It turns out the random searches of New York subway passengers are, incredibly, even more pointless than I thought:
At some of the busiest of the city’s 468 stations, riders will be asked to open their bags for a visual check before they go through the turnstiles. Those who refuse will not be permitted to bring the package into the subway but will be able to leave the station without further questioning, officials said.
Okay, let me get this straight. New York’s big plan to prevent London-style bombings is to commit an enormous amount of police manpower to a “security” effort that won’t deter anyone, because suicide terrorism is undeterrable, and won’t catch anyone, because they’ll only be searching a tiny percentage of the ridership (and they won’t even target the group that objectively poses the largest threat by far, young Arab men, for fear of “racial profiling” accusations), and on the off chance that — by pure coincidence — they happen to stop an actual would-be terrorist, he can refuse to be searched and they’ll let him go, whereupon he can just walk down the street to the next subway station and try again until he succeeds.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is completely ridiculous. It will make New York City LESS safe by taking police officers away from useful tasks and diverting their energies to something totally pointless. It will also inconvenience the entire city for absolutely no good reason.
I said yesterday that random searching “makes no sense,” but I now realize that’s not necessarily right, at least not quite: if they insisted on searching people once they’re cornered, rather than letting them refuse consent, they’d have a chance — albeit slim — of foiling a plot. But by letting people freely walk away from attempted searches, they’re setting up a system that can only catch a terrorist if he acts totally irrationally and consents to a search of his bomb-filled bag! Of course, irrational behavior by a dumbass terrorist is always hypothetically possible (see: Ahmed Ressam), but it seems an awfully remote possibility on which to waste a great deal of time, effort and money that could be better spent on preventing attacks in other, more effective ways (like, say, training more bomb-sniffing dogs, or even just placing more officers on trains and in stations to keep a general lookout).
A commenter wrote yesterday that he suspects the goal isn’t really making people safe, but rather, “fostering public confidence” by “mak[ing] people think that they’re safe.” I agree that that’s probably the goal, but I don’t think it will work; New Yorkers aren’t that dumb. Maybe they’ll feel more safe for a few days, maybe a couple of weeks, but then they’ll see the 85-year-old Italian grandmothers getting searched while the 25-year-old Arab men with large fanny packs board the trains unmolested, and they’ll start to question why they’re being put through all this hassle for a “security” effort that is, on its face, transparently futile and fraudulent. Ultimately, random subway searches will probably — hopefully — die an ignominious death, just as the random gate searches at airports did a few years back.
After the London bombings two weeks ago, I saw a TV report suggesting that America would have to adopt Israeli-style tactics if we really want to prevent similar mass-transit attacks from happening here. Clearly, we’re not there yet. Do you think the Israelis care a lick about accusations of “racial profiling”? Do you think the Israelis let a bus passenger walk away if the authorities ask to search his bag and he says “no”? Ha!
One of these days — God forbid, but I fear it’s inevitable — an American city is going to get hit by a London-style bombing, in spite of “security” measures like New York’s, and then maybe we’ll see the error of our ways. Unfortunately, when it comes to security, Americans have a tendency to leave the barn door open until the horse has already bolted, and then decide to close it, at the behest of multiple committees performing simultaneous overlapping investigations. I fear we’re going down the same road again, and it’s a dead end.
P.S. Let me be perfectly clear: It is of course true that the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims are not terrorists. It is, however, also true — it is an objective fact — that the vast majority of the terrorists who threaten us right now (not 30 years ago and not in some hypothetical future) are Arabs and/or Muslims. I don’t like racial profiling any more than the next (non-racist) guy, but I simply do not see how we can craft an effective anti-terror strategy while completely ignoring this basic, elementary fact.
P.P.S. About the “consent to search” issue, I’m guessing that’s a legal/constitutional problem. Personally, I don’t understand why you can’t just declare subways to be like airports: if you enter a subway station, you surrender your privacy rights. If you don’t want to do this, don’t use the subway. But perhaps that’s not legally possible because of the open, public nature of the subway system. If that’s the case, fine, but then for heaven’s sake, cancel the random-search program! Don’t continue with a wasteful and utterly futile program just for the sake of appearances! The consent thing is the final straw that makes New York’s effort completely pointless.
|
Categories: Terrorism & Homeland Security
|
July 22nd, 2005 at 11:55:19 pm
I’m just guessing, at this point, but I have to suspect that one possible reason for the proposed setup might well be that anyone who refuses will potentially automatically establish himself (or herself) as a ‘target of interest’ for later attention - by some other authority, of course …
I’m a little uncomfortable about what this may mean in terms of ‘civil liberties’ … on the surface, ‘what is threatened ?’ … after a little thought, no explicit threat to civil liberties, and yet, it has the ‘feel’ of something dubious - a “Here, put these concentric circles on yourself, consensually, of course” sorta thing …
It doesn’t profile anyone, and yet it sorta corners folk into making a declaration - a choice between “I’m sufficiently innocent that you can look in my backpack/bag” versus “I may be innocent but you cannot look in it - and I’m not going to tell you a good reason why not” …
Hmmmmm …
July 23rd, 2005 at 12:06:52 am
I can certainly see how legitimate privacy concerns can be raised. I’m just saying that, if you’re going to do this at all, you’ve got to be able to insist upon completing the search. If you can’t do that, the whole program is pointless and should be called off. (It really should be called off anyway, as its effectiveness would be vanishingly small even if the police could insist on completing searches.)
