Who is a Terrorist?

(noon. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Who is a terrorist?  That is the question that has sparked what may well be the biggest fight for America in decades.

WASHINGTON – Senior lawyers in the Obama administration are deeply divided over some of the counterterrorism powers they inherited from former President George W. Bush, according to interviews and a review of legal briefs.

The rift has been most pronounced between top lawyers in the State Department and the Pentagon, though it has also involved conflicts among career Justice Department lawyers and political appointees throughout the national security agencies.

The very next paragraph shows us why this battle could very well save, or destroy, the America our founding fathers envisioned.

The discussions, which shaped classified court briefs filed this month, have centered on how broadly to define the types of terrorism suspects who may be detained without trials as wartime prisoners. The outcome of the yearlong debate could reverberate through national security policies, ranging from the number of people the United States ultimately detains to decisions about who may be lawfully selected for killing using drones.

The TYPES of terrorism suspects that may be detained without trials as wartime prisoners is the core of this fight.

It is this same parsing of legal language by Bush administration lawyers that brought our government to torture detainees.  Now, they are parsing what TYPES of terrorism may be covered under the indefinite detention policy.  Think about that for a minute.

It has already been decided by the Obama administration that they will hold indefinitely, without trial, up to 48 or more individuals held currently at Guantanamo.  These people will simply be moved to a prison in Illinois.  We know that these people will never see a trial simply because the government tortured them and the extent of that torture would then become part of the public record.

I brought out how Senator Lindsey Graham is talking to the Obama administration about legislation making indefinite detention into American law.  I wrote how President Obama’s next Supreme Court Justice appointee could, when the law is challenged in court, uphold such law as constitutional.  But, now we learn that the Obama administration is trying to decide just what TYPES of terrorism, and those accused of it, will be subject to future indefinite detention without trial.

Will it include those called “eco-terrorists”?  Will it include those deemed “domestic terrorists”?  There isn’t a wide variety of types of terrorism.  In fact, if you look at how our government defines terrorism, the “types” of terrorism are quite few.

State Department definition, Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d): premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

FBI definition: the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Defense Department definition:  the calculated use, or threatened use, of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

By these definitions, the “types” of terrorism are thus broken down into three categories; political, social and religious.  All of these types of terrorism are committed due to ideological beliefs.  None of these types of terrorism are found in only one segment of the world, are committed by only one religious community, are perpetrated by only one race, or, by one nationality.  

In the past, terrorists were tried in civilian courts for their crimes.  It is only when the Bush administration instituted the torture of detainees that indefinite detention without a trial was even instituted as a policy.  It is for this reason that I questioned the need for a law in the future for the indefinite detention of prisoners without trial.  If we no longer torture, what is stopping future terrorists from being tried in civilian, or even military, courts?

Now, it gets worse; the Obama administration is now fighting over what types of terrorism the government can simply invoke indefinite detention without a trial.  That these fights are with the Pentagon, the State Department and Department of Justice lawyers is in no way comforting.  In fact, it only further raises the specter that only non-American citizens are at the core of this internal fight.

Just imagine if a law is instituted that reads:

A person that commits terrorism against the United States, its government, or its officials, are subject to authority and powers granted under subsection (a). (where subsection (a) is the authorization of our government to imprison a person without charge or trial indefinitely)

Next, imagine this law is challenged in court and the Supreme Court rules the law is constitutional.  If Elena Kagan is the next appointee, that could very well be the case.

During her confirmation hearing last week, Elena Kagan, the nominee for solicitor general, said that someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law – indefinite detention without a trial – even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than in a physical battle zone.

Now, toss into this that the law could cover different “types” of terrorism.  What different type of terrorism, and, who will it cover?  Is this fight over whether it would include American citizens?  We don’t know, mainly because, this issue has yet to be raised.  All we can do, at this point, is connect the dots as they become available to us.

We know that the Obama administration is engaged in talks about a future law, though, we don’t know why they feel they need such a law.  We know that Justice Stevens may retire from the Supreme Court before 2012, and, that one of President Obama’s nominees supports indefinite detention without a trial.  We now know that there is a debate raging about who, if detained in the future, would even be covered under such a law.  We do know one thing; if we sit and wait we will get something, and, we may not like it.  

Write the White House and ask these questions now.

Write to your local newspaper and ask these questions now.

Write to national newspapers and ask these questions now.

We simply cannot wait.