Where does Self-Defense End, and Terrorism Begin?
November 21st, 2008Almost every legal system recognizes self-defense as a legitimate legal defense. If somebody is coming at you with an ax, and you have a reasonable concern for your life, and you have no means of escape, then you have the right to protect yourself, even if it means shooting the guy in the head. In short, the right to defend oneself is the right to take the life of another.
But is it possible that the right to defend oneself is being stretched so thin, that it crosses over into the realm of terrorism? And if that is the case, how do we know where the right to self-defense ends, and terror begins?
An example may help. As World War II was drawing to a close, the U.S. fought hard to defeat Japan. There were estimates at the time that victory in Japan, using conventional warfare, would cost millions of lives. President Truman made the painful and momentous decision to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And indeed, that decision prompted a quick surrender on the part of Japan. But could it be argued that the decision to drop the bomb was an act of terror, and not simply self-defense?
What is “terrorism?” The best definition that I’ve come across is: The intentional use of violence or fear against civilians for the purpose of promoting a political agenda. So there are two criteria for terrorism: the targeting of civilians, and a purpose to promote a political agenda. With Hiroshima and Nagasaki, civilians were clearly targeted. But was the purpose strictly political, or did it contain enough of an element of the right to defend oneself, such that it could be seen as an act of self-defense? Clearly Japan was out to kill as many Americans as she could. And clearly, dropping the bomb saved lives by bringing the war to a quick close. But did the bomb cross the line into the realm of terror?
For the claim of self-defense to be legitimate, there needs to be a close and immediate connection between the defensive action taken, and the threat that is perceived by the person defending himself. If that connection is too loose, or tenuous, or indirect, then what is claimed in the name of self-defense, may quickly devolve into the realm of terror. And the distinction between self-defense and terror is an important one because political and military actions are being planned and taken, as we speak, based on this distinction.
If Israel and the U.S. decide to take preemptory action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, is this self-defense or terror? Clearly, innocent civilians will be put at risk. But is the threat posed by a nuclear Iran strong enough to justify an act of “self-defense?” What do you think?
Barack Obama has expressed his view that if we get actionable intelligence as to Bin Laden’s whereabouts, that he would take preemptive military action, even if the target was is Pakistan. Would this be self-defense or terror? Suppose that innocent civilians would be put at risk? Would this change the nature of the military action? What is America’s aim here; to defend herself, or to send a message to her enemies? Does motivation change the nature of the action taken?
A few years ago, scores of innocent children were killed in a face-off in Beslan. A group of militants from Chechnya took over the school, and put the lives of hundred of children at risk. Could anything that was happening in Chechnya have justified this action, so as to make it an act of self-defense? Or are some actions beyond the pale of any sort of moral justification? Would Jews on their way to the death camps have been morally entitled to kill innocent children? Or are such actions beyond the pale of human decency, under any circumstances?
My sense is that each case has to be evaluated on its own merits. It is often the case that the line between self-defense and terror is a thin and fuzzy line at best. It is convenient to ascribe to various groups the labels which make it easier for us to evaluate their behavior. We take a certain comfort, for example, in calling this or that group a “terrorist organization.” Such a designation makes it easier for to decide what to do. But the moral subtleties which underlie any given situation often undercut the notion that human behavior can be made to fit into nice and neat labels. We often have no choice but to evaluate each and every case on its own merits, even if it means questioning our preconceived notions.
Loading ...
Loading...
You don’t read much do you?
Terror and self-defense are all in the eyes of the beholder. Its like saying, what tastes better, a burger or a pizza. I would say pizza because that’s what my taste buds tells me and I am pretty sure half the people will tell me I am wrong. Just like that, terror and self-defense is based on a persons perspective and what they think is right or wrong. For majority the right or wrong part is decided by propaganda stuffed into them via their government and their society. In reality everything is gray and nothing is black and white. As long as we remain humans this is how its going to be and nothings going to change.
