One of the most difficult parts of assigning blame for terrorism is knowing where to draw the line. Do you hold only the person who commits the attack accountable? Most folks would say no. You also hold the planners, and the financiers, and the ideologues accountable. Others go even further and say you hold the cultures, the citizens, and the religions accountable.
One of the most difficult parts of that with regards to the recent string of suicide bombers in Israel is how do you react to the families of those killers, those suicide bombers. In some reports of these attacks, the families are interviewed and often shown crying, distraught by the double tragedy of the loss of a loved one and the horror they wrought. In some reports the families are not considered at all. In many comments I’ve read on the blogoshpere, however, the families are held accountable too; held accountable and despised.
Look at this face:
This is the face of a 14-year-old would-be suicide bomber who Israeli soldiers caught yesterday.
Had he actually blown himself up (assuming he had been sent to do so where he’d kill other people as well), today we would consider this the face of a monster. His crying mother and father’s image would have received cold sneers from many around the world. His name would be cursed. His legacy would be shameful and hateful.
Because he failed, today this is the face of a teenager who had been duped:
“This is another example of the Palestinians’ cynical use of innocent children, turning their kids into human time bombs,” said David Baker, an official in the office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. “Palestinian terrorists are ready to sacrifice their own children for the express purpose of inflicting terror upon Israelis.”
It’s tempting to excuse this boy, who reportedly did this because he was promised 72 virgins and because his classmates called him an “ugly dwarf.” But, when later questioned, he said he knew what he was doing. His name is Hussam.
They interviewed his parents on TV this morning. They looked distraught. They told reporters:
“Hussam left home this morning to school, and this was the first we heard of what happened,” his mother, Tamam Abdo, told Reuters. “This is shocking. To use a child like this is irresponsible, forbidden.”
And I find myself torn. Is he a vicitm? Is he a monster? Is he somewhere inbetween?
He’s 14 years old.
He is a victim, of course. No child of 14 knows what he is doing. Did you at 14? And that’s not even factoring in his ‘indoctrination’, the same thing that turns cute kids into big fundamentalists on both sides of the Atlantic. Sadly for this child and his Israeli children counterparts the extremists on both sides of this situation have taken control, as well as in the US, the ultimate puppeteer here. May moderation reign somewhere soon.
Dear Edward:
My answer to your questions is hate no one. Despise no one. Hold no one accountable. The issue is not the assigning of blame but the solution of a problem.
While the U. S. is far from blameless in its foreign policy in the region, we did not cause the problems in the Middle East. While we can help to ameliorate conditions there, we cannot solve the problems there. As the people in the Middle East have been the most significant causes of their own problems, so they must furnish the solutions to these problems.
The best that Americans can expect is to provide an environment for the people there to solve their own problems as we have done in Iraq. We need to exert greater efforts to motivate the governments and leaders in the Middle East to solve the problems there.
And if the people there won’t take the opportunities they’re offered, we also should not be blamed for the actions we take to defend our citizens.
“Hold no one accountable”?
He’s a 14-year old child. Hussam was a brainwashed delivery system for his terror masters. The Israelis have every right to snuff out those behind this evil.
Schuler’s comments are orthogonal* to practically everything I believe in. IOW, I disagree with nearly every aspect of what he said.
*I was going to say something smart involving oscillation, gravity, 84 minute periods, etc but then I lost all desire to make puns that practically no one else would appreciate.
I blame Bird Dog.
In all seriousness, I think you blame the brainwashers in this case.
But a more interesting question is “at what point does someone become responsible for their own actions?”
I think you blame the brainwashers in this case.
Strongly agree.
But a more interesting question is “at what point does someone become responsible for their own actions?”
That is interesting, and it’s interesting because this young man is near that point. According to the law of our land, though, he’s a juvenile, and goes into the clink for a while. Then we release him and discover whether he’s been been irreparably damaged by his brainwashers and being imprisoned. Not particularly attractive, I know, but neither is a summary round to the head.
It’ll be interesting to see what the Israelis decide. I think mercy in this case could go a long way toward establishing goodwill. Maybe, if it’s not mistaken for lack of resolve.
“who reportedly did this because he was promised 72 virgins”
Is it me, or is the middle east the most sexually hung up region on the planet? All of their problems would likely be solved if everyone in an 800 mile radius could just get laid.
Sad.
Lawrence of Cyberia had an interesting set of statistics about Palestinian children in Gaza the other day. Interesting reading, and a disturbing sign of what’s coming in the next generation.
