|
|
Looking for a previous front page story? "It's Crime, Not War" Argues Fletcher Professor Hurst Hannum
"It's Crime, Not War" Argues Fletcher Professor Hurst Hannum By proclaiming that the United States is "at war," President George W. Bush has given the terrorists just what they want -- status and importance. However, a more appropriate and effective approach would be to treat those who attacked Washington and New York as what they are -- criminals who should be pursued and brought to justice, not martyrs to an ill-defined cause. Terrorism has long been considered a special form of crime, but a crime nonetheless. The murder of over 6,000 people is particularly heinous, but it is the moral equivalent of crimes against humanity and genocide, neither of which need to be committed during war in order to be condemned. Even equating the World Trade Center's suicide bombers with World War II "kamikaze" pilots does a disservice to the latter, who are regarded by their countrymen as heros who sacrificed their lives to support their nation in wartime -- a description that would fit many American soldiers, as well. Terrorists don't want to be seen as criminals, akin to drug lords or child molesters, and they spend a great deal of time proclaiming their "higher" goals. The Administration apparently accepts this distinction, since it has missed the opportunity to label the hijackers as murderers and has instead exalted them to the status of a quasi-government with which we can go to war. "This is a new kind of evil," declared the President, reinforcing the notion that killing enough people removes the perpetrators from the company of murderers and madmen. Rather than being seen as a motley collection of disgruntled fanatics (the way in which most Americans might describe Timothy McVeigh), the terrorists are now the "enemy", with all of the status that term implies. In addition to rewarding large-scale terrorism by raising it above mere crime, the rhetoric of war has led the Administration to promise what it cannot deliver. President Bush has declared that "we will rid the world of the evil-doers" by embarking on a "crusade," an uncomfortable parallel to the "holy war" that it is claimed is being waged against us. We have not only elevated terrorism to something beyond crime, but we have adopted the terrorists' rhetoric, as well. Fighting crime is an ongoing effort, whether the crime is domestic or transnational. It demands perseverance, frustrating attention to incremental advances, and the "bother" of evidence and fair trials. All that law enforcement officials can do -- and it is a lot -- is to promise to be vigilant, to pursue criminals to the utmost of their ability, and to ensure that crime does not dictate the way in which Americans will live. They cannot guarantee that each of us will be free from crime everywhere, always. Winning a war, on the other hand, promises just that -- total victory and defeat of the enemy, not just deterrence and punishment. But that goal is impossible to achieve against terrorism and assassination, just as it is impossible to completely eliminate murder and rape from society. Americans will inevitably be frustrated by the inability of the United States to put an end to terrorism for all time, and that frustration may encourage the military and their civilian commanders to push just a little farther, to attack supporters as well as terrorists, to bomb villages rather than training camps.... all in the name of winning the "war". Declaring a "war" against terrorism also may be used to justify tactics that Americans would never accept in fighting even the most pervasive drug cartels or organized crime. Should the families and neighbors of drug lords in Colombia or Myanmar be killed, if that is necessary to strike at the bosses? In war, such tactics are commonplace and legal, if civilians are mixed in with legitimate military targets. Should the infrastructure of Afghanistan be even more thoroughly destroyed, if that is possible, just as we bombed steel mills in Nazi Germany and napalmed jungles in Vietnam? Do captured terrorists become prisoners of war, who are justified in resisting capture and eligible for release when the "war" is over? But perhaps most destructive is the fact that "war" against an unidentified enemy will erode America's moral principles and international credibility. According to a New York Times poll, Americans "overwhelmingly say the nation should take military action against those responsible for the terrorist attacks." A smaller percentage, but still a majority, support such action even if "thousands of innocent civilians" could be killed as a result. Vice-President Cheney stated that nations harboring terrorists would feel "the full wrath of the United States" -- apparently entire countries will now suffer for the acts of a few hundred murderers. This is not justice, and it can only undermine the very values in which the United States takes the greatest pride. Treating terrorists as criminals denies them the glory of martyrdom and the political legitimacy they so desperately seek. Unfortunately, it is also a painstaking process that will not provide the swift revenge that so many Americans crave. But Americans no longer lynch criminals, no matter how despicable their crime or how evident their guilt. Americans do not believe in collective punishment or guilt by association, no matter how offensive those who cheer at death may be. This is not a plea for pacifism or inaction. Criminals, too, may be killed justifiably when that is necessary. But Americans must understand the difference between crimes and acts of war and put justice ahead of revenge. The distinction between the innocent and the guilty is at the heart of our democracy. If we forget that, then they have won. Hurst Hannum is professor of international law and Co-Director of the Center for Human Rights and Conflict Resolution at the Tufts' Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. |
|
|