A Point of Clarification
by Benjamin Wittes
I will address later this morning the raft of issues raised by Deborah’s and Marty’s posts. I want, however, to briefly clarify a point that has become a little bit muddy as to my view of whether America is really at war. Several posts seem to take it as a given that I am arguing for a war model in the current conflict. Yet notwithstanding the book’s title and its reference to the “long war,” I actually argue against overreliance on the war model–and specifically against reliance on the war model as a long-term basis for strong counterterrorism actions. The final paragraph of the book describes the conflict as “a long war, a war that isn’t quite a war but isn’t quite anything else either, a war we have still not compellingly defined and may never fully define and yet will need to regulate and prosecute anyway.” Elsewhere, I describe it as “something that goes beyond war altogether” and describe in some detail the costs of relying on the war model–which was, in my judgment, inevitable as a short-term response to the immediate crisis of 9/11.
In brief, I believe the war on terror is, in some sense, a war and certainly draws on the legal traditions surrounding warfare. But a core argument in the book is that we should treat terrorism as a sui generis area of its own–different from war, different from law enforcement, yet drawing pervasively on both of those traditions. And I specifically reject the notion that the primary body of law governing it should be the laws of war.
Related Posts
- November 4, 2008 -- Where Have I Seen the NYT’s Detainee Data Project Before …? And Is the Times Implying that It’s Okay to Hold Some Detainees Without Trial?
- August 2, 2008 -- Law and the Long War: Closing Post
- August 1, 2008 -- Rounding Things Up
- August 1, 2008 -- Closing Thoughts on the Road Ahead
- August 1, 2008 -- A Few Final Thoughts and the Problem of Un-Ringing Bells…
- August 1, 2008 -- Al-Marwallah’s Ears Must Be Burning
- July 31, 2008 -- Quick al-Marwalah Follow-Ups
- July 31, 2008 -- More Detention Cases
- July 31, 2008 -- Al-Marwallah and Standards for Detention
- July 31, 2008 -- So Are They All Just Criminals?
- July 31, 2008 -- The al-Marwalah Detention
- July 31, 2008 -- War Zones, Substance, and Procedure in Terrorism Prosecutions
- July 31, 2008 -- Prevention
- July 31, 2008 -- Try the Detainees
- July 30, 2008 -- The Forgotten H.R. 6615
- July 30, 2008 -- Thoughts on Detention
- July 30, 2008 -- Judge Wilkinson and the Ambiguity of the “Conduct that . . . Aims to Harm” Criterion
- July 30, 2008 -- A Brief Aside on Detention: Alien Enemies and the EDA
- July 30, 2008 -- What Should a 2009 Detention Statute Look Like?
- July 30, 2008 -- The Ten Principles of Detention
- July 30, 2008 -- Speaking of Detention
- July 30, 2008 -- Assessing the Threat: One More Meta-Question for Ben and the Group
- July 29, 2008 -- Congress in the War on al Qaeda
- July 29, 2008 -- Complexity in the Afghan-Pakistan theater and the Role of the War Model in the War on Terrorism
- July 29, 2008 -- Some Additional Thoughts
- July 29, 2008 -- Responding to Steve and Deborah
- July 29, 2008 -- Should Judges or Congress Elaborate the Procedural Details of Habeas Review?
- July 29, 2008 -- Push a Square Peg into a Round Hole, or Build Another Hole?
- July 29, 2008 -- Not Enough Law? Compared to What?
- July 29, 2008 -- The Purpose of Habeas Corpus
- July 29, 2008 -- Back to Ben on the Courts
- July 29, 2008 -- The Role of the Courts
- July 29, 2008 -- More on the Role of the Courts in the “Long War”
- July 29, 2008 -- Not All Hearsay Rules Are Created Equal
- July 29, 2008 -- The Real Lessons of Law and The Long War
- July 29, 2008 -- Is Messy Constitutionalism the Enemy of Effective Strategy?
- July 28, 2008 -- A Few Thoughts
- July 28, 2008 -- Reading Ben’s Book
- July 28, 2008 -- To Ignore International Law Is To Dismiss It
- July 28, 2008 -- Damning International Tribunals with Faint Praise
- July 28, 2008 -- The “War” Model, Iraq’s Role, and the Need for Strategic Focus
- July 28, 2008 -- Peter’s Two Points
- July 28, 2008 -- Don’t Let the Legal Policy Tail Wag the Foreign Policy Dog
- July 28, 2008 -- Wittes’ Law and the Long War: International Law Goes Missing
- July 28, 2008 -- Getting Things Started
- July 28, 2008 -- Opinio Juris Book Discussion: Benjamin Wittes’ Law and the Long War
- July 25, 2008 -- Discussion of Wittes’ Law and the Long War Starts This Monday
- June 27, 2008 -- Wittes’ Law and the Long War: Wise Counsel for the Age of Terror (If That’s What We’re In)
- June 18, 2008 -- Curtis Bradley on Benjamin Wittes’ Law and the Long War
- May 21, 2008 -- Previewing Benjamin Wittes’ New Book on Law and Terror and Guantanamo
See all posts related to: Wittes Book
July 29th, 2008 - 7:52 AM EDT | Trackback Link |
http://opiniojuris.org/2008/07/29/a-point-of-clarification/
Dear Mr. Wittes,
I think that the Pentagon is finally getting your message. According to a recent BBC report:”New strategy ‘can beat al-Qaeda’”:
“…the Rand Corporation suggests the US replace the term ‘war on terror’ with ‘counter-terrorism’.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7530245.stm
Antonin I. Pribetic
at 9:23 am EST Antonin I. Pribetic