Terrorism: Law Enforcement or Military Issue

To try to define terrorism as either strictly a law enforcement or a military issue seems to me to be an unwise attempt to make black and white a very grey issue. Terrorism has no widely accepted definition and, as the recent shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, demonstrated, isn’t likely to get one anytime soon. For this reason I believe it important to answer this question based on the specifics of each case.

Not only is it problematic to try to define terrorism, it defies reason to try to lump responsibility and jurisdiction for such vastly different instances as (just as mere examples) the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City and the attack on the USS Cole in the Port of Aden, both of which were obvious cases of terrorism, under the same entity. For the same reason, it is difficult to grant explicit jurisdiction to fight terrorism to either the military or to law enforcement. Terrorism is such a general term, with meaning differing from person to person, that doing so would be utterly foolish.

In many instances, the military has no jurisdiction, nor place, in dealing with terrorism. The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing is a prime example. I would be appalled to find military investigators or intelligence units investigating such an incident within the bounds of the United States. In this and other like instances, terrorism is clearly under the purview of law enforcement, either local or federal.

On the other hand, the military has similar jurisdiction when dealing with battlefield components of terrorism or terrorist acts perpetrated by or against its own personnel, such as the USS Cole or the Fort Hood example.

The question has only been muddled by the conflict between right and left leaning politicians with specific agendas within the United States. It was begun by the Bush administration’s declaration of war on terrorism, defining the conflict between democracy and totalitarianism as a war. It might more accurately be called an ideological struggle, a struggle between conflicting, mutually exclusive ideologies. If the whole “war” thing had never been introduced, it might have simplified things. Ironically, I don’t recall any real quandary when it came to dealing with “prisoners” of the cold war, once again a conflict between ideologies.

The conflict then is what to do with “terrorists” once our military has taken them captive in a foreign combat zone. I don’t believe the issue has ever been what to do with American citizens, or even foreign nationals, arrested on US soil, by US law enforcement, for either planning or executing a terrorist attack. This is where it gets fuzzy in regard to US national security. If there is insufficient evidence to convict a “terrorist” for criminal activity, and yet, the person was picked up fighting alongside terrorists and against US military personnel, is it rational and reasonable to just send the person back to where he’s from, knowing that he may just take up arms again against US military personnel?

I believe the answer is, if it is indeed a “war”, the international laws regarding the conduct of war, ought to be applied. If the “war” is still ongoing, the person ought to be held as a prisoner of that war until its conclusion. If it is something short of war, the person ought to be sent back to where he’s from. My critics will say, “If you send him back, he’ll just kill again.” They’ll also argue that by being held indefinitely, he may have developed animosity toward America where there was none, and so, he may be dangerous now when he wasn’t before. To my critics I would cite the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The critics will then say, “those rights are reserved for American citizens.” To that I would say, “ALL MEN…..” not just American citizens. It is contrary to the moral standard of America to hold individuals indefinitely, without giving them the right to apply for their liberty, or being able to prove their innocence. That's what Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein would do.

The American Intelligence Community is among the best in the world, if not THE best. There ought to be a very rational, and legal, means of monitoring these individuals, and using them, once tossed back into the population, to further develop America’s knowledge of Islamic extremist networks. Perhaps it seems simplistic, after all, I’m not an expert in such things, but biologists do this sort of thing all the time. They tag birds, animals, and even fish, then monitor their movements once back in the wild. There ought to be a great way of taking advantage of the situation and the people America has in its custody.