Reflection on September 11

Reflection on September 11, 2001

In the year since…..

It has been a year since that terrible day in Seattle. I woke up to a burning tower and saw a jet ram the second, live and in color. I managed to dress and arrive at an office that was closing. The entire Federal civilian bureaucracy, with few exceptions, had shut down in horror and fearful expectation that it wasn’t over. Attempts to reach family succeeded in connecting with a sister who works at Will Rogers Airport. She told stories of jets landing there at Federal command, in one case a 767 that no one knew how to shut down properly save the mechanic fortuitously on board. Then there was the unaccompanied Japanese teenager on her way home via San Francisco, and the Middle Eastern men the authorities wanted to speak to, and always the confused passengers who demanded to know if they would make their connections.

Coming home that Friday my Southwest flight flew an unusual approach to Oakland airport. Normally all the jets form a long parade over the South Bay, each lining up for its turn to land. This time we were almost alone in the sky. We flew over Oakland itself, the base leg paralleling the airport, and the right turn towards the airport allowed for only a few airborne moments before we plunked down onto the runway and debarked at a much quieter airport than I was accustomed to. My own space never looked quite so good.

In the year since, I learned that a good friend from New York, who worked a block away from the WTC, heard the first collision and actually saw the second. At that moment she chose to leave and found herself on the last subway out of Manhattan to Brooklyn. She still had to walk blocks to her car. I asked her if she would attend the observances on Wednesday and she wasn’t sure. Her job requires air travel, and she has done what she must, but the old confidence is gone.

At my desk today is a PowerPoint slide show. One of the slides is a picture of a couple dozen people clinging to the side of one of the towers, which one and how high up I do not know. On a beautiful, sunny morning they are faced with choosing how to die. They can no longer choose how to live.

In the year since, we have passed the USA Patriot Act and watched the Justice Department behave as if civil liberties may no longer matter, at least if you are not a citizen. The Department of Defense is worse, insisting that citizens caught up as presumed combatants against the USA are not entitled to civil liberties and DOD protests mightily at any judicial review. They just have to say that they think, or believe, that you are a combatant and you will go to jail. That is all it takes. And always, the long security lines to fly, the random inspections that seem to have no logic, and a growing feeling that there has to be a better way. An article in today’s (9/10/02) San Francisco’s Chronicle reveals that there are members of the administration who are actually considering the suspension of Constitutional rights (specifically habeas corpus). Challenged on the legality of this by military officers attending the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, the response from a Justice Department official is “trust us.” Why? As the article’s writer pointed out, the Constitution was based on a mistrust of government.

In the year since, we have sent soldiers to Afghanistan and showed that the US has the cajones to go to war. We can outgun and outbomb anyone since we have the technology and we have the money. We have less taste for nation building, although Harmid Karzai must surely be hoping that we recognize the need to hang in for the long haul. Meanwhile we are looking for the next quick kill, that being Saddam Hussein who is arguably one of the most dangerous leaders in the Mideast. Numerous commentators have weighed in with their views, most notably George Schultz who did what Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney did not do: make the argument for war citing chapter and verse the Iraqi violations of every UN resolution, including the number of the resolution. Why is it so hard for our President to sit down and share the facts with the American people, and our allies? Instead we are treated to inflammatory rhetoric that reeks of Madison Avenue and religious hyperbole instead of reasoned explanations as to why war is necessary and no other alternative will do.

In the year since, we seem to have not a clue what to make of numerous alleged ‘terrorist’ communications that purport to threaten us at any moment. Which ones do we believe and when do we believe them? Is the government ‘crying wolf’ too often? Will we become so accustomed to threats and rumors of threats that we won’t recognize the one that is real? I still have visions of jets flying into the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges. It doesn’t require a terrorist mindset to recognize the impact on the local economy, and the nation’s economy, if either of these two bridges collapses into the bay, blocking ship traffic.

In the year since, we have learned that New York’s Fire Department, which responded so heroically, needs to re-vision how it operates in a disaster. It had no well-defined structure for operating in an emergency, unlike their peers in the Police Department. It had technology it did not know how to use or simply did not use and we will never know what, if any, difference it would have made had they used it. We know that we cannot allow such complacency to continue if New York, and other cities, are to stand up to future attacks and respond appropriately.

Immediately after the attacks many Americans were convulsed in spasms of patriotism that manifested in numerous flags, a renewed appreciation of the fire and police forces, and a determination to show that we had not been beaten down. The fanatics among us harassed Muslims and non-Muslims alike, all because they were dark, dressed differently, had an accent, worshipped God differently, and so on. When will we recognize that differences are not the hallmark of an enemy?

Looking back, I reviewed a message board conversation from last September with an anonymous party known only as Dartmouth. Dartmouth seemed to exemplify the determination of many Americans to demonize the attackers, stating:

Those terrorists were acting on blind, murderous, selfish, adherence to their agenda. The fact that it was well-thought out and brilliantly executed doesn't negate the fact that it was an inhumane act more on the level of a jungle creature. My point is that a person isn't really a human-being unless he acts CONSCIOUSLY as a creature created by GOD, living absolutely in the spirit of AGAPIC LOVE. Anything short of that makes no more than a VERY smart and deadly ANIMAL.

I responded at the time:

Humans do not lose their humanity simply because they act inhumanely. They are not suddenly reduced in status because their actions are brutish and evil. They are still humans, and still children of the Divine. Their actions subject them to justice (not vengeance), but they are still human and we must treat them humanely. No one, no matter how awful they are, ever loses their right to say "I am a human." The sad truth is that our intellect, coupled with our reflective self consciousness, leads to free will and our capability to choose, even when those choices are not always wise ones and can be devastating. They are still the choices of humans, who carry within themselves the essence of God, which makes such capabilities possible

Agapic love, IMO, would never classify any person for any reason as being nothing more than a "VERY smart and deadly animal." That is a dehumanizing statement, which is used in some form by fanatics to justify all manner of brutality. If your opponent is an animal, then there are no moral prohibitions. (Although 'smart' does imply cognitive ability, which you suggest animals don't have.)

In the year since, I have not changed my view that the terrorists, brutal as they were, did not lose their humanity. That is an ongoing quality we never give up. It is a quality that accrues to the detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere. It is a quality that accrues to the Taliban as well as to the Northern Alliance. It also accrues to the President and his advisors, no matter how wrong headed I may think they are and no matter how terrible the pain they wreak on others through our weapons. Even when the victims are members of a wedding party.

We are all humans, and we choose how we will treat each other. Our choices are shaped by our lives and the darker that life, the more cruelty, the more repression; the greater likelihood that we will lash out to relieve our pain. We can choose war or peace. We can choose to turn conflict into a reason to build walls, or an opportunity to build bridges. We have chosen war to end the immediate threat from the terrorists. Therefore we have engaged in conflict and from this we can either build bridges or walls. The fact that the terrorists and their supporters may not espouse the agapic love so preferred by Dartmouth does not make them less human. It does mean they have chosen a path of darkness and those of us who claim to walk in the light of the Divine must strive even harder to live in that light, no matter the provocation. We must lead the way. In this way we can build bridges, instead of walls.

In the year since, how many bridges and how many walls have we built? In year to come, how many more will we build?