]

Kamikaze attacks weren't used until it was clear that Japan would eventually lose. Islamic terrorists began this conflict with similar attacks, but I don't know if the timing points to any differing principles.

I don't know what you're suggesting: If I were to look at your post and interpret it without assuming that you are on the US side in this, or even without considering that you are most likely an Objectivist, I would have to conclude that you are questioning the legitimacy of the American military taking prisoners in this conflict. However, I must consider the context of your post, so I am lost. Please clarify, what do you think the military should do instead of holding people at Gitmo, given the current political context? Are you suggesting issuing warrants and arresting them? (or rather waiting for them to surrender, since the military cannot act abroad without a formal declaration of war, which we don't have, as you just said)

A blanket release condition seems to be a fair way of treating prisoners that clears the military to focus on what is important; winning the war. Without such a condition, the Military must facilitate trials of some sort, with judicial oversight.

edit- a blanket release condition is also only possible when you have a clearly defined enemy and objective victory criteria - which we do not have at the moment. I am not against detaining prisoners at Gitmo. Our supreme court seems to be on the way to hammering out a process that is acceptable. I am sure they won't require US troops to read Miranda rights.

Edited December 8, 2008 by FeatherFall

[TheEgoist]

Really? Well, they must be really special and different from the norm, because in WW2 we detained Japanese Americans, firebombed Japanese and German civilians in Tokyo and Dresden, pulverized their children in Hiroshima, and not one of them turned out to be hostile to America afterward, in fact they suddenly became as friendly as little puppies.

This theory that we are creating our own enemies by somehow wronging them is the most ridiculous and despicable I've heard, ever. The people responsible for any suffering because of our response to terrorism are those who initiated force, period. I don't care if the victims are babies or pregnant mothers, as long as the military is acting in good faith, to defend America, they should not be forced to walk on eggshells.

We are loosing the war as it is, can you imagine if they had to start collecting DNA samples into little plastic bags, and witness testimony form the neighbors, every time they capture someone on the battlefield?

Are you justifying our imprisonment of Japanese Americans?

[Jake_Ellison]

Are you justifying our imprisonment of Japanese Americans?

I mentioned the imprisonment of Japanese Americans. Do you think I am justifying it, by doing that?

[FeatherFall]

The point is that these people, a large percentage of the time, aren't guilty of this at all.

I'm curious to know the percentage and the methods that were used to determine it.

[themadkat]

...and just in case Jake Ellison wasn't clear enough, one word: Kamikaze.

I never knew a kamikaze pilot to attack anything but a carrier, i.e. a military target. I am speaking of the people who blow themselves up in a public area where there are guaranteed to be civilians...in other words, the primary objective being to hurt innocents and spread chaos rather than destroy the enemy in a military engagement.

[Jake_Ellison]

I never knew a kamikaze pilot to attack anything but a carrier, i.e. a military target. I am speaking of the people who blow themselves up in a public area where there are guaranteed to be civilians...in other words, the primary objective being to hurt innocents and spread chaos rather than destroy the enemy in a military engagement.

Soooooooo? The fact that they commit suicide while driving the plane into a solid object makes them less fanatical than the islamists who drove their planes into targets because the targets were different? You're drifting off topic here, my friend. Soon you'll be saying that the difference is that these enemies are a shade browner, so that's why we have to treat them differently than we have been treating all our enemies since the start of the Republic.

Why not tell us instead why the Queen was driven out of Hamburg again? Even that's a better argument than trying to downplay organized suicide attacks.

Let me remind you of what we are discussing: I said we should engage our enemies the same way we've been treating them (or rather our grandparents have been treating them), namely by seeking to destroy them as fast as possible.

You on the other hand suggested that this is a bad idea, since look what happened the last time: people are feeling animosity, and the Queen was received with some hostility in Hamburg (at an unspecified time in the past, the way this hostility was manifested is also unclear). Then you also suggested that this time the enemy is different, and your only claim in support of that was that back then the enemy wasn't "in the habit" of becoming suicide bombers. That was proven false of course, via the straight forward method of providing a counter-example: the hundreds of kamikaze pilots who did exactly that, become suicide bombers.

Now would be a good time for you to beef up your list of arguments, in favor of both your claims:

1. our actions in WW2 were counter-productive.