Hypocrisy is what creates your terrorists and to everyone else their freedom fighters. Keep at it, as humans we are good at one thing more than anything else. And that is we are the masters of self-destruction. Another hypocritical war/conflict is just great. Hope you idiots bomb them. As long as you don’t drag my country into another pointless conflict, I am happy. Just kill each other, that’s what animals do. When you decide to stop killing each other then you can join the rest of humanity. Good luck!!!
A preemptive strike against Iran?? That is most certainly not self defense. To be quite honest I’m really quite sick of hearing about Iran’s supposed nuclear weaponry that will be built sometime in the next 200 years. If the US and Israel don’t want people having nuclear weapons they should consider not stockpiling and building up their own substantial arsenals.
And Jina is absolutely right about this whole what is and what is not terrorism debate. Good comment.
Jina, you wild and crazy guy. How could you possibly pick pizza?
I would agree with most of that. The distinction between self-defense and terrorism is, as you say, in the “eye of the beholder.” Isn’t it important, therefore, that we “behold” reality as it really is, and not as we wish it to be?
Let me ask you, Jina: Do you believe that there is a truth out there, that remains true regardless of what we believe? And if that’s the case, don’t we owe it to ourselves to search for that truth, and to come to believe in it, even if it is different from what we happen to believe today?
I for one believe that there is such a truth. And I also believe that we often don’t see the truth because our beliefs get in the way. Would it be going too far to say that most of what we believe is utter nonsense? Is it just possible that the truth is staring us in the face, but we refuse to acknowledge it because it may interfere with what we happen to believe?
Right again, Jina. God, the Creator of the universe, chose to create us in His image. So like Him, we too are creators. What world do we choose to create for ourselves. Do we choose to create a heaven on earth, or a living hell? The choice is ours. It always has been. And everything we know and love hangs in the balance.
That may or may not be possible, Jina. If Iran decides to use a nuclear weapon, or allows a nuclear weapon to be used by her proxy, everyone will likely get dragged in. Further, if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, then a lot of other nations in the region will likely follow suit, and if the unexpected happens, and some loony decides to push the button, then once again, everyone will likely get dragged in, and if the situation becomes bad enough, no one will be able to drag himself out.
So yes, everything remains obscure in shades of gray. But do we act, or do we sit still?
And Tulip, do you honestly not see a theoretical possibility by which Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons could become a matter of self-defense, not only for Israel, but for a great many other nations within striking range? I understand the perceived hypocracy of Israel and the U.S., who possess such weapons, preaching to others about not developing them. But still, doesn’t Iran, with its ideological frame of mind, pose a particularly dangerous threat?
Only means that you haven’t had real pizza before.
Yes and it is very simple… stop killing people and stop ruining our future.
I know the baby boomers who are in power right now don’t give a fuck about anything other than themselves and will do anything to satisfy their narrow-minded vision that was shoved into their head during the Cold War by the propaganda machines in their countries. Cold War mentality makes them think anything and everything that doesn’t agree with them is their enemy. Iran has a theocracy because of this type of people, they made it possible for the religious lunatics to come to power and now making the situation worse by directly confronting them.
I am an atheist, but I agree with what you said. Then again I heard enough religious lunatics telling me why we don’t have to take care of our surroundings because we are all going to some lala land when we die. They use it to defend everything from global warming to the ills we see today in all of our neighbourhoods. No fucking idiots want to face reality.
Iranian government can act like hawks but they are not stupid. A nuke going off in any part of the Middle east will affect Iran itself because fallout doesn’t obey international boundaries.
If Pakistan, probably one of the most unstable nation in the world can keep their nukes safe then so can Iran. I don’t know about you, but I don’t fear a nuke or any WMD because the real WMD are your conventional weapons that are responsible for more death and destruction than any WMD and USofA is the largest proliferator of this kind of weapon also.
Learn from the mistakes of our forefathers, violence is a bandaid solution. Negotiation and understanding will be the permanent solution. Of course there is another permanent solution and it does involve violence and I am pretty sure thats what a lot of people would prefer. The Jews would know a lot about this.
