Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (150502)	12/4/2002 8:13:18 AM
From: re3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

from the toronto star... Terrorists win in lawless world RICHARD GWYN All nation-states, even the most woebegone, occupy a distinct space on the map. They have capital cities, governments, institutions. If they misbehave, they can be punished on an escalating scale from diplomatic isolation to sanctions to armed reprisals to occupation. Terrorists are utterly different. They are nowhere and anywhere. They could be your neighbour or sit next to you on a plane or bus. They do not fear punishment, except from their organizations and from God. How then to defend against terrorists? Intense security measures are obviously necessary but these can only minimize the instances of terror, not eliminate them entirely. As valuable are reprisal attacks against terrorists, such as those by the U.S. against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But, as Osama bin Laden's escape confirms, this again minimizes the terrorist threat without eliminating it. A last option is to attack the terrorists before they themselves attack. To harass them, disrupt them, force them to disperse and hide. Most simply, to kill them before they can kill others. This doctrine of preventive deterrance has just been announced by Australian Prime Minister John Howard. He has claimed the right to attack terrorists in Asia who may attempt a repetition of the massacre at Bali that killed some 200 people, most of them Australians. Howard's statement — which presupposes an Australian right to invade the sovereignty of other countries — has been criticized severely by several of his Asian neighbours, including Indonesia and Thailand. Howard himself is an inarticulate type, rather in the manner of Jean Chrétien. His gift — he's highly popular — is for the language of ordinary people. His comment in a private conversation with one of the survivors of the Bali massacre — "You've got 19 million mates" — landed on the front pages of every newspaper. For a more considered description of the Howard doctrine, turn to a speech by his Defence Minister, Robert Hill. Hill first distanced himself from the obvious comparison, namely the U.S.' recent enunciation of a doctrine of "pre-emptive defence." Washington's new National Security Strategy claims for the U.S. the right to "forestall or prevent a hostile act by our adversaries." As Hill pointed out, though, the U.S. expressed this right "as self-defence rather than as a distinct new doctrine." What he didn't point out — out of politeness and discretion — is that it's really only an excuse for the U.S. to attack Iraq. And Iraq is a conventional nation-state rather than a shadowy gang of terrorists. "Some would argue," said Hill, "that it is time for a new and distinct doctrine (promulgated by the United Nations) of pre-emptive action to avert a threat." Alternatively, "the international community might seek an agreement on the ambit of the right to self-defence better suited to contemporary realities." Hill ended by noting that, in the meantime, governments like his would "continue to interpret self-defence as necessary to protect their peoples and their nations' interests." This is an enormously important issue. In effect, Hill is saying that either the international rule of law is changed to allow states, like Australia, to protect their citizens by pursuing and killing terrorists all over the globe, or they will do it anyway, as the U.S. did when it sent a Predator drone to kill a carload of suspected Al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen. It is, in fact, the reverse mirror-image of the doctrine of "human security" that Canada espouses. This holds that the human rights of all people are more important than the sovereign rights of the state in which they happen to live. Liberal types therefore ought to be sympathetic to Hill and Howard. Right-wing hawks will, of course, cheer. They ought not do so too loudly, though. Armed preventive deterrance of the kind Australia is advocating can only work if the causes of terrorism are also addressed. These encompass, as rightwingers hate to ever hear mentioned, everything from the global disparities in incomes to the unending Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Terrorism has become the central fact of our times. It is going to remain that way for years, perhaps for decades. It must be defeated, to save lives of course but also to save our civil liberties which always get compromised in a war against terrorism. Our international rule of law was written for a different time. Unless it is rewritten, states are going to protect their citizens by any means available to them, including, which was the point Hill was making with skill and subtlety, the unlawful. By creating a world of lawlessness, the terrorists will have won.