SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (30985)10/5/2001 1:36:39 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
On the morning of September 11th, I was on the threads, when someone asked if I had seen the plane head into the World Trade Center tower. I didn't have the tv on, and so I rushed over to the tv in time to see the first replay. As the newspeople were talking, the camera stayed on the towers, and I watched with horror as the second airliner crashed into the other tower. I then knew for certain that it was a deliberate set of attacks. Awhile later, as I was watching a correspondent at the Pentagon, he mentioned hearing a crashing noise, and the next thing I knew, there was pandemonium, as the Pentagon was evacuated, and the damage assessed.

Both my wife and one sister- in- law work in Washington DC, not too far from the general area of the White House. My brother popped up on MS Messenger, and I agreed to pick them up if the city were otherwise closed down. We then sought to find out if Metro were being shut down, and to consult with our wives on whether they should come home early. It turned out that the Metro was open, and that the traffic was horrible, so driving in was inadvisable. I urged my wife to leave, before things got worse, and she did shortly thereafter.

She takes a commuter train at Union Station, and called to tell me it had been cancelled, and there was heavy security on the platform. I advised her to take the Metro into the suburbs. There is a station less than a half hour from us, by highway, and I could get her there. She went, and it turned out that they decided to provide a bus into Annapolis, so I didn't have to enter the heavy traffic. It took her hours to get home, after the initial decision.

Meanwhile, I watched the towers of the World Trade Center disintegrate in turn. The last time I had been to the WTC, I had been with a school group. We couldn't go up to the observation deck, because of a bomb threat. The time before that, also with a school group, I was talked into taking the catwalk on the roof, which is a very frightening thing to most people. I remembered the insecurity of the platform swaying in the wind, and wondered how I would feel to have the floor give way beneath me.

I have never visited the Pentagon, although I have driven past often enough. I have had friends who worked there, although I do not believe any were currently there. I thought about my father- in- law, who was in London during the Blitz. He was Eisenhower's chief clerk, and earned a Bronze Star for his excellent organizational work. During the Blitz, there was some warning, and one could seek shelter. How different, to awaken one day, go about one's routine, sit in the office, and suddenly have a big jet rammed into you. Did most of them even know what had happened? Did the passengers anticipate the end, or was there a sudden turn and then crash? There were several children from DC schools on board, on their way to a special National Geographic program on the West Coast. I thought of my first commercial flight (to New York), and how nervous I was, but how adult I felt. Did their chaperones have a chance to comfort them?

But there were also the policeman and firemen, the medics and doctors, and those who were just on the scene and helped people down stairs or carried them out of rubble. There were those in the last plane, who seemed to have overcome their captors, but who were plowed into the earth, nevertheless. There was the outpouring of grief and the desire to help, as people left candles and flowers at firestations, brought food and soda to help relieve those working on the scene. There were the sights of people gathered throughout the world, women crying in Britain as a man played dolefully on his bagpipe in front of the American Embassy, the 200,000 who showed their solidarity at the Brandenburg Gate, people in Moscow, people in Holland, a large crowd at the base of the Eiffel Tower, looking somber. People throughout the world, it seemed. But then also the more disturbing images, of Palestinians having street parties, and anti- American demonstrations in other parts of the Middle East.

So much evil, so much goodness, visible and juxtaposed. Rudy Guiliani helped to hold the city together, as President Bush held together the country. There was a sense of steadiness and determination, we somehow knew that we could get past it. We began preparing to rebuild and to retaliate, we had the eerie spectacle of politicians burying the hatchet in an extraordinary show of national unity. The President and his advisors moved methodically to put together a coalition, position troops and materiel, as the FBI scoured the country for clues and conspirators. Heroically determined crews from around the country supplemented the personnel in New York and Virginia, as they sorted through rubble for signs of life. America was showing that it was not thrown into hysteria by these events, but rather, that it could handle things, that there were still reserves in the American character that could carry us through.

