“One Single” vs “Every Single”
[ by Charles Cameron — in courtroom and intel agency, the same problem ]
.
It’s an issue for the defense — both against criminal prosecution and terrorist attack — the defense needs to win 100%, the attack only needs to succeed once.
I’d seen the counterterrorism version quite a few times, though I didn’t know until today that it originated with a press release from the IRA — but this is the first time I’d seen the same sort of idea put forward by a defense lawyer, and again, the resemblance presented in this DoubleQuote shows me there’s a pattern I should be on the lookout for.
Sources:
Netflix, Making a Murderer, episode 4 Warfare Evolution Blog, Defeating 3rd generation warfare
March 30th, 2016 at 4:46 pm
The difference between these two scenarios is the difference between tactical victory and strategic victory.
The problem for the IRA is they could’ve killed Thatcher but someone else would’ve taken her place. That someone would be out for revenge, and they would have ample public support. The center of gravity of England’s hold on Northern Ireland was the moral authority to posses it. That’s why the hunger strikes were more successful than bombings.