Justice, not Terror

Great Debates
1

I just received this email that I want to share. I, too, am frightened and dismayed by the drumbeats I hear for war.

Dear Friend of MoveOn,

Thousands of you participated in our online discussion this weekend.
The heartfelt and clear-headed suggestions are a real breath of
fresh air from the drumbeat for war we hear on TV.

It’s important to let our leaders know that Americans won’t support
playing into the terrorists’ hands by responding with escalating
violence.

http://www.moveon.org/justice/

One of the top-rated suggestions was to send the following letter
to the President and Congressional Representatives:

To combat terrorism, we must act in accordance with a high
standard that does not disregard the lives of people in other
countries. If we retaliate by bombing Kabul and kill people
oppressed by the Taliban dictatorship who have no part in
deciding whether terrorists are harbored, we become like the
terrorists we oppose. We perpetuate the cycle of retribution
and recruit more terrorists by creating martyrs. Please do
everything you can to counsel patience as we search for those
responsible. Please ensure that our actions reflect the
sanctity of human life everywhere. Thank you.

We’ve mounted a petition campaign, called “Justice, not Terror”,
that delivers exactly this message. Please add your voice at:

http://www.moveon.org/justice/

Your participation is extremely important in breaking the myth
that Americans support senseless bloodletting. Send an instant
message to Washington and tell your friends at:

http://www.moveon.org/justice/

If you haven’t participated in our discussion forum, go to:

http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=220

The thoughts posted are really wonderful. It gives me renewed
hope for our future.

Sincerely,

“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending
spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead
of diminishing evil, it multiplies it… Through violence you
may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact,
violence merely increases hate… Returning violence for
violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a
night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out hate;
only love can do that.”

  • Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
2

I would love to get an answer to this question:

Assuming we know that (a) bin Laden is in Afganistan; (b) he is responsible for the attack; and © Afhanistan will not give him up, then how do you suggest we go about obtaining the “justice” you claim you want?

Because it seems to me that a lot of you don’t really want justice. You want peace. And if the two are not compatible – as they apparently are not in this case – which do you choose? There is no censure in choosing either, and I respect those who would choose peace. But I would not; I would choose justice.

3

So who’s suggesting we just bomb the crap out of civilians in Kabul, anyway? All the serious discussions I’ve seen have been about taking out bin Laden, his organization, and the governments that support him. That’s a far cry from targeting innocent civilians.

4

While the sentiments expressed are noble and humanitarian, they aren’t useful. Once we get the smoking gun that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bin Laden planned and executed the WTC and Pentagon plane crashes AND the Taliban knew and approved, what then? The terrorists are hiding among innocent people, so that does preclude us from taking action? Even if we send in a team of assassins, the chances are high that innocent people will be killed.

We waged war on Germany and Japan, even though the populations of both countries had nothing to do with their governments’ policies, because the costs of NOT waging war were incalculably higher. It seems to me that we must weigh the cost to life by destroying Bin Laden and the Taliban versus the cost to life if we leave the scum free to commit further large-scale atrocities.

5

I suggest that justice cannot be gained through precipitious action, but only through a sustained, global cooperative effort. I find it maddening that every advocate of restraint is met with a request to give specific solutions, or is accused of weakness, naivete or of lying about our motivations.

Y’know what? I don’t have a detailed plan of action. I can tell you why I think it’s foolish to disregard the moderate Islamic voices which are now raised in our behalf in the Middle East and Asia, but I can’t give you a diplomatic blueprint for gaining their continued cooperation. I can show you dramatic examples of the cycle of violence experienced between Israel and Palestine, and between the British government and the IRA, but I can’t show you dramatic results from peace efforts, because those efforts don’t produce drama. I can caution against playing into the perception bin Laden wants us to create of a war between the US and Islam, but I can only give examples of what would play into the perception. I can recommend consulting with the Arab and Muslim world over our pursuit of this war against terrorism, but then I suppose someone would accuse me of appeasement.

For one, US Senator Zell Miller of Georgia, whose official statement on the events of Sept 11, 2001 contains the following language:

That kind of political rhetoric is a major reason for the petition shared with us by JillGat.

