Now thrive the armourers
As the FT reports that US defence stocks rise after the Paris attack, one of its columnists, legal eagle David Allen Green asks these two questions following the Paris attacks, in his Jack of Kent blog:
“In the aftermath of the Paris atrocities there are demands for action: dropping bombs and air-strikes, shoot-to-kill policies, more special interrogation techniques (ie, torture), less freedom of movement, more intrusion and less privacy, more powers for the security services, and so on.
“What seems to be a feature of many of these demands is that there is no attempt to explain the supposed cause-and-effect. It is almost as if the merit of the proposals is self-evident, a sign of virility: something bad has happened, and so something must be done in return.
“But each such demand raises two issues: one of practicality, and one of principle. That is: would the proposal actually help, and does the proposal conflict with the supposed principles, and way of life, we are presumably seeking to defend”.
- Practice: ‘just doing “something” does not mean you are doing the right thing. It may make no difference, or it may make things worse’.
- Principle: there appears to be a genuine risk that we could end up undermining – even subverting – the very principles of personal autonomy, the rule of law and freedom of expression which the West can and should be defending and asserting.
Read the article here:
More about the author: http://www.hampshireskeptics.org/?page_id=1638