by JAMES TARANTO
Monday, October 8, 2001 2:23 P.M. EDT

No Justice, No Peace
Now that we're really at war--today is the second day of air strikes against targets in Afghanistan--could we please start hearing less about "justice" for the "crimes" of Sept. 11? "Justice, not war" has become the slogan of the America-haters and moral cretins who style themselves "peace activists," and now Baltasar Garzon, described flatteringly by the Financial Times as "Spain's leading anti-terrorist judge," has joined the chorus. Garzon, who had his 15 minutes of fame three years ago when he issued an indictment against Chile's ex-dictator Augusto Pinochet, demands to know why, in the FT's words, "US evidence against [Osama] bin Laden is being examined by politicians rather than judges":

"It is not sufficient to say: I have evidence, but I cannot make it public for fear of endangering my sources, that is not a serious approach, it is simply illegal," Mr Garzon wrote. "This is simply unlawful. We should not forget that we are dealing with a horrible crime, but the response nevertheless, requires due process."

The notion that the criminal-justice system is capable of dealing with a horror of this enormity stands as perhaps the most fatuous thing we've heard in the past month. More than 5,000 people lie murdered, billions of dollars in property is destroyed, and Americans can't feel secure that some worse attack won't happen tomorrow. The actual perpetrators of the "crime" are all dead, and even if we took all surviving co-conspirators and applied the most barbaric methods of torture it is physically possible to devise--which we won't do, because we aren't barbarians--there is no way we could come up with a punishment that would fit this crime.

To be sure, there will be a role for war-crimes trials in providing a sort of symbolic postwar reckoning, just as there was after World War II. But the immediate priority is the defense of the civilized world, and that requires destroying the entities that threaten it--namely the terrorist networks and the governments that support them. That is a job for warriors, not judges.

The Shape of Victory
What will victory look like in this war? Our colleague Max Boot, in a Weekly Standard cover story, offers an expansive vision. In the first place, Osama bin Laden must die, for "it would not be an edifying spectacle to see this scourge of the infidels--this holy warrior who rejects the Enlightenment and all its works--asserting a medley of constitutional rights in a U.S. courtroom, perhaps even in the federal courthouse located just a short walk from where the World Trade Center once stood."

Boot argues that America must also be prepared to engage in what some conservatives have derided as "nation building"--or, as Boot prefers to call it, American imperialism:

When we oust the Taliban, what comes next? Will we repeat our mistake of a decade ago and leave? What if no responsible government immediately emerges? What if millions of Afghans are left starving? Someone would have to step in and help--and don't bet on the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees getting the job done. The United States, in cooperation with its allies, would be left with the responsibility to feed the hungry, tend the sick, and impose the rule of law. This is what we did for the defeated peoples of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and it is a service that we should extend to the oppressed people of Afghanistan as well. Unlike 19th-century European colonialists, we would not aim to impose our rule permanently. Instead, as in Western Germany, Italy, and Japan, occupation would be a temporary expedient to allow the people to get back on their feet until a responsible, humane, preferably democratic, government takes over. . . .

Once Afghanistan has been dealt with, America should turn its attention to Iraq. It will probably not be possible to remove Saddam quickly without a U.S. invasion and occupation--though it will hardly require half a million men, since Saddam's army is much diminished since the Gulf War, and we will probably have plenty of help from Iraqis, once they trust that we intend to finish the job this time. Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul. With American seriousness and credibility thus restored, we will enjoy fruitful cooperation from the region's many opportunists, who will show a newfound eagerness to be helpful in our larger task of rolling up the international terror network that threatens us.

Tony Talks Tough
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair gave a hell of a speech yesterday after the bombs began falling on Afghanistan:

The world understands that whilst, of course, there are dangers in acting, the dangers of inaction are far, far greater--the threat of further such outrages, the threat to our economies, the threat to the stability of the world. . . .

Let us not forget that the attacks of September 11 represented the worst terrorist outrage against British citizens in our history. The murder of British citizens, whether it happens overseas or not, is an attack upon Britain.

