Giving up Liberty For Security

[tiny ham]

Shortly after 9/11 and to this day, when I speak of my ongoing fear of terrorism (it's really waned very little) and my decided "non-anger" of long lines at airports and shoe removals at the gate and such, I'm constantly given 'the look' along with the standard "Those who would give up a little liberty in exchange for security deserve neither" (I know that's not the actual quote, but no one who spouts it to me gets it right either...the intent is there).

On this very board I was referred to as "repulsive" for saying I would gladly let the government search my home if it would help in capturing terrorists.

Why is it repulsive for someone like myself to say "I don't want to be on a hijacked planes, so let's make sure no one has a bomb or a gun before we start this vacation?".

Or rather, where are those of us who feel helpless and scared left to go? I can not pretend that terrorism doesn't scare me. Nor should I be afraid to say YES, I want to feel SECURE in my large convention centers, airports and tall Skyscrapers. Are we, in order to present a united front to the world, supposed to pretend that we are unfazed by daily threats? Are we, in order to express our distaste with the administration (which I certainly feel) supposed to intentionally sully their efforts in order to prove a point?

It's been years since 9/11, but I still believe that if "THE GOVERNMENT" knocked on my door and said "we have reason to believe there was a terrorist in your house, can we look around?" I would allow it.

I guess what I"m saying is that while I do believe things like the Patriot Act are overboard, I don't necessarily 'despise' having a Dept. Of Homeland Security, if only because: I WANT A SECURE HOMELAND. And I'm unclear on how this is a wrong feeling to have.

[Evil One]

You aren't wrong. In the face of the reality that there is a group of people dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible, some concepts become an intellectual luxury.

[RickJay]

Shortly after 9/11 and to this day, when I speak of my ongoing fear of terrorism (it's really waned very little) and my decided "non-anger" of long lines at airports and shoe removals at the gate and such, I'm constantly given 'the look' along with the standard "Those who would give up a little liberty in exchange for security deserve neither" (I know that's not the actual quote, but no one who spouts it to me gets it right either...the intent is there).

On this very board I was referred to as "repulsive" for saying I would gladly let the government search my home if it would help in capturing terrorists.
Neither of those things impacts your liberty, or anyone else's. You don't have an intrinsic right to take United's next shuttle to Detroit; if you don't want to be searched you're free to drive to your destination. And if you're giving the government permission to search your house, that's your call. Anyone who sees those things as an impact on liberty is an ignoramus. You're just not making a tradeoff between freedom and security there. You're making a trade off between CONVENIENCE and security, but nobody has a right to have things made convenient.

What would impact your liberty is if *I* gave the government permission to search your house. Or, more precisely, if the government didn't ask your permission first and just charged in (without reasonable cause, I am assuming.)

What most people are concerned about, at least that I see on SDMB, is things like arresting people without charge or hearing and stuff like that.

[tiny ham]

Well, pulling people out of line and searching their bags at the airport is done without permission and i have absolutely no problem with it. Wouldn't bother me if they opened and went through every person's bag. I just want to be safe.

[Zakalwe]

Well, pulling people out of line and searching their bags at the airport is done without permission and i have absolutely no problem with it. Wouldn't bother me if they opened and went through every person's bag. I just want to be safe.
Well, you agreed to have it done simply by purchasing a ticket and going to the airport. That's very different than having the police barge into your home and tear the place apart without having to show a reason why they suspected you and having that suspicion validated by a court.

[Fear Itself]

If our response to acts of terrorism is to limit freedom, then the terrorists have won. I refuse to capitulate like that, and would much rather live in a country with a risk of an occasional act of terrorism, than compromise the liberty that our forefathers died to defend.

[AHunter3]

These "security measures" are not making us safe. They are not making me feel safe. So far they have not massively curtailed my sense of being a free person, either, although they've annoyed me at times.

By the time they have established sufficient control over human activities to prevent terrorism, they will have made dramatic inroads on my freedom.

I'd rather have the terrorists. They can only kill me once.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4911592&postcount=11

[tiny ham]

But see, what you're basically saying is that those who DO feel safe or WANT to feel safe are somehow...weaker than you. I don't want to die in a terrorist attack, and I will cooperate with the government in any possible way to prevent that from happening. I am not willing to give up my life to prove a point.

There must be a reason why there has been no secondary attack since 9/11. We ARE a bit safer.

[Zagadka]

Liberty != short lines at the airport

Liberty == protection against arrest without cause

Don't confuse the issues.

[Jurph]

I don't want to die in a terrorist attack, and I will cooperate with the government in any possible way to prevent that from happening.