I don’t see how the “target of interest” thing can really be true anyway, since presumably if the police cannot demand that they finish the search, they also cannot demand that you show ID…
July 23rd, 2005 at 12:09:37 am
Yeah but you gotta watch out for those Italian Grandmothers sometimes. :>
Post-7/7, but before these Random Searches were instituted in consideration of the fact that Mayor Bloomberg is running for re-election this year COUGH COUGH I mean to say, in response to the 7/21 London Fizzles, Leanna & I took the NYC subway from Way Uptown down to Columbus Circle and back, on a Sunday afternoon & evening. Very reassuringly, the NYPD were prominently On Board ~ and clearly eyeballing the passengers and all our Bags & Baggage.
Now I’m just Sure that New York’s Finest weren’t Profiling anybody WAW HAW HAW! :> ~ listen, Cops aboard the Trains may have but a Slim chance of stopping a bomber but it’s still a helluva lot Fatter than the odds of these nonmandatory random searches accomplishing anything Whatsover. This is simply a craven succumbing to the undifferentiated impulse to “Do Something.” Obviously, this particular Something equals Nothing ~ precisely for which, Thanks. I’ve always been skeptical about the doctrine of the Appearance of Impropriety but this is the total Ineffectuality of Appearance. IOW it’s BS. Bloomberg Schloomberg, for G*d’s sake get some of the Chris Rock Says:
July 23rd, 2005 at 1:15:27 am
I ain’t afraid of al-qaeda. Did al-qaeda blow up the federal building in Oklahoma? No! Did al-qaeda send anthrax in the mail? No! Did al-qaeda drag James Byrd behind a truck ’till his eyeballs popped out? No! I ain’t afraid of al-qaeda, I’m afraid of al-cracka
July 23rd, 2005 at 2:13:06 am
LOL
July 23rd, 2005 at 4:55:19 am
I’m just guessing, at this point, but I have to suspect that one possible reason for the proposed setup might well be that anyone who refuses will potentially automatically establish himself (or herself) as a ‘target of interest’ for later attention - by some other authority, of course …
I’m a little uncomfortable about what this may mean in terms of ‘civil liberties’ … on the surface, ‘what is threatened ?’ … after a little thought, no explicit threat to civil liberties, and yet, it has the ‘feel’ of something dubious - a “Here, put these concentric circles on yourself, consensually, of course” sorta thing …
It doesn’t profile anyone, and yet it sorta corners folk into making a declaration - a choice between “I’m sufficiently innocent that you can look in my backpack/bag” versus “I may be innocent but you cannot look in it - and I’m not going to tell you a good reason why not” …
Hmmmmm …
July 23rd, 2005 at 5:06:52 am
I can certainly see how legitimate privacy concerns can be raised. I’m just saying that, if you’re going to do this at all, you’ve got to be able to insist upon completing the search. If you can’t do that, the whole program is pointless and should be called off. (It really should be called off anyway, as its effectiveness would be vanishingly small even if the police could insist on completing searches.)
I don’t see how the “target of interest” thing can really be true anyway, since presumably if the police cannot demand that they finish the search, they also cannot demand that you show ID…
July 23rd, 2005 at 5:09:37 am
Yeah but you gotta watch out for those Italian Grandmothers sometimes. :>
Post-7/7, but before these Random Searches were instituted in consideration of the fact that Mayor Bloomberg is running for re-election this year <b>COUGH COUGH</b> I mean to say, in response to the 7/21 London Fizzles, Leanna & I took the NYC subway from Way Uptown down to Columbus Circle and back, on a Sunday afternoon & evening. Very reassuringly, the NYPD were prominently On Board ~ and clearly eyeballing the passengers and all our Bags & Baggage.
Now I’m just Sure that New York’s Finest weren’t Profiling anybody WAW HAW HAW! :> ~ listen, Cops aboard the Trains may have but a Slim chance of stopping a bomber but it’s still a helluva lot Fatter than the odds of these nonmandatory random searches accomplishing anything Whatsover. This is simply a craven succumbing to the undifferentiated impulse to “Do Something.” Obviously, this particular Something equals Nothing ~ precisely for which, Thanks. I’ve always been skeptical about the doctrine of the Appearance of Impropriety but this is the total Ineffectuality of Appearance. IOW it’s BS. Bloomberg Schloomberg, for G*d’s sake get some of the <a href=”http://www.fas.org/irp/world/israel/shin_bet/>Boys of Shin Bet</a> in here. :|
July 23rd, 2005 at 6:15:27 am
I ain’t afraid of al-qaeda. Did al-qaeda blow up the federal building in Oklahoma? No! Did al-qaeda send anthrax in the mail? No! Did al-qaeda drag James Byrd behind a truck ’till his eyeballs popped out? No! I ain’t afraid of al-qaeda, I’m afraid of al-cracka
July 23rd, 2005 at 7:13:06 am
LOL
July 23rd, 2005 at 8:02:01 am
Do you think the Israelis care a lick about accusations of “racial profiling”?
