I don't need a lecture on decency from Alan Dershowitz, whose pro-torture and pro-"preemption" arguments I consider morally tainted, logically flawed, and strategically unsound. I'll accept one -- with humility -- from Michael Berg, although I'm not a pacifist. Still, both of them have helped me clarify my thinking -- and change my mind -- about Zarqawi's death and the idea of targeted extrajudicial assassination.
Simply put: Targeted assassinations are unethical, and they don't work. For those reasons, I was wrong to exult over Zarqawi's death yesterday. Sure, he was an evil human being. But all that's been accomplished by this strike is one death that encourages those on both sides who would escalate the cycle of violence even further.
Dershowitz wrote:
"All decent people must insist on a single standard of judging tactics such as targeted killing. It is nothing short of bigotry to approve this tactic when used by the United States and Great Britain but to condemn it when it is used by Israel."
To a certain extent this is a lawyer's trick, rather than sound logic. The term "targeted killing" covers a variety of activities. Accepting any practice in one setting but not in another isn't necessarily bigotry or hypocrisy -- it's simply judging each situation based on the facts. Supporting war as a tactic in one case and not another, for example, doesn't make you a hypocrite. Same with targeted assassination.
I have trouble listening to Dershowitz lecturing people on "decency" while he's waging a campaign to make torture and murder official (and permanent) U.S. policy. Mr. Decency has also accused a number of fellow Harvard professors of "bigotry" (76, according to one estimate), for criticizing these and other practices in Israel. That word seems to come quite easily to him.
Prof. Dershowitz, I think you know this and are just pretending otherwise, but for everyone else's sake let's be clear: To say that you approve of "targeted killings" in certain circumstances but not in others doesn't mean you're "indecent" -- at least not in the way you're using the word. It means you've accepted the practice, but think its application in one specific situation is wrong.
False characterizations aside, Dershowitz has helped me clarify my thinking, despite the weaknesses in his pro-assassination arguments. I've come to a clearer, more consistent position.
I know that the pro-torture crowd, and the conservatives, can get very ugly on these issues. Republicans are already baiting Dems with lines like " if Bob Menendez Had His Way, Mr. Zarqawi Would Be Alive And Plotting The Next Attack On America"... That's what this crowd always does, even though it was Republicans that didn't bother going after him in 2002.
Nevertheless, here's where I stand: If I had my way, we would have gone after Zarqawi legally and internationally, and would have eliminated him without a costly, unnecessary, and devastating war. it was possible, but our leaders couldn't be bothered to lift a finger against him -- legally or illegally.
Why do I feel this way?
First of all, we're being told -- against all evidence -- that Iraq is a truly sovereign nation. If that's true then Zarqawi was their business, not ours. They should have taken care of him under their laws, and they should be taking the resulting blowback on the Arab street. Instead, we took this action on their soil, and we'll be taking the heat for them.
And here's what was wrong with my previous comments about Zarqawi (some of you busted me on it but, frankly, not thoroughly enough):
It's a slippery slope: Once you start killing people who aren't soldiers for a warring nation, without legal authority, where do you stop? How do you draw the line? You can't. And if you can do it abroad, can you do it at home? If you can do it for foreigners, can you do it against your own citizens?
To avoid that, the current principles of domestic and international law must be used. If international law isn't adequate to address the terrorism problem, it needs to be fixed -- not by making banditry legal, but by improving the processes of extradition and information-sharing, and by creating consequences (potentially including military ones) for nations that don't cooperate.
At home or overseas, our motto should be: "Fix laws -- don't break them."
It hasn't worked elsewhere: Dershowitz raised the Israel example. Moral concerns aside, where is the evidence that Israel is any safer because of its assassination policy? The suicide bombings continue, the nation is not at peace, and every fallen leader has been replaced by another. So what has been accomplished by the targeted killings that Dershowitz cites?
It goes against our core values: I don't believe our values need to be sacrificed to fight terror. We kept them through two World Wars and -- with some difficulty -- hung on to them through the long Cold War.