There's a difference between "cooperate" and "subjugate myself to". I doubt you really mean "any way possible," so let's find out exactly how far you'd go. Answer me how far you'd go to prevent a terrorist attack (Agree or Disagree with each proposition):

1) I would allow my car to be searched each time I entered a publicly-funded Interstate highway.

2) I would allow the local police or federal law enforcement agents to "scan" my home for nuclear, biological, or chemical agents, as long as they didn't enter.

3) I would allow them to search my home periodically as part of "random spot checks" to ensure that nobody in my neighborhood was harboring terrorist materials.

4) I would allow them access to the contents of my computer and personal records to ensure that I hadn't had contact with any terrorists.

5) I would allow them to monitor my telephone calls, e-mails, and letters (including packages sent to me and financial records) to ensure that I was not communicating with terrorists.

6) I would voluntarily wear a necklace with a GPS transmitter so that the authorities could identify and find me or my body in an emergency. I would only wear this necklace outside my home.

7) I would voluntarily wear such a necklace (outside my home) even if it included a microphone.

8) I would voluntarily wear such a necklace (outside my home) even if it included a camera and a microphone.

9) I would be happy to wear an audio/video/position-tracking necklace all the time if it would keep me safe from terrorists.

10) I would like to have such a device implanted under my skin at birth, and trust that the government would never use such a device for anything other than preventing terrorist attacks.

[Humble Servant]

I just want to be safe.No one who lives in this intrinsically dangerous world is, or can ever be, "safe."

I am not being flip. I will die. My family will die. Sooner, later, horribly, in sleep. (I think too that some things are worth dying for, and that it may be my duty to do things that will likely lead to my death in some circumstances.)

I can give up all the liberty I have, lock myself up in a padded cell in an underground bunker, and I will not be safe. Since complete safety is a pipe-dream, the rest is a trade-off and a slippery slope--give up a little liberty for a little more safety.

We dispute whether a particular infringement of liberty (why don't they let the dogs sniff my shoes? give 'em a cheap thrill?) will result in a worthwhile increase in safety, and you may be at a different point on the slope than others.

The reason I am skeptical of safety measures which are intrusive of privacy or liberty, or even those which are mostly just inconvenient, is that nothing, nothing, not cameras in my bedroom or banning private ownership of rocket launchers or national identification cards will keep me safe. The goal is a chimera.

[Roland Orzabal]

But see, what you're basically saying is that those who DO feel safe or WANT to feel safe are somehow...weaker than you. I don't want to die in a terrorist attack, and I will cooperate with the government in any possible way to prevent that from happening. I am not willing to give up my life to prove a point.

Fine. That's your prerogative. If you want to allow the government to search your house and your belongings, and give up some of your privacy because it makes you feel safer, then by all means do so. No rational civil libertarian would have a problem with that. What we do have a problem with, though, is the idea that because this is okay with some people, it is therefore okay to do this sort of thing to everyone. Even if the overwhelming majority of Americans are willing to have their privacy invaded (and I doubt if that's the case, but we'll save that for another time), it is still an individual issue, and should be dealt with on an individual basis.

In other words, you can give the government the go-ahead to enter your home at will, but I might not want them in mine unless they specifically asked first (or have a valid search warrant). Neither one of our decisions is 'right' or 'wrong', because it is our decision alone to make.

[RickJay]

Well, pulling people out of line and searching their bags at the airport is done without permission and i have absolutely no problem with it. Wouldn't bother me if they opened and went through every person's bag. I just want to be safe.
This still has no impact on liberty. A person can opt not to subject themselves to this search by not taking the trip.

In fact, if you look carefully, most airports have signs to the effect of "Any person may refuse a search if they elect to leave the airport" or something like that.

If you want to travel without being searched, you can always drive. Or you can learn to fly a plane, buy your own plane, park it in General Aviation and fly it anytime you please with your coat pockets stuffed full of box cutters and framed photos of Osama. Being subjected to a search at the airport may be inconvenient, or it may be ineffective, but it is not a violation of liberty. AHunter's point just doesn't seem relevant; you can't violate someone's freedom by renegotiating a free contract. If you don't like airline safety procedures, don't buy a ticket.

Jarbaby, nobody is saying you're "weaker." So far you're the only person to bring it up.

[tiny ham]

But my position, (which includes the airport) is WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO TO KEEP ME SAFE...get to it. I do NOT want to be flown into a building just so I can stick it to the man. I don't have anything to hide or fear from the government, as far as I know.

Jurph, I answer yes to everything up until 6. And even then, what do I care that the government knows I'm at Busch Gardens this weekend?

I don't think it's an extraordinary position to want to be protected. And i won't apologize for being scared. And people who say WE AREN'T any safer are being silly. There have been at least a few terrorist attempts thwarted since 9/11, so obviously we are.