6

XENOPHON, can I then assume that your answer to my question is that you don’t know? Or do you argue that your position includes justice for the victims? If so, where is it? That is not a belligerent question but a serious one, because I frankly don’t see it.

I apologize if it maddens you, but surely you can see that inaction is entirely incompatible with justice. So it seems to me to be an entirely reasonable question to ask that if you do not like the action being proposed, what would you propose instead? To propose nothing is the same as counseling inaction. I trust you see why that is not an option.

I would also point out that no one here has accused anyone of “weakness, naivete, or lying.” I fully recognize that emotional times lead to hot exchanges, but it seems to me to be counterproductive of you to anticipate insults where none have been offered. Let’s try to keep the discussion civil for as long as we can.

7

As stupid as Zell Miller’s comments were, xeno, there is still an important distinction between intentionally targeting innocents and killing them incidentally to a strike on a legitimate military target. Avoiding civilian casualties is undoubtedly a good thing, but not so good that it should dissuade us from putting the bad guys permanently out of business.

8

I would also add, and without any malice or anger, that I have read the e-mail carefully several times now, and while they may call their campaign “Justice, Not Terror,” it appears to be entirely free of any mention of justice, much less any discussion how we can obtain it.

9

Surely there must be a middle path between Godfrey de Bouillon (“Kill them all, God will know His own”) and Neville Chamberlain (“We have achieved peace in our time”).

10

GOBEAR, please answer my question, posted above.

11

Jodi, I’m not counselling inaction. This is similar to the discussion in Fenris’s 'Pit thread about causes and consequences; I don’t want to give the impression I don’t want any action. I just don’t want Zell’s type of action.

The answer to your question about justice is unreservedly YES, I want justice for the victims. That means not only bringing to ground every piece of garbage on the FBI’s suspect list, it means destroying every bit of that terrorist network we can find. It means sustaining the international disgust with terrorism that currently exists. It means making sponsorship of terrorism so insanely dangerous economically and militarily that those states which currently sponsor terrorist organizations cease to do so.

I think I have the same goals as this administration, and of those who’ve advocated swift and severe military action. However, I think any perception that these goals can be achieved quickly and without cooperation from many of the nations from within which terrorists operate is shortsighted. I’m not against military action! But it must have at least the grudging acceptance of moderate Islamic elements. At the moment, this includes Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even Iran and the PLO; let’s not squander the opportunity to fundamentally change the relationship between the US and legitimate Muslim authorites.

12

If you mean this,
quote]
Assuming we know that (a) bin Laden is in Afganistan; (b) he is responsible for the attack; and © Afhanistan will not give him up, then how do you suggest we go about obtaining the “justice” you claim you want?

[/quote]

I already posted an answer

I support going to war, even though we’re going to kill innocent people because we cannot let the terrorists get away without being punished. However, we want to be very clear that we want the support of moderate Arab states like Jordan, and that we are not just mindlessly blowing up people out of revenge, but prosecuting a war that tragically involves sacrificing innocents to prevent greater evils.

13

XENO –

Well, neither do I. But as GOBEAR so rightly pointed out, “bomb the shit out of them” and “do nothing” are not our only options.

A third is a planned and armed invasion of Afganistan to extract bin Laden by force. Those who prefer that option over bombing – perfectly legitimate if they do – should be clear that they realize that by choosing that course of action they are exchanging American casualties for Afghan ones.

First, I believe we do have the support of moderate Muslim nations – rather surprisingly unequivocal support, in fact. Second, I see no indication that we have done anything to “squander” it – what actions are you referring to when you talk of us “squandering” it? Third, if you do oppose military action, do you agree with the e-mail that bombing makes us just like terrorists ourselves? Would you prefer a ground war? What type of military action is it you support?

My point is that your position as set forth in your last post appears to me to be at odds with the sentiments expressed in the e-mail, which IMO clearly extolls pacifism without regard to justice, and which certainly doesn’t explain how we can have both. Frankly, and unfortunately, I don’t think we can – unless the Afghanis turn bin Laden over, which it appears they will not.

