From Rice to Rove, former Bush administration officials were all over the airways this past weekend, touting their regime's choice of war -- strategically, tactically, semantically -- as a means of avenging the deaths of almost 3,000 Americans and foreign nationals in the 9/11 attacks. And, incredibly, as a method to locate and bring to justice Osama bin Laden.
But bin Laden was a criminal. He presided over an unlawful syndicate, not the armed forces of a recognized state. Motivated by an extremist ideology, to be sure, his killing spree of September 11, 2001 was, at bottom, the work of a mass murderer -- a killer who from the beginning should have been treated and tracked as a criminal.
For bin Laden and others of his ilk, terrorism is simply a tool, a tactic.
Fortunately, law enforcement professionals assigned to the case grasped this fundamental truth. They treated the hunt for bin Laden as a police mission and, because they did, the man is no longer a threat.
Examples of the "criminal justice" approach? For starters, bin Laden was on the FBI's Most Wanted List, a distinction earned well before 9/11 for, among other offenses, murdering Americans abroad. His cohorts on the list at the time of his death included other killers, racketeers, money launderers, drug dealers, kidnappers, rapists, bank robbers, those wanted for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, or confinement (i.e., escapees), and an old-school organized crime figure whose 19 counts of murder date back to the early seventies. Police work.
Further, bin Laden's whereabouts was established by dogged detective work. Even as it appeared we'd never nab the country's most violent criminal, the CIA, FBI, and military and civilian law enforcement personnel worked their "cold case" with diligence -- despite years of interference caused by pointless, irksome politics. Police work.
As with so many other criminal cases, the suspect's precise location was detected through a process that involved interrogation, witness interviews, the cultivation of snitches, telephone tips, deductive reasoning, and surveillance. Police work.
And the murderer was taken down by the tactical equivalent of a practiced, superbly competent and courageous "SWAT" team, whose members included a K-9. Police work.
On a grander-than-usual scale, bin Laden's apprehension was the result of good, old-fashioned police work.
Yet, thanks to the graphic horrors of 9/11, the resulting fears of the American people, and the impulsiveness and hubris of a president, we went to war. Twice.
Given the circumstances, the first war was at least justifiable. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It had partnered with al-Qaeda, and it used the country as a recruiting and training ground for virulent anti-American activities. More to the point, U.S. intelligence sources had reason to believe that heavily armed Taliban forces were helping bin Laden hide out in the mountains of Tora Bora, near the border of Pakistan. Surely, the fog of war, the overwhelming presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan would facilitate his capture.
Bush's second war was a shock-and-awe invasion of a country that neither produced nor harbored the criminal responsible for the heinous crimes of 9/11. The administration knew that Iraq was not sheltering bin Laden. But the clock was ticking. The failure to quickly detect and apprehend the man responsible for the atrocities of 9/11 gave lie to the president's promise to get bin Laden, "dead or alive." He needed someone to attack.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq was (and continues to be) an enormously expensive undertaking, costing us dearly in lives, dollars, and America's standing in the global conversation. And it was a huge distraction from the manhunt to catch bin Laden.
Everyone agrees, we've not seen the last terrorist act on U.S. soil, or against American military personnel or civilians in other parts of the world. But the capture of Osama bin Laden argues elegantly against high-priced, regime-changing, nation-building, mission-creeping war, and its inevitable collateral damage, in order to go after individuals who are, at bottom, criminals.
(Imagine the outcome of the May 2 raid in Abbottabad had we used the safer military strategy of bombing the compound. Everything of value, bin Laden's body, his DNA, the trove of intelligence would have been atomized. It's doubtful we would have learned of bin Laden's uninterrupted leadership of al-Qaeda, of his determination to carry out future assaults on American soil: aspiring to bigger body counts, targeting small cities as well as large, hitting trains, attacking on significant dates like holidays and anniversaries of 9/11.)
Lots of questions remain about how to pursue an international criminal. They're laden with issues of efficacy, morality, constitutionality. Questions about joint military and civilian operations; new and continuing challenges to global intelligence gathering and sharing; cultivation of informants in hostile territory, especially among potential sources with unfamiliar religions, cultures, languages and loyalties; enhanced methods of interrogation, especially waterboarding; military tribunals vs. civilian courts; Guantanamo Bay vs. Colorado's federal Supermax penitentiary; advance notice (or calculated absence thereof) of our intended hot pursuit of criminal targets in allied lands. How we answer these questions will further define us as a nation.
But one thing is plain. Had we from the start used a fundamentally criminal justice/police model of tracking down a "high value" target like Osama bin Laden, we would have avoided the most expensive manhunt in the history of the world.
And, I believe, we would have caught our man years ago.
Follow Norm Stamper on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CopsSayLegalize
Mr. Stamper's arguments do not stand up to two simple facts. Fact#1: The CIA (not a law enforcement agency and normally using decidedly non-police work methods) discerned his location and a military special forces team handled the assault. Fact#2: Just because both soldiers and police carry pistols, talk to people, fill out reports, and carry small notebooks does not mean that they are both doing police work.
