| |
| |
Preemption is Better Than Cure! That's the latest political slogan you're supposed to swallow. Sounds reasonable enough - after all, I'm sure you recall a similar idea from your youth - "prevention is better than cure". Put the two phrases side by side, and your mind can easily glide over them without so much as a murmur of disquiet. That's the nature of words. They can be designed to lull you into a sense of complacency, to override your critical faculties, and to ease you into a false sense of security. And "preemption" is the new doctrine of self defence - ever since 911. The theory goes something like this: if someone is going to bomb us, then we can't simply wait until they actually do, but must act BEFORE they do - preemptively, and hit them before they hit us. The picture conjured up here is of two prize fighters - facing off in the ring. Obviously, in a situation like this - you don't wait to be knocked out first! But is this a valid strategy for conducting world affairs? I say, most definitely, no. First the "boxing ring" analogy is way off. In that scenario each fighter is there with the explicit purpose of knocking the other out - and becoming the winner. There is no doubt as to the motives or resultant actions of both parties. It's a foregone conclusion. However, in the case of a potential or feared attack by another nation - a much greater standard of assessment and judgement is required. If you are going to attack a country preemptively, then you need to know a few things for sure - like the other country is definitely going to attack you. But how can you know this? You need hard evidence and intelligence that forewarns you of an imminent attack. Speculation is not enough. Fear is not enough. You need absolute proof that you are about to be attacked - before you can attack the other country as an act of self defence. To illustrate this principle more clearly, take a look at how a preemptive defence strategy would work between two individuals. Imagine you and your neighbour don't get on. This "neighbourly" feud has been brewing for a while. First it started with him cutting branches off your trees - which were hanging over his side of the fence - and throwing them into your garden. And when you threw the vegetation back over to your neighbour's side - the next thing you knew was he was dumping his dog's poo on your front lawn. Naturally, you scooped it up and put it his letter box! A recipe for escalating confrontation for sure. But it gets worse. Now your neighbour is regularly trashing your mail, making obscene phone calls in the night - and inviting his friends around for all night house parties, with exceptionally loud music. You've had enough. You want revenge. No one at city hall appears to be able to put a halt to your nasty neighbour's actions. You decide to get heavy and threaten him in some way - some form of bodily harm. And at this point, it is your neighbour who complains, and calls in the police. He tells them about your threat - and you get a visit - and a warning! You've had it with your neighbour. You shake your fist at him through your window - and throw in a few juicy expletives for good measure - "I'll f_____g kill you, you bastard!" Your neighbour is fearful now. He's taken your threat literally, and is convinced you WILL do him some serious bodily harm. But he's no pussy (and he IS a little looney) - so he storms into your house one night, very late, and shoots you in the head. End of story - for you. But not for your neighbour. He's taken away and charged with first degree murder. And his only defence is you were a threat to him, and that he was convinced you were going to kill him. So he decided to get you first. Would this defence plea stand up in court - hell no! Not a chance. He'd be laughed out of court (well, not quite). The reason is very simple. Even though you threatened bodily harm to your neighbour, he had no right to kill you, just because he "thought' you might kill him. Sure, if YOU had woken up as your neighbour was about to pull the trigger, you'd be absolutely within your rights to do everything possible to protect yourself - including shooting him. However, HE doesn't have that same right, because you were not holding a gun to his head when he killed you. So the question is this: why should the law be applied differently in the case of two individuals - as opposed to two nations? If a person cannot kill another - in preemptive self defence, then how can one nation "kill" another on those very same grounds? The moral and legal answer is - they can't. The idea that one nation can attack another - with no more than some paranoid idea that they "could" be attacked, and need to act first - is a very dangerous development in international relations. For one nation to attack another, in preemptive self defence, it would need incontrovertible proof of an imminent attack - from sources such as direct observation (images, message intercepts), and various forms of verifiable intelligence. However, events subsequent to 911 have turned a long-standing moral and legal principle on its head - and delivered a disturbing new precedent in the definition of "self defence". Now, don't go telling me that Saddam Hussein posed a clear and imminent threat to others. The fact is he didn't - not to people OUTSIDE Iraq. But "evidence" was cooked up, rhetoric was prime- pumped, and fear was communicated by the mass media. Before long, large numbers of people saw him as some latter-day Hitler, bent on world conquest. This raises another difficult question. How do we know when our respective governments are telling us the truth anyway? How can we know that a planned act of preemptive self defence is warranted? How can we verify the information available to our "leaders". You and I don't have our own satellites, or secret service. We don't have the ability to send our own news correspondents to find out directly. In other words, we are at the mercy of those who claim to represent our best interests. In my judgement the aftermath of 911 has proven, without doubt, that the world has got a lot more dangerous - precisely because of this new preemptive self defence doctrine, as implemented by the USA. They have let the genie out of the bottle. Now, other nations can also rightfully consider the ramifications of this new self defence policy - in their own "national" interest. But it gets much darker and disturbing than that. The doctrine of preemptive self defence is a useful "power tool" that can just as easily be applied WITHIN the borders of a nation - against its own citizens. In fact, preemptive self defence is the ideal weapon to fight "thought crime" (as in Orwell's novel "1984'). And it is the theme of "Minority Report" - the movie starring Tom Cruise. If you saw that movie, you will recall how the legal system had been turned on its head, due to the ability to read the minds of potential criminals. As a result, those committing "thought crimes" (who were thinking of committing crimes), could then be tracked down, caught and imprisoned - before any ACTUAL crime had been committed. The thought itself became the crime. The issue at stake here is the distinction between a thought and an action. Our whole tradition of law and morality is based on the concept that you may "think" murder - but can only be convicted of it, if you actually COMMIT murder. Any wide acceptance of the concept of preemptive self defence, can only have dire consequences for both international AND domestic law and order - not to mention, the very concept of justice. Would you be prepared to be arrested and imprisoned - just because someone else believed you harboured nasty thoughts about them, and that they believed you might harm them? In such a world, you'd be a hapless victim of anyone's twisted paranoia. Well, it's the same between nations. If this preemptive defence doctrine gains any more traction internationally - then no one will be safe from the arbitrary judgement of upstart power-hungry politicians. Yours in freedom David MacGregor | ||||
| | | | |