Does it make sense to divide people who are disposed to cause callous endangerment to others, into the distinct categories of ‘insane’ and ‘terrorist’? We are talking about people who are prepared to end other people’s lives regardless of the arguments that go against such a course of action. They simply shut out any objective information which shows that those they endanger ought not to be so treated. Their empathy and reasoning have been short-circuited.
There is a significant overlap between the those who threaten others as a result of their coming to imagine that the murder of certain innocent people is desirable, and those who threaten others as a result of their embracing some doctrine that declares that the murder of certain innocent people is desirable? Why should we classify a person as insane if he insists that he must kill because a voice in his head tells him to, but classify a person as a terrorist if he insists that he must kill because his God commands him to? There is no coherent basis for regarding the motive to sacrifice others for the glory of a mighty deity as a terrorist ideology, but the motive to sacrifice others for the sake of appeasing a merciless devil as a mentally disturbing fantasy. In both cases – unless one accepts the absurd premise as a rational one – any person acting on it has to be considered as dangerously deranged.
Subjective intent is not relevant either. A person acting out some deadly fantasy may think he is saving people from a corrupt world by locking them in a burning building. Another person may think he is following the teachings of a holy figure by ending the mortal lives of a group of people he has recruited so that they can attain eternal joy more swiftly. It is the objective harm such people can bring that must be anticipated and prevented.
What about the ‘lone wolf’/‘loyal soldier’ distinction? If the issue is the scale of operation needed to tackle the threat, then an individual acting on his own with no connection to any wider network might be easier to stop than an organisation with many members involved in multiple plots. But depending on the weapons and the targets of attacks, one individual could in some situation pose a greater threat than a group of people. It should also be noted that ideas that feed callous endangerment do not necessarily follow direct command structures. Ideas that promote blind hatred and remorseless violence can encourage individuals with no formal links to organisations propagating these ideas, to vent their anger and hurt others.
The insanity/terrorism demarcation seems to imply that while the former is an illness that should be dealt with through psychiatric treatment, the latter is carried out on the basis of a rational commitment. In other words, if someone commits an apparent terrorist act because of his insanity, then he is not really a terrorist. But we understand that many who are manipulated into carrying out terrorist acts are radicalised into embracing notions that they would otherwise have rejected. Indeed, there cannot be many simpler tests of a mind’s soundness than to check its readiness to terminate the lives of innocent people [Note 1]. The extent to which the propensity for callously endangering others can be cured (deradicalised, or de-cultified) will vary in different cases. What is needed is a unified system to identify, assess, counter, contain, and treat (if that is an option) anyone who exhibits such propensity.
--
Note 1: One can legitimately debate if, for example, shutting off one section of a submarine knowing that would lead to ten people being trapped behind and drowning, when it is necessary to save the whole boat from sinking and killing the entire crew of sixty on board. However, the losing lives/saving lives issue does not apply when the ‘benefit’ invoked to justify the loss of lives only exists in the mind of the killer.
No comments:
Post a Comment