But even if no British citizen had died, it would it be right to act. This atrocity was an attack on us all--on people of all faiths and people of none.

We know the al Qaeda network threatened Europe including Britain, and indeed any nation throughout the world that does not share their fanatical views. So we have a direct interest in acting in our own self-defense to protect British lives.

Is Israel the Issue?
Poor Mickey Kaus, usually one of our favorite commentators, has not exactly been on the ball since Sept. 11. On Sept. 12, he predicted, incredibly, that "the story will be off the evening news by Thanksgiving." Now he's pushing the idea that an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel would appease the terrorists, or at least their sympathizers--even if Israel were not wiped off the map. Here's Kaus's analysis of a Reuters transcript (link requires New York Times registration) of Osama bin Laden's video press release, taped in advance for airing after the attack on Afghanistan began:

Note that Bin Laden himself, in his video, doesn't say he wants to drive the Israelis out of the region. I have no doubt that's what he thinks, but he . . . chose to put his goal in terms of "peace . . . in Palestine." Why did he choose this language? Maybe it's because he knew that, whatever he thought, more of those to whom he wanted to appeal found the idea of "peace" more alluring than the idea of, say, "extinguishing the Jewish state." In this, doesn't Bin laden concede a key point--that a "peace" that allowed Israel to exist would indeed appeal to many of his potential supporters?

Kaus probably shouldn't have relied on Reuters, the news service whose policy is that terrorism is too harsh a word for a massacre of 5,000 civilians. Here's bin Laden's opening line, omitted from the Reuters transcript but included in the transcripts on the ABC News and Washington Post Web sites: "Let the whole world know that we shall never accept that the tragedy of Andalusia would be repeated in Palestine. We cannot accept that Palestine will become Jewish." A Muslim perspective on Andalusia--what we now call Spain, a once-Muslim territory that fell to the Christians--is available here.

Our Friends the Saudis
America's strikes at Afghanistan are all well and good, but the real enemy may be elsewhere. Writing in the New Statesman, Tariq Ali says:

The hijackers responsible for the 11 September outrage were not illiterate, bearded fanatics from the mountain villages of Afghanistan. They were all educated, highly skilled, middle-class professionals. Of the 19 men involved, 13 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. Their names are recognisable. The three al-Ghamdis are clearly from the kingdom's Hijaz province--the site of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Mohammad Atta, born in Egypt, travelled on a Saudi passport.

Regardless of whether Osama Bin Laden gave the order or not, it is indisputable that the bulk of his real cadres (as opposed to foot soldiers) are located in Egypt or Saudi Arabia--America's two principal allies in the region, barring Israel. In Saudi Arabia, support for Bin Laden is strong. He was a close friend of the Saudi intelligence boss Prince Turki Bin Faisal al-Saud, who was dismissed in August apparently because of his failure to curb attacks on US personnel in Riyadh.

Ali warns that "Washington's failure to disengage its vital interests from the fate of the Saudi monarchy could well lead to further blow-back."

The Palestinian Kent State?
Yasser Arafat has responded to American air strikes on Afghanistan by forbidding all members of the Palestinian Authority from commenting on the attacks, the Jerusalem Post reports. The Post also picks up a radio report that says Palestinian police shot and killed two Arabs at a demonstration by students at the Islamic University in Gaza City in support of Osama bin Laden. We're all for cracking down on terrorists, but shooting nonviolent protesters seems not exactly the best counterterrorism tactic.

Is the Era of Big Government Still Over?
Michael Barone takes on the conventional wisdom that war will inevitably usher in a new era of big government--a view, Barone argues, that relies on false analogies to World War II:

This war seems likely to require the things postindustrial America is good at. It requires high-technology weapons and information technology. It requires relatively small, highly trained, readily adaptable military units. It requires an openness and ability to deal with people who are different from us. Victory in World War II built confidence in big government and the other big units of industrial America, confidence that lasted another two decades until big government performed poorly in Vietnam. Success in the war against terrorism should build confidence in our supple, creative, small-unit postindustrial America--not in a big government we don't need.