14

Let the US go into Afghanistan.

They will not be able to do this across the ground, because those countries which border Afghanistan have either stated their refusal to accommodate US troops (Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, Turkmenistan), or have yet to decide on the matter (Pakistan). The fifth neighbour is Iran.

There are 135 million people in Pakistan, most whom follow Islam. That’s the reason the country was set up in the first place, to give Indian Muslims a separate home.

Moderate Pakistani politicians are saying that allowing US ground forces into Pakistan is a recipe for civil war. I believe this to be a probability rather than a possibility, but it’s not my call.

So, the US goes into Afghanistan by air. Bullets are fired in the quest to find Osama bin Laden but he’s not there any more. He’s slipped across the border into Pakistan. This border remains open, and even if it was closed it would not be difficult for determined men to get across.

Osama bin Laden has supporters in Pakistan, and these people hide him and refuse to give him up. This embarrasses the Pakistani government, who are beginning to wish, like the rest of us, that they had never heard of Osama bin Laden.

We now have a known terrorist, the world’s most wanted man, in Pakistan. Messrs Bush and Blair, using unwise rhetoric, have promised to eradicate terrorism from this planet. Necessary measures to achieve this include targetting countries who harbour terrorists.

It is Mr. Bush’s move. 135 million Muslims prepare for civil war in Pakistan. 1 billion and more Muslims, most of them moderate and thus far supportive of the US, all of them scattered across almost every nation in the world, wait to see what is going to happen. The Western world looks on, many of them waiting for Mr. Bush to fulfill his promise to get Osama bin Laden.

What, pray, is Mr. Bush going to do now?

15

GOBEAR, thanks for your answer. NOSTRADAMUS, could I have yours? Do you suggest that we refrain from going because you consider the war unwinnable? What would you suggest be done instead?

16

Jodi, from your questions, I’m not sure you’re actually reading my posts completely. Please take some time if you need to before you ask me questions regarding positions I haven’t taken. Thank you.

17

XENO, if I have misrepresented or misinterpreted what you have said, then I apologize. Please take a moment to point out where I have done so and I will of course correct it. Thank you.

18

Jodi, I don’t know the answer to your question. Honestly, I don’t know.

We are entering uncharted waters here. We have enemies in many countries, although these enemies are thus far low in numbers. The US cannot afford to get on the wrong side of over 1 billion Muslims, that is for sure. The US, and its allies, might win eventually but at what cost?

More importantly, I don’t think Mr. Bush, and Mr. Blair, know what to do either. I am not sure that either of them appreciate the causes of terrorism, how it is spawned, how it is spread, and how it works.

So, what does Mr. Bush do in the circumstances I have described?

19

NOSTRADAMUS, thank you for answering my question.

To answer yours, I don’t know what he does under a worst-case scenario such as you set forth. But neither do I believe that such a hypothetical changes what must be done now, which is to bring bin Laden to justice, by force if necessary – as it appears likely it will be.

Again, and without attacking anyone here (or elsewhere) – I have heard many people decry the cost of a military action, both to the Afghanis and to us Americans. But I have not heard anyone offer an alternative solution that is not a total abdication of our duty to seek justice. So I favor military action – including bombing – because I see no other choice. I would gladly embrace a less costly and grim solution, if I could think of one.

20

Jodi, the miscommunication is probably lack of clarity in my posts, so I’ll just state the relevant items I think I must not have been clear on.

I agree with you that we have unprecedented support for military action from countries we would not have expected to support us a week ago. I do NOT think anyone has squandered that support at this point.

I think targeted bombing is an option, but, like Nostradamus, I think we must be very careful with that option, as it is likely to cost us support if we’re perceived as being too accepting of civilian casualties.

I think a continuing military presence in quite a few areas of the world may be necessary, including troops in Afghanistan. I think military actions there (Afghanistan) should ideally be in support of anti-Taliban forces, and that we should focus on stabilizing that government before we can concentrate on extracting bin Laden.

And I want to reemphasize how critical I believe it is that we pursue cooperative relationships with those moderate elements straddling the fence on US relations.