*I was going to say something smart involving oscillation, gravity, 84 minute periods,
And the Geek-of-the-Day Award goes to… 🙂
But a more interesting question is “at what point does someone become responsible for their own actions?”
That is interesting, and it’s interesting because this young man is near that point.
I agree. He is near that point. At first I had heard he was 17, and my first response was to think he was mostly responsible (all caveats of the power of his brainwashers duly noted)…then I learned he was 14, and I began to waver…then I heard what he said motivated him…and I really began to waver.
I guess I’m really interested in how we assign “Monster” status and what that means to the larger society. Had he succeeded in his mission, not only he, but his wholed family, would be villianized by some. Now they’re all widely seen as victims; it’s such a fine line. Now there’s hope for all of them.
At least that’s what I like to think…
The following people are monsters:
– People (like unlamented Yassin) who decided that sending the best of their own young people to die uselessly was a great war plan (while their own kids are safe in Paris or Jordan).
– People who organize, plan, and suport the bombers, instead of using that energy and resource on something that would benefit their people. People who steal the Palestinians’ money and hope.
– People (teachers, journalists, politicians) who tell young people that killing Jews is the best thing to aspire to.
The kid? He’s just a kid.
PS — My own personal list has another entry:
– People who buy into the terrorists’ blackmail of assuming that there must have been a valid, resolvable, reasonable solution to the problem, if only Israelis would stop being so wrong about everything. (If only the Israelis provided the virgins and stopped teenage boys from being bullies! Evil, evil Israelis!)
And my “the kid is just a kid” is not really age-based. I would have said the same thing if he was 17 or 24. The only suicide bombers or potential ones *I* consider evil, rather than victims, are ones that were part of the machine before or the ones that are obviously making a strategic dicision.
I’m not convinced that the catagories of ‘monster’ and ‘victim’ are on the same scale such as to be contradictory. I would say this boy registers high on the victim scale and low (but the fact that he appears on it at all is troubling) on the monster scale.
I think this illustrates the wisdom of agressively going after the leaders of groups like Hamas. So long as they are willing to victimize their own children, and so long as their culture will allow them to do it, there is going to be a serious problem. But you will notice that the leaders don’t sacrifice themselves. So perhaps it will work better to go after them instead of their dupes.
I’m not convinced that the catagories of ‘monster’ and ‘victim’ are on the same scale such as to be contradictory. I would say this boy registers high on the victim scale and low (but the fact that he appears on it at all is troubling) on the monster scale.
I agree Sebastian, but I’ve seen responses to reports where the parents of a suicide bomber who did kill people were interviewed that included hateful denouncments of the media for including images of them crying. They were, apparently, not worthy of sympathy.
Note that the same reports focussed on the victims of the bombing and in no way excused the bomber, but human nature seems to be that these bombers who are not caught beforehand, and everyone who loved them, are beneath our collective consideration.
I don’t understand how that happens. If the other bombers were also, like this child, just dupes, how do we hold their families accountable?
There seems to be a human need to distance ourselves from them, to demonize them, because our own sorrow doesn’t have room to consider theirs.
Angua hits the nail on the head with her list. I’d only add that, as between this kid and his potential victims, the kid dies. It’s an unfortunate fact that one can be simultaneously innocent and guilty, without any contradiction.
Rephrase that last bit to satisfy the writer in me:
It’s an unfortunate fact, but one can simultaneously be both the victim and the beast. There is such a thing as a crime without a perpetrator.
Oh, and great post Edward.
…but human nature seems to be that these bombers who are not caught beforehand, and everyone who loved them, are beneath our collective consideration.
I’d respond to this by saying that those who loved them are pretty irrelevant, when compared with the damage that they’d done (or attempted to do). And I’m sure that the parents of the victims don’t have much appreciation for those who mourn the person who killed their children.
This, too, is human nature. But I don’t regard it as wrong or dysfunctional.
I’d only add that, as between this kid and his potential victims, the kid dies.
But, in a philosophical sense, that argues against “The kid? He’s just a kid.” He’s also a weapon. A tool. An evil.
The kid’s not a monster. From all accounts, he is a dull-witted, socially-isolated young teen who doesn’t know how to approach girls. And so some real monsters took advantage of that to try to send him to his death.
Now: What does it tell us about Palestinian society — at least in Gaza — that frustrated teens regard this as the A-1 avenue to social acceptance?
Not to minimize the horror of the depravity among the Palestinians, but let it be noted that we have our own version of this: Columbine, for example.
Damn, that was a good question. I think you’ve exposed the core of the problem, Tac.
And I’m sure that the parents of the victims don’t have much appreciation for those who mourn the person who killed their children.
