In Bush’s speech he refers to the terrorists as following “the path
of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarism.” He states how the terrorists “do not
want to merely end lives but disrupt and end our way of life.” He goes further
to state that, "it is the time to start the war back on terror.” These examples
are how Bush validates the second 9/11 as a “crime against humanity.”
In a state of war, the consequences on human life and society allow us to defend measures taken in means other than a horrific crime as Chomsky has
eluded to in his speech. When Robert Frisk refers to 9/11 as a “horrendous crime” this should
have been dealt with in the matter that was in accordance to the American
Judicial or Military Court System. Chomsky’s literation challenges us to
question if Bush commits his own crime against Osama Bin Laden. The “crime of
aggression” against Osama Bin Laden is also referred to as the “supreme international
crime”. The “supreme international crime” is clearly defined by Justice Robert
Jackson in a General Assembly resolution during the Nuremberg Tribunal. This is
similar to the expression an “eye for an eye.”
Operational Geronimo was being compared to a state of vengeance
other than fighting the war on terror or humanity. When Osama Bin Laden was apprehended,
he was assassinated, and laid to rest without jury or proper burial. In the
passage of Chomsky’s work, there are even mentions that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for all that transpired on 9/11.
Another example by Chomsky that illustrates American exceptionalism
is seen in our involvement in the election of Salvador Allende in Chile. There
were calculated and intentional deliberations to force Allende from office that
eventually lead to his replacement by General Pinochet. There were many long
term and disastrous consequences from this involvement, but it is another
example of where the US may believe it gets a pass on the rules.
While the above examples may appear this blog is defending Chomsky
on his stance “Was There an Alternative”, it is merely qualifying or
characterizing how he came to his conclusions. In order to better understand
this blog post, I needed to demonstrate them accordingly. My personal beliefs,
traditions, and heritage make it very difficult for me to see that there is an
alternative. Especially when the function of a terrorist is to wipe out Western
Civilization and replace it with his or her own evil ideology. Even if Chomsky
is trying to state that 9/11 is only a horrendous crime, I am torn because we
are still in a war on terror and fighting for our survival in humanity.
I think you're right to highlight the events of Allende's overthrow in Chile as an important part of Chomsky's argument.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to remember the ten-year gap between these essays--though Bush was the president when these events were set in motion, it was President Obama who was commander in chief when the Navy SEALS operation found him, and then carried out their mission.
I agree with how a threat can cause a person to feel as though there is only one option. To refer to a Harry Potter quote, the choices we make tell more about us than our abilities. We may have the capabilities to take out a top-threat terrorist, but it is the choice that we make on how to go about doing such a thing, that define us. If we are a nation that breaks it's own rules when we feel unsafe, how can we expect (and how can we punish or even scold) others, like many countries in the Middle East at war, to not break codes of laws, morals and ethics when they are afraid as well?
ReplyDelete