Ciao!

Well, my thoughts on this are pretty simplistic. I don't feel anyone really has enough guilt that they deserve to die. The victims of 9/11 didn't deserve to die. I don't care if there's corporate greed involved or what. I wasn't a fan of the Gulf War either. I fought in the first one, and to be honest, wasn't much of a fan of the first one (but for personal reasons back then).

Vengeance is a slippery road that is not a one lane highway. I really don't link 9/11 with Iraq like so many people are still trying to do. I link 9/11 with Afghanistan where we went after people who were much more tied to those events.

Who was saying that people had it coming for taking part in a corporate economy? That's fucked up. Maybe if a certain company causes some terrible tragedy, maybe SOME of those involved might by GUILTY but every employee? That is just stupid.
One thing I do like to think about though...with that many people, you know that some of them really did have it coming. You know that someone in that building had gotten away with beating his wife to death or something.
No real point to that, just interesting to think about.

Well, to be fair, the person I was talking to wasn't saying that EVERYONE was guilty, just that SOME of them "had it coming." But that's still problematic. How do we determine who that is? Where do you draw the line? What level of "participation in the corporate economy" makes a person guilty enough? Personally, I can't imagine ANYONE deserving that kind of fate. Even the guilty have rights. That's why we try to treat prisoners (whatever their crimes) humanely.

OK. Let's say that someone in that building committed a crime of some sort. One person. So we have empathy w/ all the other victims, but not that one person. Which one? If you don't know about their crimes, but just know that ONE of them "probably" committed some sort of crime, how do you justify that? Or do you just empathize w/ all of them?

A good point Bay raised was that even if all the people in the building were "guilty" of some moral transgression, they were still "innocent" in the context of the tragedy. They were not killed for anything they had don specifically; they were killed for the sake of killing lots of people. They were innocent. Guilty must be determined publicly in a fair forum (like a fair trial). Neither society nor individuals have the right to determine guilt and kill people randomly.

Take the example of the unabomber. He determined that the people he killed had "contributed" in some way to the problems of the planet. So he sent them mail bombs. Did they have it coming? Perhaps. But I seriously doubt it. Even assuming that no innocent people (secretaries, children, neighbors) opened any of the packages -- by what RIGHT did Ted K. determine the guilt & punishment of his victims? Even if a serious killer went after only murderers. Would that make it right?

The whole point of living in a "progressive" society is that people have rights that are defended. That violence is not meted out haphazardly. Justice should be carried out w/o emotion. We don't kill the murderers w/ bloodlust in our eyes; otherwise we just become murderers ourselves.

And, finally, even if some of the people at the WTC were "guilty" of corporate crimes, they might not have thought so. They might really have thought there were doing good in the world. Maybe they gave to charity. Maybe they volunteered at soup kitchens. And. Most importantly. They were also husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, daughters, sons, friends, neighbors. The death of these people destroyed a piece of the lives of everyone who loved them. Did they have it coming to them?

I think that innocent people dien in 9/11 was bad, hence I think innocent people dying in wars is bad too. I felt a lot of compassion for the victims of 9/11 when it happened. Yet, I do not feel the war in Iraq was justified. Nor the one in Afghanistan. Too many innocent die, when some trie to get the guilty. The irony is ...the guilty haven't been caught yet. Hundreds of innocent people are dead. Gone. Irreversible.

Hey. As displeased as I am about having words put into my mouth, I value your opinion and would like to clarify the reasons for my statements. You seemed to take one comment to mean something other than what I intended it to mean, but thankfully, you didn?t see fit to make it into an attack on me personally and I appreciate that. If I had actually said your brother (and mine too?he interns at a stockbroking firm) deserved to die, it would be hard to handle emotionally. That would've been really cruel, but left without much room for actual discussion outside of shouting, it's difficult to get a word in. Perhaps I can clarify in print.

