September
17, 2001
The administration and most of the press tells
us, over and over, that we are in a war
against an evil enemy. The
choice of this language is crucial to what happens next. The word "evil" stigmatizes
anyone who would point out what makes these terrible actions seem necessary
to their perpetrators. If we
cannot speak or think about them, then we are helpless to deal with the conditions
that will continue to generate angry and lethal action against us even if
military action could destroy every currently active enemy operative.
It is both morally and pragmatically essential
that we acknowledge the real and deep grievances of
Palestinians, Iraqis, and many other third-world victims of American
economic and military domination. But
this should not prevent us from calling these massive attacks on civilian
populations criminal acts. We
can understand and sympathize with the motives of these men, but why should
that stand in the way of condemning, morally and legally, the acts themselves?
Killing innocent people is a crime regardless of circumstances that
give rise to it. If we would oppose the destruction of
Afghan cities and villages as a war crime, then destroying American buildings
which are the size of cities is also a crime.
The administration and their cheerleaders in the
media are talking war. Consider
how the word "war" structures what we must do. War is a whole-sale action directed against a nation
and a people, not against specific responsible individuals. War does not require
proof of guilt; nations go to war without a trial: shoot first and ask questions
later. War permits and expects the loss of innocent lives, which counts as
"collateral damage". War
expects the enemy to respond in kind to our destruction, so we go to war expecting
to be attacked in return, and that we will, in turn, retaliate. War is not a path to justice, but
only a contest of endurance, bloody-mindedness, and resources.
Instead of saying we are at war, we should be
saying a crime has been committed.
This word structures what we do very differently. It calls for an investigation, for
arrest, and for a public trial. At
the trial, evidence can show the damage done and the responsibility for
it. Mitigating circumstances can
be recognized -- in this case, the oppression and inequality I spoke of
earlier, and these should be addressed.
Just as victims of ordinary crime do not act as
judge, jury and executioner of those who have injured them, so the US alone
should not act unilaterally to accuse and retaliate against the groups and
nations who may be behind Tuesday's tragedies. The judgments that need to be made will have authority only
if they are made by internationally supported institutions which the US does
not control. Otherwise in the eyes
of the world we are no less vigilantes, no less outlaws, than those who
attacked us.
I'm
Clayton Morgareidge for the Old Mole Variety Hour
May 18, 2005