Neither do they care about establishing a quasi-apartheid state. Presumably we do. Neither do they have a constitution — at all — and so have no equivalent to the Fourth Amendment. Presumably we care about that too.
But I’m starting to wonder; certainly some of us are “letting the terrorists win”, and giving up some liberty for security. I’m a little disheartened at this.
July 23rd, 2005 at 11:53:47 am
Brian, that’s terribly naive. The terrorists are not winning simply because we stand in longer security lines at airports, tolerate more scrutiny from watchful cops in subway stations, and enact war-time legislation that gives our government a greater capability to prosecute terrorists.
Maybe if we STOPPED using airplanes and subways the terrorists could be said to have gained a victory. Certainly if we allowed the terrorists to take advantage of our liberties, rendering our population as nothing more than fish in a barrel, then they could claim a tactical victory.
But I hardly think that the terrorists are attacking our people with a motive to harass Americans with greater security measures. And, lest you forget, this nation has NEVER pulled itself through a national crisis without temporarily narrowing civil liberties.
July 23rd, 2005 at 1:02:01 pm
<i>Do you think the Israelis care a lick about accusations of “racial profiling”?</i>
Neither do they care about establishing a quasi-apartheid state. Presumably we do. Neither do they have a constitution — at all — and so have no equivalent to the Fourth Amendment. Presumably we care about that too.
But I’m starting to wonder; certainly some of us are “letting the terrorists win”, and giving up some liberty for security. I’m a little disheartened at this.
July 23rd, 2005 at 2:16:22 pm
Thebeef, that’s terribly repugnant of you to so eagerly let go of your rights. The U.S. Constitution clear secures a basic right to be free from random searches, and this is explicitly a random search, conducted by police, on a publicly funded and available facility.
And, lest you forget, this nation has NEVER pulled itself through a national crisis without temporarily narrowing civil liberties.
And that makes it right? Was the suspension of habeus corpus by Lincoln a good thing? I find this to be weak justification.
But OK, let’s assume you’re right. Let’s say this indefinite and presumably continuous war (a new cold war suggested by Cheney) requires some modification to our Rights. Perhaps in the not-so-distant future we might still have freedom of speech, as long as it doesn’t incite political fervor (i.e., no protesting, no picketing the Supreme Court, no Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh). Might still have freedom of religion — except Islam. Might still have have freedom to bear arms — but only non-easily concealable ones, so hunting rifles only. Right to a speedy trial? This administration has already thrown THAT out the window.
At what point do we stop? At what point has it become clear that our rights have been clearly abridged with the justification being a war that, quite frankly, while not started by us, is clearly being fueled by our own actions? Is our future defined by a mission to “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,” while turning ours into a police state?
July 23rd, 2005 at 4:53:47 pm
Brian, that’s terribly naive. The terrorists are not winning simply because we stand in longer security lines at airports, tolerate more scrutiny from watchful cops in subway stations, and enact war-time legislation that gives our government a greater capability to prosecute terrorists.
Maybe if we STOPPED using airplanes and subways the terrorists could be said to have gained a victory. Certainly if we allowed the terrorists to take advantage of our liberties, rendering our population as nothing more than fish in a barrel, then they could claim a tactical victory.
But I hardly think that the terrorists are attacking our people with a motive to harass Americans with greater security measures. And, lest you forget, this nation has NEVER pulled itself through a national crisis without temporarily narrowing civil liberties.
July 23rd, 2005 at 7:04:56 pm
Brian - the whole ‘free speech’ part of our “Constitutional Rights” was tossed out the proverbial anti-Christ Operating System by the whole Politically-Correct movement … and that wasn’t even in response to terrorism …
I’ll make a deal with you … *you* get rid of the PC movement, and *I’ll* persuade the evilBoooshAdministration (TM) to ban the random searches … (grin) …
July 23rd, 2005 at 7:16:22 pm
Thebeef, that’s terribly repugnant of you to so eagerly let go of your rights. The U.S. Constitution clear secures a basic right to be free from random searches, and this is explicitly a random search, conducted by police, on a publicly funded and available facility.
<i>And, lest you forget, this nation has NEVER pulled itself through a national crisis without temporarily narrowing civil liberties.</i>
And that makes it right? Was the suspension of <i>habeus corpus</i> by Lincoln a <i>good</i> thing? I find this to be weak justification.
But OK, let’s assume you’re right. Let’s say this indefinite and presumably continuous war (a new cold war suggested by Cheney) requires some modification to our Rights. Perhaps in the not-so-distant future we might still have freedom of speech, as long as it doesn’t incite political fervor (i.e., no protesting, no picketing the Supreme Court, no Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh). Might still have freedom of religion — except Islam. Might still have have freedom to bear arms — but only non-easily concealable ones, so hunting rifles only. Right to a speedy trial? This administration has already thrown THAT out the window.
At what point do we stop? At what point has it become clear that our rights <b>have been clearly abridged</b> with the justification being a war that, quite frankly, while not started by us, is clearly being fueled by our own actions? Is our future defined by a mission to “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,” while turning ours into a police state?
