Crime and Terrorism

Everyone seems to have some ideas about how terrorism is or isn't a kind of crime, and whether it should be pursued by law enforcement or by the military. For a long time now, faced with the very negative results of America's military pseudo-war against terrorism, I have fallen pretty squarely in the law enforcement camp.

My feeling has been that if, after the attacks in 2001, we had used domestic and international law enforcement to pursue those who attacked us as mass murderers, we would have caught them sooner, caused much less damage, and without making us international pariahs as we became during the Iraq travesty. I still think that.

However, I just had a thought today, after reading an interesting article comparing the American and French approaches to the problem, that has modified my position somewhat (the modification doesn't really have anything to do with the current French versus American approaches, the article was just a trigger).

Here's the thought: if we were to classify acts of terrorism in the same domain as other crimes, where would they fit? Clearly, if we ignore psychology and sociology, they would be right at home with other kinds of mass homicides and gross vandalism. And even if we were to include some psychology, they would still find a seemingly natural fit with the various hate crimes that currently adorn our statutes. But although this looks like a natural classification on the surface, it is not at all satisfying, and it is in exploring the reasons behind this dissatisfaction that my new way of thinking has emerged.

When you consider crime, simple actions, while relevant, are never determinative. Any action associated with a crime can be performed with no criminal liability or implication, depending on the motive. That is, the why of an action is just as important as the action itself when it comes to criminality. This is equally true for terrorist acts. However, the goals that motivate terrorism do not match any other crime.

Instead, the goals of terrorism (destabilizing the state, trying to change or to overturn governments, harming the economy, or persecuting a specific group within a state) are much more naturally associated with warfare, not crimes.

And yet, they do not fall naturally in the realm of military activity either. Wars are battles between states, or in the exceptional case of a civil war, between two strong factions within a state who are battling for the control of that state. This is not what terrorists do. In fact, we make a strong distinction between sabotage and guerilla warfare versus terrorism; the difference is primarily that in the latter case, there are no countries at war with each other.

So terrorism doesn't really fit nicely into either the criminal or the military domain. In other words, the answer original question as to whether terrorism is criminal or military, is “yes”. Or “no”. That is, it is neither and both of the above.

I continue to believe, however, that traditional police methods, including international police methods, are better suited to the pursuit of terrorists than military methods, mostly because the scale and the tactics of terrorists are much more similar to those of criminals than to those of armies. On the other hand, since the whole purpose of terrorism is to threaten a state; that is, terrorism is an attack on the state, qualitatively similar to an attack by another nation's army, the normal rules governing law enforcement may not be appropriate; instead, the rules governing warfare are probably more appropriate.

What I would like to see is a removal of the military from our efforts to protect and defend the nation against terrorism, to be replaced by a strong, special branch of law enforcement at the national level that operates using a blend of civil and military procedures. Obviously, we are still fighting down our invasion of Afghanistan, so our military can't just walk away from that war. But it is winding down and will end soon. When it does end, then we need to get our military back on track as a war-fighting force, not a police force.

The United States will be far more hampered that most countries in any effort to make this particular change, because in the US, law enforcement is usually a local or statewide affair, with federal law enforcement applying only in certain restricted types of cases (crimes taking place across state lines, kidnappings, crimes involving the military or federal personnel or property, and so on). It's a matter of limited jurisdiction resulting from our out-dated constitution, that constitutes 51 sovereign states sharing and competing within a single nation. It should be mentioned that the military (which is controlled by the federal government) is similarly restricted in its operations within our borders. Therefore, a new force that was created to fight terrorism using law enforcement techniques but bound by military-style rules regarding procedure would be a considerable extension of the federal government, and would probably be objected to by our states-rights zealots.

Now, in the early Bush years, a new department of Homeland Security was created with the purpose of unifying law enforcement against terrorist threats. The so-called PATRIOT act did, in fact, alter procedure by reducing some civil protections. However, I think that much more than this is necessary.

First, this should be separated from normal law enforcement, because of the differences in procedures. As it is now, the PATRIOT act has opened the door for civilian law enforcement to use new techniques for matters not related to terrorism, for example, drug enforcement. If the new laws applied only to the new law enforcement branch, not to ordinary civilian law enforcement, those kinds of erosion of civil rights would be much less. (On the other hand, there would be definite erosions of civil rights in anti-terrorism enforcement.)

