I have gotten a lot of response for my blog about "Rules of engagement", so I am blogging a chapter #2. This one involves what the rules are or should be for a regular citizen who is in a threatening situation with a "terrorist". The rules for a regular citizen being confronted by a potential criminal are very limited. The basic rule is that you have to "feel" that your life is in danger and that you have no other alternative other than killing the person confronting you. If you could run, lock the door or call the police in time, you can not use deadly force. It is a simple rule and it works well in almost all cases, but is it an adequate rule when dealing with a terrorist? That is the purpose of this blog.
First, we need to think about our current attitude about how we deal with crime and criminals. Currently we assume that a person is innocent until "proven" guilty. Further, we would rather let 99% of criminals go free rather than convict a single one wrongly. This is why so many convicted criminals have been arrested many times before they are finally convicted and sent to jail. In our society, even if the possibility of being convicted is so small, it is still a reasonable deterrent. Seldom do our normal criminals kill large numbers of people at one time for purpose other than financial gain, so why would we think that our current standards would work for real terrorists who are not concerned about financial gain? Are you with me on this?
Now, too the main point. If a normal citizen is confronted by a person that they "feel" is a terrorist, what should the "rules of engagement" be? Should they be the same as any other threat? I don't think so. If a normal citizen has to be 99.9% sure, then no terrorist is going to be killed before they have killed many people and possibly themselves in the process. Since terrorists have no fear of punishment as do our normal criminals, bring them to justice after the fact has little impact on future acts. In a prior blog, I pointed out how worthless "bring a terrorists to justice" is, but that is only what we have been doing. What good does it do to sweep up the body parts of a terrorist after they have set off a bomb killing many innocent people and prosecute them?
Here is an example. What if you saw a person who you "feel" is a terrorist in the act of setting a bomb or preparing to set one off, what should you be allowed to do? If we were to use the same standard for normal criminals, you would do nothing, except call the police. The chances are about zero that the police would ever get there in time to stop the terrorist. I think that a normal citizen should be able to kill the suspected terrorist if they "felt" only 90% sure that he was a terrorist. I don't see an alternate to relaxing the standards in the "rules of engagement" when it involves terrorists. The question is, "what is that level"?
We need a public debate of not only what a citizen should be allowed to do in the case of a suspected terrorist, but also the responsibility to come forward if they know or suspect that a person is a potential terrorist. In the case of terrorists, a person can not be neutral. You have to either be on board trying to stop terrorists or you are "with" the terrorists and subject to the same punishment as a terrorist. We now have rules regarding "accessories before and after the fact". These are a little like "rules of engagement" and need to be defined differently for terrorists. I think that you must agree that we need a debate on this important issue.
How about calling the police if you "suspect" a person of being a terrorist? Do they have to kill someone first? See the problem? Should you be liable if the person turns out not to be a terrorist? What we have now is that the terrorist has to first kill someone before the police can do anything. Thinking about, planning and possessing explosives is not enough. See our problem?
