Are Deaths From Terrorism Qualitatively/Morally Different?
The establishment approach to counter-terrorism is based on an implicit assumption that there is a fundamental difference between the death and destruction caused by terrorist attacks and that caused by crime, hunger, disease and other such threats.
This unspoken assumption is used to justify the suspension of rules and standards that are employed when dealing with other causes of death and injury. And it explains a disproportionate urgency in contending with a single existential threat over others (global warming, environmental degradation, poverty, gun violence, etc.).
UNICEF's State of the World's Children 2008 says that "every day, on average, more than 26,000 children under the age of five die around the world, mostly from preventable causes." Would we -- should we -- suspend basic ethical principles and sidestep the rule of law to address this catastrophe? Do we hear major speeches and breathless news reports about this ongoing tragedy?
MADD tells us that "on average someone is killed by a drunk driver every 40 minutes. In 2007, an estimated 12,998 people died in drunk driving related crashes..." Would we -- should we -- utilize indefinite detention, torture, and other violations of constitutional principles to solve the problem?
The same holds true for dozens of other threats. For example: "A woman is battered every 8 to 10 seconds in the United States (3-4 million times per year). As many as 17% of adult pregnant women are battered. The number of teenagers that battered during pregnancy may be as high as 21%." Do we create secret prisons and 'enhanced' interrogation tactics to deal with the perpetrators? Should we? Do we obsess about it the way we do about a flu epidemic or a nationally televised song contest?
My point is not that we shouldn't do everything possible to prevent terrorism and to punish terrorists -- it's that we should do so with no greater urgency and no less adherence to the law than we do other forms of deadly violence and preventable death. And if anything, I'm arguing that we should do more about the problems listed above, not less about terrorism.
I'm sympathetic to the assertion that preventing death from violence should be a top priority, reasoning that "the decision by an individual or group of individuals to destroy or inflict damage on others, to rob them of their freedom, to strip them of their dignity, to dehumanize them, is fundamentally worse than any other mortal threat we face. Violence is an affront to our souls, a stain on our humanity." Still, I don't understand why we should have laxer laws and ethics for dealing with one kind of murder over another, simply because the murderer had a different reason to carry out his/her crime. Nor do I comprehend why the terrible things done to people in America and across the globe should elicit less of a focus than terrorism.
Every new day on this lonely planet brings a fresh litany of horrors: children raped and beaten and hacked to death, women abused, people dying of starvation and preventable diseases, innocent people thrown in prison and forgotten, the earth poisoned and polluted.
Over a million people lose their lives to violence and millions more are injured and maimed every year. Death and injury by terrorist attack is no more horrific than a young girl being stoned to death in Somalia (for being raped) or a baby being thrown out of a car window in Florida. We need to handle both issues with the appropriate alarm and with the same sense of justice and fealty to the rule of law. We must do away with the flawed notion that combating terrorism requires a unique set of guidelines -- that somehow deaths from terrorism are qualitatively/morally different.
Violence and preventable death in all forms should be our utmost priority and we should do everything we can, within the law and within the parameters of basic decency and morality, to bring an end to them.
=====
UPDATE: Thomas Friedman was on MSNBC's Morning Joe and said we still need "extraordinary measures" to deal with the most extreme terrorist cases. He was referring to individuals who are willing to strap on explosives and blow up innocent civilians. Since this is an argument I've heard more than once, let me ask the following: don't we need extraordinary measures to deal with serial killers, mass murderers, baby torturers, and the like?
Don't we need extraordinary measures to deal with the fact that millions die of easily preventable illnesses? How about extraordinary measures to feed the millions who starve to death needlessly, their bodies wasting away in slow, agonizing motion?
Again, I return to the basic question, what is it about terrorism that creates such a severe sense of alarm and an overwhelming desire to stop it at all costs - when we lack that very same urgency for far more widespread mortal threats?
Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou
Peter Daou: Let Women Wear the Hijab: The Emptiness of Obama's Cairo Speech
I know many will gush over President Obama's Cairo speech and I'm likely swimming against the tide of the media and my fellow Democrats and progressives.
Peter Daou: On Gang-Raping and Killing Babies and Lesbians
We all die in some manner or another, but an act of human will, of intentionality, a choice by one person to harm another, is not the same as an act -- or accident -- of nature or a cruel vagary of fate.
Peter Daou: 13-Year-Old Somali Rape Victim Stoned to Death in Front of 1000 Spectators
I hope we can all work with the incoming administration to begin creating conditions in which we can banish this barbaric and malevolent behavior from our planet.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Peter,
Great article.