Slate's William Saletan also urges caution: "Having declared Bush "toast" a year ago when his poll numbers dived, [I advise] the government-is-back crowd to wait for more data before drawing long-term conclusions."

Kaybee Toys Goes to War
InstaPundit.com's Glenn Reynolds reports on a visit to his local mall:

The most interesting thing was Kaybee Toys, which has undergone a dramatic militarization. The front area has undergone a buildup comparable to what's happening in Uzbekistan, and now boasts all sorts of military toys, from the "Combat Soldiers Special Mission" line to a huge model of the aircraft carrier Enterprise that looks big enough to intimidate many third world countries all by itself.

Meanwhile, on the clearance table, are examples of an America whose time is gone: "The Dr. Laura Game" ("no excuses, just solutions") is marked down from $38.99 to $4.99. The "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus Game" is similarly discounted at $7.99. And the "Survivor" game languishes at its own slashed-to-the-bone price of $7.99. ("Paralympic Champion Barbie" is still holding her own at an undiscounted $29.99, though; can't keep that girl down, even with a spinal injury, apparently).

The militarization of the front-of-store area was sufficiently noticeable that I asked the manager if it was a coincidence. Oh no, she said: orders came down from the home office to put the military toys (previously relegated to an inconspicuous corner) right up front.

Our colleague Dorothy Rabinowitz similarly reports a "huge military toy boom" at Manhattan's Toys "R" Us store. Strange but true interwar-era fact: In March 2001, a Louisiana schoolboy was suspended for drawing a picture of a soldier!

First Widowed, Now Deported?
London's Telegraph reports that "A British mother widowed by the World Trade Centre terrorism is being threatened with deportation from America as an illegal alien":

Deena Gilbey, 37, lost her husband, Paul, in the inferno of the south tower on September 11, and with him, according to the Immigration and Naturalisation Service, she lost her right to live in the United States.

The couple, from Southend-on Sea, Essex, had two sons, Maxwell, seven, and Mason, three, who were born in America and so are American citizens.

But Mrs Gilbey's legal status in the country was as a "dependent" on her husband's work visa, and since his visa expired on his death she is automatically declared illegal.

According to the immigration officers' rulebook, the boys can stay, but she must go. Just days after her husband's death she was sent an official notice warning her that her right to live in America was to be withdrawn.

Before receiving the letter, Mrs Gilbey had rung the immigration service to check on her status, only to be told: "You have none. . . . regardless of the circumstances, you are an illegal alien."

Hey ACLU, There's a War On
Here's proof positive that all that talk about wartime threats to civil liberties is overblown: The American Civil Liberties Union still has time to busy itself with utterly trivial matters. The Sacramento Bee reports the ACLU is demanding that Breen Elementary School in Rocklin, Calif., remove a "God Bless America" sign. The school, to its credit, is refusing.

Now, we should stipulate that the ACLU is not part of the anti-American left whose ugly antics we've been chronicling here. The group's objection is to "God," not "America," and the Bee quotes an ACLU lawyer as suggesting that flying the flag is fine by him (whew!). Still, there is something unseemly--we dare say, even mildly unpatriotic--about the ACLU harassing a school for such a silly reason at a time like this.

Quote of the Day
Jonathan Alter on the "antiwar" intelligentsia: "Talk about ironic: the same people always urging us to not blame the victim in rape cases are now saying Uncle Sam wore a short skirt and asked for it."

Great Moments in Self-Parody
"Getting to Yes With the Taliban" -- headline on a Boston Globe op-ed by Roger Fisher, author of "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In."

Your Tax Dollars at Work
WJAR-TV reports that the state of Rhode Island "is using a $50,000 federal grant to study the emotional toll the terrorist attacks have taken on Rhode Islanders." Rep. Patrick Kennedy says the state "will use the money to interview doctors, police and others to determine how to help those who may be suffering post-traumatic stress disorder."

(Ira Stoll helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Steven Platzer, Damian Bennett, D.M. Olson, C.E. Dobkin, Anthony Brunsvold, Rosslyn Smith and Richard Olson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)