July 23rd, 2005 at 8:16:01 pm
Brian, you make some good points… and they get lost in your ridiculous slippery-slope scare-mongering. Banning Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh in order to win the war on terror? What the hell would the justification for that be?
Also, “a war that, quite frankly, while not started by us, is clearly being fueled by our own actions” is not necessary to your argument, and in fact weakens it by causing at least 50% of your audience to totally ignore anything else you say once they’ve read that.
My central point, as I said, is simply that random searches are pointless without the ability to force people to submit to them. Therefore, if we cannot tolerate or legally justify this particular infringement of liberty, we need to GIVE UP ON THE IDEA OF RANDOM SEARCHES.
July 23rd, 2005 at 9:07:25 pm
Speaking as one who rode the NY subway system today, there is right now (to my observation) a very low profile on the A-line of random searching. I saw all of ONE sign notifying commuters of it, and I saw no random searches in my two rides between 190th St. and Canal St. What there are are more, louder, and more strident announcements on the subways when passing between stations about general security issues.
July 24th, 2005 at 12:04:56 am
Brian - the whole ‘free speech’ part of our “Constitutional Rights” was tossed out the proverbial anti-Christ Operating System by the whole Politically-Correct movement … and that wasn’t even in response to terrorism …
I’ll make a deal with you … *you* get rid of the PC movement, and *I’ll* persuade the evilBoooshAdministration (TM) to ban the random searches … (grin) …
July 24th, 2005 at 1:04:41 am
Brian, please! Your post is entirely unpersuasive. 1) As Brendan pointed out, your point about this war “clearly being fueled by our own actions” betrays your obvious (and pathetic) misunderstanding of the enemy; 2) your hypotheticals are absurd and meaningless. Yes, Lincoln did suspend habeus corpus. Personally, I think that was improper because, as a textualist, I believe only Congress has the right to suspend habeus corpus. However, I think suspending habeus corpus was the right move at the time. And you know what–it was temporary Brian! Now that the Civil War is over, our habeus corpus rights are back in full swing!
Your reticence to surrender civil liberties is understandable and commendable–we shouldn’t tolerate such intrusions lightly. (By the way, I doubt your civil liberties have been infringed in any meangingful way. I’m sure your phones haven’t been tapped; or your library records searched; or your right to a speedy trial impeded)
That said; WAKE UP! We’re not living in a hypothetical. Your objection is noted, but wisely and pragmatically overruled. Thank God our security is in the hands of pragmatists as opposed to ideologues.
PS: Call me crazy, but somehow I feel as though your worries about Americans losing the right to bear handguns and automatic weapons is disingenuous
July 24th, 2005 at 1:16:01 am
Brian, you make some good points… and they get lost in your ridiculous slippery-slope scare-mongering. Banning Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh in order to win the war on terror? What the hell would the justification for that be?
Also, “a war that, quite frankly, while not started by us, is clearly being fueled by our own actions” is not necessary to your argument, and in fact weakens it by causing at least 50% of your audience to totally ignore anything else you say once they’ve read that.
My central point, as I said, is simply that random searches are pointless without the ability to force people to submit to them. Therefore, if we cannot tolerate or legally justify this particular infringement of liberty, we need to GIVE UP ON THE IDEA OF RANDOM SEARCHES.
July 24th, 2005 at 1:33:30 am
Having taken him to task previously, let me now come to Brian’s defense on a couple of points.
First, he has actually stated previously that he supports the Second Amendment. So your assumption there is unfounded. Or, to do as you said: “Crazy!” :)
Second, the fact that “now that the Civil War is over, our habeus corpus rights are back in full swing” does not prove much in the current situation, because unlike the Civil War, this war does not seem likely to have a definite ending anytime soon. I think that’s partially what Brian had in mind when he said the war is “clearly being fueled by our own actions,” and although he’s wrong about that (and about the Orwellian thought process that follows from there), the related point that I suspect he was driving at — that this war could drag on forever — is a valid one. The war on terror is quite different than other wars in which civil liberties have been “temporarily” suspended, and we need to think even more seriously about what liberties we are willing to give up, in light of the fact that we might very well be giving them up indefinitely, rather than temporarily.
Finally, as I’ve pointed out before, the proper question is not “have my liberties been infringed?” The proper question is, “have liberties been infringed in a way that I find to be unacceptable?” Just because it doesn’t affect YOU — yet — doesn’t prove that it’s OK, in fact it isn’t even really probative evidence with regard to whether it’s OK. If we were to throw Muslims into internment camps, that wouldn’t affect Brian’s liberties either, but I suspect we all would abhor such an action.
To get back to the fundamental point, the flaw is Brian’s reasoning is that he seems to be looking at this question in absolute terms, viewing any infringement of liberties as being BAD, BAD, BAD. The better way to look at it is as a freedom-security continuum. They are a continuum, there is no way to deny that. And we do need to have a serious discussion about what we are doing anytime we move away from the freedom end and toward the security end. But that doesn’t mean we can never legitimately make such a move — we just need to be very careful, and not go too far. Unfortunately, shrill, unreasonable slippery-slope arguments do not foster such a serious discussion; to the contrary, they tend to make rational people ignore liberty-related concerns, because they figure “all those ACLU types” are a bunch of nut jobs. One of the reasons I so often castigate the Left is because I really feel we need a vocal, effective, rational Left, to make the case against moving too far down that continuum. But alas, for the most part we don’t have such a Left, and that’s a very big problem.
