Rule of Law vs. Rule of War: Are Media Missing the Lesson of Oklahoma City?
Many media voices are enlisting in the push toward war. CBS anchor Dan Rather seemed more soldier than reporter on Monday's Letterman show when he endorsed the war drive and added: "George Bush is the President... Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."
It's worth remembering that a similar push followed the last dreadful act of terrorism against America on our soil, Oklahoma City. Many in the mass media immediately began goading us toward retaliation against a presumed Arab, Islamic enemy. Columnist Mike Royko called for the overseas bombing of civilian infrastructures:"If it happens to be the wrong country, well, too bad."
The bellicose rhetoric came to a stunning halt as soon as it was learned that the anti-American terrorists were not from the Mideast. In fact, one was from the Midwest -- Michigan. The leader was Timothy McVeigh, who went to his death believing himself to be at war against the U.S.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned from Oklahoma City is that our country did not take the bait. The U.S. did not declare war on McVeigh and his network of extremist fellow-travelers. The Bill of Rights and civil liberties were not trampled on the path to increased security.
Instead, McVeigh and his accomplices were dealt with as a democracy deals with mass murderers. They were apprehended, prosecuted and punished after being given trials, lawyers, the right to confront witnesses and challenge evidence. The armed fanatics who sympathized with McVeigh were not all hunted down and destroyed, but they've certainly been quieted. Many of us abhor the death penalty that was given to McVeigh, but the rule of law prevailed.
The terrorists behind the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are more numerous, perhaps more dangerous and better protected than McVeigh and friends. Still, it's appalling how little mainstream media have discussed relying on the rule of law -- international law -- to pursue the foreign terrorists.
Few news reports have pointed out that there is one body under international law that can authorize military action: the United Nations Security Council. If the U.S. has strong evidence against Osama bin Laden and associates, and Afghanistan continues to refuse extradition to the U.S., the two countries could negotiate surrender of the suspects to a neutral country for trial (as happened with Libyan agents tried for the Lockerbie explosion). If that approach fails, the U.S. could present its case to the Security Council, which could authorize the equivalent of an international arrest warrant.
That the United States of America should uphold and adhere to international law is seen as preposterous, un-American and weak. In a piece titled, "To War, Not to Court," Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote: "Secretary of State Colin Powell's first reaction to the day of infamy was to pledge to 'bring those responsible to justice.' This is exactly wrong."
Fox News Channel offered a rare interview with an actual expert in international law, Francis Boyle of University of Illinois, who offered a step-by-step legal process for pursuing the terrorists -- which provoked an indignant Bill O'Reilly to decry "empowering the U.N." Days later on his show, one of the most watched on cable news, O'Reilly advocated bombing and destroying the civilian infrastructures of Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by attacks on Libya.
Listening to the Krauthammers and O'Reillys and leaping into unilateral action does more than undermine the rule of law. It isolates the U.S. instead of isolating the terrorists. Much of the world will see an excessive or misdirected U.S. military action as a tragic rerun of adventures that have callously injured innocent civilians from Panama to Iraq to Sudan.
And a new misstep will breed ever more anti-American terrorists.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Many media voices are enlisting in the push toward war. CBS anchor Dan Rather seemed more soldier than reporter on Monday's Letterman show when he endorsed the war drive and added: "George Bush is the President... Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."
It's worth remembering that a similar push followed the last dreadful act of terrorism against America on our soil, Oklahoma City. Many in the mass media immediately began goading us toward retaliation against a presumed Arab, Islamic enemy. Columnist Mike Royko called for the overseas bombing of civilian infrastructures:"If it happens to be the wrong country, well, too bad."
The bellicose rhetoric came to a stunning halt as soon as it was learned that the anti-American terrorists were not from the Mideast. In fact, one was from the Midwest -- Michigan. The leader was Timothy McVeigh, who went to his death believing himself to be at war against the U.S.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned from Oklahoma City is that our country did not take the bait. The U.S. did not declare war on McVeigh and his network of extremist fellow-travelers. The Bill of Rights and civil liberties were not trampled on the path to increased security.
Instead, McVeigh and his accomplices were dealt with as a democracy deals with mass murderers. They were apprehended, prosecuted and punished after being given trials, lawyers, the right to confront witnesses and challenge evidence. The armed fanatics who sympathized with McVeigh were not all hunted down and destroyed, but they've certainly been quieted. Many of us abhor the death penalty that was given to McVeigh, but the rule of law prevailed.
The terrorists behind the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are more numerous, perhaps more dangerous and better protected than McVeigh and friends. Still, it's appalling how little mainstream media have discussed relying on the rule of law -- international law -- to pursue the foreign terrorists.
