Camden Central High School
Camden, Tennessee
Teacher: Wanda Allen
Preemption or Prevention
By Heather King
12th Grade
On September 11, 2001, nineteen terrorists hijacked three jetliners and crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, DC killing thousands of American citizens and leaving hundreds wounded or lost in the rubble. When the jetliners hit, the impact was felt across the nation and around the world. Everyone on board the planes was killed. Some called home before the planes hit to tell their family members that they loved them. Numerous workers in the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were killed, some were wounded, many were trapped inside the building, and few escaped. New York’s firefighters plunged heroically into the remains of the buildings to retrieve those who were still alive. Some of the firefighters did not make it out. Many people in New York wandered around the city that night holding pictures of their loved ones asking if anyone had seen them and praying that they would find them. Some did not find their family members or loved ones for days. For others, their prayers were not answered. Americans everywhere mourned over this catastrophic day. Many businesses closed and everyone was listening to the radio or watching CNN to hear the latest updates. Everyone’s heart went out to those who lost someone in this catastrophe. This marked a devastating day in our country’s history. This happened almost three years ago and the impact of the attack still haunts us to this day.
Could this tragic day have been prevented? Some Americans believe that the threats of September 11 were evident and that we could have done something to stop it. We did know that Al Quada had weapons of mass destruction, but having weapons of mass destruction and actually attacking someone are two completely different things. America has weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that we are about to attack some other country? Our government is not perfect, but I believe that America has done a great job of securing our safety and that preemptive efforts should not be taken.
“Preemption is knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself; prevention is believing that another country may possibly attack, or may desire to attack,” (Senator Feingold, 2002). To me, it is the difference between knowing and assuming. I can see where preemptive efforts are worth considering. By taking preemptive measures, terrorism may decrease. We might never have to suffer through another September 11 ever again. This would be a blessing. America would no longer be in constant fear of another terrorist attack. However, what if those preemptive efforts are wrong? What if there was some misleading information? We would be at war with a country for no reason. Preemptive measures might also start wars. Senator Feingold said “It may be seen as a green light for other countries to engage in their own preemptive or preventive campaigns. Is the United States really eager to see a world in which such campaigns are launched in South Asia or by China or are we willing to say this strategy is suitable for us but dangerous in the hands of anybody else?” (Senator Feingold, 2002). I think that Senator Feingold makes a great point.
The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was also another devastating day in American History. Japanese Airliners bombed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and marked the beginning of World War II. Threats were apparent before the onset of the attack. However, does that give us the right to send military aircrafts over to Japan and bomb them? Instead of taking preemptive measures, I believe that our government should take more preventive measures. When another country makes a threat to attack, be prepared for that attack. Bombing another country and killing thousands of innocent people because of a threat will only make matters worse. Besides, it is wrong to kill. I believe in defense, but I think that it should be put into action only when necessary.
As I said earlier, our government is not perfect and we make mistakes. However, I think that our government has and continues to do a superb job of handling foreign affairs. I believe that preemptive measures would damage our government and our national values. “We will defend ourselves fiercely if attacked, but we are not looking for a fight. To put it plainly: Our country historically has not sought to use force to make over the world as we see fit,” (Senator Feingold, 2002). What would happen to our country? The world, not just the United States, as we know it would be drastically affected by this new doctrine. I believe that we should continue the same approach with other nations in the future and interfere with other countries only when necessary. In conclusion, I think that we should expand our preventive measures and be ready for an attack at all times.
Questions
Prime Minister Tony Blair's Speech
Q1-What does the Prime
Minister mean by "politics of globalization"?
He wants to use the "power of community" to do what?
He is saying that the major events all over the world should be interest to each person and each government because at some point it will have an effect on that government and that person. He wants to use the “power of community” to benefit all people everywhere.
Greaves Whitney
Q 2- Greaves Whitney singles out three Democratic presidents in his article. Name them and explain why they are mentioned.
John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton are the three presidents that Greaves Whitney mentions in his article. They are mentioned because they took public defenses of preemption.
Excerpt from November 8, 2003 Issue of the Economist
Q 3- Alexis de Tocqueville was mentioned in the Economist article. Name three qualities de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans.
He mentioned America’s strong religious belief, voice of democracy, and the favor of voluntary organizations.
Q 4- Will it be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity and even democracy to Iraq, or if it fails?
It would be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity and even democracy to Iraq because quality of life is better than before.
Q 5- Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence?
America’s incompetence is feared, which is a normal reaction at such times as these.
Q 6- If America were to withdraw hastily from Iraq, under the pressure of attacks, would that be a sign of humility or a devastatingly irresponsible act?
I think it would be a sign of a devastatingly irresponsible act because the president feels it is his duty to disarm such powers.
Q 7- What is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future?
It is the type of economic, social strengths, and a political stand that makes America “one prepared to shoulder responsibilities and to do what it thinks is right.”
Congressional Record
Q 8- Name three U.S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption.
Senator Feingold, Senator Byrd, and Mrs. Murray express concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption.
Q 9- State Senator Feingold's definition of preemption and prevention. How does he describe the difference between the two? Do you agree with the Senator? Explain.
Senator Feingold says preemption is knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself. He defines prevention as believing that another may possibly someday attack, or may desire to attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds. He says it is the difference between having intelligence that a country may negotiate with another country to provide them with weapons of mass destruction or worrying that someday the country may engage in these negotiations. Yes, I agree with him. I believe he gives a very good definition for both words and he gives good examples to defend himself. After looking at definitions in the dictionary and comparing them to Feingold’s definition I agree with his explanation.
Q 10- In your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain.
I would have to say yes because if you wait to defend your country when you suspect an enemy is going to attack, you may risk the chances of being able to defend your country. If you don’t act immediately, you may be too late. They may attack quickly before you have time to protect yourself. An attack always comes unsuspected; so, when attack is suspected you should always be ready to defend.
Q 11- In your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would thrive?
I believe that it would because they would shoulder the responsibility of right and wrong at all costs.
Q 12- In your opinion, would such a world be one in which terrorism would wither or would it be one in which terrorist recruits would increase in number daily?
I think such a world would be one in which terrorism would wither due to the great fear of retaliation.
Q 13- Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.
Congress could recognize clear and present dangers; take military action thus preventing surprise attacks.
Q 14- Who said "The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man."? What was the context?
Madison said “The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man.” This means that we should realize that the president is only one man, who we should stand behind and support; however we should realize that he can not make important decisions by himself. He needs the help of Congress. For example, the president does not vote in that we go to war. We should always keep in mind that he is human, just like each and everyone of us.
Q 15- Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator.
I agree with Senator Byrd’s first concern which states that there is no king in the American scheme of things. This means that no one person can rule America or make all the decisions. In America we vote for things and in most situations the majority rules. Another concern of his that I agree with is that there is no place for weakness. I believe that in the United States there is only time for progress and dedication to the country. I also agree with his point that we must always stand behind what we believe and not what a certain party or important figure thinks. We should always have our mind set on what we think and not simply follow the crowd. A fourth concern I agree with is his comment about standing by the Constitution of the United States for every word that is in it. The United States was based on the Constitution; therefore, I believe that we as Americans should always follow what it says. We should stand for what it says we should stand for. Another concern he had was if other nations would be encouraged to also have a preemptive strike. I think this would be something that is very important and should be considered. A last concern Senator Byrd had was how much the preemption strike would cost in dollars. This is very important because we have to figure out how to get this money. Where it would come from? Whose pocket it would come out of?