Krugman very specifically used the words "actual terrorists." What's the diffence between just "terrorists" and "actual terrorists?" Well, terrorism is defined as:

• A method: Killing civilians.
• A goal: To create fear.
• A goal: To create political upheaval.

But lately, politicians have been lumping under the "terrorist" banner anyone who opposes us in the mideast. These politicians seek to create muddled thinking, and they have achieved their goal.

Krugman's meaning is obvious: by "actual terrorist," he means somebody who meets the definition. He is ruling out people who have been lumped under the terrorist label for political reasons.

The vast majority of the people on Michelle's list were Taliban soldiers or wanna-be Taliban soldiers. Fighting in the Taliban Army is idiotic, but it simply does not fit the definition of terrorism.

When you strip out the not-actual-terrorists from Michelle's list, what's left? As I count it, two actual terrorists: the shoe-bomber and Faris. Interestingly, Michelle put the two actual terrorists in the two prominent spots: the first name on the list, and the last. This suggests that she knew that these two were the strong arguments, and that the others were mere padding.

So do the two actual terrorists really show off what a good terrorist-catcher Ashcroft is? As for Reid, the shoe-bomber was caught because he acted obvious and was caught red-handed by passengers, leaving little for Ashcroft to do.

That leaves Faris - a successful catch based on intelligence. So Krugman was wrong: Ashcroft caught one terrorist.

Josh, the issue is that of successful prosecutions, not catching them. In the column of prosecutions, there are two, Faris and Reid by your own count. How they came to be in government custody (aka "caught") is semantically besides the point.

This assumes as you have that the others were not both Talibanistas and terrorists, which I have not verified.

Typical. Many of the people on Michelle's list are definitely actual terrorists, and have confessed as such. Which would explain their conviction in court. The Lackawanna group were trained at an al-Qaeda camp, the D.C. group sought such training after September 11.

To label these men as people "who oppose... [American policy] in the Mideast" is the most deeply dishonest thing I have ever heard you say. Or you you really so stupid that you are unware that these camps are where al-Qaeda recruits train, and unaware of what happens when these people return to their own countries after fighting in Afghanistan?

If these people are not "real" terrorists to you, and you describe them as people who share your opposition to American policy in the Mideast... it becomes entirely legitimate to wonder whose side you're on. I'm certainly wondering.

Joe - If this is the first time you have wondered whose side a rather large number of disgusting Americans are on, you must have been on another plantet for the last few years. Or are you referring specifically to Josh?

The people on Malkins list have not committed any acts of terrorism. They were charged as wannabe terrorists.

I'll give you Reid, but not Faris. Reid was at least caught in the act. Even Faris did not commit an act, he was charged with planning the insane act of cutting bridge cables with a torch. An act certain to be noticed by anyone passing by and which would have taken hours, if it were possible at all. Faris and others pled guilty out of fear of higher penalties if found guilty, which commonly happens.

You can't accurately label them terrorists if no acts have been committed. Accuracy is a good thing. Adopting the ways of those who would destroy us weakens us. Mischaracterizing what people do is one of those ways.

As for whose side I'm on, it's the side that wants America to be a shining beacon of hope, not a tired old harlot lying her way to satisfaction yet again.

Oh, yes. Krugman wins the point, 40-15!

Zak, If I'm caught with a gun on my way to shoot someone and there is enough evidence to convict me of it, I have still committed a serious crime. The fact that the terrorists had not yet committed the acts of terrorism they had planned when they were caught does not mean they were not terrorists. I think you'd better recaculate the score.

There are so many problems with Josh Yelon's formulation that it's difficult to tell where to start. First, perhaps we should formalize the definition a little. Here's what the Wikipedia has to say:

1. Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population.
2. "Terrorism" is also used as a pejorative characterisation of an enemy's attacks as conforming to an immoral philosophy of violence, in a manner outside of warfare, or prohibited in the laws of war.

This definition restates the definition of terrorism in classical Clausewitzian terms: objective—political;strategy—create fear;tactics—attack civilians.

It then provides a number of citations of official U. S. and British definitions of terrorism. The most notable addition that these definitions make is that they define violent acts committed against conventional military forces by people otherwise classifiable as terrorists as themselves terrorist acts.

