Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Nuts & Boalts

Law Students

: Nuts & Boalts

A Heretical Question

One of my college professors liked to remark that, depending on which side of an argument you've taken, a conclusion can be characterized either a result or a reductio. Let's try one, from yesterday's NY Times:

Because the war on terror is unlike any other the United States has waged, traditional wartime policies and mechanisms have made for an awkward fit, in some instances undermining efforts to defeat terrorism.

Applying my professor's observation to the quote above produces a question: are traditional wartime policies and mechanisms an awkward fit because this is a different kind of war, or are they an awkward fit because the counter-terrorism effort is actually something other than a war?

I can practically feel the NSA satellite dishes turning toward me, but I think it's a fair question. Are we at war? Or does the apparent mal-aptitude of that term suggest that "war" is not the correct label, and that in fact the counter-terrorism effort is more properly called something else?

Full post as published by Nuts & Boalts on November 30, 2008 (boomark / email).