It would all come down to whether those erosions would be justified by the threat of terrorism in ways they are not justified by the threat of criminal violence. I think some changes could in fact be justified on the grounds that an attack on the state itself rather than on persons and property merits a much stronger, more military-like response. However, there is a danger of abuse and so we need to have protections built in, just as there are protections built into the military system: strict rules of engagement, an explicit military code of conduct, and an independent judicial system designed to keep efforts within bounds.

BigPic comment archive

Si vous êtes un lecteur du blog Big Picture de Corine Lesnes sur lemonde.fr, la possibilité existe que vous avez remarqué que les commentaires ont la mauvaise habitude de disparaître. Ce n'est pas du tout amusant. Je ne sais pas la raison, si c'est à cause d'une politique du journal ou d'une faille technique du logiciel. J'ai décidé d'inventer un contournement.

C’est pour Macintosh seulement, et c’est inélégant. Mais ça marche.

Il faut premièrement installer un petit script dans votre dossier Sites. Je l’appelle « curlBigPic.ksh ». C’est comme suit :

#!/bin/ksh

# keep an archive of the last NSAMP BigPic comments

NSAMP=200 # a little more than a two days worth of 15 minute samples

DB=~/Sites/bigpicdb

mkdir -p $DB

cd $DB

newf=`date -u +"%Y.%m.%d-%Hh%M"`

prev=`ls | head -1`

if [[ -e "$prev" ]] ; then

rm -f `ls -r *.xml | tail -n +$((NSAMP-1))`

fi

if ! curl --connect-timeout 20 --max-time 30 --silent \

http://clesnes.blog.lemonde.fr/comments/feed/ > /tmp/curlBigPic.$$ ; then

exit $?

fi

if [[ -e "$prev" ]] ; then

if ! cmp -s "$prev" /tmp/curlBigPic.$$ ; then

mv /tmp/curlBigPic.$$ $newf.xml

else

rm -f /tmp/curlBigPic.$$

fi

fi

Il ne faut que copier-coller ces lignes dans un fichier de ce nom, mais faites attention : il faut être « texte seulement », pas de rtf, doc, ou quoi que ce soit d’autre.

Après l’installation, il faut exécuter une commande dans Terminal :

cd Sites ; chmod +x curlBigPic.ksh

Finalement, il faut créer un crontab, avec la commande suivante :

crontab -e

Une sorte d’éditeur ouvrira ; il faut y mettre la ligne suivante :

0,15,30,45 * * * * ~/Sites/curlBigPic.ksh

NB : il n’y a pas d’espaces dans cette ligne, ce sont des tab. Les chiffres sont les minutes de téléchargement, par exemple 10h00, 10h15, 10h30, 10h45.

Pour éviter les blocages, je suggère que chacun choisisse une compensation de 1-14 minutes, par exemple :

3,18,33,48 * * * * ~/Sites/curlBigPic.ksh

Dans les Sharing Preferences, activer « Web Sharing ». J’ignore les noms en français, désolé. C’est pour activer le serveur web de votre compte.

Toutes les 15 minutes, votre ordinateur va télécharger un fichier XML avec un sommaire des commentaires le plus récents.

Dans Safari, ouvrez l’URL « http://localhost/~VOTRENOM/bigpicdb ». Par exemple, j’utilise « http://localhost/~greg/bigpicdb/ ».

Une page ouvrira qui dit « Index of /~VOTRENOM/bigpicdb ». Dans cette page, tous les fichiers XML seront montrés. Les noms des fichiers sont la date et l’heure du téléchargement (en UTC). Notez bien que si un fichier est égal au précédent, il n’est pas installé. Safari comprend les RSS en format XML, donc, si vous cliquez sur l’un des liens, il ouvrira avec les plus récents commentaires à l’heure de téléchargement. De cette manière, vous pouvez chercher parmi tous les commentaires des derniers jours. Il est possible que ce script manque un commentaire, si HAL est très rapide. Si cela arrive trop souvent, on peut télécharger les XML plus fréquemment.

Je crois qu’il serait mieux pour le script d’être sur un seul serveur où tous peuvent aller chercher leurs commentaires perdus, mais je ne le veux pas sur les miens. Désolé encore. Mais, si quelqu’un a le contrôle d’un serveur et la volonté de se joindre à la lutte contre les abus de HAL, ce serait la bienvenue.