You talk like civilized people and we might have a chance. I doubt if the barbarians of the world even know what civilized or talk means, so keep at it and one day everyone will be sitting on top of pile of nukes and we can welcome an end in a very colourful way. Pretty sure it will be my generation and the generations to come that will pay for the ignorance of the current ruling generation.
OK. You win. Pizza is better, and a lot kinder to animals. I was only kidding about burgers. Just wanted to get under your skin.
How can you be so sure, Jina? If you’re an atheist, you don’t believe in God. But don’t you first have to know what God is, in order to say you don’t believe in Him, or for that matter, to say that you do believe in Him? But no one really knows who or what God is. We make things up about Him, and then conclude whether or not we believe in that version of Him, the version we just made up. So, for example, we can say that God is “all knowing,” and then say we don’t believe in that.
In short, since the nature of God is an unknown, then when we say we believe or don’t believe in Him, we’re really saying we do or don’t believe in the commonly made up version of Him that we’ve grown accustomed to. But since God is an unknown commodity, we can certainly come up with a version of Him which is hard to refute, even by an atheist.
For example, if we say that God is The Big Bang, for example, we could believe in that version of God, even if we don’t believe in the more conventional versions of Him. And if you ask me, The Big Bang probably comes closer to what God is all about than some of the other notions we have of Him.
Imagine, some 13.7 billion years ago there was nothing, not even time or space. And then, in an instant, there was a huge explosion, and all of a sudden, there was everything, the entire universe in all its glory. The creative energy that made that happen is certainly worthy of the name God. His energy flows through me, and mine through Him. God is the sum total of all the creative energy in the universe. That is a version of Him that may even appeal to you, Jina.
Stupidity has nothing to do with it, Jina. They are believers. And if you believe in something strongly enough, it will override your common sense, and you will act in a way that defies logic and rationality. An Iranian leader once quipped that losing half the population would be worth it, if Israel could be destroyed in the process. I don’t think he was kidding. Or more accurately, I think that under the right circumstances, a man like him could be pushed to make the fateful decision to push the button. What doesn’t make sense now, could begin to make “sense” in the heat of the moment, especially when you believe that God is on your side.
Very true, Jina. Don’t tell me you’re starting to get wise in your old age.
The question though is how do we move away from an inclination toward violence. My solution, as you know, is to sell one another on a Vision of Hope. I don’t really see an alternative. And if we don’t get cracking soon, then you’re right to think that
So why not pick up the slack, and make something happen along these lines?
‘Terrorists’ also argue they are acting out of self-defence. Especially separatist ‘terrorists’… Most intelligence services and national governments are involved in mass slaughter, assasinations and killing of civilians. Doesn’t matter if it’s Israel, Iran, Russia or America.
Wladimir, I would have to agree that many nations engage in terror, especially when they feel threatened in some substantial way. When a bomb drops, or a gun shot is heard, it is terrifying, no matter who is behind it. And it is true that people take comfort to hiding behind labels, so as to remove a matter from further consideration, and so as to justify what they’re about to do. So, for example, if we label this or that group a “terror organization,” we feel comfortable to take action against them, no matter the harm to innocent civilians. And that is part and parcel of the propoganda campaign that Jina is talking about.
Therefore, since labels don’t always coinicide with the truth, and since everyone, even modern nations, often resort to terror tactics, it becomes even more important to consider the moral aspects of each situation, and to make our judgments on the facts of the matter, and not on preconceived notions or labels.
Ultimately, when you want to judge whether or not to fight, you have to consider, among other things, two important factors: What are the ultimate aims of your enemy, and, How likely are they to achieve them. If, for example, their aim is to destroy you and your way of life, and if they are likely to succeed if left to their own devices, then you have no choice but to confront them, even if it requires using terror. That’s where the self-defense argument comes into play. You confron them because you want to save yourself and your way of life, just as they want to do.
