Kabul Rescue Mission
I am not one to bounce the Kabul rubble, if that isn't redundant. I think that if it is logistically feasible we should drop into Kabul in sufficient numbers (1) to rescue the missionaries who are going on trial, (2) deliver tons of food and medical supplies to desperate civilians, and while we are there, (3) wipe out the Taliban leadership, maybe ten thousand deep. On general principles. Or for taking out the Buddha statues. Or for the way that they treat women in Afghanistan. Afghani women can't work, they can't go to school, and if they appear in public at all, they must be covered head to toe.
I caught a CNN clip of an Afghani man beating a woman in the street because her veil had slipped. Commented a CNN observer, it was as though he were beating a farm animal. Not in my world. People don't hit living creatures that way. With such contempt and brutality. There is a suggestion floating around the Internet that Osama should have a sex-change operation and be forced to live under the Taliban.
Which raises a critical issue in my mind, one that surfaced when it was first learned how the terrorists had done their deed. I could not understand how people could plan such an action for so long, living among regular Americans. Nor was it comprehensible that they could sit in an airport lounge, looking at all of the remarkably innocent people they were going to slaughter.
Goethe said in every man is the capacity for every crime. Could you do what they did? I couldn't. Kill, yes, with justification. Innocents, no. And to do it on the scale that they did begs the definition of human being. I suggest that people who are capable of performing such atrocities are beyond extreme; they are of a different genus. The guards at Auschwitz, Pol Pot's henchmen, Milosovic and his psychotics — regrettably even modern history is replete with villains who have performed unspeakable acts. At least the earlier slaughters might be written off to primitive minds, sort of.
Is there a way to identify this sub-species, to stop them before they harm others? Is there a DNA marker unique to this breed? Not that I'm suggesting that we toss out every infant who fits the wrong profile, but I'm concerned that we are so wound up with civil liberties and human rights that we're throwing away the opportunity to protect decent people from madmen, and to live safely in an open society. I appreciate that we like to gather in the strays, and give everyone a second chance, but folks, just like we have lemon laws to protect consumers from bad cars, so has society a right to protect itself from horrific deviants. Like the Taliban, and the killers on both sides of the disputes in Northern Ireland, Haiti, Kosovo, the West Bank, the Kashmir. Will this all-too-familiar and long list ever be depleted?
I think we should look into voiceprints, retinal scans and other technologies that can positively and immediately identify people. Since the vast majority of us haven't cast any significant stones, we should welcome the efforts to weed out those who have and would. I certainly wouldn't mind carrying a foolproof national identity card.
Many folks with whom I have long political associations would be knee-jerkedly aghast at these comments. They would wonder where IT will all stop. They would hiss-'n-fidget about slippery slopes. Which I can understand, but such concerns shouldn't freeze us into inaction. Let us not stoop to the terrorists' level of mindless failure. We can separate fear from danger. And after our own common sense, we can semi-rely on the courts to protect us for our traditional well-intentioned incompetence.
The bottom line is that a free society should be for people who act responsibly, with decency and respect for their community and humankind. Those who kill wantonly, ravage the lives of myriad strangers, and shred the ethic of a mostly-wonderful country have no rights beyond a speedy trial.
And that's SetonnoteS...I'm Tony Seton.