Another factor to consider is that, if (God forbid) there are more terrorist attacks that are even worse than 9/11, there will be an overwhelming public majority supporting civil liberties violations that really ARE beyond the pale. It is therefore essential, in order to defend liberty as well as preserve security, that we prevent such attacks. If the hard-line ACLUers get their way, and we don’t implement minor infringements of liberty that could prevent major attacks, they may end up winning the battle but losing the war after those attacks occur.
July 24th, 2005 at 1:40:11 am
It’s worth quoting Thomas Jefferson here:
“Those who would give up essential liberty for some temporary security will have neither liberty nor security.”
I believe that’s the correct quote. Alas, it is often misquoted as “Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither” or something to that effect. But the word “essential” is, well, essential to understanding the quote. It is NOT true that giving up ANY liberty for security is necessarily bad. It’s a matter of weighing the pros and cons, with a heavy emphasis on remembering how important our liberties are. But those who are unwilling to give up even minor liberties to gain essential security will also end up with neither, because we’ll be attacked and then we’ll lose a hell of a lot more liberties.
None of this necessarily relates to the NYC situation (which I have mixed feelings about, except I feel strongly that IF we cannot make the searches mandated, then we definitely should not have “random searches” at all), but it does relate very much to the broader question of liberty vs. security.
July 24th, 2005 at 2:07:25 am
Speaking as one who rode the NY subway system today, there is right now (to my observation) a very low profile on the A-line of random searching. I saw all of ONE sign notifying commuters of it, and I saw no random searches in my two rides between 190th St. and Canal St. What there are are more, louder, and more strident announcements on the subways when passing between stations about general security issues.
July 24th, 2005 at 6:04:41 am
Brian, please! Your post is entirely unpersuasive. 1) As Brendan pointed out, your point about this war “clearly being fueled by our own actions” betrays your obvious (and pathetic) misunderstanding of the enemy; 2) your hypotheticals are absurd and meaningless. Yes, Lincoln did suspend habeus corpus. Personally, I think that was improper because, as a textualist, I believe only Congress has the right to suspend habeus corpus. However, I think suspending habeus corpus was the right move at the time. And you know what–it was temporary Brian! Now that the Civil War is over, our habeus corpus rights are back in full swing!
Your reticence to surrender civil liberties is understandable and commendable–we shouldn’t tolerate such intrusions lightly. (By the way, I doubt your civil liberties have been infringed in any meangingful way. I’m sure your phones haven’t been tapped; or your library records searched; or your right to a speedy trial impeded)
That said; WAKE UP! We’re not living in a hypothetical. Your objection is noted, but wisely and pragmatically overruled. Thank God our security is in the hands of pragmatists as opposed to ideologues.
PS: Call me crazy, but somehow I feel as though your worries about Americans losing the right to bear handguns and automatic weapons is disingenuous
July 24th, 2005 at 6:33:30 am
Having taken him to task previously, let me now come to Brian’s defense on a couple of points.
First, he has actually stated previously that he supports the Second Amendment. So your assumption there is unfounded. Or, to do as you said: “Crazy!” :)
Second, the fact that “now that the Civil War is over, our habeus corpus rights are back in full swing” does not prove much in the current situation, because unlike the Civil War, this war does not seem likely to have a definite <i>ending</i> anytime soon. I think that’s partially what Brian had in mind when he said the war is “clearly being fueled by our own actions,” and although he’s wrong about that (and about the Orwellian thought process that follows from there), the related point that I suspect he was driving at — that this war could drag on forever — is a valid one. The war on terror is quite different than other wars in which civil liberties have been “temporarily” suspended, and we need to think even more seriously about what liberties we are willing to give up, in light of the fact that we might very well be giving them up indefinitely, rather than temporarily.
Finally, as I’ve pointed out before, the proper question is not “have <i>my</i> liberties been infringed?” The proper question is, “have liberties been infringed in a way that I find to be unacceptable?” Just because it doesn’t affect YOU — yet — doesn’t prove that it’s OK, in fact it isn’t even really probative evidence with regard to whether it’s OK. If we were to throw Muslims into internment camps, that wouldn’t affect Brian’s liberties either, but I suspect we all would abhor such an action.
To get back to the fundamental point, the flaw is Brian’s reasoning is that he seems to be looking at this question in absolute terms, viewing any infringement of liberties as being BAD, BAD, BAD. The better way to look at it is as a freedom-security continuum. They are a continuum, there is no way to deny that. And we do need to have a serious discussion about what we are doing anytime we move away from the freedom end and toward the security end. But that doesn’t mean we can never legitimately make such a move — we just need to be very careful, and not go too far. Unfortunately, shrill, unreasonable slippery-slope arguments do not foster such a serious discussion; to the contrary, they tend to make rational people ignore liberty-related concerns, because they figure “all those ACLU types” are a bunch of nut jobs. One of the reasons I so often castigate the Left is because I really feel we need a vocal, effective, rational Left, to make the case against moving too far down that continuum. But alas, for the most part we don’t have such a Left, and that’s a very big problem.
