>I'm sure there are strengths/weaknesses to our approach, but we have been
>gratified by the positive response it has generated, while sticking to what
>we see as a fairly solid progressive position.
it works because people are inclined to these views already. that's not pessimism; it's because people here have underestimated the ways in which a lot of people are scared shitless. the message, "retaliation will only cause loss of lives," works well because it resonates very well with what people understand in their personal lives and they can extend to broader political issues.
--i've found info about Gulf War Disinfo is very important for encouraging people to be a bit more circumspect about what they're seeing on the tube and reading in the newspapers.
--i also notice that the focus on islamic fundamentalism, as much as that pisses me off b/c i don't think, right now, that this is what it's about, is actually backfiring on those who are trying to demonize "them" in an effort to justify war. instead, what people conclude is that war or killing them in covert ops will only appeal to fantasies of martyrdom. this means that people are actually amenable to the idea of trying them in international court. however, the problem is, then, getting "them" there. a shoot out is likely!
--i already noted that your best bet is to cultivate good relationships with the local media. press release feeding tube model.
what we can hope for is that the administration will be a bit more constrained in response to public opinion--thus far, it seems to be driven by polls.
as for trying in international court, this idea was floated elsewhere:
<forward> Jeff Bone <jbone at jump.net>
Unlike most of my epistles to this list, the following is an actual dead serious attempt to lay out a position that, after much consideration and research over the last few weeks, I actually do completely believe in. In contrast to my common practice of just offering something up as a controversial straw man, that is. ;-)
----
SITUATION. In the wake of September 11th, the entire geopolitical climate of the world has changed in a very dangerous way. As the US and its allies gird for what is perceived by many as an unjustified, misdirected, and retaliatory war, our world teeters on the brink of global conflict of the kind unseen since World War II. Much of the Islamic world has been teetering on a precipice of fundamentalism and non-secular revolution for many years. Though militant fundamentalists represent only a tiny fraction of the world's Muslim population, history has demonstrated that --- esp. in internal Islamic conflicts --- those tiny factions often prevail: Turkey, in ages past; Iran; Afghanistan. In many countries --- Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, for instance --- there is broader popular support for Islamic fundamentalist (not to say militant) reform than existed in Iran in the mid-late 70s at the time of its Islamic Revolution. Much of this is fueled by a perceived "failure" of modern secular governments in those countries to produce the kind of affluence and geopolitical / economic influence enjoyed by Western countries; the fundamentalists use the lack of or negative economic growth in secular Muslim states as "proof" of the inevitable failure of secular government in general, breeding hate from envy in support of their own political agenda.
This combination of events, attitudes, political instability, and culture conflict is a powder keg, and any US / Allied military response to Sep. 11th stands a good chance of igniting it. Pakistan, for instance, has already slipped over the line of fundamentalism (cf. the Enforcement of Shari'ah Act of 1991, [1]) and stands a reasonable chance of experiencing sudden and violent civil war if it proceeds down the current path of aiding the US in this endeavor. The net result would be a non-secular, hostile, and nuclear-capable belligerent in any future conflict. If the world is shaping up into us vs. them, and the Islamic world perceives "us" as being a secular "imperialist" Western hegemony and "them" as being traditional Islam, then Islam's own emphasis on solidarity in the face of threat may shift otherwise moderate and friendly countries into the "them" column. Countries which are dangerously unstable in the face of current events include Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Indonesia, and many others.
PROBLEM. If we are even *able* to go and capture Osama bin Laden / extradite him / try him in a secular court, doing so only adds fuel to the fire of our current situation. To the propaganda fed resident of e.g. Pakistan, it merely "proves" that while pushing secular international law on everybody else we ourselves can act outside of that law (violate territoriality, etc.) whenever we choose, and that we can bully "allies" and others into allowing us to do so. Killing him --- in either the context of capturing him or as the result of a trial process --- merely martyrs him. Imprisoning him merely creates a target; such action will be viewed as taking a hostage. There is *no way* for us to secularly prosecute (in the larger sense of the word) our case against Bin Laden through any means --- judicial, military, or otherwise --- without merely exacerbating the situation and increasing the likelihood of tipping the Islamic world further toward hostile Islamic fundamentalism. Attempting to do so does nothing but escalate the terrorist threat and further destabilize an already dicey political situation in many countries.