Keep in mind the whole discussion started from the subject of the 9-11 comic series. You seemed very enthusiastic about it, and I was attempting to explain that it's probably not something I'd enjoy. I feel too conflicted about the actual disaster to really root for any characters in a fictional narrative. Then I said that it's difficult for me to empathize with some of the narrative angles the comic series could?ve taken, for two reasons: a. empathizing with so many people is very emotionally taxing for someone who didn't know anyone who died in the attacks. and b. you can never be sure whether some of those people could've had it coming. This was taken to mean that I supposedly see everyone who died in the September 11th attacks as inherently guilty after a life of failure to recognize the far-reaching repercussions of their immediate choices. I never said everyone deserved to die. I never said anyone's brother deserved to die. All I said was some of those people were probably doing less than excusable things, and that would probably make for a comic series I'd rather not take on. Not a death sentence for deserving corporate pigs. But that seems to be how my arguments were stereotyped based on factors about my level of vehemence, other convictions, or socio-economic background. The point of the comic series was entirely abandoned and I was thrown into the position of debating why people deserve to die when all I said was that I don't really want to read about them.

I would've like to make a distinction between?those people should've all died? and ?it's difficult to empathize beyond recognizing that their death was a tragedy, especially when I feel conflicted about some of their actions. What I'm emphasizing here is that I never said?you don't have a right to live because you acted irresponsibly, but?I can't always empathize with some choices (though it would be hard to prove who did what to whom and it would always vary depending on the individual victim) though mass death was unwarranted.

What I'll admit is that I have a hard time empathizing when bad things come to people with a lot of power. As we all heard last night, with great power comes great responsibility. It is absolutely undeniable that some of those people in that building had a lot of power that may (or may not) have been used irresponsibly. This doesn't mean they died for good reasons. It just means everyone's not completely innocent. I usually figure everyone is skeptical of the behavior of people who have a lot of privelege. They may not have been absolute innocents, but I did not say that they deserved to die. What I did say is that I have more empathy for people that have a more limited range of choices. I do have a hard time empathizing with people that opt out of the choice to act as justly as possible, I'm not denying that.

I am aware of the fact that my judgement is subjective, and I'm not attempting to judge all victims of the attacks. Let me emphasize: The result of my judgment that?so and so working in the world trade center exploited millions of already disenfranchised people (supposing anyone could even prove that) is not?kill them, it's just?I?m not going to get worked into an emotional frenzy over something I can never be sure of, or even affect in any way. It's a tragedy, I?m not denying that. However, there's nothing I can personally do but try to be as aware as possible and hope that more people have a chance for personal reflection before their lives are ended for the wrong reasons. Yet in the context of that discussion I feel that?some of those people had it coming was taken to mean that I felt everyone should?ve died?which is not what I intended. I see a lot of good and bad points about how people have responded to the attacks, and in some ways, people have rebuilt in a lot of important ways.

With that said, I'm having a hard time responding to your other arguments. You seem to think I meant that they paid a fair price for their actions, but?having it coming is extremely subjective and not something that gets in the way of my being able to recognize 9-11 as a tragedy. All my personal skepticism really warranted was my deciding I didn't want to read some graphic novels, not condemning everyone who died. I definitely appreciate your viewpoint, and hope my clarifications settle this in your mind despite not getting to finish any of my sentences and being generally provoked by Bay's complete disrespect for anything I could?ve said after she decided what my point was for me. However, since you have restated what she said in a far less hostile, manipulative, and personally demeaning way I might as well sound off on that too.

