Obama embraces his inner madness over lawfare

Paul Greenberg:

...

In 2001, the culprit had an exotic name, too: Osama bin Laden. He was thought to be somewhere in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan at the time (and may still be) under the protection of the Taliban. Borrowing a leaf from Teddy's book, I wrote a column suggesting that the American response to the attacks that day ought to be just as clear and concise as TR's had been: Osama alive or the Taliban dead.

Bully! Another column out of the way. Remarkable how one borrowed idea can be stretched into 800 words or so.

But wait. For there's many a slip 'twixt writing and publication. An editor at the syndicate called to say there was a problem.

Oh, really? What was it?

Well, his boss had noted that Osama bin Laden and his gang, aka al-Qaida, hadn't been convicted or even indicted for this crime. Therefore, his supervisor wanted to know, how could I write that al-Qaida was responsible? And for no better reason than it was obvious.

The country was now at war but at least one hotshot editor in Chicago was still thinking like a civilian. Which was not a comfort.

To calm myself, I chose to meditate on the final scene in "The Bridge on the River Kwai," the David Lean film in which Alec Guinness plays the correct British colonel and prisoner of war who's completely lost touch with the larger reality, i.e., the war he's supposed to be fighting. Instead, he has concentrated his mind and efforts on the fine railway bridge he and his troops have built for their Japanese captors in the middle of the jungle. Good show, old boy!

The proper colonel can only watch in horror and dismay as his proud handiwork is destroyed by Allied commandos. His is a madness within the greater madness that is war.

The final words of the film occurred to me when I was warned of the legal risks I risked by accusing the obvious perpetrator of all this mayhem without proper documentation.

Madness, madness . . . . !

After a polite if pointed conversation with my editor's editor, the column's reference to Osama bin Laden was retained.

Still, it would have been a consummation devoutly to be wished if Mr. Bin Laden had indeed shown up to file suit for libel. What a pleasure it would have been to meet him, complete with a welcoming committee from the CIA, FBI, and 101st Airborne, and maybe even get a chance to interrogate him--excuse me, interview him--en route to Guantanamo.

...

Obama and his Attorney General have embraced the madness of lawfare. Lawfare was the failed policy of the past that led to 9-11, and it is what Obama wants to go back to. There are several problems with it the chief being that it keeps us on the strategic defensive and gives the initiative to the enemy. The FBI is sent in after the fact to sift through the bomb detritus for clues about the perps who if caught are told that they do not have to tell us about other such plots and that they will be given an attorney to make sure that make no such disclosures. It is hard to imagine a more goofy approach to responding to someone who is making war against us.