Your Honor,
let me first thank you for the opportunity to defend myself.
I am here accused of having burnt down my neighbor’s house.
Did I do so? Did I set fire on my neighbor’s house?
Sure, I did. And I have never tried to hide that fact. Did this fire catch other houses too? Yes it did and I am really sorry it took down your house too, but then, yours, like the others, was an old and crumbling houses anyway.
But that is all not to the point. I am the wrong one to be accused here and that is why I reject any guilt in this case.
The only one who should be here in handcuffs and indicted is the locksmith. He is guilty of catastrophic mischief.
Let me tell you why.
I was always suspicious of my neighbor. He obviously didn´t like me building that new wall because, so he said, I didn´t raise it on my own ground.
My neighbor even said, it would be better if I would just move away. That was quite threatening to me. Why would he ask for this? Just because my kids bully around a bit? Or just because of some stupid wall?
So I had reason to fear that this threatening neighbor might be preparing something bad, or outright criminal, like a stink bomb in my garden or even to tear down that wall – or worse.
Indeed said neighbor was observed using candles. Though he says those were for lighting, I was always suspicious he might intend to use them for something else.
Now what about the locksmith you may ask. Why should he be rightfully accused as I hereby demand?
Let me explain.
While my neighbor was dangerously lighting candles in his house, there was always the chance for me to just jump over the wall, rush into his house and to brush him up some. I always had the ability to go into his house and to dust up his furniture a bit, if you will, and to take away those candles and matches.
But a few days ago this changed. Aforesaid neighbor was seen talking to the locksmith and it was heard that the locksmith did promise to sell him locks. With such locks my neighbor would have possibly locked up his house.
To my knowledge, and thanks to god, those locks were yet not delivered, at the time of my deed, but there was this serious risk that they might get installed later on.
Just imagine that situation. With locks on my neighbors house, how would I have had any future chance to storm in and prevent him from burning candles? And from using matches?
So by selling locks to my neighbor, the locksmith made it impossible for me to keep control over future circumstances near to my home. All this while my neighbor was bad-mouthing me.
There was only one chance left and I had to act immediately. I had to torch down my neighbors house before he would be able to lock it up. If those locks would ever have been into place, to then try to get in would have been just too risky.
So please accuse and condemn the locksmith, he percipitated all of this. Send him to jail, deprive him of his rights. But don´t you dare to put any guilt on me for doing what just had to be done.
Thank you
That, dear MoA reader, is an argumentation few lawyers and judges would defend or accept.
But there are U.S. law professors who argue that the arsonist in the above case is fully justified. That, indeed, he had to set fire to his neighbors home. And that the locksmith should be prosecuted.
Today, Rosa Brooks, professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and op-ed writer for the Los Angeles Times is propag(and)ating such logic:
LET ME TELL YOU about the next war.
It will start sooner than you think — sometime between now and September. And it will be precipitated by the $700-million Russian deal this week to sell Tor air defense missile systems to Iran.
When the war begins, it will be between Iran and Israel.
Before it ends, though, it may set the whole of the Middle East on fire, pulling in the United States, leaving a legacy of instability that will last for generations and permanently ending a century of American supremacy.
[…]
Iran’s nuclear facilities are dispersed and well-concealed, making a preemptive Israeli strike far more difficult this time around. But there’s no reason to doubt Israel’s willingness to try.Of course, there’s no firm evidence that Iran has offensive nuclear capabilities. And even a successful military strike against Iran would be a risky move for Israel, potentially igniting regionwide instability.
[…]
But Russian brinksmanship is about to remove Israel’s incentive to pursue a peaceful diplomatic path.
[…]
The upcoming deployment of Tor missiles around Iranian nuclear sites dramatically changes the calculus in the Middle East, and it significantly increases the risk of a regional war. Once the missile systems are deployed, Iran’s air defenses will become far more sophisticated, and Israel will likely lose whatever ability it now has to unilaterally destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.The clock is ticking for Israel. To have a hope of succeeding, any unilateral Israeli strike against Iran must take place before September, when the Tor missile deployment is set to be completed.
Assuming for a moment that her scenario is correct, what is professor Brooks solution to the situation?
Should Israel be restrained from starting a war and "ending a century of American supremacy?"
Should the President put some pressure on Prime Minister Olmert to prevent such an unliateral attack?
Of course not, Rosa Brooks argues. The only one to possibly blame here is the locksmith, i.e. the Russians. And there is the immediate need to use some sticks and carrots to make them stop their "catastrophic mischief".
A quiet but firm U.S. threat to boycott the G-8 summit in July in St. Petersburg might inspire Russian President Vladimir V. Putin to freeze the missile transfer. And a promise to facilitate Russian entry into the World Trade Organization might even get Russia’s oil and gas oligarchs on board.
[…]
Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears to be asleep at the wheel, too distracted by Iraq, skyrocketing gas prices and plummeting approval ratings to devote any attention to Russia’s potentially catastrophic mischief.
Brooks argues that Country A, selling a defensive weapon system to country B, to discourage an unlawful unilaterally attack by country C, should somehow be responsible for such an attack.
An argument of such third-party culpability for a war might have some justification, if some country A sells weapons for obvious offensive use, like long range F-16I’s and "bunker buster" bombs. It is the equivalent of selling flamethrowers to those grumbling neighbors.
But to argue for punishing the locksmith is purely partisan, illogical and exposes a frightening disregard for any legal objectivity.