What War on Terror?

Reacting to the recent Supreme Court decision saying Bush Aministration cannot try Gitmo detainees in military tribunals (that is, the handful even being tried, as opposed to the hundreds being held with no charges), AG Alberto Gonzales says the Court has hampered the War on Terror.

Two things come to mind. First, there is no such thing as a War on Terror. Terror is a method, and countries do not fight wars against methods. It would be like the American Revolutionaries declaring a War on Muskets. This points up the problem with fanatical Muslims. They are a stateless, amorphous enemy, and, as such, we can't fight a conventional war against them. But by declaring we are "at war," this administration tries to justify chunking the constitution out the window. Finally, the Supreme Court has said, "Enough is enough." Or at least a majority have. You can always county on Scalia and a couple of others to do whatever President Bush wants.

Second, if winning the so-called War on Terror means throwing away our civil liberties, we'd better find a new method ourselves. What's the point of winning a war when you destroy your own country in the process? Talk about a pyrrhic victory.

So, please, next time you hear the ridiculous phrase "War on Terror," analyze why it's being used.