German court shoots down shoot-down law

After the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Germany passed a law authorizing its military to shoot down civilian aircraft suspected of being hijacked for terror attacks. The law went into effect a little over a year ago. That law has now been ruled against by Germany's highest court.

Strangely enough, in this report from Deutsche Welle it's the court's finding that the law didn't protect human dignity enough that seems to have emphasis. I'd have stressed the lives of the civilians on the planes above their dignity. But what do I know?

The article says the law prompted heated debate over whether the government ever has the right to kill citizens to save the lives of other citizens. Well, yes, you don't want the government treating innocent civilian lives like weights and measures if you can help it. I do see that.

The pilots' union also fought the law, on the grounds that people not on the plane couldn't know what the situation was on that plane, and therefore people on the ground might make a tragic mistake. I rarely agree with unions, but I concede they probably have a point here.

That I have a relative who is an airline pilot might possibly have a wee bit of influence on my thinking, but, hey, now that passengers and crew of airlines know that they can and should fight back, and now that there are changes making it harder for bad guys to actually gain control of a plane -- or retain control once they've grabbed it -- shouldn't we take that into consideration? And, yes, I know that now that commercial flights are better protected, the next attack might more likely be made with a private plane instead of an airliner. That's trickier, certainly, because a private pilot hasn't the same resources for fighting back. And it is perhaps more likely that no innocents might be on the plane at all; that it might be flown by a thief instead of a hijacker...

All in all, I'm not sure we ought to take the option off the table entirely. If you've got a stolen plane with one person aboard where it ought not be, and you can shoot it down over a field instead of a city, it might make sense. For that matter, if there's more than one person aboard, but they seem to be together...

Yikes, I hate the idea. But we have the example of field crashes versus building crashes, and we know which we see as better.

Plus, if terrorists know their chance of actually making it to their target is close to nil, I like to think they'd be inclined to explore other options.

I also have to hope that private pilots these days understand that there's a huge risk to flying planes where other people tell you to, so are taking precautions on the ground to prevent personally becoming an easy target for hijackers. (After all, it's rare in history where society has been so civilized that a person could get away with not being wary, and ready to fight for his life at the drop of a hat. We might have become spoiled, but I'm sure it's not bred out of us entirely already.)

Then again, I don't want to fall into that old 'the ends justify the means' thinking.

Sigh.

I guess this falls more or less under "gee, I'm glad the final decision isn't up to me." I'm not feeling up to the task. It feels like 'darned if you do, and darned if you don't' to me.

Certainly, I have mixed feelings about the court's ruling. However they meant it, I'm afraid it will reinforce the idea that seems to be in some minds that 'the West' rests too much on formality, and is ripe for destruction.

I'd rather that people who hate everybody but themselves realized, without much doubt, that fighting the civilized world is way more trouble than it's worth and they're just throwing resources away if they try.