The recent decline in violence in Iraq has seems to have given conservatives cover to not only defend the “surge,” but even to attempt to rehabilitate the decision to go to war in the first place.

Preparing the ground, Tony Blankley writes that “in September 2007, more than 19,000 insurgents had been killed by coalition forces since 2003″ :

Of course, most of those 19,000 killed insurgents were not foreign terrorists, but local Iraqis moved to action by our occupation. However, according to studies by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and by the Defense Intelligence Agency, foreign-born jihadists in Iraq are believed to number between 4 and 10 percent of the total insurgent strength. So it is reasonable to assume that we have killed — as of nine months ago — between 800 and 1,900 non-Iraqi terrorists who otherwise would have been plying their trade elsewhere. It only took a couple of dozen to commit the atrocities of Sept. 11.

But no, it’s not reasonable to assume that at all. While it’s probably true that some of the extremists drawn to Iraq would have attacked elsewhere, the evidence is overwhelming that, for the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq, the U.S. occupation itself was the decisive factor in their radicalization and mobilization. It only becomes “reasonable” to assume that all of the foreign terrorists killed in Iraq would have become terrorists absent the American invasion of Iraq if one is desperate to justify a disastrous war, as Blankley is. Read more

After last week’s Supreme Court decision granting terror detainees the right of habeas corpus, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) blasted the decision as one of the worst ever. Raising the specter of Osama bin Laden being tried in civil court, McCain invoked the Nazi war crimes trials to declare that bin Laden should be denied habeas rights at all costs, Supreme Court be damned:

There was no habeas at Nuremburg and there should be no habeas for Osama bin Laden. … Let me be clear, under my administration Osama bin Laden will either be killed on the battlefield or executed.

McCain has invoked the Nazi trials at Nuremberg before to uphold his position on habeas. Unfortunately for McCain, in that instance it was to push for granting those rights to terror detainees, as he explained to Tim Russert in 2005:

Now, I know that some of these guys are terrible, terrible killers and the worst kind of scum of humanity. But, one, they deserve to have some adjudication of their cases. And there’s a fear that if you release them that they’ll go back and fight again against us. … [I]f it means releasing some of them, you’ll have to release them. Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.

Those accused of Nazi crimes at Nuremberg were not tried under U.S. law, and thus did not have explicit habeas rights. But Nazis unquestionably received fairer trials than terrorist detainees today. The fact that some accused and tried at Nuremberg were found innocent and released shows that Nuremberg offered a practical habeas right. By contrast, the Pentagon has indicated it could continue to imprison a Guantanamo detainee indefinitely, even if he were found innocent by a military tribunal.

What, exactly, does McCain find so frightening about bringing Osama bin Laden to court? He is unquestionably guilty and will be found guilty. A fair trial would only add moral authority to his conviction. Or is moral weight another aspect of the war on terror that McCain doesn’t care about?

Our guest blogger, Peter Swire, is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and served as the Clinton administration’s Chief Counselor for Privacy, working on encryption policy and other issues.

In recent months, I have become increasingly aware of what I consider a deeply flawed and disturbing policy. In April, a federal appeals court held that Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) can search laptops, and even copy their entire contents, as a routine part of border searches. The ruling held that the CBP does not need probable cause, or even the lower standard of “reasonable suspicion.”

The government’s legal theory is that it can open a suitcase at the border, so it can force a traveler to open a laptop and reveal passwords and encryption keys as a condition of entering the country. This simplistic legal theory ignores the massive factual difference between a quick glance into a suitcase and the ability to copy a lifetime of files from someone’s laptop, and then examine those files at the government’s leisure. Some of the problems that arise with this policy:

– U.S. policy creates bad precedents that totalitarian and other regimes will follow. If the United States adopts a policy, then it is generally much harder for the United States to object if other countries adopt a similar policy. Even if you trust handing your encryption keys to the United States, would you feel the same way handing the keys for all your communications to a totalitarian regime?

– Severe harm to personal privacy, free speech, and business secrets. Intrusive laptop searches by the United States and other governments would chill free speech. One vivid example is a human rights activist entering or leaving China, perhaps on a religious or other mission that is controversial in that country. The government may say that they would not do such things, but the lack of legal safeguards once again means that we must simply trust the government not to misuse its power.

– Disadvantaging the U.S. economy. Foreign tourists will not like the idea of having their laptop inspected at the border, and may decide to visit elsewhere. International conferences and conventions will choose to locate elsewhere. If laptop searches were vital to the fight against terrorism, then we might craft procedures to do them while minimizing the intrusion. The available cases, however, are not about terrorism-related investigations.

CPB has refused to acknowledge any limits on its discretion to search laptops, Blackberries, and other computing devices whenever someone enters or leaves the country. Today, I will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is holding the first hearing about this increasingly common problem. The hearing, called by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), features a coalition of civil liberties and business groups that oppose these searches. I hope that today’s hearing will spell the beginning of the end of this troubling policy.

Digg It!

During a “tele-townhall meeting” last evening, John McCain was asked by a mother of two sons if he believes the nation will one day re-institute the military draft. It would take an “all-out World War III” to make that happen, McCain responded.

Indeed, if that’s true, then a military draft may indeed be a possibility. McCain himself has suggested we are in a “World War III” confrontation with Iran.

In July 2006, McCain appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live, where he was asked to respond to this quote from Newt Gingrich: “We’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the Third World War and, frankly, our bureaucracies aren’t responding fast enough. … You’d have to say to yourself this is in fact World War III. ” Here’s how McCain reacted to that quote:

KING: Senator McCain, do you agree?

MCCAIN: I do to some extent. I think it’s important to recognize that we have terrorist organizations which — who are dangerous by themselves, are now being supported by radical Islamic governments, i.e., the Iranians, which makes them incredibly more dangerous because they are trained, equipped, motivated and assisted in every way by the Iranians.

Last October, President Bush himself warned of a coming “World War III” with Iran. “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III,” said the President. “It seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

UPDATE: Asked about the military draft during a September 29, 2007 townhall in Epping, New Hampshire, McCain said, “I might consider it, I don’t think it’s necessary, but I might consider it if you could design a draft where everybody equally could serve.” Watch it:

Digg It!