WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH TERRORISTS?

Ronald B. Schertz

Americans, together with many other people and governments around the world, were incensed by the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Thousands of civilians were killed in the single largest terrorist attack ever upon the United States of America. Many voices called for action and expected some kind of response.

In the days following the attack, the president and the Congress, with almost complete unanimity, declared their intention to respond militarily against those who perpetrated these terrorist acts. Most American citizens agreed that the military retaliation which then began to unfold was needed.

Do Christian pacifists have anything to say about what should be done to terrorists and to those who threaten future terrorism? Does our ethic of love and our rejection of war, killing, and revenge mean that we reject all forms of societal punishment of wrongdoers? Can we offer positive guidance on how to simultaneously love and punish our enemies? Can we participate in the punishment of our enemies if it is done within the ethic of love? To what extent does the ethic of love extend beyond care for injured persons and allow us to deal with persons who cause injury or restrain them from similar conduct in the future? Are we able to offer positive alternatives to military force?

The gospel teaches that we are to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God. Moreover, it instructs us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Peace church congregations carry out these teachings through relief efforts on behalf of victims of injury and disaster. Pacifism is also expressed in two ways: nonparticipation in the military or police force, and urging the government to abstain from war.

The changing situation today raises new questions because of the rapid explosion of technology. Hostility is no longer limited to military confrontation by one nation against another on some defined battlefield. The speed of communication and travel and our relatively open society made it possible for a small covert group to wreak havoc with seeming ease and impunity.

The events of September 11 show that there are persons in the world who intend to destroy our society, even at the cost of their own lives. The threat of death, disease, and destruction at the hands of terrorists is real.

Likely most persons would agree that citizens have the right to provide for a common defense against attack (Preamble to the Constitution of the United States so states); that society has the right to prevent those who attack from doing so again in the future; and the right to deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

In this context, three practical questions confront Christian pacifists. (1) Do we believe that the government should do nothing, or do we believe that it should do something? (2) How should government punish someone in a way that accomplishes valid societal goals? (3) Can this be done in a way consistent with pacifist religious beliefs?

It would be difficult to argue that nothing should be done. The attacks against our country and its citizens were evil. Past mistakes in government conduct and policies may have been contributing causes, but these mistakes do not justify such acts. And as we learn more about the perpetrators, credible evidence may suggest that a change in government policies will not deter them from future attacks.

If we agree something should be done, could Christian pacifists support a system of punishment? We reject revenge, retribution, retaliation; most contemporary legal ethicists would agree. Admittedly, it may be difficult to separate a motivation for revenge from more lofty goals, but within an enlightened system of criminal justice, prevention and deterrence are considered valid concepts.

Prevention and deterrence could be implemented in one of two ways: voluntarily, or involuntarily. Voluntary compliance would result from a perpetrator agreeing not to engage in such conduct in the future. This would fulfill the goal of prevention but not of deterrence. Involuntary compliance would occur if a perpetrator either was restrained to prevent him from repeating the conduct in the future, or was offered inducements to stop the atrocities. Both would fulfill the prevention goal, but only the first would operate as a deterrent. The second action would likely lead to additional inappropriate conduct—extortion. Within this framework, punishment based on a perpetrator’s involuntary removal from society seems to be the only solution offering any realistic hope of success.

The third question is the most difficult for Christian pacifists to answer. As Christians, we believe the gospel guides us in our relationship to God, our relationships with other Christians, and our relationships with non-Christians in the world. How we conduct ourselves is of course shaped in part by the context of our times.

As the context changes, we are challenged to rethink old assumptions. Old definitions of war, force, punishment, police, and military may not fit current realities. At the same time, there seems to be a growing realization, even among non-pacifists, that military action will not resolve the issues provoked by September 11 or deter others from their course.

Where should we begin? With an ethic of peace or with the grim realities of terror? Is our ethic one of love, one of justice, or one of peace? Are they one and the same? If not, does our pursuit of one amount to a form of idolatry, which limits our pursuit of another? Does a peace theology begin with an absolute ethic and then rule out other responses without regard for the probability of results?

Or do we start with the reality of the present atrocities and the continuing threats of terror to determine what response would be effective, then ask how such a response can be implemented in a way consistent with our religious beliefs?

Some assume that police action is more ethically acceptable than military action. Is life-threatening force acceptable in either case? Are there situations in which the ongoing threat of injury is so credible that doing nothing would be worse than engaging in otherwise unacceptable conduct to prevent more injury?

These are difficult questions. If Christian pacifists hope government and society will take our stance seriously, we need to address not only what the government should do to prevent future terrorist acts, but also how it should deal with the perpetrators of atrocities. The answers need to be consistent with the redemptive spirit of the gospel, but they also need to address valid societal goals.

—Ronald B. Schertz, Metamora, Illinois, is an attorney engaged in the private practice of law in Peoria. A graduate of Goshen College and the University of Illinois College of Law, he is a member of the Mennonite Church of Normal, Illinois.