The Obama Administration and its critics will never agree on terrorism policy until they stop defining the problem in diametrically opposed terms. They dispute policy because they view the problem through different lenses.
The administration sees the problem as one of ?criminal justice. Terrorists break the law and must be "brought to justice." Critics claim we are at war with terrorism, thus the rules of war govern.
Depending on whether we adopt the criminal justice model or the military model, terrorists are either defendants who deserve due process or enemy combatants.
- Either we close Guantanamo and try the detainees in civilian courts or we keep them there indefinitely.
- Fort Hood was either workplace violence or combat justifying Purple Hearts.
- Either electronic surveillance endangers Fourth Amendment privacy rights or it is a prudent military precaution.
- Either terrorism policy is guided by legal rules of due process or by the rules of war.
- Either terrorists are individual criminals or they pose a military threat as an organized group committed to a shared militant ideology.
Complicating this debate is the fact that we are thinking about a new phenomenon in old ways. War has always been an act of nations, while individuals commit crimes. Terrorists fall in between. They are not soldiers representing nations, nor are they isolated individuals.
For our policy to become coherent and consistent, for it to succeed, we must first decide what we consider the problem of terrorism to be. Then policy will follow.
I’m Bob Evans, and that’s my perspective
