With the primitive dilemma of Carnéades' plank as a starting point, this work focuses on two of the most debated "tragic dilemmas" of a post-heroic Western society and asks: Is it permissible to shoot down a hijacked passenger aircraft, following the pattern of September 11th, heading towards an inhabited building in order to avoid the deadly crash for thousands of people? Additionally, is the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" justified against a terrorist in order to reveal the location of a time bomb that is about to explode at any moment?

The Criminal Law of the Enemy is connected to another dilemma, the one pole of which can be summarized in the following question: Should we unquestionably accept every new decision of the respective state authority that restricts our freedoms and poisons the rule of law, because supposedly there is no other solution to ensure our safety, acting as notaries who witness the change of dominant relationships? The other pole of the dilemma: or, on the contrary, should we persistently adhere to the classical principles of law with which generations have been nurtured, ignoring the reality with its new challenges and dangers that require new answers and possibly losing the "caravan of life" that moves forward and cannot be stopped by invoking anything traditional?

The answer that the author attempts to give to this last question is that for where this caravan is taking us, it is preferable to stay behind shouting romantically in favor of the democratic principles that are being abandoned or have already been abandoned. The danger of "losing the universe" from such a commitment to the rule of law (fiat iustitia, pereat mundus) can function as an alarm not for new strict (or stricter) criminal laws that promise supposedly more security, but for a change of course: instead of constantly changing criminal legislation to keep up with the "new reality", it would be preferable to change the foundations on which this world was built.