Rethinking my opposition against the war on terror

On this 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination, I can’t help but wonder if that fateful day could have been prevented if the federal government waged the kind of war on terror against the Ku Klux Klan as they are currently doing against Al-Qaeda. Was the Ku Klux Klan any less terroristic as Al-Qaeda? With respect to American lives murdered, the Ku Klux Klan definitely wins. As far as I know, Al-Qaeda never gutted a man’s testicles and then made him eat it.

Imagine Al-Qaeda freely prancing around American cities in full regalia, openly harassing, beating, torturing, and killing Americans. Imagine Al-Qaeda announcing in the newspapers that they are going to kill an American next week at 2p.m. at the park. Imagine cops directing traffic so that any American can watch Al-Qaeda hang an American, burn him, cut him up, and sell his body parts as souvenirs.

Can someone please tell me why we didn’t go after the Klan with as much vigilance and fervor as we are with Al-Qaeda?

The same people who labeled Ulysses Grant a military despot when he was fighting the Klan are the same people who think George Bush should have carte blanche when it comes to Al-Qaeda. I just don’t get it.

With the Klan, there was a very narrow interpretation of the law. Habeas corpus was upheld. Detention was minimal at best. The few convictions that were ascertained usually carried a fine of 1 dollar. Most Klansmen received amnesty.

With Al-Qaeda, there is a very broad interpretation of what the law. Torture is somehow legal. Habeas corpus has been waived. Indefinite detention is okay.

This then begs the question: would I have wanted the kind of war on terror that is waged against Al-Qaeda to have occurred against the Klan? Would I support a war on terror against the Klan?

It is tempting. Imagine what might have been had the federal government rounded up all suspected Klansmen (and other white people), threw them in Guantanamo bay, tortured some of the key leaders, denied them any legal rights, and napalmed their houses. The Klan would have been extinguished in less than a week. There very well might not have been any Jim Crow. We might not have needed a civil rights movement. The thousands of victims of lynching would still be alive, not to mention the hundreds of thousands who were traumatized by the beatings, harassing, whippings, rapings, etc…

I’d be torn, but I think in the end, I would have supported a war on terror against the Klan. Does this mean I forsake liberalism and/or the rule of law? Perhaps. This whole thought experiment does make me rethink some of my criticisms of the current war on terror.