Foreign vs. Domestic Pre-emption
Perhaps the best question of the latest debate on pre-emption was asked by our senior sometime Chairman: "If pre-emption is justified against foreign goverments which threaten us, why is it not justified against our own citizens who we believe to be a threat."
I think the best answer to this question is: pre-emption against domestic threats is justified, and has always been recognized as justified. We lock up the mentally ill deemed to be dangerous. We define verbal or written threats (merely words!) to be crimes and lock up those who make them. We outlaw weapons which are not useful for self-defense. (I can't go buy an anti-tank weapon at Target).
So I guess the question can be reversed. Given we take these pre-emptive actions on the domestic front, why would it be wrong to use the same principles in our relations with foreigners?
I think the best answer to this question is: pre-emption against domestic threats is justified, and has always been recognized as justified. We lock up the mentally ill deemed to be dangerous. We define verbal or written threats (merely words!) to be crimes and lock up those who make them. We outlaw weapons which are not useful for self-defense. (I can't go buy an anti-tank weapon at Target).
So I guess the question can be reversed. Given we take these pre-emptive actions on the domestic front, why would it be wrong to use the same principles in our relations with foreigners?
posted by Harsh Pencil | 11/18/2004 10:48:00 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The question addressing foreign and domestice preemption raises important questions about our preferences. Do we prefer order to freedom? Do we prefer our order to foreignor's freedom? To what extent are we willing to treat foreignors differently than we would ourselves? I think just war theory has a lot to offer regarding answering these questions. To not ask and answer these and similar questions is to lack the precision required of wise decision-making.
Another way to distinguish domestic vs. foreign is the concept of civilization vs. the Law of the Jungle. In Kagan's famous essay Power & Weakness See http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html
he quotes Robert Cooper and argues that the law of the jungle prevails outside the borders of western civilization and that it would be perilous not to understand the law of the jungle. Therefore, even if it were hypocritical to use pre-emption against foreign powers and not in your own neighborhood, it would stupid not to be hypocritical.
Post a Comment