I’m not arguing that they should appreciate or even consider them, Slarti (actually I’m not arguing for any particular action at all, although I do have a inclination here obviously). I’m curious about their villianization. Is it human nature? Is it cultural? To suggest it’s “irrelevant” is understandable in a certain context, but I’m trying to transcend that context here. They’re still human; they still feel pain. Why do images of them crying make people so angry?
If it’s irrelevant wouldn’t that argue for a neutral response?
Yeah. But human nature being what it is, I’d expect EVERYONE to be pissed at the one who killed innocents. And anyone who isn’t, is in tacit condonement. That’s how I imagine it would look to them.
Give the grieving a break, ok? Sometimes grief drives the survivors to hate anyone who’s handy. The interval of irrational thinking following the death of a loved one is, too, human nature. IMO, of course.
Sometimes grief drives the survivors to hate anyone who’s handy. The interval of irrational thinking following the death of a loved one is, too, human nature. IMO, of course.
Granted. And I think you’ve answered my question.
Tough one.
But, to put it into perspective, we just convicted the minor involved in the DC sniper shootings … and there’s a lot of evidence that he was ‘brainwashed.’
This exchange has made me yearn for the mandatory Van Vogt-esque collective cortico-thalamic pause after such things happen. Each suicide bombing impels us to action. Any action, as long as the target can be emotionally justified. No matter if it has next to no effect on the possibility that it might happen again tomorrow.
And of course 9/11 was an enormous one of those. And I think many of us haven’t yet recovered from the shock.
He’s also a weapon. A tool. An evil.
Edward, I’d say you CAN’T be evil if you are a weapon or a tool. Evil is a choice.
So, if it’s a choice, at what age can one be held responsible for being evil?
Why do images of them crying make people so angry?
They don’t make ME angry. The parents who celebrate make me angry. The “this is just like his wedding day” parents make me ill.
And I get angry at the Western media’s coverage of the issue. Not just because there is one profile of a victim to every hundred profiles of a bomber.
Because writing uncritical supportive articles about the bombers and their families helps no one. While I am not angry at the bombers or their grieving families (in the cases where the bombers are victims and the families grieve), I’d rather not have any more of them. If you lived next door to Hussam and saw the big to-do his death inspired, with the foreign digtitaries and TV crews, what would you do next time a girl snubbed you or you felt ignored by your parents? (Where I live, suicides do not get covered on the news, even negatively, except in very specific circumstances, because of the very real dangers of copycats.)
This is getting into the whole concept of free will. In the end, aren’t we all simply the product of our genes and our environment, whether we’re 5, 15, or 55? I can “choose” action A or B, but the choice I make is determined by the way that my brain cells happen to interact at that time. If sheik Yassin was evil, it was hardly his fault that he was evil — he didn’t create himself. Which doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t have been killed, in the same way that we kill wolves or bears that have killed people.
We should hold people responsible for their actions to the extent that doing so reduces the incidence of undesired actions, but morally judging people is unjustified by the facts.
Good Post, Eddie.
1.The kid is much more victim, than monster.
2. The people who strapped the bomb to him were monsters.
3. The people who tolerate, encourage, enable, celebrate the effort by the people in 2, are also monsters.
“The only necessity for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing” — Eddie Burke.
Agree on numbers 1 and 2, Navy…think number 3 could use a bit of clarification though.
“Tolerate” might extend to the U.S. for not invading Israel and purging them of Hamas to some people.
Edward, your comments about what this thread would be like if he had succeeded are interesting.
They highlight the perceived difference between intent and action, not only in this case but in the general case of crime and punishment. Humans are, I believe, pretty irrational about this. It seems absurd, from a dispassionate perspective, that whether a person who fully intended to commit a terrible crime happens to succeed or not. . by and large a matter of pure luck and happenstance, would have such a disproportionate impact on our evaluation of the crime, or determination of whether there was a crime at all. In other words, we don’t punish people for being of a criminal mind. . we punish them for succeeding. Of course there are excellent reasons for that in a criminal justice system, but it’s disconcerting how pervasive it is in our own personal impressions as well. Anyway, just rambling.
Today is the luckiest day of Hussam’s life. This is just like his wedding day.
There’s an argument – I don’t know how valid – that Tac‘s why-isn’t-this-kid-playing-nintendo question relates to economic opportunity; that part of the Israeli response to terror was to institute measures that impoverished the Palestinians (good behavior => more jobs, terror => poverty); and that doing this at the wrong point in an unstable equilibrium turned Hamas&Co’s vile actions into a positive feedback loop.
two thoughts sidereal…first and foremost, excellent line: “Today is the luckiest day of Hussam’s life. This is just like his wedding day.”