The United State of America

I'm fed up with the idea of a “50 sovereign states” all within a single “sovereign nation”. I think that having states is really very bad for the nation. What if all of the states in the US were combined into one? How would the constitution scale? There would be some things that would be improved, and some things that would be strange. Let's see.

First, of course, we would be the United State of America: “We the People of the United State, in Order to form a more perfect Union, etc.”. That would be a little strange, but it would be perfectly meaningful historically. In fact, we would be the former united states repackaged into a much more united state, in fact, literally a United State.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the State. That works the same: the House would be a much better place, much more evenly distributed, a true House of the People. However, the constitution assumes that each state has a legislature, which means that there would be a single shadow state legislature and a legislature of the United State. That would be strange. Let's keep track of the responsibilities of the state legislature as we go.

Another improvement: since all of the US would be a single state, the rule concerning residence in a particular state would only mean that no Representative could be a resident of a territory or of a foreign country, since all residents of the USA would be residents of its state.

The Senate, of course, is where things get really interesting: it would become a co-senatorship. There would be two Senators (but see below), who, with the Vice President as chair, would have the responsibility of the existing body, including creating and passing legislation, the power to advise and consent to presidential appointments, and trying impeachments. The role of the Vice President would obviously become much more important. Also, rules requiring 2/3 votes of the Senate would require a unanimous vote of the two Senators OR a tie vote of the two Senators plus the Vice President's tie-breaking vote, which would create a 2/3 majority. The House would still have the responsibility to originate spending bills.

So let's pause a bit. With a single state, there would be two legislatures. One, the House of Representatives, would concern itself with those things assigned to the federal government by the constitution. The other, let's call it the State Legislature, would concern itself with all other laws. In fact, there could still be a state constitution created by the State Legislature, and a State Judiciary to interpret it, just as there is now. At the federal level, there would also be a kind of Senatorial panel consisting of two senators and the presided over by the President of the Senate, who would also serve as the Vice President. This panel would have all of the duties of the current Senate.

I actually think that this would be a tremendous improvement over what we have now. For one thing, while there would still be a body of state laws, there would be no differences among the states as there is now. The state law would apply to all citizens of the United State living in the state. As for the House, the existing process of census and districting could be made to create equally representative districts across the whole country. The error in size among districts would be negligible, since the error could be distributed across the whole country. This would be true for both legislatures, although there would be no requirement that there be equal districting at the two levels. This would be a decision for the Legislature to make. When it comes to the Electoral College, we would receive the same benefit: the number of Electors would be basically the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators (2). As for the District of Columbia, I can see no reason why it shouldn't be incorporated into the state, and I'm sure it would be. But if it were not, then it would be treated more or less as a territory except that Congress would control its government as it does now. There would be no real change from what it is now.

When it comes to the Executive Branch, there would still be a President, but there could now also be a Governor. Their responsibilities would be divvied up as the are now, but obviously the position of Governor would become tremendously more important than it is now. The President would still have the constitutional duties and powers that past presidents have had, but I think that it would end up that the President would be Commander in Chief, would be in charge of all foreign affairs such as trade and the like, and of course signing, implementing, and enforcing federal laws. The Governor would have much more of a role in things affecting people's everyday lives though.

This leads us to a very large difference that would affect all aspects of the US system of government: it would be the end of all interstate laws. Under the current system, with so-called “sovereign states”, it has been up to the federal government, all three branches, to be in charge of interstate commerce in all its ramifications. This entire body of law and of control would be instantly obsolete with only one United State. Instead, the Legislature, Governor, and State Judiciary (or whatever or however this evolves--for example, whether to have both upper and lower bodies in the Legislature) would have complete control over all of those things. Although no conservative is likely to embrace or even comprehend the change we are contemplating here, I think it is likely that the demise of interstate commerce as a way for the federal government to exercise control over matters not originally envisaged by the Founders is something that they could support.

Along with interstate commerce, there would also be an entire segment of American life that would disappear, and good riddance. Some examples: differences in licensing for practitioners of various professions or trades (only one license would exist for the whole State); differences in state tax laws (for example, sales tax would apply equally everywhere, thereby ending the Internet loophole that is costing many states a lot of revenue); different automobile license requirements; different textbooks in schools; different educational standards; different consumer and environmental protections. This list could go on and on.