CONTEXT. I've been reading quite a bit about Islam to refresh the cache and add new content. It's striking how much of a complete sociopolitical system Islam is --- but in context this makes sense, as Mohammed was as much a political reformer as prophet. Islamic fundamentalists believe that Islam is its own constitution, and fundamentally disagree with the notion that non-Islamic government and legal entities have any authority whatsoever; they reject on religious grounds our (anyone's) right to pursue secular justice. [2] [3] The traditional Islamic mechanism of jurisprudence is called Shari'ah (sp) and is a jury system composed of experts in Qu'ranic law, the apocryphal sayings (had'ith?) and actions (?) of Mohammed, precedent in other Shari'ah adjudicated cases, and antiquated Arabic common law (as a last resort in any given circumstance.) Most Muslim clerics --- including many fundamentalists and even militant extremists --- have denounced the attacks of September 11th as being far beyond the pale, in no way justified or condoned on the basis of any Islamic tradition or law. It is certain that the perpetrator of such crimes, if proven to be guilty, would face swift and harsh justice.
SUGGESTION. Require the Taliban to turn bin Laden over to a non-Afghani Shariat (court of Shari'ah) --- preferably in as fundamentalist and conservative a nation as possible, possibly Iran --- immediately for judgement. (Iran may not be the best choice, as it is dominated by the minority Shi'ite tradition of Islam rather than the majority Sunni faction, and the theological legitimacy of any judgement may therefore be questioned. Tensions between the Taliban and Iran have been high for some time.) Perhaps Pakistan would suffice, though they are unstable enough that this might be undesirable.
I have been unable to determine what if any equivalent of voir dire Shari'ah prescribes (if any) --- however we should clearly have some choice in composition of this Shariat by picking Muslim clerics to hear the case from all over the world and of many different traditions. (Note that the voir dire concept is inexact; Islam apparently rejects the notion that a Shariat is a jury, it is rather a collective judicial body.) Either way the court decides, this is a good thing: if the court decides against bin Laden, then the message is clear: Islam does not permit this kind of activity, it is widely denounced as gravely sinful. The message to existing terrorists is clear: "by engaging in these acts, you are risking your soul; so say the wise men of Islam. Desist. It will not be tolerated." As far as I can tell, the punishment for such crimes as bin Laden would likely be tried on is certain death, by either decapitation or by being buried up to his neck and then stoned to death. As an added bonus, Islamic tradition apparently holds that executions are and should be public events. This could possibly be the first globally televised execution, which should satisfy the bloodthirsty *and* provide ample horror for the opponents of capital punishment as ammunition for their cause. We can just see whether or not our modern, civilized world still has a taste for justice when served bloody. And as a final bonus, the Muslim world gets to show the world how well its judicial system works (or doesn't work, depending on one's interpretation of the outcome.)
If the court decides in favor of bin Laden, then the message to the world is equally clear: we reject the notion that we can coexist and cooperate with the West peacefully. (I have no doubt that the decision would be against bin Laden.) This is an unlikely and undesirable outcome, but indeed puts the entire world to the ultimate question in this matter.
----
So that's what I think we should do to Osama. I think it's the only course of action likely to defuse the terrorist threat and an even greater threat --- clearly the ultimate goal of Osama's program --- of global conflict that divides the world in to Islam and Other.
Note that I'm aware that there's a certain similarity between this suggestion and the ending of Tom Clancy's novel "The Sum of All Fears." My conclusions, though possibly implicitly suggested by a reading of that book years ago, rests on considering the situation from many, many different perspectives. It's admittedly not altogether satisfying. It *is* however perhaps the *only* course of action that can avoid certain disastrous consequences. My respect for Clancy has risen immensely in the last weeks; in this case his ending --- applied to this situation --- is more than just artistically appropriate, it's nuanced, multifunctional, and geopolitically expedient. (In Clancy's book, a nuclear terrorist is extradited to Saudi Arabia and executed by decapitation. His motivation is purely retaliatory --- apparently there was no US federal death penalty when Clancy wrote his book. In this case, however, the motivation is much, much deeper.)
BTW, apologies for being link-light on this; the materials I've been parsing through to arrive at some of this are stacked in piles on the floor in my home office, and I'm not there at the moment. Also, I'm punting on how to deal -w- the rest of al-Qaeda, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban itself, etc. etc. For now, anyway. :-)
jb
[1] http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/1991/actXof1991.html
[2] http://www.bohra.net/archive/law.html [3] http://www.muslimsisters.org/islamicstate.html