[PatriotX]

But my position, (which includes the airport) is WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO TO KEEP ME SAFE...get to it. I do NOT want to be flown into a building just so I can stick it to the man. might be other options

[tiny ham]

RickJay, no one is outwardly saying those afraid of terrorism are weaker, but posters who say "I'm not afraid to die for my beliefs....why are you?" are certainly implying it.

I AM seeing the differences here though. I appreciate the clarifications regarding infringing on liberties and following rules. It's just something that's been following me around for years.

The idea that I don't DESERVE liberty or safety because i'm afraid is bothersome.

[Jurph]

Jurph, I answer yes to everything up until 6. And even then, what do I care that the government knows I'm at Busch Gardens this weekend?



My point is that the first one is actually a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights; the second through fifth ones are searches that are currently being challenged in various court cases. As Roland Orzabal pointed out, that's your prerogative. When the police come to your door and ask if they can come in and have a look around, you go right ahead and let them in.

I'm going to ask them for a warrant. Because if they find something in my house they don't like, they'll have no issue with nailing me to the wall for it, even if it weren't what they were looking for.

The guy in Oregon who was arrested and held because his fingerprints supposedly matched those in connection with the Madrid bombings? His house was searched while he was not home.

Can you tell me you'd really feel SAFER if you came home and could tell that somebody had been through all of your belongings systematically without your consent?

[UrbanChic]

And people who say WE AREN'T any safer are being silly. There have been at least a few terrorist attempts thwarted since 9/11, so obviously we are.Statements like this are prime examples of specious reasoning. Terrorist attempts were thwarted before 9/11/2001, too. Just because we haven't been attacked again doesn't mean we're safer. It means just that, we haven't been attacked again.

[tiny ham]

If they had some reason to believe I could lead them to a terrorist, then sure! AFAIK, It's not like they're just going to come in, mess up my scrapbooking table, drink my diet coke and pee on stuff for fun. They wouldn't come to my house unless I was a suspicious person.

[Zakalwe]

If they had some reason to believe I could lead them to a terrorist, then sure! AFAIK, It's not like they're just going to come in, mess up my scrapbooking table, drink my diet coke and pee on stuff for fun. They wouldn't come to my house unless I was a suspicious person.
That sounds suspiciously like "if he wasn't guilty, the cops wouldn't have arrested him".

[Binarydrone]

I guess that what I would say is that many many people since the founding of this country have thought that these freedoms were important enough to die for and many still do to this day. I would further add that I trust the jokers in charge (and this in not partisan by the way) not one bit to not misuse any power that we turn over to them.

It may be that the old saying is true that the tree of liberty must be watered with blood on occasion and that if we want to live free that means that some people have to die. I don't know. I do know that if we willingly allow this country to become a police state in the name of safety that we will have lost something very precious.

[tiny ham]

That sounds suspiciously like "if he wasn't guilty, the cops wouldn't have arrested him".

No, of course you know I don't believe that. I just like to think that they wouldn't violate my privacy or my home unless they had a real good reason to do it.

[Jurph]

They wouldn't come to my house unless I was a suspicious person.

But when the government decides who is and isn't suspicious, you get cases like Richard Jewell's and the gentleman from Oregon. Remember: they broke into his house, searched all his belongings, wiretapped his phones, and more -- and then discovered that he wasn't a terrorist.

Alright, now pay attention closely. I'm going to pretend, for just a moment, that I'm actually more willing to give up my rights than you. Basically a Devil's Advocate move. We're both cool with the government coming in to search my house.

Now: pretend I'm actually cool with this whole subdermal tracking unit. In fact, me and my whole neighborhood are cool with it. And you happen to live here. We had a referendum, and it passed, and now everyone in the city -- even you, who voted against it -- is getting an implant. Worse yet! Because you voted against it, the government has concluded that "you must have something to hide," and have placed your implant on a "watch list". Every time you come home, lights are on that you know were turned off. One night, you get home, and a mix CD a friend burned for you (which you know was in your CD player) is gone. Every so often, you notice a black van parked across the street. Whenever you step onto your porch to get a better look at them, two men get in and drive it away.

But at least you're safe from those terrorists, and don't have to live in fear.

Now, I know it's an exaggeration, and something of a straw man argument. But you said "in any way possible," which is my point. The fear that you would feel on any given day living in my scenario above is the same fear that I would feel living in the "completely safe" scenario you seem to want. I don't mind you giving up your rights, but it scares the hell out of me when you ask the government to take away our rights so that you can feel safer.

Am I making sense to you? If not, I really want to find a common ground here. I am a civil libertarian, and I really feel a duty to explain my views to those who would exchange liberty for security.

