Expressing concern at such coverage, the CJI said, “one of the ill-effects of unrestrained coverage is that of provoking anger amongst the masses. While it is fair for the media to prompt public criticism of inadequacies in the security and law-enforcement apparatus, there is also a possibility of such resentment turning into an irrational desire for retribution. Furthermore, the trauma resulting from the terrorist attacks may be used as a justification for undue curtailment of individual rights and liberties.”
What exactly is an 'irrational desire for retribution'? Of course the whole idea of press coverage is to provoke the masses into responding with calls for change. Why is this so bad? Many will probably point out the preposterous ideas and suggestions that were made on TV. Conceded. But that still does not imply that anger itself is bad. After all, just because bad ideas have an outlet does not imply that they are necessarily going to get accepted, in Holmes' words, in the marketplace of ideas. So why fear? Is not popular anger the qui vive for change in a democracy?
He said, “instead of offering a considered response to the growth of terrorism, a country may resort to questionable methods such as permitting indefinite detention of terror suspects, the use of coercive interrogation techniques and the denial of the right to fair trial. Outside the criminal justice system, the fear generated by terrorist attacks may also be linked to increasing governmental surveillance over citizens and unfair restrictions on immigration.”
Again, what is this 'considered response to the growth of terrorism' supposed to be? Is that not what everyone is asking about? Can the honorable CJI kindly elaborate the specifics rather than simply talk in generalities? Has he even followed the debate on the question of detaining terror suspects and the use of coercive interrogation techniques? Has he read any of the authors who have pointed out the benefits of such techniques? Does he even understand the problem with jihadis? Does he understand how this is a political movement, not ordinary criminal activity which is why we are having this debate about whether ordinary rules of criminal procedure can even be successfully applied to these individuals? Does he remember what Maulana Masood Azhar did upon release from jail? If he is talking of increased governmental surveillance, does he have a better answer to prevent attacks on markets and other places frequented by the public?
I am not suggesting that these concerns are invalid, only that there are valid reasons for concern about the efficacy of ordinary criminal methods in dealing with the jihadi phenomenon. For him to take such a categorical position on controversial questions without outlining the reasoning raises questions about what he knows about these things.
2 comments:
Interesting questions and a good presentation.
To answer terrorism, we might begin by shifting our focus from Iraq, where the 9/11 murderers are not, to the Afghan/Pakistan border, where they are.
BurrDeming,
Thanks and you are right. I think the US is in the process of doing that now.
Post a Comment