Don't be coy: the 'accident' in this case, of course, was the decision made that this guy was a true threat. Once that decision was made, of course the result was no accident.
=============
Precisely.
Unsurprisingly, this shooting caused a flurry of email discussion amongst my friends whose views cover the full range we've seen here onlist: everything from the 'by any means necessary' tough talk of Wojtek to appeals for greater analysis into motives.
My view is that two things must be done simultaneously: a.) an honest and sober analysis of motive and b.) timely interception of terrorist action to save lives.
There's no mutual exclusion necessary.
But how do you do "timely interception"? This is what everyone really needs to be focusing on, not whether it's good policy to train and encourage law enforcement personnel to shoot bombers. Because clearly, that's a closing-the-barn-door after-the-horses-have-left condition.
The key thing to remember is that once the situation's gotten to the point where you're chasing a man you suspect of harboring a bomb and firing at him to prevent
detonation your interception/intelligence efforts have fallen apart and all remaining choices are bad. No doubt this will happen from time to time even with the best efforts but if it's the most you can muster there's a serious problem.
Applauding the shoot-to-kill idea, as some have done, even while acknowledging the tragedy of accidental death in this specific case is understandable.
But it's the wrong focus in my view because it places the emphasis upon counter-violence (or, pre-emptive violence) over investigation and interception.
Very appealing to our most basic instincts but an extraordinarily sloppy counter-terrorism program.
Since Sept 11 '01, I've told my liberal, progressive, radical, paleo-con and otherwise concerned-with-civil-liberties comrades that the best way of criticizing the Patriot Act and other efforts to expand government powers in the name of defeating terrorism is by analyzing how effective these laws and extra powers prove to be in intercepting actually existing terrorism.
I suggest this because our natural fear of dying by explosion while minding our own business in a subway train, cafe or anywhere else very often overrides our ability to quietly assess whether a strategy -- such as, shoot the bomber to prevent the bombing -- is really a sharp approach or just another layer of problem.
.d.
---------
http://monroelab.net/ <<<<<>>>>> "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for my sham friends"...Momus