In fact, if the question is ?were all the people guilty solely in the context of the tragedy? I?m going to have to say that they were not, in fact, effectively being punished. (Perhaps that's evidence of how willing I am to completely shut off any consideration for the arguments of people who get in my face and act disrespectfully) None of the victims of 9-11 were actually killed for anything they specifically had done. This is not a rage against the machine vengeance justified by widespread exploitation, as Bay decided my point was. It was a fundamentalist hit-and-run that may have potentially knocked off a few people who could've been doing inexcusable things. In either case, I didn't say the mass murder was appropriate or something I personally condone. Even if it had been the former (the vengeance scenario), I never said they should die for their capitalist crimes. I will add though, that I'd have a hard time empathizing with a character in a novel that didn't look at the far-reaching repercussions of her actions. And as I said earlier, power and responsibility ought to accompany each other. And some of those people might not have been innocent in the grand scheme of things. For that reason I choose to see 9-11 as a tragedy, a large-scale unjustifiable strike on people that didn't deserve to die, but not as the slaughter of innocents. I agree that in the context of their death, they hadn't committed a crime that would provide legitimate cause for their death, but innocent is a strong word. I feel that innocent implies a grand-scheme sense, and really, nobody?s actually ever completely innocent in that sense. Maybe if really small children who hadn't ever made a wrong decision or intentionally hurt anybody had all died I could say it was a slaughter of innocents. In the case of most people, we can never know. Of course it?s wrong to kill them just because you or anyone else decides they're not innocent, but I just feel it's best assessing the tragedy in terms of unjust murder (as you originally said, and I think I agreed before being cut off), but not slaughter of the innocents. As for my actual feelings about real people who died, I can't ignore the idea that maybe some people really did get what they deserved (You know that someone in that building had gotten away with beating his wife to death or something.) You never know. Not all of the victims were absolutely beyond a doubt innocent. Who is? And a lot of those people did have a lot of power. I can't answer the question of whose selective ignorance warranted their death.

No one can. September 11th was not about innocence or guilt?these things are always going to be subjective depending on what facts are deemed appropriate but death is an unfair price. I'm not going to say the victims were guilty or innocent in the grand scheme of things. I will say some of them probably should've reflected on their choices. I will also say that their power status makes empathy difficult. But I didn't say they had it coming in the sense that they all deserved to die.

"Guilty must be determined publicly in a fair forum (like a fair trial). Neither society nor individuals have the right to determine guilt and kill people randomly."-Miguel
Miguel, I just wanted to make the observation/statement that the reason I opposed BOTH the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq has to do with exactly the point you made in your comment. Instead of setting up an international legal solution to the problem of al-Quada, the Bush administration decided to act (and continues to act) like the relative of a victim killed in a violent crime. Every possible kind of revenge is not unthinkable for a reaction of this kind, as everyone knows people in those situations do not think clearly.
So just as society does not allow the family of a victim of a violent crime to punish the perpetrator of the crime--global society must not allow the victims of international terrorism to conduct endless wars against anyone the victim decides is guilty. What needs to happen, and what probably will happen once clearer heads are in office, is some kind of international tribunal on terrorism. This way the international community can look on this global problem and setup up a criminal structure to handle international terrorists.
Global justice isn't as sexy as revenge-based wars, but it is the only solution.

Interesting Post Miguel, the first few lines really got my attention. You know, that is something that I have been dealing with my whole time here at DuPont, one of the largest comapanies in the world. In the last year, DuPont is increasing our efforts in Low Cost Country Sourcing. Is this a problem? Is sourcing from low cost countries the same as taking advantage of people. Before I started here, I was sure to look and find out if DuPont is a ethical company. And I will say yes. When you have a company that brings Mary Petterson, former President of Ireland and a active humanitarian, who works closely with the UN on Human Rights issues, to speak it's impressive. DuPont, and many other companies are doing what she calls Ethical Globalization. We do NOT mantian businesses with companies that use child labor, sweet shops, etc. I know this wasn't excatly the issue of your conversation, but it is a attempt to defend my business and career. I work in a Ethical Company (I gladly welcome challenges) and I work in a field that makes businesses more efficient. Not to make companies more money, or to become more greedy but to improve proccess. DuPont has been around for 200+ years. To be around that long we have had to adapt, improve and remain ethical.

