Is there a cycle of violence?

In today's National Review Online, an article appeared questioning the commonly accepted wisdom of a "cycle of violence."

The article is correct. Terrorism is an attack on a civilian population the same way that harrassing actions are an attack on a military unit. The difference is the target. I find no moral basis for attacking civilians unless and until those same citizens take up arms as a militia, in the minuteman sense. Otherwise the attack on civilians is merely assault, battery, attempted murder, capital murder, and, oh by the way, suicide. These are not merely "homicides." Hitting a pedestrian who jumps in front of traffic is a homicide. Is rape intercourse? Yes, and so much more. Intentional homicide is homicide but it is so much more. It is murder.

Any first year student of criminal law can define the difference between a crime and an accident. Running a red light is illegal. It can lead to an accident. It is an accident if the driver was temporarily blinded by his passenger throwing a drink at the driver's face. There is no intent to harm or knowledge that the light had changed potentially leading to a collision.

It is the mind set of entering the intersection on red seeking to hit an old girl friend's car that is criminal. This mind set is typically illustrated in television crime stories with the refrain "means, motive, and opportunity." The mind set is the motive. Why did the suspect act?

In the Middle East, there is no end to the hatred on either side of the fence between Gaza and Israel. Since this is not a conflict with in one country or state, it is hard to say that this is simply a matter for criminal law and the justice system.

As I have mentioned before, criminal procedure and protection of life, liberty, and property are the benefits of living within a civil society. How a civil society should react to attacks from outside that civil society need to be clarified.

The Treaty of Westphalia makes the first stab at giving a nation state the absolute right to not be molested by outside forces. This gives increased growth to the modern notion of sovereignty. At sovereignty's core, the state will not be lorded over by another state. One state will not molest the other's internal affairs. This doctrine grew in its scope with the Treaty of Vienna in 1815, bringing the Napoleanic Wars to a close.

The idea of how to deal with rogue nations in this scheme has always been easy -- declare war, wage war until the other side sues for peace, and dictate the terms of the peace treaty. Effective treaties end the conflict permanently -- Japanese Instrument of Surrender. Bad treaties perpetuate the conflict -- the Treaty of Versailles. Admittedly treaties are only paper. Actions carrying out the victor's intent are the real magic. Nevertheless, the point here is that this traditional system works well between nations.

But how do we deal with persons outside the system? The Founding Fathers recognized an old fashioned method: Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Congress is given the power "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." These old techniques were interesting and effective. So effective that they were outlawed internationally in 1856. In their original character, they were meant to allow a country to sanction an individual to commit acts of bordering on military hostility in a foreign nation to right a private wrong. The notion of interest to me is not that an individual could be empowered to commit acts of war -- that is a privateer, a pirate in a white hat. The notion of interest is that the Letter of Marque was to focus on a non-nation target -- like an individual merchant.

Imagine what would happen in the Middle East if Israel could issue Letters of Marque against specific terrorists in advance. Then when the terrorist was found, his death would have at least been placed before the Knesset. This would look less like cold blooded killing. The Palestinian murdering bombers would more clearly appear to be the criminal thugs they are.

This false circle of violence would be shown to be what is -- continual escalating attacks by Palestinian terrorist with attempts to punish criminal where no criminal justice system can exist. No criminal justice system can be housed on border between Israel and Palestine.