So, for the record, those in Iraq being characterized by, say, Reuters, as insurgents are, by U. S. and British definitions, terrorists.

Now since the Taliban were recognized by few governments (only KSA, UAE, and Pakistan, IIRC) as a legitimate government and since it is further apparent that the Taliban were, in fact, terrorists by Josh's definition. They were not a government or an army, they used tactics of violence against civilians, and their goals were political. Since the Taliban themselves were, in fact, terrorists, anyone actively supporting the Taliban e.g. John Walker Lindh were also terrorists. Sheesh. What else were the Taliban for goodness sake?

If Josh is attempting to claim that the jurisdiction of the Justice Department is limited only to those who have already committed acts of terrorism rather than those planning to commit such acts, first that's simply incorrect. Conspiracy to commit such crimes is a crime whether an act of terrorism is itself committed or not.

> who oppose... [American policy] in the Mideast

Why did you insert your own, obviously nonsensical interpretation of my words? Why not just use the real quote, "who oppose us in the mideast"?

If you read my post, which talks specifically about enemy soldiers, it's obvious what I mean: "oppose us" means "take up a formation in front of our soldiers and shoot at them." It does not mean "disagree with policy."

I do not know why you feel you have to alter the meaning of my words.

I, for one, am glad that we can catch people before they become "actual terrorists." That is the point, after all.

asdf - the point that zak makes is not the same point that I was making.

These people who were already inside America. If they had wanted to blow up buildings and the like, they could have done so. Instead, they chose to leave the country and face the US Army head-on. If that's their preferred way of attacking us, to directly assault the front lines of the US Military on foreign soil, then in my mind, they're not nearly as dangerous as somebody who chooses to act covertly, inside the US. I interpret the word "terrorist" to imply covert activity, so I don't see these people as terrorists at all - I count them as ordinary enemies.

I interpret the word "terrorist" to imply covert activity, so I don't see these people as terrorists at all - I count them as ordinary enemies.

That would appear to be an idiosyncratic definition.

> those in Iraq being characterized by, say, Reuters, as insurgents are, by U. S. and British definitions, terrorists.

That is exactly my point (and, I think, Krugman's point.) Politicians have defined "terrorist" to include every two-bit punk in the Mahdi army. That's really watering down the definition. If that's your definition, then catching a "terrorist" ceases to be a difficult or challenging accomplishment.

Only if you define "terrorist" in the stricter sense, as somebody who personally intends to attack civilians, does catching a terrorist become a difficult accomplishment. In that sense, Ashcroft has very little on his resume.

Eh.

I'm not going to parse words, here. Suffice it to say that I think Ashcroft is a boob and these guys are dangerous.

Remember, in order to progress in the Al Qaeda hierarchy, you have to prove you can survive as a guerilla fighter. I'm not much troubled by this.

I do find Ashcroft's grandstanding annoying, however, as well as his absurd assertions that the DOJ can just do whatever it wants without any rationale, and "neener neener neener" to Congress.

I'm with those that think including misguided Taliban supporters as if they are terrorists is pure manipulation. These guys participated in a war. They are no more terrorists than our soldiers are.

That said, in a country of 280 million people with massive budgets, in a world where, we are told, practically every Muslem is itching to kill us, and armed his own personal definition of being a Patriot (Act), John Ashcroft should be getting better results.

Even if you toss Aschroft a gimme on the bridge surveilance guy, catching two terrorists is the moral equivalent of zero. A couple of exceptional idiots doesn't change the fact: Ashcroft has been horribly ineffective. He is an incompetent.

Here is Michelle's link for John Walker Lindh:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/15/walker.lindh.hearing/

Quotes:

Here are the dropped charges:

The dropped charges against Walker Lindh
included conspiring to kill Americans
overseas, providing support to al Qaeda and
other terrorist groups, and using firearms
and other destructive devices during crimes
of violence.

Here is what Lindh pled to:

Walker Lindh pleaded guilty to serving in
the Taliban army and carrying weapons in
doing so.

Only on WoC is this a "win" against the "terrorists".

Here is a great set of links for this case:

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/terrorism/cases/index.html#lindh