Another factor to consider is that, if (God forbid) there are more terrorist attacks that are even worse than 9/11, there will be an overwhelming public majority supporting civil liberties violations that really ARE beyond the pale. It is therefore essential, in order to defend liberty as well as preserve security, that we prevent such attacks. If the hard-line ACLUers get their way, and we don’t implement minor infringements of liberty that could prevent major attacks, they may end up winning the battle but losing the war after those attacks occur.
July 24th, 2005 at 6:40:11 am
It’s worth quoting Thomas Jefferson here:
“Those who would give up essential liberty for some temporary security will have neither liberty nor security.”
I believe that’s the correct quote. Alas, it is often misquoted as “Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither” or something to that effect. But the word “essential” is, well, essential to understanding the quote. It is NOT true that giving up ANY liberty for security is necessarily bad. It’s a matter of weighing the pros and cons, with a heavy emphasis on remembering how important our liberties are. But those who are unwilling to give up even <b>minor</b> liberties to gain <b>essential</b> security will <i>also</i> end up with neither, because we’ll be attacked and then we’ll lose a hell of a lot more liberties.
None of this necessarily relates to the NYC situation (which I have mixed feelings about, except I feel strongly that IF we cannot make the searches mandated, then we definitely should not have “random searches” at all), but it does relate very much to the broader question of liberty vs. security.
July 24th, 2005 at 8:05:43 pm
The Jefferson quote was precisely what I had in mind when I was writing what I did before, but I was actually making an effort to not be too theatric. My ’slippery-slope’ argument was, perhaps, a bit over the top, but the hyperbole was there for effect. I certainly am concerned at what “temporary” measures we are willing to take when the nature of the conflict is such that there is no suggestion of an “end”; there is no power we can sign a treaty with, or finally force into negotiations. However, our strong values of liberty and freedom are being undermined by this war, and our response to their challenge is to change our way of life. It is, therefore, acquiescing on their terms.
The model of the liberty-security continuum is useful, yes. Maximizing the liberty value, though, is something that’s important to me, but I feel that the soccer moms of the world would rather maximize the security part. Not long after 9/11 I went to a UMD campus event in which people could discuss the liberty/security issue with both an attorney for the ACLU and an attorney from the Dept. of Justice, or something like that. At the risk of making an unfair generalization, several women seemed to essentially say, “I don’t care what liberty I have to give up, I want to be safe from getting blown up!” This made me uneasy to hear.
betrays your obvious (and pathetic) misunderstanding of the enemy…
I’d like to utter something Cheney-ish here, but I won’t. I spend a good deal of my time studying this very problem, making fine distinctions between different sides of international issues, and looking at the historical challenge and response behavior of various international actors. Your “they’re trying to kill us so we must stop at nothing to wipe them out” attitude betrays your lack of real understanding of international issues at all.
Yet my “fueled by our own actions” statement was unclear and opened itself to poor interpretation. Allow me to clarify.
Post-WWII/early Cold War: as part of a larger strategy of containment (re: Kennan’s long telegram and NSC 68) we took certain actions, such as supporting the British presence (and later establishing our own) in Egypt and other parts of the Near and Middle East, to both prevent a Soviet presence and to deny them resources/secure resources for ourselves. In this context, our actions were sensible: take necessary steps, including supporting regimes with goals and ideals antithethical to ours, to win the Cold War. It did, however, engender ill will among the more nationalist factions within basically any given region.
We’re still in a Cold War mindset, though. We still maximize our strategic footholds in these areas, and of course protect certain necessary resources. Even post-Cold War this makes some sense, as we have peripheral if not vital interests in many places. But we shouldn’t be shocked when such and such Islamic nationalist gets ticked off at us. Now we have one who is quite good at rousing the rabble as an enemy, and we are playing into his hands.
When he says we have no right to base troops in the land of Mecca (and I realize we no longer have significant forces in Saudi Arabia), and then we invade Iraq, it only strengthens his message. This is why it has been said that Iraq has been the greatest recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda. And thus, in a significant way we are fueling the very war (the GWOT) we are trying to win, by aggravating an already pissed off cultural group.
Does this mean we should just pack up and leave? No, of course not. Our removal of a terrorist-supporting state (Afghanistan) was clearly justified in the aftermath of 9/11. And in Iraq — which I believe to be unjustified, at least on terror or WMD grounds, which is the reason Americans were sold — we have to clean up the mess we made. But 1) perhaps we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place, and 2) we should not be surprised that this is fueling anti-American sentiments.
July 24th, 2005 at 8:08:34 pm
BTW, it was a Ben Franklin quote, and it does mention the deserve part:
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html
July 24th, 2005 at 8:38:25 pm
The “deserve” part isn’t what I was objecting to… it’s the frequent omission of the words “essential Liberty” and “a little temporary Safety” that I have a problem with.
Your point about the soccer moms is well taken. There are indeed many people in this country who are all too willing to give up their liberties. That is precisely why we need an effective and rational Left in this country — not a raving, loony Left that engages in constant hyperbole and doesn’t understand the meaning of the phrase “pick your battles.”
