[This is the Part 2 conclusion to a prior Part 1. Check it out if you're into checking things out. Here.]
Tuesday, September 11, 2001. I was in my second year of law school. When classes resumed on Thursday, September 13, I was sitting in Civil Procedure II and the professor, to his credit, chose to ignore questions of legal jurisdiction and venue to instead talk with his class about what had happened the day before. His conclusion – this is a man who, by his own estimation, may have lost 49 friends and colleagues in the South Tower in Manhattan – was that we should have “dialogue” with the people that did this thing, so that we can understand each other and reach peace. This was the sentiment shared – at least by those who spoke – of the vast majority of my class. I was the sole, vocal opposition. Shaking in my chair (not from fear) I countered with my belief that the only dialogue that these evil men understand is “swift and deadly violence.” It may have been lacking tact and perhaps “uncivilized,” and I was chastised at the time by professor and peers alike (not verbally, but with sidelong glances and clicking of tongues), but I believed it then and still believe it today.