[tiny ham]

Jurph, I definitely see what you're saying. I think my point is, that if we follow what some others are saying, where we'd rather die in a terrorist attack than let the government search our homes, or requiring tons of bureacracy to do so, then we're DEFINITELY not going to be safe. There are two extremes that I'm seeing.

Binary says that if we become a police state we've lost something precious.

I agree. But if we get nuked to oblivion by a terrorist group, we've also lost something precious...our lives.

I don't know what the middle ground is.

[Jurph]

Luckily, our form of government was created with checks and balances so that it tends to seek the proper "middle ground" for the situation we're in. But the only way to ensure that it continues to do so is for the populace to ardently demand our rights. The legislature, in my experience, tends to pass laws removing rights rather than granting new ones. And the Supreme Court takes a long time to set things back in line with the Constitution sometimes. And the only way the Supreme Court ever hears a case is if the plaintiff appeals that his rights have been violated and that the law he was arrested under was unconstitutional.

Go back and review your 20th century history and look at what happened to people arrested during McCarthyism, just for suspicion of being a communist. There were any number of harmless behaviors that could lead to one being labelled Communist -- atheism, homosexuality, or even disagreeing with McCarthy! Having seen all that, I don't trust the government to make that kind of decision for me.

By the way, the USA PATRIOT Act gives the government to do all the things I outlined in my (super scary) scenario above with no judicial oversight whatsoever -- except for the skin implant. Right now, if they suspect you, they can enter your home, search through your belongings, and detain you indefinitely without arresting you -- even if you're a US Citizen! -- and you can't say boo. Well you can, but nobody will hear you.

"Wait," you say, "if I didn't have the skin implant, then how did they get my name then?"

And I say, "however they felt like it." Feel safe yet?

[Zakalwe]

No, of course you know I don't believe that. I just like to think that they wouldn't violate my privacy or my home unless they had a real good reason to do it.
I didn't think you did, but you do see the similarity, right? I also happen to think that in most cases, they would wait until they had a good reason. I'm just not willing to trust that every single person in law enforcement will meet that standard. Hell, we know they won't. Even before the Patriot Act, cops would abuse search & seizure. The difference is that it was illegal and a court would usually slap them on the hand and take away the evidence.

I don't know what the middle ground is.
I honestly don't think there is one. We either keep the freedoms we have and law enforcement has to work around that, or we give them up slowly, but surely.

[tiny ham]

Then how do we prevent further terrorism?

[JohnM]

I don't have anything to hide or fear from the government, as far as I know.jarbabyj, I'm not a tinfoil-hat wearer, nor a member of any right- or left-wing militia, but my trust in the government is definitely less than yours. At various times over the last, say, 65 years, our government has persecuted, surveilled and/or prosecuted people who were: Pro-war (i.e., in favor of entering WWII too early, as that might indicate Communist sympathies)
Anti-war (Vietnam, in particular)
In favor of civil rights for blacks
"Enemies" of the sitting president (Nixon's infamous list)
Of Japanese ancestry (of the 120,000 interned, more than 2/3rds were American citizens)The government is made up of people. Those people are capable of being petty, vindictive, mistaken, or even out-and-out evil, just like anybody else. Our system has a pretty amazing set of balances that usually keeps any serious and systematic abuses from happening, or for going on too long when they do happen. Giving the government a blank check to do "whatever it takes" to meet the present danger just sets a precedent for a future bad president, FBI director or LEO with delusions of grandeur to put you or me on a list of "persons of interest."

And, of course, by taking too long to compose I see the conversation has moved on. Just to respond to a later point; if the choice is between living in a police state and a measurable danger of a terrorist nuke going off somewhere in the country, I'll take my chances with the nuke. Police states of both the left and right wing varieties have killed orders of magnitudes more people than a terrorist nuke could.

[Jurph]

You can't stop all terrorism. You will never be completely safe until you're dead. Once you accept that fact -- that living on a planet populated with other human beings is inherently risky -- then you'll realize why my answer makes sense:

"The same way we always have."

We stopped some - but not all - terrorist attacks before September 11th; we didn't need the USA PATRIOT Act to do it. We'll stop some - but not all - terrorist attacks planned in the next ten years -- with or without the USA PATRIOT Act. If the state of the world were nicer (e.g. a peaceful Middle East, an equitable standard of living in the third world) then there might be less terrorism, because there would certainly be fewer people with grievances against us who were pushed so far that they felt suicide was the only answer.

So perhaps if we crafted sensible and just foreign policies, we would have less terrorism to stop. How's that sound?

[Zakalwe]

Then how do we prevent further terrorism?
We do the best we can within the framework of the laws we have. We need to focus on the things we can do (better control of ports, more stringent inspection of cargo, better communication of information, increase information gathering resources overseas). Sorry if that answer sounds trite.