July 24th, 2005 at 9:46:37 pm
“Maybe they’ll feel more safe for a few days, maybe a couple of weeks, but then they’ll see the 85-year-old Italian grandmothers getting searched while the 25-year-old Arab men with large fanny packs board the trains unmolested”
“riders will be asked to open their bags for a visual check before they go through the turnstiles. Those who refuse will not be permitted to bring the package into the subway but will be able to leave the station without further questioning, officials said.”
By “leave the station,” I assume the writer meant something like “not board the train.” But maybe I’m just not interpreting this correctly.
July 24th, 2005 at 9:56:58 pm
They’re RANDOM searches. Ergo, not everyone with a bag gets searched. And officials have made a big point of reminding everyone that they won’t be targeting Arabs/Muslims. Thus, my hypothetical is based on the situation where a particular 25-year-old Arab man with a large fanny pack happens to have been “randomly” not searched, while a particular 85-year-old grandmother “randomly” is searched.
The point I am trying to make is that random searching is inherently stupid (as the airports realized some time ago), and New Yorkers will eventually realize that. They’ll see people boarding the trains who have not been searched, but who could just as easily (or more easily) pose a threat as the people who were searched… and they’ll think, “hey, wait a minute, how is this making me safer?” … and then it will occur to them that, if anyone approaching the checkpoint were a real terrorist, that person could (and thus presumably would) simply deny consent to search and try again later, or at a different station, and eventually they’re sure to avoid being “randomly” selected…
July 25th, 2005 at 12:15:50 am
Ah, gotcha. That makes more sense. I had thought of that myself, but I wasn’t sure if that was what you were saying.
Another thing that I always found odd about these searches: if you have people lining up in highly dense groups to be searched, doesn’t that present nearly as good a target for a bomber as the train itself?
July 25th, 2005 at 12:34:27 am
Yeah… good point.
Random searches are the suck.
July 25th, 2005 at 1:05:43 am
The Jefferson quote was precisely what I had in mind when I was writing what I did before, but I was actually making an effort to not be too theatric. My ’slippery-slope’ argument was, perhaps, a bit over the top, but the hyperbole was there for effect. I certainly am concerned at what “temporary” measures we are willing to take when the nature of the conflict is such that there is no suggestion of an “end”; there is no power we can sign a treaty with, or finally force into negotiations. However, our strong values of liberty and freedom are being undermined by this war, and our response to their challenge is to change our way of life. It is, therefore, acquiescing on their terms.
The model of the liberty-security continuum is useful, yes. Maximizing the liberty value, though, is something that’s important to me, but I feel that the soccer moms of the world would rather maximize the security part. Not long after 9/11 I went to a UMD campus event in which people could discuss the liberty/security issue with both an attorney for the ACLU and an attorney from the Dept. of Justice, or something like that. At the risk of making an unfair generalization, several women seemed to essentially say, “I don’t care what liberty I have to give up, I want to be safe from getting blown up!” This made me uneasy to hear.
<i>betrays your obvious (and pathetic) misunderstanding of the enemy…</i>
I’d like to utter something Cheney-ish here, but I won’t. I spend a good deal of my time studying this very problem, making fine distinctions between different sides of international issues, and looking at the historical challenge and response behavior of various international actors. Your “they’re trying to kill us so we must stop at nothing to wipe them out” attitude betrays your lack of real understanding of international issues at all.
Yet my “fueled by our own actions” statement was unclear and opened itself to poor interpretation. Allow me to clarify.
Post-WWII/early Cold War: as part of a larger strategy of containment (re: Kennan’s long telegram and NSC 68) we took certain actions, such as supporting the British presence (and later establishing our own) in Egypt and other parts of the Near and Middle East, to both prevent a Soviet presence and to deny them resources/secure resources for ourselves. In this context, our actions were sensible: take necessary steps, including supporting regimes with goals and ideals antithethical to ours, to win the Cold War. It did, however, engender ill will among the more nationalist factions within basically any given region.
We’re still in a Cold War mindset, though. We still maximize our strategic footholds in these areas, and of course protect certain necessary resources. Even post-Cold War this makes some sense, as we have peripheral if not vital interests in many places. But we shouldn’t be shocked when such and such Islamic nationalist gets ticked off at us. Now we have one who is quite good at rousing the rabble as an enemy, and we are playing into his hands.
When he says we have no right to base troops in the land of Mecca (and I realize we no longer have significant forces in Saudi Arabia), and then we invade Iraq, it only strengthens his message. This is why it has been said that Iraq has been the greatest recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda. And thus, in a significant way we are fueling the very war (the GWOT) we are trying to win, by aggravating an already pissed off cultural group.
Does this mean we should just pack up and leave? No, of course not. Our removal of a terrorist-supporting state (Afghanistan) was clearly justified in the aftermath of 9/11. And in Iraq — which I believe to be unjustified, at least on terror or WMD grounds, which is the reason Americans were sold — we have to clean up the mess we made. But 1) perhaps we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place, and 2) we should not be surprised that this is fueling anti-American sentiments.
July 25th, 2005 at 1:08:34 am
BTW, it was a Ben Franklin quote, and it does mention the deserve part:
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html
July 25th, 2005 at 1:38:25 am
The “deserve” part isn’t what I was objecting to… it’s the frequent omission of the words “<b>essential</b> Liberty” and “<b>a little temporary</b> Safety” that I have a problem with.
