Pre-emptive Measures

More information and opinions are pouring in regarding the Virginia Tech incident. Jennifer Roback Morse has this to say in NRO. As I read her explanation - most of which I happen to agree with - I can't help contrasting the thinking contained in it to other current situations. This contrast brings into stark relief the difference between "worthy" and "unworthy" victims (terms taken from Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky - read about them here). A quote from Morse's article: Until someone commits a crime, it is usually not possible to take actions that would prevent him from hurting himself or others. We don’t have facilities for people who pose a threat to others, but who haven’t done anything yet. Sure we do, Jennifer... it's called Guantanamo Bay. If Morse's logic is applied to the Middle East, there would be no pre-emptive war, no torture to gather intelligence, and no actions takan against the Iraqis; becuase, of course, " it is usually not possible to take actions that would prevent him from hurting himself or others". There appears to be a double standard: Our metally ill that Morse discusses are "worthy" victims" - they deserve understanding, sympathy, and support. Iraqis are "unworthy" victims who are guilty due solely to their ethnicity and peer group. The real question now becomes apparent - why is it that some victims are worthy and some unworthy? If the answer is not obvious, Herman and Chomsky can help - read their writing in the Propoganda Model. What you don't know could be important.