Vince has asked some extremely difficult questions. I come form the UK, so a lot of his direct references to the US constitution I read more generally. Really these hard questions apply to all of us in the free world, of which America is the symbolic head, and for which it paid such a terrible price a few days ago.. > Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 23:06:18 -0400 > From: Vince Lavieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Questions NJC > This is a first draft of questions that I am formulating. I would > appreciate response, off list if people so choose. But I ask these > questions in all sincerity. > 1. We hear that our nation must exercise military action against the > Taliban because of the evil nature of the Taliban. If this is so, why > was there no talk of war against the Taliban on September 10th or any > day prior? Perhaps because, up to that point, it was regarded as somebody else's problem. It was all happening elsewhere. > 2. If we take military action against the Taliban because we think it > is an evil, oppressive, regime, is this nation then not taking an action > that says that we are the judge of all other nations? Why then couldn't > another nation go to war against us because they think that our > government is evil and oppressive? Who is to be the judge of the > governments of other nations? Where does the going to war because of > dislike of other nations or their governments stop? Good question. It would seem that all you need is the conviction that you are right. Which presumeably is something that the Taliban has in common with the US/UK etc. This immediately gets us into a corner from which the only exit lies through the door called 'war'. Perhaps this is where tolerance should come in. And also, perhaps this is where an international court to try people accused of crimes against humanity and terrorism might be an alternatyive. It would require an international police force of course. The effectivemness and abilities of sucha police force and such a court would have to be agreed by all participating nations, and maintianed by the same. > 3. Should we take military action against the Taliban because of our > opinion of its government and its values, then innocent people will be > killed. That is the reality of war. How then does that differ from > someone killing innocent people in our country because of their opinion > of our government and its values? Because of the loss of innocent life, > what would distinguish us - other than our opinion of ourselves - from > those who did the evil acts of September 11th? Or does anyone think we > can to war without having any civilians killed? This is precisely the question I put to a friend of mine. He felt that it was a little 'below the belt' - in other words, I made a connection! In the end the only response of any substance he could come up with, was that we would rather that innocents were not killed in the conflict, whereas they don't seem to give a damn. I wonder though. If we start killing innocent people in Afghanistan, how would it look to the relations of their dead? > 4. A reason cited often about the evil of the Taliban is their > treatment of women. I agree that their treatment is horrible - > according to our understandings. Do we possess universal truth and > stand ready to wage war against those whose values differ from ours? Hmmm. Maybe we do. But there are obviously a lot of people who would disagree. > From the viewpoint of the fundamentalists who condemn our nation, the > events of September 11th were justified because of what they perceive > as the corruption of our society/culture and point to our alcoholism, > drugs, materialism, and values, and because of our corruptness that is > so world-wide pervasive. Thus, they were justified in these heinous acts > of terrorism. If we feel that their acts of terrorism against our > people - because of their view of how we live - was wrong, then how can > we justify military action against them because of how they live? Bible and the Koran both say that it is wrong to kill people. We don't think that alcoholism is good either. Our defence of our way of life can only be for the GOOD things about it. We must not, however, attack a whole people for the actions of a few evil individuals. > 5. If we deplore the treatment of women under the Taliban, how will war > with Afghanistan be good for the women of Afghanistan? Women and > children will be killed in our taking military action against the > Taliban. Will their deaths improve their lives? No. > 5a. Do we have weapons of war that will kill only adult males and spare > the women and children? And would that be any better? No, we don't. No, it wouldn't. > 5b. Are there ways that do not include war that we act on behalf of the > women of Afghanistan? Maybe if given their choice, they would prefer to > forgo education rather than suffer war and have us find alternate ways > to assist them. For sure, if they were given a choice, they may decide on another way of life. They don't have the choice. And we are back to the question of how much right does one nation have to interfere with another? > 6. The United States is precious to us all because of what it stands > for, what is basic to our self understanding. A basic American > principle is "innocent until proven guilty." Read the Constitution - > the 7th Amendment preserves the right to trial by jury for a civil suit > of $20 or more. Are we less concerned about having a presentation of > the evidence against bin Laden than we are for $20? I suppose you could argue that Bin Laden isn't a citizen of the US and so should not have the advantage of it's constitution. This is also probably a good time at which to repeat the subject of an international court/police force. This is something that has been strongly argued for, but which the US has