LEARNING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

Terrorism is a basic feature of modern life; we should learn from other countries' examples as much as we can.

Over the past year and a half I have often wished that I could somehow commandeer all the TV outlets and force everyone to watch The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum, a movie that depicts some of the dangers that grew out of the German war on terrorism in the 1970s. The particular story involves a young woman who gets romantically involved with someone who turns out to be a terrorist, and then is savagely demeaned in the press and in public.

Americans should think comparatively with respect to the war on terrorism for several reasons (and these operate on the most general level). First of all, we should realize that terrorism is in many respects the dark underside of modern life; most states have fought terrorism in varying forms at some point in the last century. Indeed, as Justice Thomas noted in his recent opinion in Virginia v. Black, the world's oldest and most successful terrorist organiztion is probably the KKK. All of these struggles against terrorism have produced literary, political, and artistic reflections on the phenomenon that can be used to guide us in our search for the correct balance between liberty and security. Start with "The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum."

Secondly, terrorism is a widespread phenomenon, states have responded to it in a variety of different ways, and some ways may be more useful than others. Listening to Ashcroft's testimony on the web yesterday, I was struck by how intently he wanted to argue that his particular plans for combatting terrorism would help to prevent it; the constant undercurrent of the discussion is that any different conception of what Justice should be doing is bordering in irresponsibility in the face of a grave, deadly, novel threat. But we shouldn't let this argument scare us into an uncritical acceptance of Ashcroft's policies. It is the most common thing in the world for agency heads to become advocates for increased powers for their agencies. Most agencies don't have the good fortune to be able to try to scare the bejeezus out of members of Congress, however. A comparative perspective on terrorism can help to put our problem in some kind of context.

Finally, comparative looks at terrorism policies can help to combat what seems to me to be a natural American parochialism, one that even lurks in what might initially be presumed to be surprising places (such as law or political science). A recent essay by Noah Leavitt in Findlaw, for example, attempts to use Peru's recent experiences combatting terrorism to stake out some general principles that should guide our own efforts. The lessons seem to me to be very interesting -- go read the article. Eric Muller claims that it is "absurd" to try to invoke Peru as an analogy with relevance to U.S. efforts, but unfortunately (and surprisingly) he does not provide an argument to that effect; one is left with the impression that Muller's argument is, well, it's Peru (I mean, it's in South America!), and therefore can't be relevant to us. I admire Prof. Muller's writings (on and off line), but I have to say that I'm really puzzled as to why any analogy with Peru is obviously misleading; but maybe I'm missing something.

Look, modern countries have to fight terrorism. It's something that they do. We've been doing it for years as well. Let's learn as much as we can about the phenomenon.