Track 'em Down and Kill 'em

I am alarmed by what I am hearing across the political spectrum about dealing with terrorists. It started with Bush and his "dead or alive" poster. Now from conservatives, to liberals, to Kerry, I hear "kill ... kill ... kill." Since when is killing targets (no matter who is in the way) a formal policy of the US government accepted by the people of the United States? What happened to the concept of justice? What happened to the process of law? Why is everyone so willing to throw out these concepts and act like vigilantes?

Under the US system of law and justice, people are captured, brought to trial, judged and sentenced. Even those who are guilty of the most heinous crimes get their day in court. I am not arguing that the US "justice" system doesn't have major problems, but it is one that guarantees us certain rights under the law.

One of the major complaints about the Bush administration's approach to the "threat" we are under has been to abridge those rights over and over again. From the USA PATRIOT Act, to enemy combatants, to detentions at Guantanamo and other facilities around the world, to the invasion of Iraq, the cry has been the violation of both US and international law. In other words, the right to justice.

It seems that various lines have gotten very fuzzy. There are identifiable individuals labeled as involved in terrorism (or as threats to the US). They have names and faces. There is an active search for them. The plan is not to capture them but to kill them.

Let's take a specific case - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Most seem to accept as fact that al-Zarqawi is behind attacks in Iraq, and that he is affiliated with al Qaeda. But remember, that almost 50% of the US population still believes that Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda and even a hand in planning the attacks on 9/11/01. The Bush administration has made the claim that "the link" is al-Zarqawi - after all he was in Iraq when Hussein was in power. While this is true, what is also true is that he was in northern Iraq which was controlled by the US "no fly zone." Hussein had no access and control of the region al-Zarqawi was in - the Kurds did ... and the US did.

But those little details aside, there are questions about the role of al-Zarqawi ... and his guilt.

Doubt over Zarqawi's role as ringleader (Information Clearing House 10/02/04)

Al-Zarqawi may not be behind Iraq attacks (Argus Online via PrisonPlanet 10/08/04)

Zarqawi is Not in Fallujah, Nor Has He Ever Been There (Information Clearing House 10/14/04)

Is al-Zarqawi a US Agent Provocateur? (PrisonPlanet, but also under Psycho-Wars: The Role of US Agents Provocateurs in Iraq at Centre of Globalisation Research 10/27/04).

This is why we have a justice system rather than a track them down and kill them system. What if we are wrong ... or deliberately lied to?

Even if a criminal confesses to a crime, we don't just lock them away or kill them - we give them a trial. In the US we have numerous examples of people who confess (either for personal reasons or under coercion) to crimes they did not commit.

As the acceptability of killing "terrorists" grows, we might look back to Bush's detention as merciful. Think about all those "terrorists" rounded up and locked away at Guantanamo. Most of them are now being released because there were no charges against them, and they had been placed outside the rule of law. How much more "expeditious" it would have been to just line them up and kill them. Who cares if you kill a "few" innocent people along the way? (Like the 100,000 Iraqi civilians who are dead.)

The reasons for capturing people and bringing them to justice are numerous. Not the least is that they might offer information and insight. Don't you want to hear what Hussein has to say in court? I do. And I would love to hear what bin Laden has to say in court as well. But perhaps that is why the movement is to just "hunt down and kill" the terrorists. No uncomfortable information comes out that way. And, no understanding of the motivation behind such actions (assuming they are guilty).

So why the appeal to revenge and blood lust? Why the rush to exterminate the "terrorist" "enemies"?

One would think that people would be just a bit suspicious by now of wild claims and the argument to throw out law and the Constitution. One would think that those who have so painstakingly discussed the lies, propaganda, manipulation and disinformation of the Bush administration would be just a bit more cautious. I am not seeing caution. I am not seeing reasonable skepticism. I am not hearing people talk about Kerry's increasing use of the word "kill."

The definition of things have become very ambiguous. The word "terrorism" is being defined so broadly, that a labor strike is terrorism because it impedes capitalist activity (remember California?). A toy brings down Homeland Security agents to protect "intellectual property rights". Environmentalists are labeled terrorists. Those who speak out against the policies and actions of Bush are "terrorists" or terrorist sympathizers and supporters.

We are at a very fragile point in the existence of democracy in the US. We are at a very fragile point in the role and action of the US in the world. Empire is so seductive. "Certainty" is so seductive. Revenge is so seductive. It is time to be very careful of the paths down which we are being led, because we are being led. I have no doubt about that.

Posted by rowan at October 30, 2004 6:39 AM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |