Making Sense of the Senseless
The Real Lessons of 9/11
By Christian Probasco, 9-11-08
 |
|
 | |
|
Several articles have already been published under the above title. Former Alaska Senator and supposed libertarian Mike Gravel had this to say about the lessons we should have learned:
“For decades the U.S Government has committed horrible acts around the world, often in secret but always in the name of the American people. In every region on earth, our government has overthrown or undermined democracies, aided brutal dictatorships, and funded guerrilla wars under the guise of fighting for freedom. Until the American people grapple with this fact, our government will continue to engage in activities that destabilize the world community and bring pain and suffering to millions, including our own citizens.”
Gary Kamiya of Salon published an article with the same title last year, which went something like this:
“Bush’s America responded to 9/11 by lashing out. We chose vigilantism over justice, instinct over reason. Bush demanded that America play the role of the angry, righteous avenger, and America followed him. But we were not taking vengeance on the guy who attacked us but on somebody standing on the corner.”
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s observations, meanwhile, jibe with my own in some particulars:
“Even though 40 billion dollars are spent on intelligence gathering each year, the process failed us. It’s likely to be said that what we need is more money and more efficiency. Yet, that approach fails to recognize that depending on government agencies to be efficient is a risky assumption.”
Imagine U.S. intelligence agencies having no idea, despite warnings, that a fairly large cell of terrorists has plans to fly passenger planes into civilian and government targets on U.S. soil. The airport screeners don’t detain any of these terrorists when they board their planes. The terrorists take control of their flights using only box cutters, and possibly mace or pepper spray. The crew has been instructed by the FAA not to resist them. Three of the planes are flown into buildings and the forth is deliberately crashed when the hijackers believe they will not be able to fulfill their mission. New York’s Twin Towers collapse after the planes’ impacts.
Imagine our president hiding in a bunker until the coast is clear. In retaliation, he overthrows the government which harbored the terrorists’ organization, but isn’t able to capture or kill the group’s leader. Then he invades another nation which had nothing to do with the attacks, because he happens to have the plans for such an invasion lying on his desk. Meanwhile, the nation from which most of the hijackers originated, some of whose citizens may have helped fund their efforts, goes completely unpunished. In fact, our president withdraws a military base from their soil, as per the terrorist organization’s original demands.
Imagine our “representatives” in Washington awarding broader powers to the organizations which screwed up in the first place, through legislation that no Congressman or Senator had read before voting on its passage.
If you had run the above scenario past me on September 10th, 2001, I would have said that your box was missing a few crayons. I was doing an audit on a store in Salt Lake City when the planes hit and was told what had happened by a trustworthy Mormon associate. At the time, I thought he was on crack. Looking back, I now believe this is the best evidence we have that our universe consists of branching “parallel” realities, because we have ended up somewhere far, far from the probabilistic stem.
Now, what makes 9/11 a Western issue, in addition to being a national one? The nature of the hijacking incidents fall at the moral nexus of old and new Western values. Note Kamiya’s pejorative equation of vigilantism with “instinct” and “lashing out.” I’m pretty sure he didn’t intend to slight people who believe in “Old West” values, but he assumed that vigilantism can’t be synonymous with justice. I seem to encounter this sort of knee-jerk reaction all the time, usually (but not always!) from pathologically authoritarian types. The kind who really do believe that your boss, political representative, doctor, local policeman, bishop, etc. has, or can have, your best interests in mind, even when he/she is not directly under your employ, or that “our” legal system was designed to work in the public’s favor, rather than the state’s (they are nowhere near synonymous).
In fact, had the pilots, stewards, stewardesses and passengers—every boy, girl, woman and man--on those four flights, immediately practiced Old West, cowboy-style vigilantism on the hijackers, as they should have, several thousand American lives, and possibly tens of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi lives, would have been spared. And a war, and possibly two wars, might have been averted. And justice surely would have prevailed. The great remaining question for me is, why didn’t they act before it was too late?
It seems to me that the real lesson of 9/11, besides that terrible things can happen to innocent people, is not to depend too much on law enforcement agencies for your safety, or for rescue, and not to assume that government policies, such as, “switch the plane on autopilot and hand the keys to the terrorists” were necessarily developed for your benefit. In regards to the aftermath, the lesson may be that we have to be more cognizant of what our government, no matter who is running it, might do to us for our own protection.
Except that every hijacking up till 9/11 was about exchanging the passengers on board for concessions to the terrorists' demands. The people aboard those planes were doing what was consistent with their survival; the passengers aboard the first three planes didn't know something larger was at stake. The passengers aboard Flight 93, however, did, and acted exactly as you suggested they should have. Hindsight may be 20/20, but if you and I had been on one of those first planes we'd have acted exactly as those on board did. You may wish to fault our intelligence organizations for failing to implement preventive measures against this new type of attack, but the standard procedure of complying with hijackers was consistent with passengers' safety at the time.
Comment By Chaos Tamer, 9-12-08"Be careful what you wish for" applies to both sides of your well-crafted arguement, very fairly written since it advocates diametrically opposed methods of dealing with challenges depending upon one's world and local view. Situational ethics don't cut it in the real world, which requires a fully crafted set of values and standards from individual to national.
Oh, and your trustworthy Mormon co-worker who you thought was on crack? Gratuitous.
While it's true that the only Americans who turned out to be able to defend their country on that awful day were the heroes on Flight 93 -- a great argument for distributed intelligence and the ability of ordinary people to make very good decisions in crisis if, as wiredroach points out, they have the necessary info (in turn, a great argument for things like reverse-911 systems and the like), it's actually untrue that our intelligence agencies had "no idea, despite warnings, that a fairly large cell of terrorists has plans to fly passenger planes into civilian and government targets on U.S. soil." The accurate statement, according to the 911 Report, is that our leaders, despite warnings from intelligence agencies that a fairly large cell of terrorists had plans to fly passenger planes into civilian and government targets on U.S. soil, took no substantive action.
BTW, I think you really demean the passengers in the first three planes by second-guessing them like this. Like many of us, I have often fantasized about what I would do if someone attempted something like this on a plane I was riding (belt garrotes, magazine spears, sweater or shoe on one hand to block knife thrusts, and, of course, if you get the upper hand on one of these animals, don't stop until he's never going to get up again or at least until his eyeballs are in your pocket, etc. etc. -- as extreme as I might sound, I refuse to believe anyone who claims not to have had similar thoughts...).
But unless you are highly trained to respond physically to such situations, it is the supremest arrogance to presume to know what you would be capable of. If you are a currently drilling special operator, I retract my criticism.
The writer responds: Not every hijacking prior to 9/11 was about exchanging passengers for concessions, I don't believe that anybody has developed a predictive model for individual human behavior, especially for terrorists, the standard procedure was wrong and helped get the passengers killed, the article presents opposing methods of dealing with challenges, but the only thing opposing I can personally advocate are thumbs, I didn't intend to demean any passenger, Mr. Stokes is right in that there is plenty of blame to go around in the political sphere, and I'm not highly trained to respond physically to such situations but if I was there and there had been an immediate counterattack I suppose the least I could do would be to stand on a seat and flop, violently, on one of the terrorists.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 9-13-08One thing I've always resented in the wake of 9/11 is the metastasis of the police establishment, when good old vigilance would probably be far more effective. Who knows how many pilots, retired police and regular passengers are of sound mind and body, perfectly suited for training as volunteers for those times when an air-marshal won't be on board when the SHTF?
A really big posse is a good thing sometimes.
Respectfully, the only way an "immediate counterattack" would have saved passengers' lives would have been if the passengers had correctly surmised in mere moments' time that the hijackers did not have bombs and were armed only with boxcutters--a huge gamble if the passengers proved to be wrong, and highly improbable given the amount of time the Flight 93 passengers took to evaluate their chances and decide to fight back. Again, except for Flight 93 they did not have any knowledge of the hijackers' intentions and the wisest course of action (from their point of view) would have been to comply. In the future, of course, no flight will likely be hijacked in this fashion because of 9/11, but at that time the standard procedure was the most rational option and was certainly the best option for safety based on previous hijacking incidents. To suggest otherwise is wishful thinking or hero fantasy.
Comment By Christian Probasco, 9-13-08What does hero worship have to do with it? Any time you put yourself at the mercy of individuals who are willing to use violence as a means of control, you are taking a terrible risk, and very likely making a serious mistake. And if a hijacker tells you he has a bomb, just what is his word worth? Especially if he wants to fly the plane you're riding on?
Comment By Dave Skinner, 9-14-08Hero worship doesn't have a thing to do with it. If I was on a plane, knew it was being used as an aerial bomb or was being hijacked where the likelihood is, "I'm gonna die," at that point it would be nice to not just have to sit like a mushroom and wait for the end or to be "rescued." Maybe. Possibly.
If the choice is kill or be killed, there's a preference.
