Counter-terrorism: what are our principles worth?
 

In this world of our we are always forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Take the issue of justice.

To be considered flawlessly just one must give everyone due process. However. Such circumstance are very counterproductive to the process of fighting injustice as due process is costly in time and resourcess. Therefore we must find a middle ground. Beyond a reasonable doubt, good enough.

Now lets talk about the topic of the decade: terrorism. I know many people here follow the idea that "bombing the whole lot of em" is an effective way to deal with extreamist behaviour. Their idea is somewhat sound because we all know that most of the current extreamist threats to the western world come from Islam. So we have a general target and that's the problem, it's not percise. The glove doesnt always fit the hand. Yet this is a matter of life and death.

Is it worth allowing inoncent individuals to suffer as a result of proffiling in order to substantially aliviate the curnt threat of terrorist acts against the West? What if they are patriotic American citizens and ex-navy seals like Cyrus Kar? (link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4659175.stm) It's injustice yet it saves lives.

Whats worth more: lives or principles?

Generally, I put the principle of justice above the lives of people. I believe in sacrificing fellow human beings in order to main an image of justice.

Placing myself as the possible target I would rather die knowing I did right then live knowing I did wrong.

I realize that such a frame of mind is self defeating. However the actual threat of a terrorist act ending my life or the life of someone I know is very minute. Thus the image of the country I live in takes priority over the safety of that country from threats by extreamist groups.


Thoughts?

This sounds more like a philosophical belief as opposed to a political one; I'm not sure I follow.

It's an interesting idea you bring up: can you give a real-world example of what you mean?

I'd say your position can only be maintained as long as the chance of you actually being caught in a terrorist act is small. As that chance and/or the the casualty rate gets higher, your position becomes more and more difficult to maintain. Ultimately, you *have* to strike back, if only to defend yourself.

Lets go to the extreme: people are blown up all around you, and your chances of survival are slim. In such a situation, moral standing and principles are worth nothing, only survival matters.

But luckily, we're not in such an extreme situation. :)

i've said this elsewhere, but there are things far worse than dying.

i think there are times when violence and forceful resistance is justified, right, and the only option available. but this is never a blank check for embracing ways of destruction. without the civil compact, our lives would be nothing but barbaric.

funny that you mention justice. i would like to see it used more in the day-to-day rhetoric (and application) of our dealings with terrorism. talking about freedom & liberty is fine, but justice is a concept central to the muslim faith. justice has strong universal appeal. so, if we make an effort to show our desire to be just, it is a very good contrast to the unjust actions of terrorists. it seems this would be one way to win over those in the arab world who don't support the actions of terrorists but sympathize some of their problem issues with the west (israel, iraq, etc.).

i'm not suggesting a large change in policy, at least not at first. but i think it would be helpful to re-examine our actions concept of justice in mind.

That is sound reasoning. Unfortunately if we did look at a lot of our actions, particularly in the Middle East and Central America over the last 40-50 years, we would find the value of justice wanting.

Abu Ghraib, the Iraq War, the overthrow of the elected government of Iran, the placement of the Shah, the interference in Israel/Palestine issues, moving our bases into Saudi Arabia, the funding and material support of Wahabiist education by government-connected officials, the funding of Contra death squads, interference and attempted coups in many South American/Central American countries, prolonged embargoes over ideology, brinksmanship, etc. All of these things are dark marks in the eyes of justice, in my opinion, but they were done in the names of "freedom and democracy", although these interferences and injustices impart no freedom on their receipients, and democracy is the farthest thing many of the host countries of these interferences have to this day.

The problem with this line of reasoning comes from the arbitrariness of the term "justice". I might also belive that the principle of justice is greater than lives, and hense support further escallation of action in Iraq as a way of making sure justice is done (justice being overthrowing a tyrant, stomping out terrorism in the country, and getting a democratic gov't in place).

What it ends up becoming is essentially, people's lives are worth less than your personal beliefs, unless there can be universal agreement over what is just. And as a poster alluded to, it's nice in theory to say you are willing to give your life for "justice" when it's not your ass currently on the line. But as your beliefs are being more and more tested by threats, it becomes harder and harder to hold onto them.

How can we be so sure that our princeples really cost lives? I realize that justice can be more costly, but lives? We aren't sticking to our princeples now, and many people are losing their lives. What would it hurt trying to do the right thing?

Again, we might not be sticking to YOUR principles, but maybe someone else's principles are what we are following, also who's to say definitively that what we are doing isn't the right thing?