Think Before Acting Following the Terrorism Attack

In the aftermath of the monstrous September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the Bush administration tells us that we must make sacrifices in the interests of the war against terrorism.

But what sacrifices? Without hesitation, I'll enlist in an effort to increase conservation and decrease the need for fossil fuel. I am also more than willing to give up my tax refund or better yet encourage a rollback of the entire Bush tax cut package to provide additional resources. There is, however, one sacrifice I refuse to make in this situation. I refuse to give up my capacity to reason, question, analyze the data and draw conclusions. I acknowledge that any conclusions will not (and should not) be final. New developments always require reevaluation of my original opinions.

I could of course bypass this process and let the mainstream media do my thinking for me. I could regurgitate their selective reporting and the opinions of "experts" as my own. I could submit to the knee-jerk responses of the stampeding herd. And in that way, protect myself from their branding iron that marks me unpatriotic, heretical and even traitorous.

But I refuse to follow this expedient way. I refuse to turn off the interrogator in my head who poses questions and presses me for their answers. Questions like:

-What is the evidence against the accused?

-What course of action will be followed in apprehension of those accused?

-What are our country's short and long term goals and how will they be accomplished by our actions?

-How do our government's actions fit with the conventional definition of a war as a conflict between nation-states?

-If the enemy here is a collection of largely anonymous individuals of undetermined nationality, then what are the rules that govern this *war's* operation and ensure adherence to international justice and human rights norms?

-Should we treat this as an international crime rather than an act of war?

-In the effort to protect and defend our country how much disruption of our cherished civil liberties are we willing to concede?

-If we allow these suspensions of our rights are we acting in contradiction to the very freedom we are defending?

While I praise America’s grand accomplishment in establishing an orderly society where freedom and justice are allowed to flourish, I cannot gloss over its failures. Many of these were perpetrated in the name of national security and patriotism such as the Alien & Sedition Laws of 1798, the internment of the Japanese-Americans in WWII, the McCarthy hearings of the 1950’s, the financial and military support of foreign dictators (including Saddam Hussein) and the current Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001.

Largely due to the efforts of those citizens and members of the media who asked questions and dissented, our liberties have managed to survive such violations.

Before we speak out, we all need to examine history for the causes of the recent atttacks. A hard look at our foreign policy, its assumptions, its priorities and its objectives is essential. Studying history is time-consuming and too often makes for dull reading. But if we are to control terrorism, we need to go beyond military solutions, which are ill-suited to task at hand. We need to devise new strategies that involve coalition building and diplomacy directed towards international cooperation and disarmament. We need to learn the lessons that history teaches us about the effects of economic and social injustice. And we need to accept our own blame where it is indicated and make the necessary changes.

Is it enough for us to be known as the world’s richest and most powerful nation, or do we want to go further to be recognized as the world’s leading advocate for universal peace and justice?