Anti-terrorism thrives on emotional labels, i.e., cold-blooded murder, savage disregard for civilian life, and the terrorists are given some ugly name to define them to the public victims. In societies which have a well-developed media those labels are used extensively to rally them to revenge, punishing war, whatever purpose the governors decide. Examination of any of the roots of the violence is usually denied and/or dismissed. Starvation of children, molestation of children, sexual or physical, also has a very emotional charge against the perpetrator(s) as well but since it is an ongoing form of violence in most societies there usually is not a sanction wide enough for every individual case. Automatic sterilization if convicted, perhaps in both forms of violence against children, is never recommended nor is an end to such crimes ever actually expected. The main difference between some deaths though isn't just the number violated or killed. It is the ability to attach labels and involve an entire society in the punishment, to the extent that whatever the mores of that society might have been before the act are no longer recognized in the new "environment". Like a war on poverty, a war on terror is supposedly ended when the poverty ends or the terror ends; we all know that that isn't reality in any time.
Deaths by terrorism have become qualitatively different from war-related casualties on the battlefield or by collateral damage because of the cult of the nationstate. Nationstates wage warfare against each other, pretending to wreck horrendous violence in a civilized manner. I don't know how far back we want to go back in blaming people for this, maybe all the way back to St. Augustine with his just war claptrap.
In short, terrorists don't play by the rules and that makes people mad. Let's ignore the fact that the rules themselves are immoral, terrorists attacks allow nonstate actors to strike at a nationstate in a manner they never could through conventional military means. Terrorists are just the last in a long line of irregular fighters that have been a source of consternation to nation state military leaders. Such soldiers outside of uniform were rarely granted clemency in the Civil War, Boer War, etc. Notice how this still makes so many people mad; those Taliban guys don't wear uniforms! They are cheating! Such folks believe that killing a man in fatigues makes it all right, civilians who get blown up by a canon or an airplane were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Obviously such a double-standard makes for some ludicrious hypocricy. The Boer war has two great examples of this: Kitchener's horses and Breaker Morant.
Not to mention our own Revolutionary War. The militia that turned up in Concord and Lexington weren't dressed in any uniform; only the daily clothes needed for farming and commerce. They were hated and despised by the British who DID wear the uniforms, bright red, in-you-face-red. Also, like "Injuns", the militia fired from behind rocks, not in neat straight lines, shoulder to shoulder. Later the Continental Congress got behind a measure to supply some sort of coat over the knee britches and a uniform, more or less, was born. But the guerrilla tactics of the early revolters was enough to give the British the warning that this little insurrection wasn't going to go away.
Blogger: The establishment approach to counter-terrorism is based on an implicit assumption that there is a fundamental difference between the death and destruction caused by terrorist attacks and that caused by crime, hunger, disease and other such threats.
===
All civil societies recognize that death is tragic, AND that there are differences in various circumstances that require different societal responses. We have a different set of responses to a sexual predator who murders a child, compared to a soldier who kills an enemy in battle.
That said, the whole purpose of our laws is to define what is and is not acceptable behavior in all sorts of circumstances. We've long since decided (legally) that torture is not an acceptable response to wrongdoers of any sort. That's why government sanction of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" is indefensible on both moral and legal grounds.
Not qualitatively or morally, no, but they ARE psychologically different. Millions of years of evolution have conditioned us to devote extra attention to novel dangers; this is the mechanism terrorism exploits, and that which makes it effective.
It's not even a matter of human nature; this is the heritage of all animals, including homo sapiens..
The death of a person to their family is tragic no matter what the circumstances.
You seem to imply there's no difference between "involuntary manslaughter" and "murder 1"
But most developed societies have created laws which distinguish between various kinds of involuntary deaths.
Dropping bombs on civilian areas during a war is not involuntary human slaughter. It is intentional and devastating regardless how self-righteous the aggressor is.
By elevating deaths-by-terrorism to a level higher than other deaths, it also elevates the fear of terrorism. It's all part of the bigger plan to keep the populace at elevated levels of anxiety when it comes to terrorism.
Note the pure panic the day the "Air Force One" and chase plane buzzed Manhattan and the panic associated with "swine flu". I'd say we are primed and ready for another terrorist attack. Once it happens, more of our rights will be taken and we will gladly give them up.
If the GOP would stop being such chicken hawk cowards then the goal of terror would fail...
It is those who would give up our rights that threaten our freedom.
The terrorists may threaten our lives, but are ZERO threat to our freedom.
Stop living in fear.
More importantly, stop acting out of fear.
I noticed that the deaths from "Terrorism" hold more weight than the deaths from our bombing campaigns "collateral damage"...
There is NO epidemiological rationale to have this level of expenses and effort wasted on the terrorism threat. Been saying that for the last 8 years.
200 Americans die each year by lightening strikes. 800 per Presidential term. On average, more have died by this than by terrorist activity over the last 20 years, including the biggest terrorist attack ever, dwarfing even Pearl Harbour.
Deaths by cigarette are enormously worse.
So, where the Department of Homeland Lightening Defense? Why are people prosecuted to irrational lengths in defiance of international treaties for the crime of terrorism, when cigarette consumption remains legal?