2. today we face a different enemy-one that won't respond well to disproportionate, crushing violence.

[gags]

A blanket release condition seems to be a fair way of treating prisoners that clears the military to focus on what is important; winning the war. Without such a condition, the Military must facilitate trials of some sort, with judicial oversight.

edit- a blanket release condition is also only possible when you have a clearly defined enemy and objective victory criteria - which we do not have at the moment. I am not against detaining prisoners at Gitmo. Our supreme court seems to be on the way to hammering out a process that is acceptable. I am sure they won't require US troops to read Miranda rights.

What would a blanket release condition involve and under what circumstances? I'm not familiar with this concept.

[FeatherFall]

A blanket release would be like releasing all German soldiers from POW camps after defeating the Nazis. There would be exceptions of course; High ranking officials, those that were not in regular uniform, those who continued hostilities after surrender orders. I suspect that many in Guantanamo would be exceptions to the blanket release due to the nature of the organizations they joined. Anyway, I'm not proscribing action for this case, just giving an example.

[FeatherFall]

Soooooooo? The fact that they commit suicide while driving the plane into a solid object makes them less fanatical than the islamists who drove their planes into targets because the targets were different?

I see what Kat is getting at. You should be able to see the difference between the deliberate targeting of dance halls and weddings Vs war machines and soldiers. I can't speak to her larger point, but at least that much is clear to me.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Her larger point--that we are making enemies by prosecuting a war--is a standard liberal/left trope whose intent is to get us to stop defending ourselves.

The two answers I've seen are:

1) "Make the enemy into a democracy and they won't bother us any more." The neoconservative answer, which leads to altruism based warfare, which is the way we've been dealing with things since the 1950s. Alas it works poorly enough that the liberal/left weenies can package deal it with solution 2 and claim American self-defense doesn't work. And MadKat can buy into it.

2) "Stomp the snot out of them, make sure they are broken and no longer a threat, and they won't bother us any more." This is basically the Objectivist answer. For the most part it's how we dealt with WWII though perhaps an O-ist would have difficulty justifying our occupations of the countries. (We did, after all, do some "nation building" in these two countries. Particularly in Japan, we gave them their constitution (we didn't invite them to create one, we imposed it).) In any case it would seem to me that the O-ist method would work if America only had the testicular fortitude to try it.

[Jake_Ellison]

I see what Kat is getting at. You should be able to see the difference between the deliberate targeting of dance halls and weddings Vs war machines and soldiers. I can't speak to her larger point, but at least that much is clear to me.

It's not clear to me, so how about you enlighten me. What are the main psychological and moral differences between a Japanese and an Islamist suicide bomber?

By the way I consider killing American soldiers and civilians equally evil. If you believe otherwise please provide arguments. Not that the Japanese wouldn't have just as easily attacked skyscrapers if they were within their reach.

[Zip]

By the way I consider killing American soldiers and civilians equally evil. If you believe otherwise please provide arguments. Not that the Japanese wouldn't have just as easily attacked skyscrapers if they were within their reach.

As a soldier I am a legitimate target of my enemy. A Woman pushing a stroller down the street is not.

[Jake_Ellison]

As a soldier I am a legitimate target of my enemy. A Woman pushing a stroller down the street is not.

Legitimate? So in your view it's OK for someone to be blowing up our soldiers in Iraq? You don't see that as immoral?

Because that's exactly what the word legitimate means, if you apply it to morality. (as you clearly are)

[edit] Let me just add my opinion: it's only legitimate to target a human being in self defense. For that enemy to be in the right, you would have to be the one initializing force: then, anything he does to kill you would be legitimate, and I would be siding with him. Until then, I'm with you pal, like it or not.

Here's a compact answer, inspired by the show House, that would sum up everything I said: "If you think you're a legitimate target, take out your gun and kill yourself."

Edited December 9, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I doubt Zip would agree--unless the people blowing up our soldiers happen to themselves be in uniform.

I cannot speak for him, but I can speak to what I *think* he is saying and I will do so, because even if Zip isn't speaking from this perspective, many people do and it would be useful to highlight it.

I believe he is thinking in terms of the Geneva conventions.

Skulking about in civilian clothing causes problems, for one thing it forces you to target civilians when you may not actually rationally want to.