So I don’t disagree that otherwise “civilized” nations do use terror. The only justification I would offer is that upon close and fair scrutiny, it becomes apparent that they are confronting terrorist organizations which are hell bent on destroying Western civilization, and that such organizations may well succeed if we don’t confront them.
Hi Nissim,
What do you think of preventing measures? How can we classify them? Some times they are unavoidable, but then, are they morally valid? It is a very confusing world Nissim, good to read your post.
Well ethnic separatists organizations mostly think the national states want to destroy them. And those states say the same: these terror organizations want to destroy us. Doesn’t matter if you are talking about Baluch, Palestinians, Kurds, Turks in China, etc. Just a war for political power.
If you ever come to Toronto, I’ll introduce you to the best pizza in the world. It’s not from some fancy restaurant or any fast food place. It’s from a small independent place owned by a really old Italian dude, he’s cool and his pizza is amazing. Grew up eating his pizza and now no other pizza tastes anything remotely close to his…
To me truth is something that I can approach logically with evidence. If a topic can’t be supported via facts and logic then it’s bla la bla to me.
You have been reading more of those Hindu philosophical mumbo jumba are you?
You have a point here, but how committed do you think they are? They remind me of the hawks in Washington talking about patriotism and all that bs, but when it comes to proving it they wouldn’t even let their sons or daughters go anywhere near these wars they started. I don’t wona go into more detailed argument but that the basic idea and from that what I gather is that these religious leaders do or say what they say only to stay in power and the gain the support of the extremists in their society. They say anything to appeal to extremists because extremists tend to have more power than the moderates and the general population.
Reality and dream, and this is a dream. See I like to dream sometimes also. I used to do it a lot when I was younger, had a dream how wonderful this world can be and then I became an adult and saw the world for what it is and…
I tried and I already gave up. People telling me, hey Paki go back home to every protest I organize and/or attend really gets on my nerve. This urge to get a baseball bat and repeatedly hit them on their face kinda make it impossible for me to continue because I fear that I might just do that one day and jail doesn’t seem like a fun place. So I isolate myself from politics in my life. This website is the only place I talk politics and everywhere else I just ignore or run away when anything political is brought up in a conversation. The thing about ignorance being a bliss is a pretty awesome concept.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because of this, but in reality the invasion was the stepping stone for further invasions in the region. US used it to get what they wanted and that was Iraq, well planned and coordinated without the knowledge of the people.
Basically, what you say can be done only if those in power DON’T have any ulterior motives and come on, we are humans and we will always have some hidden agenda for anything we do. Not very practical but we can pretend tough and create these so called “independent” organization and committee to oversee things. UN works out… you know… if something that you do succeed take credit but when it fails, blame the UN.
If somethign like this was to happen then everyone has to be ont he same page but that ain’t gona happen, so we are fucked. Or maybe one day we will turn into volcans and and and… ok nm more dreams.
Israel kill Palestinian and Lebanese civilians out of ’self-defence’. Palestinians react with blowing up Israelis out of ’self-defence’. Russia killed almost the complete male population in Chechnya. Making no difference between civilians and militants. This is counter insurgency warfare, which is used always used against rebels and guerilla’s. Chechnian rebels did the same and killed the Russian civilians. What is defence? They are just fighting each other. Terror is real politik. Al-Qaeda and islamic militant groups don’t want to destroy western civilization, but to create an islamic sharia state in the muslim lands and take over power there.
Hi Elinor.
I don’t think you will ever totally eliminate terrorism. Somebody will always have a gripe, and will lash out in response. But by being smart, you can contain terrorism. And the steps you have to take can be moral, if you rely on more than just brute force.
There is a saying in warfare, “Know your enemy.” You have to understand the terrorist, and beat him at his own game by co-opting his strategy, by doing what he does, only better, and by marginalizing him in the eyes of his own people.
