The Doctrine of Preemption/Prevention

First, I would like to point out that what today is commonly referred to as "preemption" is really "prevention." Preemption relative to foreign policy would be to, for example, attack the Japanese fleet on their way to Pearl Harbor - essentially meeting their attack before it begins. Prevention, however, would be to attack Japan itself before the fleet ever leaves. For the US to preemptively attack Iraq, Iraq would have to be in the act of attacking the US. Even the official justification for war was preventative rather than preemptive.

Prevention, as it applies to the "War on Terror" is a unique, distinctly Orwellian break from tradition. In the past, domestic laws as well as foreign policy were based on punishment as a deterrent. In domestic law, this is quite obvious. A person is punished for the acts that they commit, not for the acts that they may commit in the future. During the cold war, the US did not attack Soviet missile sites, they simply accepted the concept of mutually assured destruction - that the response to an initial nuclear strike was a sufficient deterrent to prevent nuclear war.

The traditional method of punishment as a deterrent is not effective against people who do not fear punishment. Obviously, someone who is willing to give his own life to kill Americans would not be deterred by traditional methods. Therefore, it is understandable that some preventative measures must be taken to prevent attacks, but it is clearly not a simple issue to prosecute people who may may only intend to commit a crime.

Until the technology exists to simultaneously monitor everyone for "dangerous thoughts" while at the same time, drilling hour after hour of government propaganda into us, there will be people who get away with wanting to do horrible things. We can never be 100% secure when half the world hates us.