Second, we do try and convict people for attempted murder, so we don’t always punish only those who succeed, especially where the stakes are so high.
I suspect Israell will try to use Hussam to send a message, and in doing so will be lenient, but I doubt he’s gonna be off probation any time soon.
I was thinking about attempted murder as I wrote that, but I don’t believe it’s the exception it seems to be. I know there are lawyers crawling from the woodwork here (like termites!), so hopefully someone can clarify for me. If a man intending to commit a murder is hit by a bus on the way to the crime, could he be reasonably charged with attempted murder?
My extensive analysis of remembered Law & Order episodes would suggest no. That he would actually have to reach the intended victim and terrorize him a bit before it became a crime.
Hm. Maybe a more intelligible formulation of that last idea would be ‘He would have had to exhaust all opportunity to change his mind and turn around’.
And maybe that’s the difference. Maybe Hussam wouldn’t have done it. Maybe he would have taken the bomb home.
That seems incredibly unlikely, but we let him into our hearts anyway.
OK, so the full extent of my knowledge of the law comes mostly from “Law & Order” too, but your man might be charged with conspiracy to commit murder or something like that. I mean if the police who arrive on the scene of the bus accident find an unregistered gun, address of the intended, or some other incriminating evidence on him (comparable to a bomb vest, say), wouldn’t they still prosecute and then punish him?
Sidereal: The short answer is, it depends on the jurisdiction. The long answer is, it depends on the jurisdiction, but many jurisdiction’s have similar provisions; here’s Indiana’s, for example:
Def’n of “attempt” (IC 35-41-5-1):
“A person attempts to commit a crime when, acting with the culpability required for commission of the crime, he engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of the crime. . . .”
Def’n of intentional “murder” (distinguished from “felony murder” or the like) (IC 35-42-1-1):
A person who “knowingly or intentionally kills another human being” commits murder.
Thus: “A person attempts to commit [murder] when, [s/he knowingly or intentionally] engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of [a knowing or intentional killing of another human being] . . . .”
So, the answer to “If a man intending to commit a murder is hit by a bus on the way to the crime, could he be reasonably charged with attempted murder?” is “most likely.”
Hey, can’t get off that easy. I need some cites on ‘substantial step[s]’.
This might go a way towards answering Tac’s question. To some this won’t come as a surprise.
It’s beyond sad, though.
Crap, Sidereal, I ain’t a criminal law lawyer (save for some relatively benign white collar stuff and a silly arson charge against a mildly disturbed but mostly harmless guy). So let me crib from the 9th Circuit’s model jury instructions. It was the easiest to find using Google. The 9th Circuit is a different jurisdiction, yes, but you’ll see the similarities to Indiana law pretty easily.
Though, as a matter of ethics (and professional liability), I have to advise you now that this is for entertainment and debate — it does not constitute legal advice.
This is what a Judge might instruct you if you were sitting in a jury:
What’s mere preparation? What’s a substantial step? Well, it’s for you the jury to decide.
Since you demanded it, however, here are some cites (from the comments to the 9th Cir. instrs.):
And that will have to do you for now.
(By the way, a good defense lawyer should try to get the judge to embellish upon the standard jury instructions with some of the nuances expressed in the cited case law.)
Here ends the for-pleasure-don’t-get-me-disbarred-non-legal-advice.
Wow, tough racket being a lawyer. I’m pretty sure if I gave you some advice on software development paradigms that went wrong, I wouldn’t be booted out of any professional organizations.
Anyway, your research does me just fine. As the theoretical jury I’d find my bus victim innocent (if the gun was licensed and not illegally obtained) and Hussam guilty. Mind you, this is legally, not morally (and oh how they diverge).
” that same recklessness cannot support a conviction of attempted murder if, fortuitously, no one is killed.”
Here’s the rub I’m rubbing. Also, consider the oft-Law&Ordered situation where everyone sits around the hospital to find out if the charge is going to be Aggravated Assault or Murder, based entirely on medical technology, random chance, and the victim’s hale constitution, though the perpetrator is the same and of the same state and mind and character regardless.
JKC, that link is behind a wall. What’s the gist?
rilkefan:
The story is about Palestinian schoolchildren being fed a grievous amount of anti-Israeli and anti-semitic bile in lieu of a real education. It’s a sad story.
Try going to the paper’s main site and searching under the archives using the keywords Palestinians and Jews.
Wow, tough racket being a lawyer.
I’m more cautious than many.