4 fallacies

1. the term "war" best describes the geo-political situation in which the United States finds itself.

2. this war, termed a "war against terrorism," can only be fought in the way BushCo have chosen to fight it.

3. Military funding must be given priority over all other things.

4. civil liberties must take a back seat to national security.

The larger framing issue is whether the USA is in a state of war or state of emergency at present. Bush's Military Order of November 13, 2001 declares  that "In light of the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, on the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense in the national capital region, on the World Trade Center in New York, and on civilian aircraft such as in Pennsylvania, I proclaimed a national emergency on September 14, 2001 (Proc. 7463, Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks)." Bush justifies the rest of the order pertaining to the detention of individuals  (i.e., "enemy combatants") on this basis: "Having fully considered the magnitude of the potential deaths, injuries, and property destruction that would result from potential acts of terrorism against the United States, and the probability that such acts will occur, I have determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling government interest, and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency."

This view should be treated critically. First, one must ask whether the problem of international terrorism is best described as an act of war or as a matter of international crime? Second, what conditions meet the criterion for a state of emergency and does such a state of emergency still exist with regard to international terrorism? It is understandable that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, such a state of emergency did exist, just as a state of emergency existed in New Orleans in the wake of hurricane Katrina. There is no longer a state of emergency in New Orleans (although work remains to be done). Is there still a state of emergency six years after 9/11?

I believe terrorism should be treated as a criminal act. The problem of defining it as an act of war is that then the Executive branch can justifiably declare a state of emergency, and invoke extraordinary powers that accrue to the Executive in wartime. Consequently, the USA is now in an endless state of emergency: this "war on terrorism" cannot be won (terror is a tactic), or at least the people who promote the idea of a "war on terrorism" do not envision an end date for this war. For reasons that extend beyond the detainees at Gitmo (other limitations on liberties and rights that have arisen post 9/11), this open-ended definition of the situation contradicts one of Clinton Rossiter's standards for a "constitutional dictatorship": a return to normal constitutional functions must be the goal of a constitutional dictatorship. As I see it, no "return" is envisioned. Hence the mantra that "9/11 changed everything." Did it? Should it? I think not.