Here it comes. Between now and next Monday, expect to be bombarded by the “September 11th: Five Years Later” juggernaut. Time Magazine kicked it off this weekend with their “commemorative issue” entitled “The Nation That Fell To Earth”.
I haven’t read it entirely (nor do I get the title), but the subtitle of the cover story is “Did the U.S. overreact to 9/11”? Politically, geo-politically, and philosophically? Of course we did. The fear mongering still perpetrated by the is administration a half decade later is evidence of that.
But did we overreact where it really counted? In the intelligence/law enforcement arena where terrorists and terrorism are battled and defeated? This study seems to argue we’re not even reacting:
“The number of terrorism cases brought by the Justice Department, which surged in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has dropped sharply since 2002, and prosecutors are turning down hundreds of cases because of weak evidence and other legal problems, according to a study released Sunday. The rejection rate was even higher for the first eight months of the current fiscal year, with 91 percent of the referred cases turned down for prosecution, the research group said. Among the most frequent explanations cited by prosecutors, the study found, were a lack of evidence of criminal intent by the suspect and “weak or insufficient” evidence.”
So while we’re bogged down in a war that have nothing to do with “Islamofascists”, and while we’re being whipped into the paranoia and frenzy of possibly dying in “another 9/11” at any moment by the “cry wolf” administration, remember that the actual “war on terrorism” being fought by the Justice Department is floundering.
Here’s the debate question, then: is the government falling down on the job of prosecuting the terrorists, or are these “cases” being rejected because the “threat” is really just so much bunk?