War on Terrorism

I think this is an interesting column from Tony Blankley in the February 22nd Washington Times. He comments on a new book by liberal Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, which analyzes the changes that are occurring in this age of increased danger from non-state players.

Where traditionally a paradigm of rational human behavior can be assumed in developing defense strategies, Dershowitz states the following:

These assumptions are now being widely questioned as the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of suicide terrorists becomes more realistic and as our ability to deter such harms by classic rational cost-benefit threats and promises becomes less realistic.

He argues that United States jurisprudence needs to change in order to deal with these threats.

Dershowitz raises the great maxim of criminal law: better that 10 guilty go free, than one innocent be wrongly convicted. That principle led our law to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt before conviction in criminal trials. Most of us agree with that standard.

But then Mr. Dershowitz updates the maxim thusly: "Is it better for ten possibly preventable terrorist attacks to occur than for one possibly innocent suspect to be preventively detained?" I would hunch that most people would not be willing to accept ten September 11 attacks (30,000 dead) in order to protect one innocent suspect from being locked up and questioned for a while.