OCCOM BILL wrote:Vigilantism; like the definition reads isn't of itself a dirty word. In the absence of effective law enforcement, I believe it can be a noble pursuit.
Example: 4 men are sitting on the porch sucking down some beers when they hear a scream from down the block. They race to see what it is. A woman had been attacked and her purse stolen. In this section of South Central Los Angeles, they know it will take the police 30 minutes or more to respond. So, they take off down the alley after the fiend themselves.
At this juncture they have become de facto vigilantes. Is this a bad thing? No.
The problem with the analogy you propose is that it describes an absence of
all law enforcement. This does not apply to the situation concerning the 'law' (the UN resolutions) that was to be enforced re: Iraq.
Let's take one step back. The resolutions called for Iraq to do a number of things; in the absence of complying, the authors (the law-enforcers, say) granted themselves the right to apply an unspecified "all necessary means" to make him comply. Right?
The resolutions never explicitly prescribed what means would be necessary or which means, specifically, would be resorted to - nowhere do they actually specifically raise the threat of war if Iraq didn't comply. The authors made sure of that, because the one thing they did
not want was a triggering mechanism that would automatically legitimize a resort to war (this was the whole problem the US had with the existing resolutions, which is why it tried to get through a resolution that
did explicitly tie the response of military intervention to further acts of non-compliance). No, instead of specifying
what it would do in response to Iraqi non-compliance, the UN merely prescribed that "all necessary means" would be undertaken.
Now, what was "necessary"? Thats where the whole disagreement came in. The majority of the UN and its Security Council figured that the means currently in place - no-flying zones, safe areas, boycott, weapon inspections that had just started up again, and the threat of military force in the future -
were sufficient to eventually enforce compliance. They saw improvement (the inspectors had been let in, and had found no evidence as of yet that Iraq
did actually still posess weapons that significantly transgressed the resolution's criteria) - they said - look; we
are applying "all means necessary". If this doesn't work after all, we'll look at it again. But for now, we consider no further means to
be "necessary" yet.
Returning to your analogy, there
was thus a presence of law enforcement. There was no absence of it. A range of punitive and limiting measures were in place re: Iraq. So what you are left with, using the definition you brought, is arguing that there was an absence of
effective law enforcement.
You can do that, of course. In fact, (most of) you have been arguing exactly that - not that the UN members were doing nothing, but that it wasnt proving effective. OK. So you need to adapt your analogy to fit what your argument really is - it wouldn't be honest otherwise.
Ergo. 4 men are sitting on the porch sucking down some beers when they hear a scream from down the block. They race to see what it is. A woman had been attacked and her purse stolen. The police is there. They've cornered the assailant in a plot of his own. Cops have circled the assailant, they're not letting anyone get to him, their helicopter is flying over and occasionally they'll jab at him and take something from him. Presently they've asked to search him. He's said OK, search me, but the cops are not finding any purse or assault weapon. The 4 men, on the other hand, are absolutely
sure he has it somewhere, and that he's just effectively hiding it from the cops somewhere. The 4 men are also not at all happy with the way the cops are going about it. They're so timid! They just let that bozo order them around! This way they're never going to find that weapon, let alone put that guy behind bars where he belongs. And if this goes on like this forever, who knows when the boor's gonna assault another passer-by again - or worse, much worse, who knows. They've seen some shady guys hover around the area, guys that have hit upon those 4 men themselves pretty badly not long ago - who knows that guy won't secretly slip his assault weapon to those shady guys?
The 4 men have seen enough. They know enough. Something needs to be done. And its not like they're gonna wait around any longer for those namby-pamby cops to do what it takes.
So, the 4 men get their Uzis out, take off down the alley, right past the squirming cops, and boom! blow that plot of land around the guy to smithereens. Hey, coupla kids and nearby houses got hurt, but presently they appear back out of the smoke, triumphantly holding the assailant by his neck.
At this juncture they have most definitely become vigilantes. Is this a bad thing?
Err, yeah.
