Eye Core

The administration and most of the press tells us, over and over, that we are in a war against an evil enemy.  The choice of this language is crucial to what happens next.  

The word "evil" stigmatizes anyone who would point out what makes these terrible actions seem necessary to their perpetrators. 

If we cannot speak or think about them, then we are helpless to deal with the conditions that will continue to generate angry and lethal action against us even if military action could destroy every currently active enemy operative. It is both morally and pragmatically essential that we acknowledge the real and deep grievances of  Palestinians, Iraqis, and many other third-world victims of American economic and military domination. But this should not prevent us from calling these massive attacks on civilian populations criminal acts.  We can understand and sympathize with the motives of these men, but why should that stand in the way of condemning, morally and legally, the acts themselves? Killing innocent people is a crime regardless of circumstances that give rise to it. If we would oppose the destruction of Afghan cities and villages as a war crime, then destroying American buildings which are the size of cities is also a crime. 

The administration and their cheerleaders in the media are talking war. Consider how the word "war" structures what we must do. War is a whole-sale action directed against a nation and a people, not against specific responsible individuals. War does not require proof of guilt; nations go to war without a trial: shoot first and ask questions later. War permits and expects the loss of innocent lives, which counts as "collateral damage". War expects the enemy to respond in kind to our destruction, so we go to war expecting to be attacked in return, and that we will, in turn, retaliate.  

War is not a path to justice, but only a contest of endurance, bloody-mindedness, and resources.  Instead of saying we are at war, we should be saying a crime has been committed. This word structures what we do very differently.  It calls for an investigation, for arrest, and for a public trial.  At the trial, evidence can show the damage done and the responsibility forit.  Mitigating circumstances can be recognized in this case, the oppression and inequality I spoke of earlier, and these should be addressed. 

Just as victims of ordinary crime do not act as judge, jury and executioner of those who have injured them, so the US alone should not act unilaterally to accuse and retaliate against the groups and nations who may be behind Tuesday's tragedies. The judgments that need to be made will have authority only if they are made by internationally supported institutions which the US does not control. Otherwise in the eyesof the world we are no less vigilantes, no less outlaws, than those who attacked us.