Of course, there could still be regional differences in many things, just as there are now within individual states. I'm sure that within the State, which would be huge, there could be regional differences. None of this would go against the US Constitution unless it violated, e.g., the Bill of Rights. However, I think that the tendency would be toward greater unification of our laws, partly because it would be simpler and easier to be unified than to be divided, within a single State. Under the current scheme, it is often simpler for each state to go its own way.

The State Militia or National Guard would be a single body, with a purely domestic role except when called up for foreign duties in an emergency. Obviously, the old state units would continue for some time to be a convenient way to divide this up, but there would be a much more unified chain of command; all units would have the same standards and the same support resources.

Probably the most problematical aspect of all this is the Senate. This should be no surprise, since the Senate was intended to be the States' house, in contrast to the People's house. With all States unified into one, it would be questionable whether the Senate would still even be needed, especially with so few members and with no real constituency apart from that of all the people, in contrast to the House, in which each member has a separate constituency. I think that probably what should happen in the Senate is that the Constitution be amended to allow a reasonable number of Senators, perhaps 30 of them, all to be elected (10 of them every two years) by the entire national electorate. If this change were made, then the traditional role of the Senate could be continued much more naturally. The difference between the bodies would be in the length of the term and the scope of members' constituencies. Under this system, the Senate would be the global body and the House would be the local body. This same distinction would exist even if we actually had only two Senators, but I think a somewhat larger body, but still much smaller than the existing one, would be much better. Of course, with an expanded Senate, the Vice President would go back to being pretty unimportant.

In conclusion, I think that on balance, this change would be very good for the nation. It would make it much more fair, much more efficient, and much more logical. It would unite us emotionally in a way that the multi-state system has not. People would continue to use the names of the old states, probably forever. I'm from California or Virginia would still have meaning. However, it would cease to have any significance regarding civil rights, the degree of representation, national taxation law, criminal law, educational resources, and so on. I think this would be a good thing.

Greg Shenaut

Complementary beverages

This is just a random thought based on a fantasy. No truthful content here.

Here's the idea. I love green tea, especially the Longjing (Dragon Well) varieties and I love red wine, especially that from pinot noir grapes. However, I don't love the effects of caffeine or the effects of alcohol. That is, I wish there were a way to nullify or to eliminate the effects of caffeine and alcohol from the body.

Sure, they have no-caffeine green tea and no-alcohol red wine. The problem is, they don't taste or feel right. They are both reminiscent of the real thing, but not good enough really to enjoy on any kind of regular basis.

My wife and I were discussing how green tea is a great part of the morning and red wine is a great part of the evening. This dichotomy is partially due to the effects of alcohol and caffeine, in that alcohol interferes with thought and movement but in moderation can facilitate rest and sleep, while caffeine just does the opposite.

The complementary effects of the psychoactive components of these two beverages is what gave rise to the fantasy that through selective breeding, a variety of pinot noir grape could be developed that in addition to everything else, contained a healthy dose of the enzyme that the body uses to break down caffeine and eliminate it. Similarly, a variety of longjing tea might be developed that would contain the enzyme that breaks down and eliminates alcohol. This is completely imaginary, but it could be really excellent if it were true.

One could enjoy a second or even third cup of green tea in the morning, and if the unpleasant effects of too much caffeine began to be felt, counter them with, say, a little cheese and a glass of Burgundy wine. Later on in the day, if after a bit too much wine with dinner one began to feel a bit out of it, a cup of longjing tea would set things straight.

It's a bit like Alice's two famous pills, one for growing, one for shinking. I suppose the challenge would be to get the balance exactly where you want it, depending on one's mood and the time of day.

Dare we call it treason?

It appears that no one knows quite what to make of the vicious attack at Fort Hood allegedly committed by US Army Major Nidal Hasan, resulting in the deaths of at least 13 individuals. The main debate appears to be between two camps: (1) those who see this as an act of mass murder, possibly due to mental illness of some kind or to a mind confused and corrupted by extreme Islam; and (2) others who see this as an act of Islamic terrorism. As a random philosophizer, I'm not real happy with either of these analyses, and I want to give my reasoning as to why Hasan should not be charged either with terrorism or with murder, but instead should be charged with treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. -- US Constitution (1791), Article III, Section 3.

The key element of treason (which is the only crime actually defined in our constitution) is levying war against the United States. Let that resonate in your mind.

