The New York Stock Exchange reopened today. Every community across the country held special prayer services and memorial services and some held interfaith dialogues with Muslims, Christians and Jews, from late last week through yesterday. The FBI is seeking broader wiretap authority. The military reserves are being called up. There is much "war" talk. Alliances are being announced. The use of ground troops, which has been taboo since Viet Nam, is seriously being discussed. There is much emphasis on defense of U.S. territory, with fighter pilots on high alert, and making routine patrols above Washington, DC, among other places.
The questions now involve how much privacy we must give up to increase our security to an acceptable level. And how much inconvenience we must expect when checking in at an airport. And how much ticket prices must increase to cover the costs of extra security. And how much the economy must suffer because of uncertainty and loss of investment and consumption. Will international trade decrease? If so, will domestic production increase?
All the talk about "evil" and the desire to eliminate it from the world seems very simplistic. I think we can understand this desire and its specific reference to terrorism and more specifically to violent acts against civilians. But what is evil to our side is good to the other side. And likewise, our acts of violence to our enemies may be seen as good to our side. "Good & evil" in the context on one country's legal system is translated into "legal and illegal." We avoid provocative labels like good and evil when we discuss income tax evasion or spouse abuse or even murder. And we believe implicitly in the rule of law to govern rules of evidence and rights of the accused and questions of procedure, etc. We provide for juries of our peers, and appeals to higher courts, etc. It would seem that when dealing with this "terrorist attack" we should avoid loaded language like "evil" and should not seek to build popular support for an attitude of "shooting first and asking questions later." We should look for courts where this case would have standing and follow the legal precedents to bring the accused to "justice."
One commentator has already made a strong case why our "prime suspect" should not be summarily executed or assassinated, but should be tried and convicted and sentenced to life in prison: we do not want him to become a martyr and to thereby give romantic justification to his followers and would be imitators.
Monday, September 17, 2001
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment