"It is time to abandon the criminal justice view of terrorism and replace it with the military view." —Martin Cothran Senior Policy Analyst

Special Op-Ed for Community Papers
 

Martin Cothran  The Family Foundation

About 800 words  One Time Rights © The Family Foundation

Terrorism is Not a Crime 

If we don’t stop treating terrorists as criminals—and start treating them as military enemies, the terrorists will win. 

by Martin Cothran 

When great disasters strike, we often find ourselves looking for comparisons. When it became clear that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon building had been attacked by terrorists, it was interesting to note what event provided the closest parallel: Pearl Harbor. 

As Americans turn from the grief and trauma caused by these unprecedented acts to the question of how to respond, they need to keep this parallel in mind. Furthermore, they need to notice what kind of parallel was not drawn to the events of last Tuesday. They need to notice that, when we were searching our memories for similar outrages, we thought of Pearl Harbor—not the Hillside Strangler, or the Son of Sam, or Bonnie and Clyde. 

Why is this important? It is important because, as more people are beginning to understand, the attacks on New York and Washington were not crimes; they were acts of war. As our nation’s leaders try to decide on a response, they need to keep this distinction firmly in mind, since their view of what kind of acts these were will affect their response. 

Unfortunately, American leaders have traditionally considered terrorist attacks as matters of criminal justice, rather than as military provocations. Recently, our leaders have been saying that this is an act of war, but can we really believe them when they so frequently resort to terms like “investigation,” “suspect,” “prosecution,” and “extradition”? The use of these words by our leaders tells us how they view the problem—and why we still have one. In fact, it would not be too much to say that the attacks on New York and Washington are a direct result of this view of terrorism. 

It is time to abandon the criminal justice view of terrorism and replace it with the military view. 

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor we did not respond by “launching an investigation.” We didn’t try to identify who piloted the planes and try to extradite them. We didn’t put anybody on trial—not at least, until the war was over and the Japanese no longer a threat. No American was under the delusion that Pearl Harbor was a crime to be solved; they knew it was an attack to be resisted. 

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we didn’t send in the SWAT team; we sent in the Marines. 

But who, someone may ask, do we send the Marines in against? Don't we have to wait to find out who did it first? The simple answer to that question is, "No." We don't have to wait to find out who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon because we already know who did it: 

Terrorists did it. 

But do we know which terrorists did it? As a matter of fact, no. We don't. But, as Claremont Institute Distinguished Fellow Bruce Herschensohn has pointed out, a terrorist is nothing more than a tool of a larger entity: what he calls the "Nation of Terrorism." 

The "Nation of Terrorism" is an identifiable entity, with clearly distinguishable leaders and a recognizable infrastructure. "The Nation of Terrorism," said Herschensohn in an article written after the bombing of the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia in 1996, "is a chain of bases, training camps, safe houses, and other facilities that dot portions of the map of the world, going into and out of other sovereign states." In short, we already know who the enemy is. 

We can declare war against the Nation of Terrorism—just as we declared war against Japan. And in doing so, we can treat the allies of the Nation of Terrorism as we would treat the allies of any enemy: as enemies as well. 

We can do this—if we stop seeing terrorists as criminals that need to be brought to justice, but rather as enemies that need to be defeated. What is the alternative? 

The alternative is to live in fear—and to try to assuage that fear by increasing the power of government police and security agencies over our lives. If we persist in thinking of these most recent terrorist attacks as crimes rather than as acts of war, we risk buying our security by giving up our freedoms. The ultimate success of the attacks in New York and Washington will depend on our response. If we hand over our freedoms in return for greater security, then whoever is responsible for these acts will have truly won. 

Our response to terrorists should not be to make our lives more difficult; our response to terrorists should be to make their lives more difficult. 

We need to stop treating people like Osama Bin Ladin as Jack the Ripper, and start treating him like Saddam Hussein—with one important difference: 

We need to finish the job this time. 

Martin Cothran is senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation of Kentucky, a nonprofit educational organization dealing with public policy issues affecting families.