Ultimately though, we have to recognize that there is no foolproof way to completely prevent terrorist attacks and understand that minor incremental improvements in safety are not worth the sacrifice of freedoms that prevent greater injustice.

[bizzwire]

Personally, I wish we could give up something like, say, Brussell sprouts for security. That's the world I wanna live in.

[Guinastasia]

Well, how likely IS being killed or hit by a terrorist attack? We're more likely to be raped, robbed or murdered, in a car accident, etc.

Yet should we beef up our security for that?

[tiny ham]

Personally, I wish we could give up something like, say, Brussell sprouts for security. That's the world I wanna live in.

Oh no pal. If loving brussels sprouts is wrong, jar don't wanna be right.

I appreciate all the insights of this thread. Let me ask a follow up question which may go a little deeper into the meaning of the quote by...Franklin is it? Why is it that those of us who WOULD give up liberty for security (however small that minority is, let's say there's 12 people willing to have brain implants to be followed) why is it that those people don't DESERVE security? Because their views are different or more extreme than the majority?

[Jonathan Chance]

Let me throw this into the mix...

When you say 'suspicious person' do you mean only those identified as being such?

Because the ones you need to fear are the ones that aren't suspected. And the only way for the government to be SURE is to search everything and everybody. Who would have searched Timothy McVeigh? Or David Berkowitz. Or John Wayne Gacy. Or Jeffery Dahmer.

The point is that until they committed their crimes no one gave them a second thought. They weren't 'suspicious'. Therefore a selective search of 'suspicious persons' wouldn't have prevented their crimes.

The only way to be even remotely sure (and I don't even think increased security at airports is going to work) is to make searches involuntary and rather frequent. A person contemplating a terrorist (or criminal) act must KNOW in his or her heart, that he will be subject to enough searches during the planning and commission of the crime that it would be impossible to succeed.

And that's just wrong. It removes choice and doesn't bring in security.

[Zakalwe]

Oh no pal. If loving brussels sprouts is wrong, jar don't wanna be right.

I appreciate all the insights of this thread. Let me ask a follow up question which may go a little deeper into the meaning of the quote by...Franklin is it? Why is it that those of us who WOULD give up liberty for security (however small that minority is, let's say there's 12 people willing to have brain implants to be followed) why is it that those people don't DESERVE security? Because their views are different or more extreme than the majority?
Brussels sprouts...yummmmmm...

I've always seen the quote as "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" (emphasis added).

To me, it's a warning that once you give up a liberty, it's hard to get back and that it's shortsighted and a little naive to expect life to be that easy. You also have to keep in mind that at the time he said it, liberty was something you fought for and that tyranny was the rule rather than the exception (hence those who are willing to give up liberty don't deserve it). It was also a society that had been through so rough times at the hands of those supposedly in charge of security and that giving someone your liberty for security puts them in a position to do you harm without any real deterrent.

All of the above IMHO, YMMV.

[AHunter3]

In my town there's only been one terrorist attack of significant scope within memory, and that was almost three years ago. There was a minor incident at the same site back more than a decade ago. Nationwide, there was that Murrah Building thingie in Oklahoma and the attack on the Pentagon that was concurrent with the first one here that I mentioned, and I guess Boston if you consider that that was where the planes took off from.

What's to worry about?

Now if we had an enemy that was destroying one Manhattan office building per month, killing a good portion of its occupants more often than not, that would concern me a lot more. But we've got a pretty peaceful, safe society. Now, not in some hypothetical future when we've eliminated terrorism.

I don't mind if they scan me going into the boarding queue at the airport if they can do it without slowing me down and inconveniencing me and if they are prohibited from using any information they obtain for any purpose other than ensuring the safety of the plane and its passengers.

Beyond that, no. I'm more likely to die of being hit by an out-of-control car or electrocuted by bad household wiring than killed by terrorists.

[RickJay]

Why is it that those of us who WOULD give up liberty for security (however small that minority is, let's say there's 12 people willing to have brain implants to be followed) why is it that those people don't DESERVE security? Because their views are different or more extreme than the majority?
You aren't being clear in what you're proposing here.

If what you mean is that those twelve people want implants in their heads, they certainly DO deserve to have implants put in their heads if they can find someone willing to stick 'em in there. You can jam anything into your head you want. It's your melon. Who is telling you you can't do that?

But if what you mean is that those twelve people want EVERYONE to have an implant stuck in their head, then no, they do not deserve that. Your desire for security does not trump my right to liberty, for a very simple reason:

In the long run it simply does not work. You can't have unlimited government power to enforce security without turning the United States, or any other country, into a hellish shithole. The people who wrote the Bill of Rights were not stupid; they didn't come up with those ideas just for the hell of it. It was their direct observation that unlimited government power to enforce security resulted in far more bad than good and tended to increase security not at all. Was the Soviet Union a fun place to live?