I said "hero fantasy," not "hero worship." I'm talking about the idea we all have that in a crisis situation we like to think that we'd act with bravery or do the "correct" thing. But again, you're relying on hindsight to know what the correct thing is--information they didn't have. I think it's disrespectful to the victims on those planes to suggest that they should have known if they'd "practiced Old West, cowboy-style vigilantism on the hijackers, as they should have," they'd have been saved. We know that, looking back. They didn't. To think that enough able-bodied passengers would instantly and collectively assess that the hijackers didn't have a bomb that could destroy the plane, killing everyone on board, and then successfully subdue those hijackers, is improbable in the extreme. I don't understand why this is the "great remaining question" for you.
Comment By Dave Skinner, 9-15-08Roachster,
Bomb or not, plane or not, if someone is doing something that is gonna kill me, I should have a right to at least attempt to stop the #*%^. Todd Beamer and company on 93 heard on their cell phones that other planes had been crashed. At that point they knew their lives were forfeit if they did nothing, the rules had changed. They figured it out, and gave it a heck of a go.
I don't think "hero fantasy" was a consideration for them, to insinuate such is an insult. "Survival" sounds more like it.
As for your ilk, all I can ask is that you don't get Stockholm syndrome.
The author responds again: I am now getting answers, through this very blog, to my "great remaining question." It has more to do with my not understanding crowd psychology than an objective query into the passengers motives. I had thought through similar scenarios before 9/11, as I believe many people had, and had come to the conclusion that it is never a good idea to let a person gain control of an airplane that you happen to be on, through force, no matter what your assailants threaten. Once they have control of the plane, they don't need a bomb; they can just drop the nose. And I never even alluded to a "hero fantasy." I never alluded to a hero anything. I'm simply saying that vigilantism should never be discredited as an option because it comes in handy sometimes.
Comment By Sutton R. Stokes, 9-15-08Interesting discussion, indeed, Christian. I think, though, that there is an important distinction to be made between "vigilantism" and "self defense." Vigilantism is when civilians take it upon themselves to enforce laws; "Self defense" is when you, well, defend yourself. Nothing that happened on Flight 93 was vigilantism; it wouldn't have been vigilantism if the people on the first three flights had taken action.
Vigilantism is when, even though legal structures exist to address your own situation, and there is time to use them, you choose to act on your own. (If there isn't time to use those structures, you are back in a self-defense situation.)
All Kamiya was saying was that, if the U.S. had responded to this situation as a murder investigation rather than pretending it fell into the category of a "war," well, then there might not have been the two wars (one of them illegal under international law) you claim to regret.
As for Dave, take another read. There's not a single word in any of the comments above saying you don't have a right to defend yourself. All I and Wiredroach were saying is that it is not fair to criticize the people on the first three planes (saying what they "should have" done, as Christian does) for not doing what the people on Flight 93 did. As you yourself point out, the people on Flight 93 were the only passengers who realized what was happening in time to do anything. We were just saying that it's not fair to criticize the people on the first planes just because they did not have that information. Also, if you just take a deep breath and read sloooowly, you'll see that wiredroach wasn't saying that the PASSENGERS -- who DID act as heroes -- were engaged in "hero fantasy," but rather that most of the rest of us are engaged in "hero fantasy" when we imagine that we would be able to take effective action in a situation like that, before ever BEING in a situation like that.
We should HOPE we would be as brave as the people on Flight 93, that is, but we should not presume to judge other people who weren't, when we haven't been in their shoes.
Vigilantism is best not confused with self-defense. In the cases rendered, self-defense is the reaction. Vigilantism is taking the law into one's own hands (including enforcement of laws that do not exist) when the law does not act or is not capable of acting at the moment (not because it simply isn't there to defend you at the moment).
There have been scores of attempted highjackings that have ended through the action of other passengers, most without injury to others (or even the highjacker in many cases!!) or losing the aircraft. Most interventions have occured as soon as an apparant highjacker or "just plain wacko" is noticed by passengers.
Risk is inherent in any action; prudence demands making reasonable choices, some of which are not always passive.
And furthermore: "as they should have"--"should" not being an absolute obligation of duty but a moral affirmation that vigilantism would have been the rational course of action in light of other possible responses. Not "they should have taken action so we wouldn't be in this mess" but "having previously given the situation, and similar situations at least a moment's thought, they should have (i.e. it would have been rational to have) rushed the terrorists ASAP."
Comment By Dave Skinner, 9-15-08I'm not criticizing the casualties on the first three planes. They did what they were told to do under the "old paradigm," not knowing that it had been forever changed.
What I am criticizing is our government and our safety overseers for not availing themselves of a far better option for "homeland security" than the clusterscrew that is aviation "security" these days...never mind the ground-based programs. Never mind the massive trashing of long-held civil liberties in the name of "our own good." Did you boys read the WaPo today about the insurrection in the DOJ over the surveillance program?