rejected. It prefers to be the de facto 'policeman of the world', without being answerable to the world for it's actions in the way that a police force in a democracy is. > We have had yet no proof offered of Osama bin Laden's complicity in the > terrorism of September 11th. Do we adhere to the basic principles of > America only when the times are easy and abandon what makes America > great by casting out our basic principles when times are very difficult? There is proof, even admission of association at least, I think, with respect to the bombing of US embassies in Africa, and in the bombing of the WTC in the early 90s. That's probably enough to be in keeping with these principles. > Why not lay out our evidence against bin Laden in the war crimes > tribunal in the Hague, or in the United Nations, offering bin Laden the > choice to be present and rebut the evidence? We are defending the > United States after all, and the American way of life, so let us do it > the American way, as Americans, proud of our Constitution. Let me quote > the 6th Amendment: > > "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a > speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district > wherein the > crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been > previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and > cause of the > accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have > compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the > > assistance of counsel for his defense. " Difficult in this case to see how Bin Laden would get an impartial jury in New York. Again, an international court would be better suited. He would never voluntarily attend of course, and so, if he is found guilty you are still stuck with the question of what action you take next. > If we cannot lay out the evidence before the world before we take > actions, we are violating the 6th Amendment, we violate the > Constitution, and we do harm to our own selves and what makes the United > States what it is. Are we ready to abandon the rule of law for the rule > of revenge? Are we ready to abandon our self-control in the heat of the > legitimate emotions we are feeling? This is the biggest long term danger that the US faces. It risks alienating the people who are coming on board at the moment by acting precipitously. Even in the unlikely event that bombing Afghanistan succeeds in killing Bin Laden and his cronies, in the long run, a lot of ammunition will be given to America's enemies who argue it's arrogance and irresponsibility. Other nations currently in the alliance will be seen to be equally 'guilty'. Bush's statement that all other nations are either with the US or with the terrorists, would seem to mean that nobody has the right to criticise the US in any degree whatsoever. It gives the US carte blanche to take any action it sees fit. Where then the 'alliance'? Indeed, where then is democracy, if no-one except the US has a legitimate voice? We have to remember in all of this, that this attack was an attack against the 'free world' - not just America. The UK suffered hundreds of casualties on that day, and dozens of other nations too. If this was an attack on all of us, then all of us have a right to respond. Not just the US. > 6a. For those who say that we cannot lay out evidence because it would > compromise security, not only does that violate the Constitution but it > is the tired old excuse of every dictatorship, every oppressive regime, > ever. In a free society, in our country, we do not have "secret > evidence." "Secret evidence" was the mainstay of the Soviet Union, Nazi > Germany, Idi Amin's Uganda, South Africa under apartheid, perhaps the > Taliban for all I know. I love my country and do not want it to go that > route. Do you? No. It's a tough call though isn't it? Evidence given out at this point will almost certainly help the terrorists to evade capture and justice. But it is indeed also the excuse given by oppressive regimes. > 6b. If we wage military action against Afghanistan to get at bin Laden, > we are waging war against a people - and thus innocent people will die. > How is that different from the deaths of innocent people on September > 11? I don't think that war should be waged against the Afghan people. I'm sure the vast majority of them disagree with his ideas and actions as much as we do. So, it is no different. Innocent people are innocent people. Thou shall not kill. > 6c. If Chile were to demand Henry Kissinger be handed over to a certain > death because of his well-documented role in the CIA's involvement in > the overthrow of Allende, and the terrorism that followed done by our > chosen leader, Pinochet, 3,000 Chileans "disappeared," would we turn > Kissinger over? Would Chile have the right to go to war against us? If > Chile says, if you support him, we will wage war on you, will we say, > well, ok, here you go, take Henry? Vince, you ask a very difficult question here. And it goes to the heart of one of the main reasons why there is so much resentment of the US around the world. It is very difficult to argue that what happened in Chile (and several other countries south of the US) weren't examples of the US sponsoring terrorism. Indeed, the Soviet Union would probably have described the help that the US gave Bin Laden in the Afghan war only a few years ago as 'state sponsored terrorism'. I'm not saying it was myself. But you can imagine that to a lot of people on the receiving end, this is exactly what it looks like. > 6d. There have been ample studies of the effects of war on people. The > results are counter-productive to the intended goal. People are not > cowered, they get united in their opposition to those who wage war > against them. We are not cowered by the events of September 11th; it > brought us together. London was not cowered by the Blitz; it brought > London