Walzer Supreme Emergency Analysis

The critical essay “Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?” written by Marin Luther King Jr., is an inquisitive piece who preaches the idea of a peaceful society, Martin also highlights the major issues happening and changing the world at the time. It analyzes events involving World War II and Vietnam War, and uses an example from Greek Literature to apply the concept known as “Ulysses and the Siren”; resulting in a realization that peace is the solution to chaos.

In chapter 3, titled “Congress and the Agencies”, we learn of a few of the many laws, processes and agencies that have been created to better prepare the United States for a national emergency. Since the origins of the United States, the President has always been the lead on emergencies that required attention by the federal government, but the legislative and judicial branches of the government have become more and more involved in making sure that it is done constitutionally. One of the main reasons for this is because of the statutes that have been created because of the response to emergencies. These statutes have been separated into three separate categories.

The United States has been in a national state of emergency fighting a war on terrorism since September 11, 2001. The intelligence communities have pursued and tracked down terrorist suspects who pose a direct threat to this country, yet one of the greatest threat to this country is the astronomical number of mass shootings and hate crimes that have occurred in this country post 9/11.

Human catastrophe is the biggest reason as to why we need interventionism. It will help us put an end to any and all future genocides. The second reason to have interventionism is so we can maintain our allies. Without our allies we would not be capable of doing all the things we currently do, like invading places that so desperately need our help. Think of it like this, our country is having a genocide, and to know that other countries are aware of what is happening and won’t come to help because of their own petty reasons, would you then consider isolationism to be an option? In conclusion, whether we should or shouldn’t adopt an interventionism policy should not even be a question, because when the lives of those who are helpless cannot simply call out to us, they should know we will always be there to support

The issue that emerges here is, admittedly, one of prudence versus morality. In order to refine our existence, we must first secure it, the argument goes. In the case of a supreme emergency, arguably the only options that remain for a victim state are either annihilation or the destruction of an innocent other. Given this premise, the arguments made thus far contend that it is only natural, and

However this responsibility must be exercised only when the situation and U.S. capabilities enable a successful military intervention. Military action should be a measure of last resort and the standards for its use should be high. Those standards include multilateral action, logistical feasibility, domestic public support, and an actionable post-genocide plan for stability.

Although the catalyst arises from a particular set of historical and cultural circumstances, the idea of the individual pitted against the state has a universal resonance. In this case,

The United States is in a perpetual state of national emergency. A state of emergency, is a situation of national danger or disaster, in which a government suspends normal constitutional procedures in order to regain control. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) terror attacks, Congress adopted a resolution on September 14, 2001, stipulating: “the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” The broad interpretation of the law by the executive branch has provided it with unlimited authority to act not only against those responsible for 9/11, but any

Oftenly people within a culture create its own organizing principles and definitions when certain things occur that affect a community and/or society simultaneously, one of them being moral panics. Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda introduces us to the concept of moral panics and what they consists of in their article “Moral Panics: Culture, Politics, and Social Construction”. According to the author 's, moral panic is an exaggerated response or concern by the public to an issue that is seen as threatening the moral standards of society, however the harm exposed may be minimal to none, usually ignited by the media, higher officials, action groups and so forth . Moral panic has become a well-known word often used to categorize social problems that we are exposed to today. Here, we see some examples of the three theories: the grassroots model, the elite-engineered model, and the interest-group theory, and how they are present in our lives today.

The tone of the article contributed to its deep resonance with the readers. Von Drehle and Altman created a frame of chaos and distress by using words like “scrambled”, “struggled”, and “failed”, not only to describe the citizens witnessing the passing hours and days, but also the police and governments who stood by trying to come up with ways to clear the scorch (24). An air of

During military intervention, the human rights of non-combatants are placed in very high regard. However, there are no assurances that there will not be civilian casualties. The question remains what an acceptable level death or bodily harm is and when would it be considered morally or ethically acceptable during military intervention. According to Altman and Wellman, “If there is no other way to rescue far greater numbers of persons from death or grave bodily harm, then armed intervention might be permissible as a grim moral necessity. However, as in such grim circumstances, where a supreme humanitarian emergency exists, can intervention be morally permitted.” With that being said, they also argue that all targets should be legitimate military targets and that every precaution needs to be taken to ensure the safety and security of non-combatants. (Altman and Wellman 2008,

There is an increasingly growing global controversy about whether the United States should intervene in the Syrian conflict, and whether this intervention should be military or strategic. The U.S. has recently avoided interfering militarily in Syria or providing the rebels with direct support, but admitted the presence of the Syrian opposition.

Fear, anxiety, and chaos drive people to accept control over freedom for the purpose of securing order and harmony. A nation is based on the principles of law and regulation accomplished through trust that people have toward the leadership. In Snowpiercer, Bong Joon-Ho presents a society created on the basis of surviving the frost, but in turn, people have to oblige to the rules set fort by their authority, which is Wilford. Bong Joon-Ho uses this futuristic society to illustrate an authoritarian’s reliance on fear and terror used as mechanisms to bring people together for the support of the nation. The important question arises, when one asks: what happens when war, terror, fear, and anxiety are not generated naturally?

“Sovereign,” argues Carl Schmitt, “is he who decides on the exception” (5). Far from the only definition of sovereignty available to us, this narrow understanding, he continues, is a “borderline case and not…routine.” Indeed, “the exception is to be understood to refer to a general concept in the theory of the state, and not merely to a construct applied to any emergency decree or state of siege.” Thus, because “[t]he exception…is not codified in the existing legal order,” it must necessarily “be characterized as a case of extreme peril, a danger to the existence of the state” (6). Conversely, in non-crisis situations, Schmitt implies, we should expect the law—rather than the will of the head of state—to clearly delineate

Emergency in ordinary parlance means a time of crisis, a moment of danger or suspense. A state of emergency therefore is a governmental declaration that recognises the existence of this peculiar situation and takes some necessary actions to restore the peace and governmental stability of the society. During this period, the maxim, salus populi suprema lex has a special force and to that effect, some normal functions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers may be suspended. Citizens are alerted to change their normal behaviours, or government agencies are ordered to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms, even if guaranteed under the constitution.