And there "legitimacy" would be a term to use in deciding what you do to the enemy once you capture them. Un-uniformed combatants have no rights whatsoever under the Geneva convention (in other words the Geneva convention does not apply to anyone being held in Gitmo; we would not be in violation if we were literally torturing them); you can capture them and execute them. Uniformed combatants must be fed, treated humanely, etc. If they confess to "war crimes" (as defined) all bets are off; I have heard many stories of Communist militaries trying to trick confessions out of their prisoners so they'd have an excuse to torture them. Even signing a receipt for clothing could be hazardous--your signature could magically end up on a "confession".

This is something that might be condemned as the usual altruistic mode of warfighting, but it is in fact in our interest to abide by it, because in a (normal) war between two uniformed militaries we want the other side to treat anyone of *us* that it captures well.

Thus it is "legitimate" (under the Geneva convention) for the enemy soldiers to shoot at him, but not at the civilians he is trying to protect. That certainly does not mean he is stating the enemy is right and he is wrong. The Geneva convention does not choose who is right and wrong in a war, it does prescribe some standards of conduct that are hopefully in the interests of both sides.

So that is where Zip is coming from, if I am not mistaken--you may disagree with it and the whole ethic behind the Geneva conventions but that is a totally different issue, and I suggest that we not get sidetracked conflating the two senses of the word "legitimate."

--------------------------

In any case the larger point is--both the Japanese Kamikaze and the Islamist suicide bomber are fanatical enough to commit suicide for their cause. That is the key similarity here, more important than the difference between who their targets are, and whether or not the target is "legitimate" under the Geneva rules (military as opposed to civilian) or the Objectivist ones (the bad guys vs. the good guys).

Yet, somehow or another the Japanese attacks stopped and the Islamist ones haven't.

*Why* there is a difference is the point at issue here.

[Jake_Ellison]

I believe he is thinking in terms of the Geneva conventions.

Yes, that is exactly what he is referring to, and that was clear the second he used the words "legitimate targets". That is terminology that pretty much became commonplace because of that very document.

I chose to not mention it either (precisely because I don't want the discussion sidetracked-I doulbt I would agree with Zip in the insuing discussion), so I tried to steer the conversation back toward ethics, and not consider the Geneva Convention at all. Here's why it's wrong to argue with the Geneva Convention in hand, the way Zip is trying to: it is a document we signed for one reason, to protect our soldiers and all civilians. Once a side refuses to adhere to it (as both the Japanese and the Islamists did), it no longer applies as a moral compass. Not even to us -since it no longer serves its purpose-, and certainly not to what I was talking about (the enemy's morality), and which Zip wanted to contradict me on.

If the Japanese were in fact abiding by that Convention, I would agree that they would not be equally as evil as the Islamists. They would still be pretty evil (they are still fighting against good, for an evil ideology, but at least they have a shred of honor), and the difference shouldn't really influence our actions, but at least I would admit there's a point to bringing it up: it would be pertinent to the discussion.

However, they didn't, so Zip was wrong in bringing it up. It really doesn't matter which parts the Islamists ignore, and which the Japanese: there is no honor, so there is no reason to differentiate morally.

P.S. [to clarify] When I said "I consider killing American soldiers and civilians equally evil", I should be applying the word "evil" to the attacker(killer), not the act itself. (Otherwise it doesn't make as much sense. I hope that lack of precision didn't cause any confusion.)

[FeatherFall]

There are similarities between Jihadist Martyrs and Kamikazes, the largest being that both do it in the name of a theocracy. Both are also acts of desperation against a superior enemy. Here is the difference I find in the choice of targets, as it applies to Japan and Political Islam:

Japan was doing it in an attempt to increase the effectiveness of planes that they new were going to get shot down, planes that were piloted by people who had little to no combat experience. They needed a way to kill threatening targets as well as strike a blow to enemy morale.

Many (not all) Jihadist suicide bombers have no hope of killing threatening targets. The only legitimate military hope would be to damage enemy morale. However, I have a strong suspicion that these types of blows do more to bolster Jihadist morale, which speaks to an ideology a step removed from Islam's counterpart in this discussion. The Japanese, to some extent, valued life. The Jihadists do not.

