IP: Re: lawsuits

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Subject: Re: IP: lawsuits
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> From: andrew () acequity com au
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 20:58:23 +0800
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by linc.cis.upenn.edu id 
> f8FCwnJ13554
>
>
> I think there is a flaw in this counter argument.  The causes (if that is
> the appropriate word) of terrorism are almost invariably disaffection with
> government policies and actions.  It would seem to follow that throwing
> full liability for security back on to the airlines is tantamount to
> privatisation of the government's security obligations.  What special
> concessions do the airlines get from the government that would justify the
> government handing a significant part of its obligation to protect its
> citizens over to one small part of the private sector?  If, as historically
> appears to be the case, it is foreseeable that airlines will be a target
> for terrorists, then the government could rightly be expected to contribute
> to the security effort.
>
> Whether even with higher security the hi-jackings could have been prevented
> is a purely a matter of speculation.  We know these people were desparate,
> and one way or another, desparation eventually gets what it wants.
>
> That said, I am not in favour of limiting liability if negligence is found
> - it's just that I think that in these situations liability, if it is found
> to exist, goes further afield than some would have us believe.
>
> Having raised the issue of government 'responsibility' for circumstances
> that drive some lunatics to acts of terrorism, I think it is also worth
> reflecting on the theme of some of the articles re-published on the IP list
> (mostly from the UK, but one regrettably also from a fellow antipodean)
> that in some way America, by virtue of its foreign policy, was partly to
> blame for these acts.  I find this an extraordinary proposition.  I'm no
> apologist for the USA, but isn't such a proposition little different to the
> outrageous defence that a women in daring clothes is just asking to be
> raped and should not be surprised when she is?  Certainly the USA, its
> companies and citizens may have done questionable things abroad - but as
> far as I am aware, none constituted what could reasonably be described as
> indescriminate acts of violence against innocent people or a declaration of
> war from behind a shroud of secrecy.  These actions may have merited a
> response - but whatever that repsonse might have been, it should not have
> been violence.  For anyone who even half merits the title 'civilsed', there
> are at least a thousand non-violent responses.  Should America then have
> anticipated an irrational response?  Almost by definition that is
> impossible - and even if not a logical absurdity, who could possibly have
> anticipated someting so inconceivable, so without precedent as what just
> happened?



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/