If the terrorist is ideological about hate, you be ideological about common sense, the collective wisdom born of shared experience. If the terrorist invests peanuts in charitable handouts, you invest some serious dollars in jobs, jobs which protect our environment. If the terrorist sells a vision of martyrdom, or paradise, or virgins, or what have you, you sell a vision of hope, a vision of peace prosperity and freedom. If the terrorist uses hate-filled propoganda to tear people apart, you use public diplomacy to bring people together, including the empowerment of women. And if the terrorist fights you with terror, you fight him militarily, but you position the fight within a vision of hope. You raise the fight on the ground to a highter moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. People will fight harder once they know what they’re fighting for. We’re not fighting a “War against terror.” We are fighting a war to realize a vision of hope. There’s a big difference. We’re not fighting to “protect the environment.” We are fighting, quite literally, for our lives.
Jina, the existence of the universe is good evidence that someone or something brought it into existence. I choose to call that someone or something God. I could have chosen another name, but like Shakespeare said, “What’s in a name? A rose by any other name would have smelled as sweet.” We often let words get in the way of the meanings behind the words.
The Iranian regime is very committed, Jina, not only out of religious conviction, but by the sheer need to hold on to power, as you suggest. Under the right circumstances, they could feel compelled to take extreme measures, including pushing the button, especially if they sense that the tide of support is turning away from them. The problem with nuclear weapons is that the threat of mass destruction is so great, that it becomes difficult to allow for any possibility which would render the impossible possible. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will be very difficult to contain her, and her foreign and domestic agendas will hold full sway.
That seems true for a while. But really, the extremists are just more intimidating. Ultimately, the real power resides in the people. In the final analysis, the will of the people will not be deterred. We in the West have to find a way to unleash that ultimate force. We cannot afford to let the extremists win the battle for hearts and minds. We have to become at least as smart and committed as they are in order to win. In the final analysis, the extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination, once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.
I know what you mean. It’s hard to hold on to the idealism of our youth. I’m becoming an old fart, but somehow, I still believe in the vision that you once held onto. Can we really make something wonderful happen? I think there’s at least a decent chance, certainly enough of chance to make us try.
Yes, Jina, leaders always have an ulterior motive for the things they do. But it is just possible, that in today’s crazy world, there may be a confluence of events, such that, the pragmatic solutions to our problems will coincide with the emergence of a better version of ourselves. In other words, in order to solves the problems related to: the Environment, the Economy, and the Extremism, we will have no choice, no matter how cynical and claculating our leaders may be, to sell one another on a Vision of Hope, and to create facts on the ground which testify to our resolve in this regard.
I don’t know about that, Wladimir. I agree that the justification of self-defense can be used by both parties to a conflict. And it is “real politik,” as you say. But there will be winners and losers, and who wins will make a hell of a big difference to the civilized world.
Al Qaeda will have a hard time accomplishing the goals you mention, without destroying Western civilization. By comparison, a lot of what they’re advocating sucks, and will not hold sway among the vast majority of people. But if they can somehow disrupt the West, and wreak havoc in the civilized world, then their philosophy may begin to gain momenum. So it becomes in their interest to do what they can to make a mess of things, if for no other reason, than to better market their wares.
I think the most important point is that it’s not just non-state actors that commit acts of terror. As you pointed out, governments can carry terrorism out as well.
We can’t hide behind labels, Mona. We are used to reaching quick conclusions and feeling comfortable that the actions we take are just. But most times, it is necessary to retrace our steps, and to see that there are equities on both sides of almost every conflict.
As you suggest, governments are as capable of engaging in terror, as individuals. Terror is terror. And in each case, tiring as it may be, we have to look at the facts, and evaluate them in terms of universal principles of common sense. If we go through this process, the hope is that we will reach common ground, instead of letting the answers come crashing out of the barrel of a gun.
Ultimately, everything in this world can be sorted out using the God-given common sense that we were blessed with since the beginning of time. We either make sense of our lives, or we’re going down, as have 99% of all the species which have inhabited this good earth. That’s the deal, simple as that. We have to choose which way we want to go, and everything we know and love hangs in the balance.