Few news reports have pointed out that there is one body under international law that can authorize military action: the United Nations Security Council. If the U.S. has strong evidence against Osama bin Laden and associates, and Afghanistan continues to refuse extradition to the U.S., the two countries could negotiate surrender of the suspects to a neutral country for trial (as happened with Libyan agents tried for the Lockerbie explosion). If that approach fails, the U.S. could present its case to the Security Council, which could authorize the equivalent of an international arrest warrant.
That the United States of America should uphold and adhere to international law is seen as preposterous, un-American and weak. In a piece titled, "To War, Not to Court," Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote: "Secretary of State Colin Powell's first reaction to the day of infamy was to pledge to 'bring those responsible to justice.' This is exactly wrong."
Fox News Channel offered a rare interview with an actual expert in international law, Francis Boyle of University of Illinois, who offered a step-by-step legal process for pursuing the terrorists -- which provoked an indignant Bill O'Reilly to decry "empowering the U.N." Days later on his show, one of the most watched on cable news, O'Reilly advocated bombing and destroying the civilian infrastructures of Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by attacks on Libya.
Listening to the Krauthammers and O'Reillys and leaping into unilateral action does more than undermine the rule of law. It isolates the U.S. instead of isolating the terrorists. Much of the world will see an excessive or misdirected U.S. military action as a tragic rerun of adventures that have callously injured innocent civilians from Panama to Iraq to Sudan.
And a new misstep will breed ever more anti-American terrorists.
Many media voices are enlisting in the push toward war. CBS anchor Dan Rather seemed more soldier than reporter on Monday's Letterman show when he endorsed the war drive and added: "George Bush is the President... Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."
It's worth remembering that a similar push followed the last dreadful act of terrorism against America on our soil, Oklahoma City. Many in the mass media immediately began goading us toward retaliation against a presumed Arab, Islamic enemy. Columnist Mike Royko called for the overseas bombing of civilian infrastructures:"If it happens to be the wrong country, well, too bad."
The bellicose rhetoric came to a stunning halt as soon as it was learned that the anti-American terrorists were not from the Mideast. In fact, one was from the Midwest -- Michigan. The leader was Timothy McVeigh, who went to his death believing himself to be at war against the U.S.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned from Oklahoma City is that our country did not take the bait. The U.S. did not declare war on McVeigh and his network of extremist fellow-travelers. The Bill of Rights and civil liberties were not trampled on the path to increased security.
Instead, McVeigh and his accomplices were dealt with as a democracy deals with mass murderers. They were apprehended, prosecuted and punished after being given trials, lawyers, the right to confront witnesses and challenge evidence. The armed fanatics who sympathized with McVeigh were not all hunted down and destroyed, but they've certainly been quieted. Many of us abhor the death penalty that was given to McVeigh, but the rule of law prevailed.
The terrorists behind the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon are more numerous, perhaps more dangerous and better protected than McVeigh and friends. Still, it's appalling how little mainstream media have discussed relying on the rule of law -- international law -- to pursue the foreign terrorists.
Few news reports have pointed out that there is one body under international law that can authorize military action: the United Nations Security Council. If the U.S. has strong evidence against Osama bin Laden and associates, and Afghanistan continues to refuse extradition to the U.S., the two countries could negotiate surrender of the suspects to a neutral country for trial (as happened with Libyan agents tried for the Lockerbie explosion). If that approach fails, the U.S. could present its case to the Security Council, which could authorize the equivalent of an international arrest warrant.
That the United States of America should uphold and adhere to international law is seen as preposterous, un-American and weak. In a piece titled, "To War, Not to Court," Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote: "Secretary of State Colin Powell's first reaction to the day of infamy was to pledge to 'bring those responsible to justice.' This is exactly wrong."
Fox News Channel offered a rare interview with an actual expert in international law, Francis Boyle of University of Illinois, who offered a step-by-step legal process for pursuing the terrorists -- which provoked an indignant Bill O'Reilly to decry "empowering the U.N." Days later on his show, one of the most watched on cable news, O'Reilly advocated bombing and destroying the civilian infrastructures of Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by attacks on Libya.
Listening to the Krauthammers and O'Reillys and leaping into unilateral action does more than undermine the rule of law. It isolates the U.S. instead of isolating the terrorists. Much of the world will see an excessive or misdirected U.S. military action as a tragic rerun of adventures that have callously injured innocent civilians from Panama to Iraq to Sudan.
And a new misstep will breed ever more anti-American terrorists.