Just Like Us

A point that is sometimes forgotten when thinking about the infamous attacks of Sept. 11 is that the people who carried out those attacks were human beings, just like us. Human beings who could think, feel, act, and take responsibility for their actions. Human beings who were well aware that their actions would have consequences, and who had a grand design toward which their actions were aimed.

Those who planned and carried out the Sept. 11 attacks--and the many more terrorist attacks occurring almost daily around the world--are proud of their actions and certainly do not apologize for them. As Time reported this week, pictures and posters of the attackers adorn streets from London to Karachi; the attackers are venerated for their efforts to kill Americans. So we should see the problem for what it is: a group of people who have different values from us and are willing to go to extreme measures to ensure that these values are transmitted and realized.

When looking at it through this lens of liberalization, one can weigh the acceptability of the actions through our concept of liberty, enshrined in the Bill of Rights: one is free to act as one wants so long as one's actions do not harm another. But when one does intend to cause harm to others, action must be taken to defend the other's basic and inalienable right to life, even if that means causing violence against those who would do violence unto us.

As the liberal philosopher Paul Berman writes in the American Prospect, "It is not that we have chosen war; it has chosen us, and all we can do is behave correctly under the circumstances." Behaving correctly is to defend democracy, to defend the innocent human beings of the world who suffer from the acts of terrorism. Since the attacks are carried out with no fair warning, this defense must be done preemptively when the case arises.

The idea of preemptive action is a central value to the rule of law in that the relevant authority must actively go after those who are intent on infringing on the liberties of others, and stop them before a crime is carried out. In this case, with terrorism carried out by shadowy organizations who clearly state that their objective is the destruction of Western society and the death of "Crusaders and Jews," as stated in Al-Qaeda's founding document, the values of liberalism clearly comply with the idea of preemptive action.

But preemptive action against whom? The first thing that needs to be made clear is that the ideology that led to the attacks of Sept. 11 is not Islam. It is as far removed from Islam as abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph's brand of Christianity is from the Christian religion. But it is a certain interpretation of the religion that states that murdering people for the cause of Jihad is good and just, no matter if the people killed are innocent civilians.

What could be a cause of this extreme interpretation? The jury is still out, but it might have something to do with the regimes under which this ideology grows and flourishes. It is certainly not poverty, that much is for sure; too many terrorists come from wealthy families or hold university degrees. So what is it? The lack of liberty in Middle Eastern countries is my guess.

Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers, remains one of the more repressive and autocratic regimes on earth. The kingdom that supposedly follows the Religion of Peace has a long and horrible history of subjugating its people, fencing in its women, and stealing the public wealth for the advancement of the select few in the royal family. With oil production of 8.711 million barrels a day and just over 24 million people, Saudi Arabia could potentially open the way to the same standard of living for its people that exists in Norway, which produces 3.466 million barrels a day for its 4.5 million people. But Saudia Arabia has done no such thing, leaving its people disenfranchised and frustrated. Since internal controls within the kingdom were too strict for those disenfranchised to effect any change in their home country, they took out that frustration on us two years ago.

The same is true for many of the other countries in the Middle East--countries whose strategy for regime survival is blaming the United States and Israel for all of their woes, and fostering violent nationalism instead of investing in the advancement of their own peoples. Their simplistic interpretation neglects the fact that human beings can choose to change their system of government, redistribute wealth and provide fair opportunities, and look within and work toward progress instead of scapegoating others.

America must foster these ideas when choosing the aim of its foreign policy. And it has. While I, too, can criticize President Bush until daybreak, the administration has made democratization and liberalization one of the aims of America's policy and, insofar as the administration pursues this aim, I believe we should support our government's actions overseas. That does not mean that we should be silent and accept everything, but it does mean that we should not automatically assume that every action of the Bush administration is inherently bad, as many in our community do. To fight this battle that we have not chosen, we must come together as a people and make clear that those who harm us will be held accountable for their actions, and that we will stop at nothing to protect and promote the liberty of our friends and neighbors.

Ariel Beery is a junior in the School of General Studies majoring in economics and political science.