"They treated the hunt for bin Laden as a police mission and, because they did, the man is no longer a threat." Sorry, but the CIA/military treated this mission like they do any un-located high priority target from submarines to infantry formationst; find, fix, finish. See Fact#2.
"Examples of the "criminal justice" approach? For starters, bin Laden was on the FBI's Most Wanted List, a distinction earned well before 9/11..." Yet, despite over a decade of law enforcement expertise and attention, the FBI did not get their man! See Fact#1.
If law enforcement could have done this, they would have...
-Card-Carrying American
http://cardcarryingamerican.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Card-Carrying-American/149565408390518
Moreover, the invasion of Iraq was NEVER about capturing Bin Laden, and nothing whatever to do with 9/11. It was about Saddam's violations of UN sanctions that were the terms of his surrender in Kuwait; given in exchange for not pursuing his forces all the way back to Bagdad. It was about intelligence, the best available at the time, that the Iraqi regime had ambitions for WMDS, and his proven propensity for using them. It was about State sponsored terrorism against US allies in the region.
The reasons for invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with police work, Bin Laden, or 9/11, and everything to do with military operations in a declared WAR.
The proposal that we should take primarily a law enforcement approach and philosophy to defeat al Qaeda is a dangerous idea, in my view. Law enforcement has a role, especially in thwarting against smaller group attacks , or those that are in their last stages with operatives already on US soil. However, choosing it to be the primary method against our enemies overseas is to choose failure.
To me, the biggest counter-example is provided by his own article. He notes that the FBI had OBL on its 10 most wanted list before 9/11 happened. The approach we took prior to 9/11 against al Qaeda was almost entirely a "police-work" approach. Not only did it fail to capture them, it allowed them to execute 9/11.
Al Qaeda is a political actor, with political goals, and wielding force to achieve them, achieving mass murder status along the way. That calls for a national security response, not police work.
-Card-Carrying American
http://cardcarryingamerican.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Card-Carrying-American/149565408390518
bin Laden, Osama: An Islamic terrorist and the head of the Al Qaeda network of terrorists.
Terrorism: political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes
Criminal
somebody acting illegally: somebody who has committed a crime
Crime
Murder, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny-theft, Motor Vehicle Theft
Bin Laden hated America. He wanted to kill us all and then cut off our heads. He was a terrorist.
Whether he's considered a "criminal" or whatever else, the author is saying the methods employed --- intelligence gathering and more surgical methods, as opposed to near-total war --- were ultimately what led to his capture.
Whether the intel in Iraq was faulty or we justified a war with lies, we'll probably never know. But the bigger problem wasn't starting the Iraq war. It was conducting it with no clear goal in mind, a changing set of priorities and a willingness to allow it to drag on and on.
The Afghanistan war was begun for reasons that were true. Those in control of the Afghan government supported teror and terrorists. But again, we had no clear idea of what constituted victory and whether it was reasonable to expect victory.
Today, I've given up on any hope of a graceful exit from either war. We need out. Now. Forever.
Priorties didn't change until after the goal was reached; "you break it, you own it" became the mantra of the left, (and yes, I do mean the nation-building advocated by Colin Powell).
THAT is what has dragged on and on.
If "we need out", then talk to your guy in the Whitehouse; he's the commander in chief. Maybe he'll listen.
...but I doubt it...
An absolutely brilliant piece. Your voice was drowned out by the people who wanted a war ... who still want war.
The loser with the elimination of bin Laden are in order
1. Robert Gates - The man has a palpable dislike for this President that shows up everytime you see a picture of Gates looking at him. Comparing the love in his eyes when he looked at Bush to the irrational not love look in meetings like the photo from behind Obama(the one showing these huge ears) and there is no doubt the disdain Gates has for Obama.
The loser with the capture of bin Laden is Gates and the crowd who wanted war. There is no longer a boogie man to keep the war going.
2. The media - because you are absolutely right. This was a criminal act by a group of malcontents who wanted to bloody americas nose for sticking said nose in their countries business. The media used mountains of ink to drown out rational voices that said just what this articles says. May a special place in 'ell be reserved for them and the lives of the millions of people displaced and harmed be on their
Yea it's a streak in him that says "if you just get to know me you'll see im all right". I use to think along the same lines. The nature of people who hate just doesn't allow for an "enlightened" moment.
Gates has a 60 minute interview coming up. It wouldn't bother me to be proven wrong about Gates.
OBVIOUSLY he is someone who is trying to feel good about his career. Hey Norm, it is great to be a cop, but you didn't paint the Mona Lisa and you had nothing to do with resolving Bin Laden...but neither did I. Get over it!
As others have said, have you noticed how liberals bristle when you mention waterboarding but high-five when you talk about a bullet through the head. They are a curious lot.
But of course the wars were never about terrorism - they are about profiting a handful of multinational corporaions such as Dick Cheney's Haliburton.