HarkaDahl
QUOTE: "Good Comment. But it didn't start with Cheney and the Neo cons, they are just the latest expression of a certain kind of paranoia that has existed in the country for a long time. Before the trrrrrrists it was reds under the beds. For reasons I don't really understand, it has become a modus operandi between the rulers and the ruled in the US, that there is always a mortal enemy just about to destroy you, your good clean Christian family, even America itself....
I agree, but you likely won't like my observation of where FEAR comes from, or who promotes Fear... IMO (and Observation) Organized Religion would NOT exist without Fear... QUOTE: "there is always a mortal enemy just about to destroy you, your good clean Christian family, even America itself."
The "Mortal Enemy" of mankind is FEAR... The Bible and other Holy Books support FEAR... WE are supposedly "owned/controlled" by a GOD/ALLAH.
FEAR is taught/lea
I've always felt one reason for the incredible reaction to 9/11 was all the film showing the sheer terror of the act, seeing that up front and in your face was like having it happen in front of you. I'm not saying that it wasn't horrible but sometimes you wonder if the reaction might not have been different if we didn't watch it live on television as it happened.
Or at all, IF the Bush administration had acted on the numerous warnings about just such an attack, IF the Bush administration had allowed the FBI to stop several of the hijackers from even entering the country, IF they had been as diligent in protecting us as they have in covering their own a$$, we would not have had to watch it at all....
Terrorism is a crime. It has always been treated as a crime. The US prosecuted and incarcerated some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world and likewise some of the most dangerous criminals in the world without using extreme measures in either case.
Ramzi Yousef, Omar Abdel-Rahman, Richard Reid, Ali al-Mari, Zacarius Moussari, Timothy McVeigh and many others who went through the same legal system as Charles Manson, Henry Lee Lucas, Jeffrey Dhamer, Bundy and other serial killers did are all locked up in US prisons for life with the exception of McVeigh who was executed.
What's the difference between strapping on a bomb to blow people up and dropping a 500 ton bomb from the air to blow people up? Both instill fear. Both kill innocent people. Both involve using explosives. Both are forms of terrorism. Just ask any Iraq or Afghanistan civilian if they agree. Using terrorism as a way to eradicate terrorism achieves just the opposite and a lot of innocent people die needlessly.
Terrorism is a means to an end that has been around since the beginning of mankind and will probably always be around. It is a crime and should continue to be treated as such.
Although imperfect, the US has one of the best legal systems in the world. To abandon it would be a travesty of justice.
You missed Mr. Daou's point. It's about the "disproportionate urgency" in PREVENTING various types of deaths. Pres. Bush was also extreme in preventing other causes of death: he spent way more to combat AIDS than any president before him. You know this not because the media heralded his compassion but because no one was charging that Bush doesn't care about Gays and Africans and intravenous drug users. Where's the criticism that diseases like AIDS have killed people "since the beginning of mankind and will probably always be around. It is a disease and should and should continue to be treated as such."
Could it be that AIDS could become an even greater threat? It's the perfect killer of an entire species because it's transferred in the very act of procreation. Or better yet, breathing, as in the case of the "over-hyped?" swine flu. Couldn't terrorists bent on killing ALL infidels eventually hit on the perfect weapon? Haven't you noticed that they strive to obtain/develop various weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical, bio, conventional as well as trying to perfect simultaneity in their attacks?
Preventing spouses from killing each other is not the same as preventing deaths from terrorism. One can destroy a government and thus your way of life. If a highly-contageous virus were to mutate into one that drove people to murderous violence in our country, this too would ultimately threaten our way of life and would deserve "disproportionate urgency."
Peter Daou Posted 08:12 PM on 05/21/2009 on the first page in the comment section:
"What I'm asking is whether terrorism is so fundamentally different that it requires the suspension of our basic laws and ethical standards.
With that in mind ergo my comment.
Peter, thank you so much for stating what should have been obvious. Your post was thorough and should be on the front page across the country.
It looks like they jumped on the word "terror" to unleash their criminal conspiracy to defraud the govt and the American people, deplete the treasury and in general create havoc around the world. It was their dream come true.
For 8 years of Bush reign, FEAR was the watchword, it allowed anything and everything undertaken to be "classified secret" away from prying eyes. Every time one of their schemes was uncovered, all of a sudden there was an increase in the "terror alert system" and some dumb-ass supposed terrorist was discovered planning a "devastating attack!"..
Look what it gave them, 2 damned WARS, Billion$ and Billion$ in war profiteering no-bid contracts, and a locked-down Media (that still can't wake up and tell the roses). And for the sadists among them, sheer heaven, poor men to torture, some to death...an
Terror was their best friend.
The fact that there are about 1900-2100 actual terrorists across the world surely shouldn't have armies killing thousands, dislocating millions and bankrupting our country when an international police action is called for.
You can add untimely death or disability resulting from the lack of health insurance to your list.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