Why it doesn't work can be the subject of 50 threads, but in short:

1. Taking away people's liberty tends to be based on the fad of the moment and often has nothing to do with reality. You live in a country where the number of American who are murdered by other ordinary Americans outnumbers the number of americans murdered by terrorists by a margin of about fifty to one. Why are you so worried about terrorism, and not about ordinary murder? Where is your overriding, terrible fear of drunk drivers, who are vastly more likely to kill you than terrorists?

Or look at the drug testing craze which peaked in the 80s but continues today. Has it made life any safer? Not really. Have people been unjustly punished for incorrect tests? By the thousands. Nothing whatsoever was accomplished. Millions of dollars have been spent banning chemicals that cannot be shown to have ever harmed anyone, but you can't get anyone to spend a few bucks upgrading level railroad crossings even though hundreds of people are killed at them every year.

Sympathetic thought I might be to your fear, fear isn't rational and is a stupid basis for setting public policy. With all due respect, as a bit of an outsider, I can tell you that the one weakness I perceive of American soviety is that you are a remarkably fearful bunch of folks.

2. It is inevitable that giving the government the power to override liberties in favour of security will eventually lead to them overriding liberties in favour of things other than security.

3. The evidence suggests that heavy-handed security measures don't work.

I will disagree with Franklin; all humans deserve security and liberty. but those who will give up liberty for security will GET neither, no matter what they deserve.

And to answer your question, how to stop terrorism? The way it's always been done; though the criminal justice system, or the armed forces, whichever is appropriate.

[erislover]

On this very board I was referred to as "repulsive" for saying I would gladly let the government search my home if it would help in capturing terrorists.I don't think it is repulsive at all, so long as you're sure that I don't have to give the government that right. If you want to allow the police to search your house, be my guest.
Are we, in order to present a united front to the world, supposed to pretend that we are unfazed by daily threats?I'm unfazed. Really. I worry about somebody on their cell phone sliding over half a lane and hitting me on the highway, or a mechanical failure on an airplane, more than I am of someone killing me for policy spite. It's been years since 9/11, but I still believe that if "THE GOVERNMENT" knocked on my door and said "we have reason to believe there was a terrorist in your house, can we look around?" I would allow it.Fine. Please don't compel me to have the government do the same. But then you won't feel safe, will you?

[Spoons]

Sympathetic thought I might be to your fear, fear isn't rational and is a stupid basis for setting public policy. With all due respect, as a bit of an outsider, I can tell you that the one weakness I perceive of American society is that you are a remarkably fearful bunch of folks.This is an interesting insight. I haven't been able to confirm it for all Americans, but I do know that my American relatives are, quite frankly, terrified by the events of 9/11, and the possible other terrorist acts that may (or may not) happen eventually.

There's the key word: terrified. I recall reading somewhere once (no cites, sorry) that the purpose of terrorism is not to kill people. It is to kill a few and thus, terrify many; to make many people think that they will be killed by a terrorist act. It is this fear, perhaps, that is the real goal of terrorism--and by extension, to make people change their habits, to upset their routine, to allow them to think that the worst will happen to them personally, and to constantly mistrust, wondering if that guy over there is a terrorist.

Of course, calls to change public policy to react to the perceived threat are also expected. But somehow, I get the feeling that no matter how much "security" is put into place, a creative terrorist will still find a way to achieve his or her goal, which if we agree with the above definition, is killing a few to frighten many. Putting more security measures in place to react against a known danger--enough, say, to somehow limit one's personal liberties that are guaranteed by law--is not solving the problem if some unthought-of-before and original terrorist act can take place. Really, whoever thought, prior to 9/11, that an aircraft would be hijacked and flown into a building?

From what I can see, all these "reactive" security measures are doing (IMHO) is setting up false expectations of safety while frightening the people--as the OP illustrates. In a roundabout way, it seems to me that the security measures, and the fearful thoughts they constantly bring to mind, are helping to ensure that the terrorists' goal of terrorizing as many as possible is achieved.

[Zagadka]

Sympathetic thought I might be to your fear, fear isn't rational and is a stupid basis for setting public policy. With all due respect, as a bit of an outsider, I can tell you that the one weakness I perceive of American soviety is that you are a remarkably fearful bunch of folks.
Let me trot out my Invincible Soldier premise again. In essence - the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Achilles' Heel. When you are or view yourself as invulnerable, and something manages to nick you, you have a shattering of the dellusion and panic. As I said in my IS post - the death of one soldier becomes much more significant.