I don't know if there's that much "confusion." The Plummer gang and the vigilance committees could have been acting in perceived self-defense?
Vigilantism has been unfairly discredited as an option, when the truth remains that it was seen as a reaction to the failings of "legitimate" lawnforcement to order society. I would not place the concept in the same category as lynch mobs, especially racist ones.
Let's not forget what the MHP have on their badges -- 3-7-77. Why is that still there after all these years? Because Montanans understand what it really means.
Now we're getting into semantics and this is one of the things I was decrying: the emotional baggage people (New Westers?) bring to the table with regard to the word vigilantism. According to American Heritage, a vigilante is "One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands," so vigilantism would be "taking or advocating the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands."
And yes, when I, and most people who give the "Old West" values of which I spake, think about vigilantism, I/we am/are thinking more along the lines of Wikipedia's definition: "A vigilante is a person who ignores due process of law and enacts their (sic) own form of justice in response to a perception of insufficient response by the authorities." But just that, and nothing more. It doesn't have anything to do with hero fantasies. It has nothing to do with being an "angry, righteous avenger. But note how the definition fits the passengers aboard Flight 93 (except for the justice part, I admit). They were vigilantes.
Christian, it's not "emotional baggage," it's just knowing how to use a dictionary and being able to pick the right word for the situation. Defending yourself or others (in a situation of acute threat) is not "taking law enforcement into your hands," it's exercising a natural human right recognized by our common law courts all the way back to England, and in most other cultures as well.
Law enforcement officers and judges, on the other hand, are specially commissioned to do things that would otherwise be illegal for citizens to do, like imprisoning people, and deciding if they are guilty or not, and punishing them (not killing them to stop them from killing you in the next minute, but punishing them even after they are in your control and posing no threat).
If you want to talk about a western spirit and a culture of self-sufficiency, have at it -- but you're just going to confuse people if you make up new meanings for words.
Okay, you semantics types...what's the old West and what's the New?
Comment By Christian Probasco, 9-15-08The passengers of flight 93 were an unregistered vigilance committee, necessarily made up of vigilantes. And as far as what the terrorists were doing was illegal, they were "taking the law into their own hands," because of an "insufficient response by the authorities." Again, the Wikepedia definition: "A vigilance committee, in the 19th century United States, was a group of private citizens who organized themselves for self-protection." Self protection (or defense) is part of the definition.
I am agreeing w/ Mr. Skinner that vigilantism has been discredited, when it shouldn't be. As for the New/Old West split, Jim Stiles has a good article at:
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/west/newwestnow.pdf
Probably the only thing Jim ever wrote with which I agree even in the slightest. But he does a pretty good job with the two-facedness.
Finally, this whole thing of whether vigilantes would have stopped the Afghani and Iraqi wars...
Not the first, maybe the latter.
Capturing any of the 19 alive would have made the hunt for Osama that much quicker, with ID and hot embers under fingernails helping point the fickle finger of American military might much closer and faster.
A success in Talibanistan would have decapitated the OBL movement, been a huge psychological blow not only in that country but also in Pashtunakistan.
As for the second Saddamese War, I would hope it would be avoided. I would guess that the oil-for-food scandal would have been better concluded, again, after zapping Osama. Yet the fact remains that Saddam was a savage brute and mass murderer of Stalinite caliber. What if he HAD developed WMD, just like the big worry these days about the Iranians doing so?
So Christian's central point here, that a little vigilantism might have changed the world, is not flawless. The specter of Islamic willingness to conduct mass murder for Allah has not gone away, and probably would inevitably manifested itself someplace else in an equally-horrible manner.
Nonetheless, were I in a position to be one of the victims...3-7-77.
Dave,
Sutton's summary of my comments is on the mark--I was careful to differentiate why Flight 93's passengers' actions were unique and appropriate, since they knew what the hijackers' goals were. You'll also see that my "hero fantasy" comment was aimed not at the passengers but at those of us who, not having been in that situation, like to imagine how much better a job we'd have done. Who knows; maybe there is no "correct" response. People forced to make hasty decisions in stressful situations don't have the luxury of coolly weighing the pros and cons as we do after the fact. The thrust of my objection to Christian's piece was his assertion that he knew what the correct response was, and seemed to chide the victims on the planes for not having his insight.
As for the "vigilante" discussion, I think that's a very charged word that can be used to mean either a responsible, upright citizen filling a vacuum of authority to further the public good, or a dangerous renegade who flouts the rule of law for his own ends. Christian definitely used it in the former sense, and it's certainly a better description of the good people on Flight 93. I don't disagree with the notion of people banding together to fight a common evil; I just disagree with his assessment that that was the clear option for the people on the first three flights.