Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

But the tragic 9/11 events were not acts of war because they did not comply with the laws of war. According to the international laws which govern warfare, only a legitimate sovereign and leader of a nation-state has the authority to declare war against other nation-states. No ordinary civilian can do so. A civilian terrorist cannot declare war on a country all by himself, in conjunction with other terrorists, or with the financial assistance of another civilian such as Osama bin Laden any more than an escaped convict can declare himself the new chief of police. By referring to the attacks of 9/11 as acts of war, Mr. Hannity is stooping to the level of the terrorists and approving their self-proclaimed status as legitimate warriors. This is an insult to international law.

As a well-educated man, terrorist financier Osama bin Laden himself knows that his "war" against the US and the Western world is not a war legally speaking. Rather, he deliberately uses the term "war" in a broader sense to describe a tactical campaign of criminal terrorist attacks against American targets as well as a moral struggle against American cultural degradation.

Yet Hannity and many others argue that catastrophic "Islamic" terrorism represents a "new", unprecedented type of war. But even in the face of the most catastrophic transnational terrorism imaginable, the reasoning above still applies. The September 11 assault consisted of massive crimes; thus we should have responded with a series of comprehensive and effective anti-criminal measures. Instead of waging a "War on Terrorism", to eradicate international "Muslim" terrorism the United States should pursue domestic security, intelligence, investigation, and law enforcement measures; engage in greater cooperation with foreign governments; and encourage a constructive international dialogue regarding American policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.