Remember that scene in the second Matrix movie where Neo blocks a sword blade with his hand and you go, "cool"... then it zooms in and a drop of blood falls, and that stupid French guy says, "See? He is only human." Well, that is what happened to the US. 9/11 wasn't a tremendous tactical or strategic attack - but its impact was astounding. We found out that we CAN be hurt, and that sent us retreating like an elephant from a mouse (I mean this in a social collective sense, not militarily - we struck out at Afghanistan rather rapidly). It hurt us so bad we fell back into Nationalism (capital N), and told our government - do whatever you must! Anything! Just protect us!

Now that the instant of shock has passed and we are dealing with the consequences of our reaction, and we are leveling out again, things will start to reverse. Already, Congress is a bit miffed about the Patriot Act. The people are fed up with the war in Iraq. Afghanistan got swept under the rug after our primary mission there failed.

[Broomstick]

jarbabyj, let me see if I can rephrase your concerns in a way that may shed more light on what you are really asking and what you really want.

In your posts (and those of others) I keep hearing I'm scared and I want to be safe. Not I want to feel safe but rather I want to be safe. And that's cool - I think everyone would like to be safe, or at least be as safe as possible.

Where we fail to communicate is when it comes time to discuss how to become safer.

My biggest concern since 9/11 has not been a terrorist attack (although I have some fear of them, what with working in a Chicago skyscraper, riding a commuter train, and so forth) but rather false security. That is, I am adamantly opposed to measures that seem to increase security but do not in fact do so. I am opposed to making people merely FEEL better about security without actually making them safer.

Thus, if I feel there is some evidence that searches of airline passengers actually increases safety then I find them acceptable, perhaps even laudable. If, however, they do not truly increase security, if they only make you feel better, then I must adamantly oppose them as being both a waste of resources and a pernicious deception. I will never enjoy these security procedures but I can be an advocate for them if the benefit outweighs the negative side effects.

That is MY test of what is and isn't acceptable. (Well, one of the tests...)

Which is why I am opposed to unlimited searches by the government - it's too easy to turn them into a fishing expedition. The gentleman from Oregon? He's innocent. Do you understand that? He was arrested, held incommunicado, his home searched, his reputation besmirched world wide - and he is innocent of all charges. Did searching his house without a warrant make us safer? Did holding him incommunicado make us safer? Did smearing his name in the press make us safer? Or should the government have been forced to build a solid case prior to abducting a citizen of the United States? If they had had to build a real case instead of being able to charge in on the slightest of pretextes, perhaps they would have discovered he wasn't involved in the Madrid bombing without expending so many resources, creating a media circus, and spent some of that time, money and effort on finding the REAL "bad guys" out there.

Tracking every citizen? Is this really a good idea? The sheer amount of data that would be generated every day is staggering - who could possibly sort through all that? Inevitably, some sort of profile would need to be used, and those who did not fit the profile would not be discovered until too late - so what would all that time and money and effort have accomplished?

Here's another example - shortly after 9/11 there were numerous proposals to perform an in-depth background check on each and every holder of a pilot license in the US - or even everyone who had ever taken so much as a single flight lesson. I don't mean a quickie cheap test - we're talking about the sort with a price tag in four digits. To do so, however, would have been a waste. Why? Because the vast majority of pilots are law-abiding citizens. You'd spend a LOT of money to net a very, very few fish, if any. Using the super-background check on the 700,000+ pilots in the US would cost over $1 billion. We just can't afford to take that sort of brute-force approach - we don't have the money. No one does.

Here's the rub - most, if not all, of the 9/11 hijackers could have easily based just such a background check. In other words, it wouldn't have caught the Bad Guys.

Other areas with this applies are numerous - MOST people who buy amonium nitrate fertilzier and diesel fuel have legitimate, lawful uses for those items (farmers, for instance, growing the food you eat). MOST people with hazmat trucker licenses are using them to make an honest living, not blow things up. MOST people who buy Sudafed do so to treat their sinus condition, not to make methamphetamine.

What you are really looking for is effective searches. That is - you need a system that concentrates your efforts on where the Bad Guys actually are to be found and doesn't waste resources on the innocent. You want systems that will actually prevent hijackings, not just look good. A good, solid cockpit door, for instance, may be much more effective than a half dozen air marshalls in passenger seating, for instance. Know something else? Over the long run the fortified doors are cheaper, too. You don't have to expend huge amounts of cash to get real security or improved safety - on the flip side, spending lots of money doesn't guarantee you're getting anything other than an illusion of safety.