If they were worth fighting for then, why sacrifice them now? Why not declare it to the world? Let's say: We don't torture, and we don't go outside the rule of law to murder. That's what the other guys do. And we don't unilaterally attack those who haven't attacked us. We use diplomacy, the world community, and -- as a last resort -- the legal application of military force under international law.
You can't trust these people with the responsibility: If our government were to conduct assassinations half as indiscriminately as Dershowitz calls people bigots, innocent blood would be running in the streets. This Administration has been saturating us with lies and manufactured evidence ever since they assumed power.
Why would they stop now? How can we trust them with extra-judicial authority?
Look at the people who have been falsely accused of terrorism in this country in the last few years: Muslim army chaplain James Yee. Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield. Wen Ho Lee. Would they be potential targets someday under a 'targeted killing' policy? That may sound farfetched, but a lot of what we read in the news everyday was farfetched a few short years ago.
It seems reckless at best to give people with such a lousy track record the ability to kill anybody they choose.
Dershowitz is right about one thing: differences in context aside, there's the real risk of contradiction and inconsistency if you support this practice in one situation and not the other. It's not about "decency" or "bigotry" -- in this context those words are cheap shots, fired with the intent to intimidate those who disagree. But it is about about consistency.
If killing someone without a trial, and/or because of what you expect them to do in the future, is wrong -- as I think it is -- how can you decide when, where, and how to make an exception in extreme circumstances? You can't build a judicial framework around something that can't be quantified.
Creating a legal (or quasi-legal) architecture to permit torture, target-killing, and pre-emptive war isn't the answer. We don't need to legalize immoral behavior. Instead, our focus should be on how best to fight this threat in a manner that's consistent with our ethics, our beliefs, and our way of life.
That's not weakness. It's strength. And it's not just ethically sound, it's tactically smart.
I let emotion over-rule my own values when I wrote about Zarqawi, because I despise these guys so much. The satisfaction of seeing blood for blood overruled my common sense -- and my ethics. That's why I welcome my negative commenters, Michael Berg, and yes -- even Alan Dershowitz.
I learned something about myself, too. I'm as susceptible to the urge for revenge as the next guy. That's why we, as conscious beings, can and should stop and reconsider when it's appropriate to do so. We're supposed to be capable of growth, aren't we?
I'm still not sorry I called al-Zarqawi a 'bitch' -- but growth comes more slowly to some of us than to others.
Not everything I wrote yesterday was wrong. Even if you support targeted killing, the Administration could have done it without this costly and unjust war. Instead they chose not to, perhaps to ensure support for the war, and more people probably died at al-Zarqawi's hands as a result.
I still think I was right to point out that, in the context of our war in Afghanistan, we could have -- and should have -- taken out Bin Laden at Tora Bora. I was right that the Administration and its supporters do have a "pre-9/11 mentality," one that favors old-style warfare over new modes of action and thinking.
I was right to point out that foreign fighters in Iraq are only a small part of the insurgency, so the impact of al-Zarqawi's death will be marginal at best. The killing won't stop, or even slow down. In fact, intelligence now suggests that he may have been fingered for assassination by rival terrorist leaders, which means that all we did was act as hatchetmen in a mob feud. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss ...
I was also right to point out that, for all its rhetoric, we don't have any real strategy for combatting terror. This Administration and its conservative supporters, so full of heated rhetoric, have failed to take comprehensive steps to protect our ports, our skies, or our homes. We also need new models for intelligence gathering, military action, and international diplomacy.
What we don't need is legalized torture, assassination, and 'pre-emption.'
There are other, better ways to address the problems of terrorism: ways that allow us to reinforce the rule of law, bring the international community back into the struggle, and help us restore the moral authority that has been -- and should remain -- our strongest weapon in the battle against fundamentalist terror. That's where we should be focusing our attention.
It's not as emotionally satisfying as the kind of crowing I was doing yesterday. But it's the right way to do it -- morally and strategically.
We can win the fight against terrorism and remain a just people -- if we've got the guts, if we're tough enough, and if we're noble enough.
I think we are.