On Tuesday, September 18, 2001, at 09:17  PM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:

> "Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> 	Stephen was not arguing so much against reflection and 
> introspection as
> 	against the suggestion that the evil of this obscenity can be 
> overlooked
> 	for any "reasons" raised in its defense.
>
> That may have been what he meant, but it is not what he wrote.
>
> 	It is entirely unnecessary --for purposes of justice-- to contemplate
> 	any reasons purporting to account for the act.

I agree that is what he wrote.  I stand by my earlier statement for the 
reasons set forth in my prior posting.  For purposes of justice, it is 
in fact unnecessary to consider the reasons purporting to account for 
the act, because no reasons can constitute a justification or defense of 
this obscenity.

> This is the same kind of tunnel vision that gets software projects into
> deep trouble, and it is ethically and jurisprudentially false.

Reasonable people may disagree.  I respectfully suggest, for reasons 
previously stated and below that Richard is mistaken.

> It is considered normal in at least the Common Law countries to consider
> the criminal's history and mental state both in order to determine an
> appropriate sentence and to predict the likelihood of reoffence.

For determination of criminal responsibility, even given the scattered 
information presently available to us, sufficient mens rea to establish 
criminal responsibility is apparent.  Intentionally flying a jumbo 
jetliner plane, three times, into public buildings constitutes --at 
least-- depraved heart-type malice aforethought.  The evidence that the 
strikes were planned and premeditated is striking, and frankly, plain 
beyond cavil.  For the reasons set forth in my preceding posting, 
neither justification nor excuse apply in the present case.

Seriously, this isn't a close question legally speaking.  The fact that 
it was done "for noble cause," no matter how noble, is not a defense for 
a crime, except in the limited factual circumstances necessary to 
establish self-defense, defense of others and related defenses.  No 
"abuse excuse" would apply here.  Perhaps the excuse of insanity, but 
the facts of the case militate severely against that as well under the 
applicable McNaughton standard.

> It is also necessary to "ponder" in order to decide who the criminals 
> are.

This was noted in my previous response.  Understanding the enemy's 
motivations is an effective way to anticipate what they will do next.  
 From a Sun-Tzu point of view, this is absolutely correct.  However, this 
has nothing to do with "purposes of justice."

> There is such a thing as conspiracy, and bombing the heck out of one
> country is going to do nothing about the other members of those groups
> in other countries.

Richard is clearly mistaken, as a matter of international law.  The 
Nuremberg war crimes were, for the most part, crimes predicated on 
conspiracy.  As a matter of criminal law in the United States, plotting 
a conspiracy extraterritorially in a nation where conspiracy is 
non-criminal is not a defense when the crime is committed in the U.S.  
(That is why bin Laden has been indicted several times, though he 
himself most certainly did not commit a crime on U.S. soil.)  This 
raises questions of international comity and problems of obtaining bin 
Laden for prosecution.  But this isn't always a problem -- consider 
Noriega.

> But the justice that I had in mind was justice to the next lot of
> innocent *Americans* to die.  To simply lash out without "pondering"
> in revenge without tackling the causes will be to contribute to more
> *American* deaths, and that is not justice to those future victims.

Once again, for purposes of justice, as that word denotes, no inquiry 
into their state of mind is necessary.  Certain crimes are of such a 
nature that their danger to civilization requires no inquiry whatsoever 
into motives or reasons.  From now on, it is a question of survival for 
each civilized nation -- tolerating terrorism, even terrorism justified 
by reasons with which you agree, is impossible -- the next "reasons" 
necessarily will be thrust at you.

To suggest that it is "lashing out" to suggest that no inquiry into 
reasons is necessary is to ignore the possibility that it might be the 
ONLY rational basis to obtain international consensus regarding the 
harms of terrorism.  It has become apparent that the world may have "had 
enough," recognizing that the next waves of terrorism will be directed 
at them.

> 	The premeditated murder of thousands directly, and indirectly
> 	hundreds more of our bravest and best, cannot have been in
> 	self-defense, nor been undertaken in the "heat of passion," as
> 	those justifications are understood in Western jurisprudence.
> 	
> But these people are not Westerners, and they think it _was_ a kind of
> defence.  (This doesn't mean I agree with them.  I've read the Koran,
> and as far as I can see this was as monstrous by Islamic standards as
> by Western standards.)  Never forget:  many thousands of people have
> died in the Middle East as a consequence of American policy and arms.

In case you hadn't noticed.  The actus rea (plural of actus reus?) for 
these crimes were committed entirely on U.S. soil.  And in all those 
common law nations, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.  Apparently 
one version of Islamic law applies the same principle, by the way:  The 
Taliban's prosecution of Western Christians resolved various legal 
issues on the same ground -- lecturing Western critics at length on the 
importance of recognizing Afghanistan sovereignty and application of 
ignorantia lex non excusat.

> I firmly believe that it is evil to kill even one innocent (or possibly
> innocent) human (or possibly human) being.  What happened last week was
> WRONG, *EVIL*.
> But peace and justice go hand-in-hand.  There can be such a thing as a
> just war (Beverly Nichols, a British journalist and very prominent
> pacifist, wrote after WWII that he was wrong about that one).  Most wars
> are rather like feuds.
>
> What's the answer to feuds?  THE RULE OF LAW.
>
> What we all need at this time is lots of pondering and the rule of law.

My point exactly.  And by application of appropriate legal standards, 
the "reasons" for the obscenity are irrelevant to the application of 
justice.  Richard may be correct, certainly, that pursuing justice may 
be contrary to achieving peace.  He may also be misguided -- failure to 
vigorously prosecute for justice may lead to more and worse terrorism.  
Or worse, a world in which terrorism is tolerated or accepted as a fact 
of life.

On the other hand, Richard thought there could be sound reasons and 
justifications for the fork of Squeak -- I disagreed there as well, 
largely on the same pragmatic grounds.

With that, I retire from the inquiry.