Your point about the soccer moms is well taken. There are indeed many people in this country who are all too willing to give up their liberties. That is <i>precisely why</i> we need an effective and rational Left in this country — not a raving, loony Left that engages in constant hyperbole and doesn’t understand the meaning of the phrase “pick your battles.”
July 25th, 2005 at 2:46:37 am
“Maybe they’ll feel more safe for a few days, maybe a couple of weeks, but then they’ll see the 85-year-old Italian grandmothers getting searched while the 25-year-old Arab men with large fanny packs board the trains unmolested”
“riders will be asked to open their bags for a visual check before they go through the turnstiles. Those who refuse will not be permitted to bring the package into the subway but will be able to leave the station without further questioning, officials said.”
By “leave the station,” I assume the writer meant something like “not board the train.” But maybe I’m just not interpreting this correctly.
July 25th, 2005 at 2:56:58 am
They’re RANDOM searches. Ergo, not everyone with a bag gets searched. And officials have made a big point of reminding everyone that they won’t be targeting Arabs/Muslims. Thus, my hypothetical is based on the situation where a particular 25-year-old Arab man with a large fanny pack happens to have been “randomly” not searched, while a particular 85-year-old grandmother “randomly” <i>is</i> searched.
The point I am trying to make is that random searching is inherently stupid (as the airports realized some time ago), and New Yorkers will eventually realize that. They’ll see people boarding the trains who have not been searched, but who could just as easily (or more easily) pose a threat as the people who <i>were</i> searched… and they’ll think, “hey, wait a minute, how is this making me safer?” … and then it will occur to them that, if anyone approaching the checkpoint were a real terrorist, that person could (and thus presumably would) simply deny consent to search and try again later, or at a different station, and eventually they’re sure to avoid being “randomly” selected…
July 25th, 2005 at 5:15:50 am
Ah, gotcha. That makes more sense. I had thought of that myself, but I wasn’t sure if that was what you were saying.
Another thing that I always found odd about these searches: if you have people lining up in highly dense groups to be searched, doesn’t that present nearly as good a target for a bomber as the train itself?
July 25th, 2005 at 5:34:27 am
Yeah… good point.
Random searches are the suck.
July 26th, 2005 at 12:46:08 pm
Brian, enough of the history of how the U.S. has earned the Muslims’ ire. What did the tourists in Sharm al-Sheikh do to piss off the terrorists? What did the people of Lebanon and Turkey do? The Islamo-fascists still claim to be pissed off about losing Andalusia to the West, so what makes you think more recent occupations and support for autocratic regimes actually matter in the long run? The point is, they’re humiliated about the state of their civilization, and they’re lashing out. Nothing is going to change until the moderate Muslims defeat the suicide-bomber Muslims in the realm of ideas; the U.S. leaving Iraq and the Saudi Arabian peninsula certainly won’t change a thing.
July 26th, 2005 at 1:14:30 pm
Andrew, enough with the snide tone. And I explicitly stated that we should not pull out.
Humiliation about the state of their civilization is about a nonsensical fabricated ‘reason’ for the bombings as “they hate freedom”. If that’s what you think is really in the heads of John Q. Bomber, I really wonder about you. If you’re looking to explore the motivations of suicide bombers, there has been some research on the issue. There were two reasonable reviews in the Post this weekend that might point you in the right direction. But asserting that “they’re humiliated about the state of their civilization” goes about as deep as a puddle into trying to understand the enemy.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:14:31 pm
Random searches are the suck.
You know Brendan, if you are going to use gamer/nerd lingo you should atleast do it right. It should be
Random searches are teh suck.
July 26th, 2005 at 5:46:08 pm
Brian, enough of the history of how the U.S. has earned the Muslims’ ire. What did the tourists in Sharm al-Sheikh do to piss off the terrorists? What did the people of Lebanon and Turkey do? The Islamo-fascists still claim to be pissed off about losing Andalusia to the West, so what makes you think more recent occupations and support for autocratic regimes actually matter in the long run? The point is, they’re humiliated about the state of their civilization, and they’re lashing out. Nothing is going to change until the moderate Muslims defeat the suicide-bomber Muslims in the realm of ideas; the U.S. leaving Iraq and the Saudi Arabian peninsula certainly won’t change a thing.
July 26th, 2005 at 6:14:30 pm
Andrew, enough with the snide tone. And I explicitly stated that we should not pull out.
Humiliation about the state of their civilization is about a nonsensical fabricated ‘reason’ for the bombings as “they hate freedom”. If that’s what you think is really in the heads of John Q. Bomber, I really wonder about you. If you’re looking to explore the motivations of suicide bombers, there has been some research on the issue. There were two reasonable <a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072101853.html”>reviews</a> in the <i>Post</i> this weekend that might point you in the right direction. But asserting that “they’re humiliated about the state of their civilization” goes about as deep as a puddle into trying to understand the enemy.
July 26th, 2005 at 10:14:31 pm
<i>Random searches are the suck.</i>
You know Brendan, if you are going to use gamer/nerd lingo you should atleast do it right. It should be
Random searches are teh suck.