America was showing the world how a great power responds to crisis. But more than that, it was showing that its character was not an abstraction, but lived in the hearts and minds of its people, people anyone would be proud to claim as countrymen...........



To: Neocon who wrote (30985)10/6/2001 12:31:08 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
We had this discussion on September 12. some folks still haven't sorted it out.

We Must Choose: Justice Or War?
By George P. Fletcher
Saturday, October 6, 2001; Page A29

Nearly a month after the events of Sept. 11 we are still confused about the right terms and analogies to describe what happened. Was it a crime calling for justice, or an attack calling for a declaration of war? Was it an aggravated case of the Oklahoma City bombing or a recurrence of Pearl Harbor? If the mass killings are the crimes of individuals -- Islamic fundamentalist versions of Timothy McVeigh -- then we can think about arresting them and bringing them to "justice." If this is an act of war, then justice is irrelevant. We should carry through on the much-discussed military campaign. And if we are at war, we should pursue our national policies without worrying about moral nuances of equally balanced scales.

Justice and war are incompatible ideas. The first is about restoring moral order in the universe. The latter is about securing the survival and achieving the partisan goals of a particular nation. Yet the Bush administration is ambivalent about whether it wants justice or war. The Pentagon initially labeled the military campaign Infinite Justice, and yet at the same time President Bush described the attack as an act of war.

The administration remains focused on Osama bin Laden as the "prime suspect," as though this were an episode of "Law and Order." And yet we are building a military alliance to respond to a devastating attack on the United States.

We should be clear about the differences between justice and war. If this is a matter of justice, then we should be focused on the individual culprits. If it's war, then the individuals are beside the point. No one cared about the individual Japanese pilots who returned safely from the attack on Pearl Harbor. They were not criminals but rather agents of an enemy power. They were not personally "guilty" of the attack, nor were their commanders, who acted in the name of the Japanese nation. The same is true of the organized terrorist movement, even though in this case the foreign power is as diffuse as the World Wide Web.

Whether this is "really" war does not depend on whether the terrorists have a fixed and well-defined territory. The network may be difficult to locate, but so are troop installations and armament factories that become targets in the case of conventional warfare. If the United States lands troops in a country for the exclusive purpose of locating and uprooting terrorist cells, there is no sound reason for indigenous armies to resist us, unless, of course, the local government wishes to support the right of terrorists to organize on its territory. The problem with calling this "war" is, therefore, grossly exaggerated.

Nonetheless the Bush administration and the media continue to obsess about one man in Afghanistan. The attorney general insists on CNN that bin Laden has been indicted and this supports the case for pursuing "justice." Some people may be afraid of the idiom of war. It sounds, well, too bellicose and dangerous. Justice sounds like a more humanitarian objective. But this is an illusion based on a misconception of the nature of war. In seeking justice, we focus on the importance of the victims and the need to vindicate their loss. But if the United States uses military force, the last thing it should think about is the interests of the victims. We should have our sights on particular policy objectives that can be achieved by employing the lamentable means of destruction and death. It is bad enough to think of war as politics by other means. But to think of war as justice by other means runs the risk of imitating the holy mission of the enemy.

Justice in punishment leads to the common understanding of the Biblical maxim of an eye for an eye. If we lost 6,000 people then they should, too! But suppose that the entire infra-structure of the terrorist movement suddenly surrendered. Or suppose its members credibly pledged never to attack again. Would we have any justification for harming a single soul? Yes, in the pursuit of justice. No, in waging war.

This shows that the aims of war can be more merciful than the imperatives of seeking moral order. Even if we desired justice, we are not in a position to pursue it. We are a party to the dispute, not a neutral judge above the fray. We cannot be both combatant and the jury of our own rectitude. We have essential national interests at stake. Our going to war is nothing more righteous than admitting the failure of politics. We have to fight if that is the only way of subduing and controlling the dangers of terrorism.

The writer is Cardozo professor of jurisprudence at Columbia University. He is the author, most recently, of "Our Secret Constitution: How Lincoln Redefined American Democracy."

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

washingtonpost.com