Peter Spiro, a former State Department lawyer and NSC staff member, now a professor at Hofstra Law School: Deploying A Law Enforcement Model In The Fight Against Terrorism

President Bush claimed in his State of the Union address earlier this week that “our war against terror is only beginning.” In fact, this war is over — except, perhaps, in a metaphorical sense.

Military operations are winding down in Afghanistan, and normalcy is returning on the domestic front. Leaving aside the horrific civilian casualties on September 11 itself, this conflict closely parallels our experience with such other recent deployments abroad as the Kosovo campaign. It was quick and neat, with few American casualties. The conflict demanded no direct sacrifice at home; far from the economic deprivations and military service requirements of real wars, in this one civilians were asked only to deploy their purchasing power.

Now that the engagement in Afghanistan is over, its aftermath is better addressed through a law enforcement model than under the model President Bush has suggested, of a continuing war that operates for an indefinite period of time, and is not ended even by the cessation of hostilities. The events of September 11 have demonstrated the obsolescence of old models of conflict premised on hostilities among states, from both a domestic and international perspective. Under domestic law, that means rejecting extraordinary procedures, such as the proposed military tribunals, and pursuing terrorists as we pursue criminals, within normal constitutional constraints.

FindLaw

I agree entirely; I have been a proponent of a law enforcement model for responding to 9-11 ever since and, like Spiro, I cannot refer to the “war” on terrorism without putting “war” in quotes.