|
|||
The primary target in this war is people who are not guilty now but intend to become guilty in the future. We're fighting to preempt future attacks, not to punish those in the past. That's outside the purview of this or any other court. (And it should be, too; I don't like the idea of a court prosecuting people for what they think.) In response, Nell writes to me: But apparently you have no problem with bombing or assassinating people for what they're thinking... You bet your sweet ass, if that's stated slightly differently: I have no problem at all bombing people for what they're planning to do to me and mine. War has nothing to do with justice and never has. Oh, sometimes political leaders will try to claim that the war they are fighting is a "just war" for propaganda reasons, but that's never what war is about. This is right out of Clausewitz. War is always, always, fought to advance the political goals of the nations which are involved. War is always about self interest. One of the reasons why is that justice is, actually, a luxury. It's something we choose to pay for, and we pay a price. We as a people have made the decision that it is better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be punished. So we have established a system whereby the state has an obligation to prove guilt before anyone can be locked up. Since the state may not always be able to do that, it means that not all of the guilty get punished for every crime they commit. As a result, we pay the price in increased crime, but that doesn't imperil the fate of the nation. This point was made far better by someone in my discussion forum within the last couple of months, but alas I cannot find the message. To continue: when the fate of the nation itself is at stake, the price of justice is too high. Survival of the nation is the top priority, and that means that sometimes we will do unto others before they can do unto us. We cannot wait; we cannot cede first blow to all who will do us ill, for if we do we may not survive long enough to punish them afterwards. There's a cartoon character named Cerebus. In one of his early episodes he confronts a villain in an underground cavern, on a stone bridge over a chasm. The villain expects a sword fight, but Cerebus beans him on the head with a thrown rock and he falls over the side. Another character says, "That wasn't exactly fair, was it? I mean... he thought you were going to fight to the death with swords!" And Cerebus replies, "He is dead and Cerebus is alive. You can't get much fairer than that." I do not ordinarily take my philosophy from comic books (though if I were inclined to do so, Cerebus would have been a good choice, at least until it got terribly misogynistic). But Sim is onto something here: survival is more important than justice or fair play. We can afford justice when survival is not on the line. But in war, the only rule is "Do not lose." (discuss) |
|||
