Posted by
Alexander on Monday, November 09, 2009 6:15:33 PM
Major Hasan's attack on Fort Hood once again raises extremely difficult questions for Americans for how to best engage the blight of Islamism. This is an incredibly difficult subject, but of the foremost importance for our nation if we are to sustain ourselves in the coming decades. I was and remain a strong supporter of President Bush, and I believe that his policy of pre-emptive war against terrorist supporting states will be vindicated by history. However, President Bush's greatest failure of leadership was the failure to draw clear and bright lines between treasonous acts and the free exercise of religion. Eight years after 9/11 we are still groping in the dark for a way to confront terrorists who kill in the name of Islam while fully protecting our cherished rights to practice the religion of our choosing.
Obviously, this was and remains a tremendously difficult issue, one without easy answers. The Bush administartion proceeded well in taking steps to increase the nations security. The Federal government was reorganized, a new cabinet position was created, and serious thought was given and much accomplished in crippling terrorist networks. And yet, America is utterly muddled as to how to handle the Major Hasan's of the world prior to their opening fire. We must think seriously about some of the following questions and hopefully reach some broad consensus in order to move forward in confronting the persistent threat to our nation posed by islamic radicals.
1. We must define the enemy clearly. The enemy does not wear insignia to identify themselves, so we are in the unenviable position of having to identify potential threats from a population of billions. We can begin by taking people at their word. When a person preaches jihad or expresses a desire to kill infidels, we should believe them. Serious study should be given to the subject of what doctrines and practices separate radical islamists non-violent muslims, and those practices should serve as markers to delineate between the two groups.
2. Treasonous speech must be clearly defined. It is no surprise that islamists in this country make great and effective use of the protections afforded by our constituion to promote their vision and to undermine our institutions. It would be very useful to define where religious speech ends and an act of war begins. For instance, are Fatwah's to be tolerated? Are they free speech protected by the constitution, or are they an act of war against the American body politic? Should the issuing of a fatwah against an American citizen be considered an act of war, and if so, what consequences might that have for free political speech and free religious exercise?
3. How do we treat terrorists who are apprehended prior to commiting crimes? This is not an academic question as the arrests this summer of the Brooklyn/Denver plotters has put the Justice department in the position of deciding how to prosecute such individuals. My suggestion is to begin by differentiating between American citizens and foreign nationals. American citizens are entitled to due process of law and must receive it, even if they are tried and convicted of treason. Foreign nationals living in this country who plot to kill Americans ought to treated as illegal combatants.
4. What limits can or should be placed on religious practice? The heart of the problem here is whether or not the government can place restrictions on or prosecute the advocacy of jihad without undermining the religious liberty of all Americans. Obviously, this is an extremely difficult question, the asking of which pre-supposes that the government has the authority to legislate boundaries of acceptable religious practice. I believe the way out of this rabbit hole is to make clear that the government has no such authority, but that it does have the authority and responsibilty to prosecute "fighting words" that is the explicit advocacy of violence against American citizens.
5. Is it proper to discriminate against muslims? Americans have struggled over the course of our history with the issues of religious and racial discrimination, achieving great success in realizing an open and remarkably decent society. The Islamist movement confronts us with the temptation to yield hard fought for principles for increased security. Should muslims be subject to increased scrutiny when travelling? When renting storage units? We are all familiar with stories of grandmothers being frisked at airport security, and we tolerate it on the impied supposition that frisking grandma provides cover for the thorough frisking that we expect to be given the overt muslim. As it stands now, we expect a level of discrimination against muslims, and we accept in exchange a series of inconveniences and minor outrages in our daily lives. In this way we preserve a cherished principle and have effectively struck a workable if imperfect compromise. Is there a better arrangement? Can we constrain the government to respect our religious liberty while expecting that government to protect us from an enemy that operates within the structure of a religion?
These are some of the big questions confronted the Bush administration after 9/11 and which continue to confront us today. I worry that the approach of the Obama administartion will most likely result in less liberty and less security, which makes it all the more a tragedy that President Bush was unable to establish some clear lines during his tenure which would empower the country to more effectively confront the challenge of our time.