Tuesday marks 11 years since terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. It was the worst terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil, and it changed completely the way the U.S. government responds to terrorist threats.
In some ways, that's a good thing. After all, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies were so disjointed and poorly managed that they missed clear warnings that could have prevented the deaths of more than 3,000 people. It was important to fix that.
But fixing the real problem isn't how things happen in politics. So instead of just improving intelligence and communications among government agencies and going after the people who attacked us, the U.S. government embarked on two ill-defined wars, created a massive new "Homeland Security" bureaucracy, doubled the defense budget (not counting the cost of the wars), and created overseas prisons and military commissions to avoid the basic requirements of the United States Constitution.
Some detainees were tortured in those prisons; the U.S. government is still covering it up today.
Much of that response to the 9/11 attacks wasn't only unnecessary, it was downright destructive.
So where are we now, more than a decade later? President Obama has ended the official use of torture, withdrawn U.S. troops from Iraq and plans to withdraw combat troops from Afghanistan in 2013 -- all good steps. But despite the decimation of al Qaeda, the group that attacked us, he's perpetuated some of the worst policies of the Bush administration's grand war against them: indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan, the use of a second-class justice system in the form of Gitmo military commissions, impunity for U.S.-sponsored torture, and commanding a perpetual and costly global war. Those are all moving us in the wrong direction.
Take the military commissions. Eleven years after the mass murder of thousands of Americans, the men suspected of plotting the attacks still haven't gone on trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators remain stuck in the Guantanamo Bay prison, where they're still waiting to find out in pre-trial hearings if they're going to be allowed to even talk about their treatment (and in some cases, torture) in U.S. custody. Though they face the death penalty if convicted, members of their legal teams haven't even gotten necessary security clearances yet to be able to actually speak to them.
Victims of the 9/11 attacks deserved to see the perpetrators of that atrocity brought to justice long ago. They're going to have to wait years longer.
Even when a verdict in that case is finally reached, that won't be the end of it. Because the trials will be held in offshore military commissions, where the U.S. military provides the judge, jury, prosecutors and defense lawyers and no one knows if the U.S. Constitution even applies, a heavy cloud will hang over the outcome. What should have been a showcase for how we bring the most heinous criminals to justice consistent with our national values will be stained by lingering doubts around the world of whether the U.S. government gave these men a fair trial.
Meanwhile, the United States continues to operate in all-out military mode. Although U.S. officials have acknowledged that the al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11 has been all but defeated, the government has ramped up the war against far-flung al Qaeda affiliates, some of which didn't even exist in 2001. Now, the U.S. military, with not-so-secret help from the CIA, is fighting not only in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other parts of Northern Africa. Only we don't know exactly whom they're fighting, where or why, because the government says that's classified. We know that the United States has stepped up its use of remotely-piloted weaponized drones exponentially since 2009, but government officials won't say who's on the U.S. "kill lists" or what they've done.
Meanwhile, the military budget continues to bloat.
Eleven years after 9/11, it's time to re-think all that. As Wired's Spencer Ackerman put it recently, in some insightful advice for Obama in Charlotte, it's time to declare "an end to the United States' 11 years of fear and bloody, expensive global counterterrorist war."
Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation has been saying this since the killing of Osama bin Laden.
And even former CIA counterterrorism director Robert Grenier warned recently: "We have gone a long way down the road of creating a situation where we are creating more enemies than we are removing from the battlefield. We are already there with regards to Pakistan and Afghanistan."
Eleven years later, it's time to turn things around. Instead of generating more enemies and motivating more attacks, we should be doing the opposite. Sure, keep using intelligence and law enforcement and diplomacy and development and all the many tools the U.S. government has to track, prosecute, punish and thwart terrorism.
But spending trillions on secret wars, secret trials, offshore prisons and forever prisoners? There's no future in that.
Follow Daphne Eviatar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/deviatar
Dean Praetorius: How Social Media Would Have Changed New York on 9/11
Yes, some of the points made in the article are correct but to call for the end of our efforts to protect this Country and our interests is absurd, naive', misguided and, actually just ignorant. But, certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion and perspective. I have mine.
As an NYPD Detective I was on duty on Feb. 26, 1993 when the WTC was first bombed by the earliest vanguard of Al Qeada in America. I responded on 9-11-01 withing 8 minutes of the first plane striking the North Tower and assisted in evacuating as many as possible literally until the moment that building came down on top of us. I lost friends, coworkers and acquaintances. I saw, smelled, felt, and lived in real time the brand of terrorism that was delivered unto us on that day and remains poised to strike again once the opportunity allows itself.
This is not about the Patriot Act, Gitmo, secret renditions. This is about the security of NYC, of the USA and we in NYPD are acutely aware that we remain a number one target rich environment for any group seeking to make a name and cause death here.
===========
And what would that mean?
Obama ran for President in 2008 as a pro-Israel candidate, with statements such as: "Let me be clear: Israel's security is sacrosanct. It's non-negotiable. And, Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided "
But, his record is far from supportive, even dangerously close to that of a death blow to a nation surrounded by enemies intent on its destruction. Sure, Obama re-inserted the words of support for Israel in the Democratic party platform, acknowledging that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. But, does anyone really believe that Obama did not know of that omission beforehand?
He wants to re-elected, of course, But if he does, then Israel gets thrown to the wolves. [No concession on Israel's part will ever be enough, despite Obama's demands.]
Why does this matter? Some might say: Those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed. Others might say that Israel is both a democracy and our closest ally, and how could you do such a thing to your closest ally. I say: Both.
Nuclear proliferation has an ultimate, tested by time, preventative roadblock: Mutual Assured Destruction. MAD has a sobering effect upon irrational parties, historically, including us.
Iran is twice the size of Iraq, with twice the population. We've already been involved in two unfunded protracted wars for more than a decade. When is enough, enough?
Btw, if I read a few pages of your posts, will I discover, you also complain about our massive deficit, elsewhere, on other threads, without acknowledging how we arrived here?
You may see it as unlikely that Iran would risk destruction of its population, but would you bet your life on it? That's what Israel has to do. It's easy for you to make confident prognostications from the safety of your living room, far removed from any danger. And even if you're armed to the teeth, try standing in the bullseye, with your children, in front of a raving lunatic who is swearing to kill you all, even as he loads his gun, and then see how you feel.
Those of us who have grown up in war torn countries are very uncomfortable with the Americans' loose use of the word 'war'. War is so dreadful that a loose use desensitises people to the horrors of war, or is this intended? War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Poverty (decades ago).
but you can write whatever you want. freedom of speech must be awesome.
Sadly, the opening of her article is yet another in a long line of political propaganda attempts by individual such as Ms. Eviatar, to portray the terrorists at Git-Mo as victims of their own success, as well as victims of an evil US Govt. and by implication, the evil Americans who support the continued existence of Git-Mo and the Military trials there.
I would highly recommend that Ms. Eviatar cease with the political propaganda, and start investigating the Nürnburg trials the Nazi war criminals at the end of WWII. She knows full well that these are the protocols which are the basis for the trials at Git-Mo, but she is loathe to approach these historical facts because they fly in the face of her personal and political propaganda.
Lastly, until she is willing to address the core issue of G.C. definitions of what a 'terrorist' is and that they have NO G.C. protections, at the beginning of her article, then any honest debate cannot be had.
If you're going to mention Nuremberg Trials, might you consider Bush and Cheney for War Crimes? Half of the U.S. population and most of the world population knows they are war criminals.
Consider this, without adherence to The Constitution, who are we? What moral high ground do we maintain? If, we don't hold our leaders to same standards we hold the rest of the world, why should the world stand with us?