Whats is it good for - absolutely nothing?

War, n. - Miriam Webster has two main definitions

1. a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
2. a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

The first seems to me the literal meaning of the word, while the second is more figurative. For decades, the term has been used mostly in the second sense by many administrations, war against polio, war against poverty, war against drugs, etc., etc. and I think it was understood that it was a figurative meaning of the word.

So now we are waging war against terrorism and I wonder whether it is figurative or literal. Obviously it does not fit the first definition above, since it is not an "armed or hostile conflict between states or nations". The second definition seems more fitting, but that's not how it's being sold to us. Bush is touting himself as a "war president" (almost always a bonus at the polls), questioning the administration is unpatriotic and civil liberties are being taken away because "we're at war".
It's the last one that I really find disturbing. It's one thing to be shuttling Taliban prisoners of to Guantanamo - although it may seem hypocritical and may violate the Geneva Convention, I don't think the US constitutional rights apply to foreign nationals. What bothers me is when American citizens' constitutional rights are vicariously taken away under the guise of "war".

A couple of days ago, Ashcroft announced during a press conference in Moscow (?!?) that a month ago the US had arrested and alleged al Quaida terrorist who plotted to build and detonate a radiological "dirty" bomb. The man, Al Mujahir, born as Jose Padilla, is an American citizen with a shady past and apparent contacts in Pakistan. The US constitution gives it's citizens habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial (something that Ashcroft does not have to bother with when it comes to the likes of Zacarias Moussaoui, even though he is in the federal court system). But the government apparently did not have sufficient evidence to indict Padilla, so he was scuttled from the civilian court system to the military. As it stands, Bush's military tribunal order does not apply, after all Padilla is still a US citizen and Bush's order currently only applies to foreigners, but by calling him an "enemy combatant" the authorities managed to transfer him without charging him with anything except being an "enemy combatant" to the military where he's facing indefinite detention, with limited access to legal council.

The "enemy combatant" clause stems from WWII where it was used a few times to detain people that collaborated with the Germans. I don't think it was intended to maroon people without a trial because the justice department doesn't have any legal grounds to detain them.

So here's the answer about what war is good for: If you have somebody who you can't legally detain because of lack of evidence or because, as in the case of Padilla, they apparently only committed a "thought crime", simply call them an "enemy combatant" and you can lock them up indefinitely in a military jail. You don't have to charge them with anything or prove they did anything wrong, you don't have to allow them to see a lawyer and you can keep them there for as long as you want to. What a sweet deal! And it worked so well for Stalin, Pinochet and many other freedom loving leaders.

As an aside, I find it interesting how the administration manages to do a front page press release whenever something that might reflect poorly on them is might show up in the paper - such as 9-11 survivors marching on the capitol demanding answers and the Phoenix FBI agent testifying before Congress about the agency's incompetence.
Speaking of the FBI. What kind of brain damaged investigation was going on with this Padilla guy, anyway? Instead of bugging and tailing him in the US and finding something about his plans and connections they arrest him as soon as he steps of the plane? And now they're probably surprised that they don't have anything to hold him on and that he's not telling them anything.