Posts by Isaac Freeman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
But even murderous religious fascists deserve a fair trial.
Quite so, although I think most people will find it hard to generate much sympathy for his right to due process. However, I think it's just as important and much easier to emphasise that Bin Laden's victims deserve a fair trial. That way you can enlist people's righteous indignation in support of a trial instead of running against the emotional grain.
How dare they grant Bin Laden a quick and merciful death? How dare they let him off without being held to account for his crimes in front of the world?
-
With you right up to the last word. "Fascist" is a loose term at the best of times, but it doesn't seem any better a fit for Bin Laden than "freedom fighter".
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to webweaver,
And when Isaac says “ah but you have to look at what he might do in the future and assess that risk as well” I worry that that’s the start of a potentially very slippery slope indeed, where it might be deemed OK to imprison/punish/put to death someone because of what they might do in the future, regardless of what they have already done in the past.
Aren't you essentially saying that the problem with relying on past evidence to predict future behaviour is that people might stop relying on past evidence and just start making up the predictions? That can certainly happen in practice (Exhibit A: The Iraq War), but I think the issue isn't with the principle, but rather that people aren't applying it.
An alternative criticism of my... I guess I'll call it a position, although it felt more like an observation at the time... is that past history might inform us about future risk, but it doesn't excuse disproportionate action to prevent that risk. Bin Laden's history tells us that he was extremely likely to kill more people, but that doesn't on its own justify killing him. If the US had captured and imprisoned him, that would have prevented him killing more people just as effectively, so why add an extra unnecessary death?
Returning to my original position, I'd respond that the circumstances probably made imprisonment impossible without risking many more lives. It wasn't just abstract future victims of terror attacks at stake, but actual innocent people right there in the house, along with soldiers who weren't acting as independent agents. Attempting to capture an armed Bin Laden alive would very likely have resulted in many more deaths. I doubt that the operation ever had capturing Bin Laden as an objective, but only because it couldn't be done, not because the planners preferred him dead than imprisoned.
So I’m left with wishing that these people could have been brought to justice, and tried in a fair trial, and found guilty if the evidence pointed that way, and then punished by being locked away in a cell for however long it was deemed necessary and fair to do so.
I very much wish that too, but I sincerely doubt there was any way to put it into practice without being complicit in further deaths.
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to Andre Alessi,
But sometimes the death of a person invested with symbolic significance acts as an attack on that idea.
Especially when, in the wake of the Arab Spring, there's a viable alternative to the idea.
-
Hard News: You know what ..., in reply to webweaver,
If you say it’s OK to take into account someone’s past history when you decide whether or not you’re going to take them out, doesn’t that take us all into a very grey and murky area?
Is it the past history itself that's important, or the future risk we assess based on the evidence of the past history? I think there's a high degree of certainty that Bin Laden would have been responsible for further deaths if he'd lived, and we make that judgement based on his record. If there was some reason to believe that his past was no longer a reliable predictor of future actions, I'd agree it would become irrelevant. But given that he was using his own family as hostages when he died, it's beyond my skills to make a case as Devil's Advocate.
Which is not to say I wouldn't have preferred a trial, I just don't think that was ever a possibility. Bin Laden was never going to come peacefully, and presumably the mission was designed on that assumption.
-
Up Front: Where You From?, in reply to Lisa Black,
The main thing I missed in Auckland was the sense of being embedded in a bigger landscape. Christchurch's flatness means you orient yourself to the Port Hills and to the Alps, both much bigger than the volcanic cones on the Isthmus.
I found myself cycling through the Domain every morning on my way into the city. It wasn't the quickest route, but it meant that I got to see Rangitoto on my way, and feel like I knew where I was.
-
Events can also affect your sense of belonging. After the September earthquake, and especially after the re-election of Bob Parker, whom I felt had done little to deserve it, I was ready to abandon Christchurch entirely. Move to Wellington or to London (I've tried living in Auckland – it didn't take. I have many beloved friends there, but it felt like fifty Timarus.) or anywhere that felt like a proper city.
The February earthquake, however, had the opposite effect on me. I'm from here and I don't want to leave. I even think Bob isn't so bad. Perhaps it's because so much of the city I knew has gone, it's as if I've been delivered to a new place without moving. Anything could happen, and I want to hang around at least long enough to see whether it looks better or worse than the old Christchurch.
-
I'm not certain how fair the reports of "panic buying" of petrol are. The service stations have certainly had huge demand with queues running down the roads, but people are also genuinely driving out of town. As I understand it, about 10% of the population of Christchurch is currently elsewhere, and while many have flown out, many will also have driven. It seems possible that people are genuinely buying the petrol they need to do what they intend to do, which is to all drive a long way at the same time.
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to Sam F,
All bike riders must pass a road-licence test – Do you know anyone adults that ride a bike that don’t drive?.
* Puts hand up *
I know plenty of others too, and that's without being particularly involved with cycling lobby groups (I get the Spokes newsletter, never been to an event).
I have no objection to a cycling licence per se. However, I can't see what problem it would solve, and I'd be concerned that it would do much more than cycle helmets to put people off cycling.
I found it valuable to take a few driving lessons years ago, but only in a negative sense. I remember being particularly shocked when the instructor told me how far ahead I should be looking down the road. It was about a third of the distance I was used to looking.
Putting indicators on bicycles strikes me as pointless. They're not going to be bright enough in the daylight, and the bike isn't wide enough for motorists to distinguish which way they're pointing. Motorists who already have trouble comprehending bicycles aren't going to think more carefully because they've been asked to understand another flashing light. And, with very few exceptions, cyclists seem to have arms, for which we have established customs of highly-visible indicating.
I might look into getting a rear-view mirror before my next long ride though. Seems like a good idea.
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Teenage drivers sometimes want to see if they can make you aware of their existence, but I seldom sense any active malice. The only people I've ever felt actually endangered by were without exception middle-aged white men. Typically they have some imaginary law in their heads that says I'm not allowed to ever be in their way, and they assume they have the right to enforce the imaginary law by trying to run me off the road.
On one delightful occasion, I had this happen at a roundabout, with much horn-blowing at my temerity to... I don't know... be going round a roundabout or something. After the repeated long blasts and the requisite "I'm going to teach you a lesson" dangerous passing maneuver, the middle-aged white man moved on, and a carload of teenagers came up behind him, slowed right down, and waited until they had room to pass. They came by slow enough that they could smile, wave, and express their opinion about what a bastard the other guy was. Made my day.