Patrick:

Good points. I do think that guilt should be determined publicly, w/ debate. And I remind you that it took the US a year to act in Afghanistan (a place where enough evidence had existed for years) and two years in Iraq.

But the point is that I don't turn around and say that some of the people who died in Afghanistan or Iraq "had it coming". That's the key difference. The unwillingness to shed a tear for victims because they "might" have been "guilty" of "something" is horrible.

Let me also add that war is sometimes a necessary evil. The key words here are "sometimes" and "evil". Sometimes we have to make horrible decisions (especially state leaders) that are, essentially, a lesser of a wide variety of evils. And all these decisions are made in a context of great uncertainty: If we go to war, do we kill the wrong people and make things worse? If we don't go to war, does this encourage the people who hate us and cause more deaths? God, I'd hate to have to be the person making those horrendously tough decisions.

So. Yeah, innocent people die in war. That happens. And, you know what, it tears me up inside. So what's your point? Yes, the death of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq is horrible. I agree. I've never stated otherwise.

interesting. I still disagree with your viewpoint, and, of course, I'm disappointed in your reaction to me, but I understand people are different and not everyone enjoys defending their points or whatever. I never mind when a conversation about comic books brings about a lively discussion about politics, gender roles, whatever, but I understand being annoyed by conversational shifts. it's a focus thing, I guess. anyhow, sorry to offend, I never know when to keep my opinions to myself.

I don't think anyone in that building deserved to die on September 11, 2001 or any other victim of a violent crime. And furthermore, I don't think anyone "had it coming." Should we say that the lawyer deserved to die more than the waiter because the lawyer found his vocation in fighting for justice?

Killing is killing no matter how one tries to justify it. That's how people who murder abortionists feel and those who agree with capital punishment. In their minds, it's simnple moral math. "I am killing one person, but in the end I am saving hundreds more." I am more pro-life on all the issues, except euthanasia where I am in the middle.

Hmm...

So war is "evil" but also, alas, "necessary." And so someone had to perform the calculus that you so eloquently fear and, well, decide who deserves to die.

And so certain Americans had to make the tough choice, yes yes. Some of them even fashioned a deck of playing cards to help our boys identify those deserving of death. War sucks, is hell, yes.

But inasmuch as certain persons who brought down the WTC perceive themselves to be operating in the context of war (holy, in this case), do their actions fall into the territory of "necessary evil" too? Are they making tough, noble, ugly decisions?

"Innocent people die in a war." Okay. I just fear, though, that war is a more fluid concept than you think.

"Let me also add that war is sometimes a necessary evil."-Miguel
I just wanted to take a moment to expand on this point from my perception of the perspective of someone who believes they are fighting a holy war against America. From this perspective, the people in the WTC are indirectly responsible for many of the tragedies the 9-11 terrorists have witnessed in their countries. They are responsible, not for their actions, but for the fact that their workplace symbolizes the American power which has been destroying their society for many years. So according to their perspective, yes--those people "had it coming" because the 9-11 terrorists had made the decision through their own "war calculus" that acts of war were not only necessary, but that those acts would help their fight for the long term. The 9-11 terrorists took the battlefield to the American civilian population, because their societies have been battlefields for many years.
This "war calculus" argument was then used by the Bush Administration to justify invading Afghanistan (it did not take a year, we had Spec. Ops there within days) and then to justify invading Iraq--killing more civilians and continuing the cycle of violence. This warlike reaction by America served exactly the purpose that al-Quada was hoping--they want the West to ostracize Muslims who are living in the West, they want the West to conduct endless wars against Muslim terrorism, because all that violence merely serves to boost their recruiting and their belief that they are fighting the "great satan."
The only solution to this violent cycle, is the same solution to nuclear war--"the only way to win the game is not to play it." (from the movie WarGames) War is NOT a necessary evil, it can NEVER be a necessary evil. To wage the war of today merely means to schedule a war for the future, when the losers/victims of your successful war decide to take revenge in a war of their own.

thanks, Bay.