together. Dresden was not cowered by the fire raids and carpet > bombing; they fought all the harder. Why do we think that if we take > military action against Afghanistan, the Taliban will crumble rather > than have its people rally around it? Again, good point. It will undoubtedly happen that the Taliban will find thousands of recruites amongst an otherwise ambivalent or even heretofor hostile population. > 7. What happens if bin Laden was not involved? What happens if it > turns out others were responsible? Do we go after bin Laden because of > his associations? That would violate basic principles in American > law. Again, the proofs must be laid out. Agin though, he is known to have been involved in earlier acts of terrorism. But the point here should be that the 'war against terrorism' should be that. Not a vendetta against a few individuals, but a multi-fronted attack on all the things that give breath to these people wherever they are. > 8. We strike at Afghanistan because we are victims of terrorism. In large > parts of the world, we will be seen as the evil actor and aggressor for > the overkill of our response, and for terror or war that we will inflict > as a natural consequence of war. Thus there will be those who will seek > vengeance on us through acts of terrorism against us. Thus our military > actions will not make us safer, but more vulnerable. Violence begets > violence; the blood of dead Afghans will be the nourishment for others > to take up the cause of terrorism against the United States. When does > the cycle of violence end, and when will we break it? The truth is Vince, that the cycle of violence will go on and on, because there are enough hurting people around to will it to. It will end when peoples with differing lifestyles are willing to be tolerant of each other, but frankly, the lesson of history is that it seldom happens at all, and even then, doesn't last. We should remember though, that having laws and a police force doesn't mean that no crimes are commited. Only that we have a mechanisn for catching the culprits. Whatever action we take now, will only mean at best that we can develope a system of control of terrorism. One of Tony Blair's slogans of a few years ago was, 'Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.' He has been seen to be neither, of course. But the sentiment would seem to be a good one. Can the free world be 'Tough on terrorism, tough on the causes of terrorism.'? > 9. Timothy McVeigh referred to the death of the children in the bombing > of the Murrah Building as "collateral damage." We were all correctly > appalled at his language and his thinking. In war, in the military > action that we propose, our government has already said that of course > the nature of war means collateral damage - the deaths of children and > other innocents. Why is collateral damage wrong when done by McVeigh > and right when done by our military acting on behalf of our nation? Collateral damage is the killing of innocents. It was wrong on the 11th of September. It will be wrong tomorrow. The easy mental cop-out is to say, "Well they're all guilty, they should have done something about it themselves if they thought otherwise. Kill 'em all." I've come across a few people like that recently (I'm talking off-list), and in every case, they prefaced such remarks with, "I'm not a racist, but..." > 10. Back to the Constitution which is the essence of what it means to > be an American - a nation of laws, not people. Do we violate our own > legal procedures by having no evidence, no proofs, no place where we lay > these things out for the international community to judge, no place for > bin Laden to hear the evidence against him (6th Amendment), no place to > gain a verdict in our favor that would give such moral force to our > cause of seeking punishment on those who did these terrorist acts on > September 11? Frankly, I wouldn't be upset if Bin Laden was to come to a painfull and drawn out death. It would please me most if, at the end of his excruciating torment, he realised the evil that he has sponsored, and that he will not go to heaven. But you are right again, I think. If we have laws that reflect what we think is right, then we are on shakey ground if we then start being selective about how we apply them. > Law, and our following that law, following the covenant of the > Constitution that makes us a nation of law, this defines the United > States and makes us the beacon of justice that we are. It is essential > to our nation especially at this time to adhere to our Constitution. > There must be a trial - before the War Crimes Tribunal, in absentia for > bin Laden if he so chooses, or in the United Nations, but someplace. > England and Libya came to agreement on how to try those accused in the > Lockerbee bombing. We can certainly do the same if we seek that route. > We must confirm our self-control and not act impulsively out of the > emotions of the events. > > The rule of law is essential to America. The last question: do you know > the words to "America," the words to "O beautiful for spacious skies." > I provide them for those who do not know all three verses: > > O beautiful for spacious skies, > For amber waves of grain; > For purple mountain majesties > Above the fruited plain! > America! America! > God shed His grace on thee, > And crown thy good with brotherhood, > From sea to shining sea. > > O beautiful for heroes proved > In liberating strife, > Who more than self their country loved, > And mercy more than life! > America! America! > May God thy gold refine, > Till all success be nobleness, > And every gain divine. > > O beautiful for patriot dream > That sees beyond the years > Thine alabaster cities gleam, > Undimmed by human tears! > America! America! > God mend thine every flaw, > Confirm thy soul in self control, > Thy liberty in law.