A critical element in deciding what crime, if any, to charge someone with has to do with the concept of intent. What was Hasan trying to accomplish by authoring the attack? I believe that at least partially, he was fulfilling a key admonition of the Quran, the sacred text of his religion of which he was a devoted adherent. As I understand this admonition, Islam distinguishes between violence toward fellow Muslims versus violence toward non-Muslims. (For comparison, there are several traditional Jewish laws and a host of obsolete Christian ones that make a similar distinction.) In particular, a Muslim is not to attack another Muslim (he may defend himself). In the case where there is a conflict between Muslims, it is the duty of other Muslims to intervene in an attempt to restore peace. However, in the event of a conflict where non-Muslims attack or invade a Muslim land, it is the duty of other Muslims to fight against the infidel aggressors. It is this last admonition that was causing (I think) extreme conflict for Hasan: he was wearing the uniform of the US Army, a group actively involved in aggression against two Muslim countries, yet, as a Muslim, he had a duty to fight *against* the aggressors, against himself. In the case of Afghanistan, it is much easier than for Iraq to make the case that we were defending ourselves in some way against an attack, and this probably accounts for why Hasan was apparently more willing to serve there than in Iraq. As long as he was willing to use the argument of defense against aggression, I believe that he was willing to continue to serve loyally in the Army at a distance. However, two things have happened since the two wars began in 2001 and 2003: (1) It has become less and less clear that we are engaged in response to an attack. Instead, our involvement has become more of a "nation building" exercise in which we are attempting to impose at least some aspects of our culture on the native culture. (2) Hasan was about to be sent right into the combat zone, and he would then be much more directly involved in the fighting, much more of an actual combatant rather than a purely noncombatant sitting in a doctor's office thousands of miles away. If you read about what he said, wrote, and did during the latter part of the period leading up to the attacks, I believe that you will see ample evidence of an inner conflict between two paths of warfare: to continue to fight with the Americans and to suppress the religious admonitions or to ignore his oath and allegiance to the US Army, and fight on the side of the Islamic resistance to the invaders.

Basically what happened in Fort Hood was that he finally made up his mind that his true loyalty was to his fellow Muslims who were combatting the army whose uniform he wore. At that point (and not before, I believe), he began to consider what kind of military action he could take against the Americans, and he decided on the attack that he actually made, very successfully.

So why wasn't this murder? Well, if we accept that idea that he was acting as a mujahideen, an Islamic soldier, then the attack was an act of war. Homocides resulting from acts of war are not considered murder. If they were, then every soldier who kills an enemy would be a murderer. Although some would accept this principle, the law does not: killing an enemy soldier in war is not murder.

Well, why wasn't it terrorism? Primarily because acts of war committed against enemy combatants, as opposed to civilians, are not considered terrorism. This is clearly a purely military attack, on (mostly) uniformed soldiers on a military installation. If such an act is terrorism simply because it was sneaky and resulted in numerous deaths, then a large number of acts of war, for example the famous drone attacks we are conducting right now, would be terrorism. This is a much murkier matter, because people seem to make up definitions of "terrorism" to suit their needs and prejudices, but I assert that since this was an act of war carried out against uniformed combatants, it does not qualify as terrorism.

On the other hand, Hasan is a US citizen and a member of the US Army. Both of these factors reinforce the constitutional rule that it is clear, unmitigated treason for him to make war against the US, which I am saying he did, both overtly by the attacks and covertly by the chain of reasoning that led him to it. Hasan is, above all, a traitor to the land in which he was born and which nurtured him and supported him, and to the uniform and the oath of allegiance that he swore in the Army.

Therefore, I believe that the best way to deal with Hasan is by not trivializing his offense by calling it murder, or politicizing it by calling it terrorism, but to invoke the full weight of the consitution against him and charging and convicting him of the most serious offense it is possible for one of our own to make against us all: treason.

This doesn't let him off easy, by the way. Current federal law says this about treason: whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States (United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381). That is, although the laws regarding terrorism and murder are somewhat variable, federal law has clearly defined treason as a capital offense, with the possibility of the death penalty. In fact, in this random philosopher's view, treason is an even more serious offense (especially overt treason involving explicit "levying of war" against us) than murder or terrorism.

By the way, for those individuals that think it treasonous for President Obama to have bowed during the ceremony in Japan with the emperor, compare that to the actual treason Hasan did. See the difference?

Greg Shenaut