Terror is a legitimate tactic in war; For instance, the United States' use of atomic weaponry was more a strategy of crushing Japan's will to fight than it was a tactic of minimizing risk to flight crews. This was a good thing, if anything in war can be considered such. But, when terror stops being a way to damage your enemy's resolve and becomes a conduit for your party's sadistic joy, something absolutely vile is happening.

[Jake_Ellison]

To FeatherFall:

I'd say that's a big stretch in both directions:

1. Saying the Japanese chose their targets and valued life. I think they struck at everything they could. We don't know what they would've done had they been given student visas, but I'm pretty sure they would've tried to knock down a few skyscrapers in NY, precisely for the same reason the Islamists did.

2. Terror being a conduit for al Qaeda supporters' sadistic joy. As you said it yourself, it's a tactic of war, and a very effective one. Plus, how would you describe the joy of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, or the Germans after the invasion of Poland and France? I don't think joy at hurting someone is a rare thing in war.

I think (and this is just a personal, pretty rash opinion) that you are looking for rationalization for something that is basically a not yet integrated, relativist view of US foreign affairs and to some extent history, which stuck with you since you learned it in school.

Here's a clue I got to that:

"This was a good thing, if anything in war can be considered such."

You should know if it is a good thing or not, there really is no need for guessing. After all, it's a pretty important part of history any knowledgeable person has an opinion on: I think you are in the process of changing your opinion (from it's a bad/grey thing to it's a good thing), hence the hesitation.

[Miles White]

What are your general replies in the case of security? Someone who firmly holds that massive terrorist attacks are well within the realm of possibility?

"Anybody who gives up Liberty for temporary protection, deserves neither and will loose both."- Ben Franklin

[FeatherFall]

Jake, you presume to know far too much about me. My opinion of the nuking of Japan hasn't changed much (if at all) since I was first introduced to it. I'd give you an age, but it has been so long that I can't remember when I learned the essentials. Regardless, my opinion on the matter is not currently in a state of transition.

[Jake_Ellison]

A story which confirms what we already know - instead of giving up our rights, we just need a government which kills our enemies, and holds on to the ones it has in custody:

Pentagon: 61 ex-Guantanamo inmates return to terrorism

[Maximus]

As to the question of why the Japanese surrenered and decides to live peacably, and The islamists haven't; we broke Japan's will to fight, and demonstrated that the Emperor was not divine. This is key: we have not broken the Jihadist's will, nor have we demonstrated that thier belief that they are acting out divine edict is false.

The surest way to break thier will is to destroy Mecca and Medina, and it would also demonstrate that Allah is not omnipotent. Destroy Allah's rock in the Kabba = no more Haj, rendering thier belief system impotent. They will question why Allah failed to protect his own city and the birthplace of the Prophet.

Or, it could backfire, causing a world-wide overt Jihad, in which case we kill as many of the bastards as our ammo supply will allow.

[Maximus]

"surrenered?" What the heck was I thinking? Note to self: proofread next time.

[Ordr]

"surrenered?" What the heck was I thinking? Note to self: proofread next time.

I saw it but was too polite to say anything .

[gags]

The surest way to break thier will is to destroy Mecca and Medina, and it would also demonstrate that Allah is not omnipotent. Destroy Allah's rock in the Kabba = no more Haj, rendering thier belief system impotent. They will question why Allah failed to protect his own city and the birthplace of the Prophet.

Wasn't there a congressman or some other politician who proposed doing this shortly after 9/11? If I recall correctly, he caught holy hell in the P.C. media for even making such a suggestion.

[Ordr]

The surest way to break thier will is to destroy Mecca and Medina, and it would also demonstrate that Allah is not omnipotent. Destroy Allah's rock in the Kabba = no more Haj, rendering thier belief system impotent. They will question why Allah failed to protect his own city and the birthplace of the Prophet.

I've contemplated the ramifications of bombing Mecca as a demoralization tactic and I've come to the conclusion that it would be the catalyst for a total war with nearly all Muslims, including the "moderates". That said, if we were committed to wage this total war against Islamism to the very end, I'd suggest it be saved for near the end of the war to demoralize whoever is left and hopefully have them lose their will to fight.

Edited January 14, 2009 by Ordr