What Manner of War is This?

There are three concurrent shouting matches in Washington – a lot, even for this city. The first is ostensibly over torture; the second over reauthorization of provisions of the USA Patriot Act; the third over the President’s authorization of surveillance on individuals in the U.S. linked to al Qaeda or other terrorists by intelligence from overseas. The yelling is actually about none of those things.

There are three concurrent shouting matches in Washington – a lot, even for this city. The first is ostensibly over torture; the second over reauthorization of provisions of the USA Patriot Act; the third over the President’s authorization of surveillance on individuals in the U.S. linked to al Qaeda or other terrorists by intelligence from overseas. The yelling is actually about none of those things.

All are manifestations of the difficulty official Washington is having deciding what manner of war this is. It is not a battlefield war; it has no defined fronts; it is not “over there”, it is here and so is the enemy. Before and since 9-11, terrorists have lived among us, using our freedoms and our penchant for personal privacy to plot their crimes. It was clear in the aftermath that those who remain in this country will do us harm when they can and that such people come and go. The first obligation of the government was to prevent the next attack. It was with that understanding that the Senate passed the USA Patriot Act 98-1. The administration was charged with implementing it.

Both Israeli and British government experts have publicly said wars against terrorists can be “won” and that intelligence is key. So the questions really are: What tactics are appropriate for acquiring information? Can our government deny terrorists the protections of our very free society without impinging on the rights of the rest of us? If it cannot, where is the line and who gets to draw it?

The Senate has not distinguished itself here. Torture is illegal, properly so, but the “torture debate” is not about punishing nasty people – courts and military tribunals can do that. What we need to discuss is how to extract information about future crimes from people who hold it. Deliberately confusing the humiliation of prisoners (crimes that should be punished under existing law) with the acquisition of necessary information from people who are trained to withstand normal American interrogation methods is a cheap way NOT to deal with future crimes.

The Patriot Act authorizes counter-terrorism forces to use the tools long available to counter-criminal investigators. Nothing more. Some Senators don’t want to vote for it, but are unwilling to be on record voting against it. They are filibustering in order that the provisions expire without a vote at all. Another cheap way to disclaim responsibility.

The surveillance information is a year old, but was held back by The New York Times until the USA Patriot Act debate and the publication of a book by the reporters. Despite the fact that relevant lawmakers knew about the President’s decision, they claim to be shocked, just shocked to discover that our government, knowing that there are terrorists here, actually tried to FIND them. Oh, please. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were in the briefing loop.

We would be shocked if our government did NOT make use of all the tools at its disposal to ensure our safety to the best of its ability. Four years after 9-11, the Senate has gotten cold feet about those tools and the President has not. Stay tuned.