So, jarbabyj, here's what YOU can do to prevent terrorism: keep your eyes open, maintain your critical thinking skills, and question every security procedure. Here's why:

Keep your eyes open - if everyone just freakin' paid attention it would be a lot harder for the Bad Guys to cause damage. Remember the bombing at the Atlanta Olympic games? A security guard spotted something suspicious and had started moving people away from the area when the bomb went off - if he hadn't done that, the death/injury toll would have been higher. And this pays off not just in terrorism - just before the new terminal at Charles DeGaulle airport in Paris fell in someone had noticed cracking sounds and falling debris - an evacuation was already in progress and some people escaped because of that evacuation who otherwise might have come to grief. KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN. If you notice something - tell someone.

Critical thinking skills - you need to think, especially if something goes wrong. A bunch o' folks in the WTC meekly went back to their offices because the loudspeakers said to do so - but the ones who said "Uh-uh - something is wrong here" and left are the ones who survived. Yes, 99 times out of 100 you should listen to authority - but that 100th time you should not. Keep your fact checker running. Listen to your suspicions and fears - not to let them dominate you, but to hear when they are telling you to run or to hide or to take other action.

Question everything - yes, really. Is this procedure effective? If it was effective yesterday, is it still effective today? Is there a better way, a more efficient way, to do this thing?

Another example from the World of Aviation As I Know It - there are serious proposals to require every airport with scheduled passenger service to have the exact same security systems. Initially, that sounds pretty good, hey? Right? Wrong. Here's why:

Let's take an example - O'Hare International, for instance. THOUSANDS, nay TENS OF THOUSANDS of people a day walk through there. Hell, it's probably HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS on occassion. The place is HUGE. HUGE!. You need very efficient, very fast, very accurate means of screening all those thousands and thousands of people, all the millions who pass through there in a year. Yes, it makes sense to invest in automated baggage x-ray, a veritable army of searchers, sniffer dogs... LOTS of money, but the systems do make the searching more efficient. Could you imagine searching every piece of luggage by hand? {{{shudder}}}

Let's take another example - Gary International Airport. It has, at most, one scheduled airline flight PER DAY. Most days - it has NONE. Zippo. The rest of the traffic is things like cargo and charter and folks like me :) Spending 10 million dollars on a baggage screening machine for that airport is stupid - it would sit idle 90% of the time. It's not cost-effective. There are few enough passengers passing through that what makes sense is a simple metal detector and a dozen baggage screeners - employed there ONLY when there is a scheduled flight - and search every bag by hand. Why? Because size matters. Scale of operation matters. The manpower required for the few hours per year needed for a hand-search is far, far less than the cost of even ONE of the big automated machines. And the money you save by accomodating the scale of operation could be better spent on things like maintaining runways, lighting systems, bad weather approach systems, the on-site weather station, and so forth - items that affect the safety of EVERY flight. So your safety overall improves, and not just in the narrow area of terrorism prevention.

I do NOT oppose huge application of automation to O'Hare's security - I do oppose it at Gary because at Gary it's a very poor use of resources. I want effective security, not showy security.

[JRDelirious]

jar, as mentioned before, some of the situations you pose at the beginning are inconveniences rather than surrenders of liberty. And as many others have indicated, you are perfectly free to surrender your liberty, as long as you do not expect us to surrender ours.

"I've got nothing to hide, I've got nothing to fear" is just fine, but it is a rare person that has absolutely NOTHING in his/her life that could be held against them, and it has been an implicit part of the Social Contract for a long time that unless you do something to attract attention to yourself, you'll be let alone as long as you're hurting nobody.

[Fear Itself]

"I've got nothing to hide, I've got nothing to fear" You know, the other thing about this point of view is that it is exactly bass-ackwards. It is the guilty that have nothing to fear, because the worst that can happen to them is what they deserve anyway. But the innocent? They have much more to fear, for what could be worse than to be unjustly accused and imprisoned for something you did not do?

[Zagadka]

Here's one thing that creeped me out.

I went into the hospital for a week last month, and this nurse I had never met walks up and greets me with a Wiccan greeting. Now, I'm not Wiccan, but pagans tend to band together - it is like a Baptist and a Lutheran meeting in the middle of Iraq - and I'm obviously not shy about it, but this is someone I never met, and I wasn't wearing any jewelry or anything to denote my religion. Offline, most pagans tend to be a little secretive. After taking a moment to recover, I asked her where she had found out. She said, "it is on your paperwork"... now, I certainly never wrote it down or told anyone about it. I would prefer that the government didn't know, or my insurance carrier, or whoever. But yo usee how easy it is to get information about people? It is scary what "they" know, and who knows how "they" use it.

[Frank]

Sympathetic thought I might be to your fear, fear isn't rational and is a stupid basis for setting public policy. With all due respect, as a bit of an outsider, I can tell you that the one weakness I perceive of American soviety is that you are a remarkably fearful bunch of folks.
I agree whole-heartedly with every word of this paragraph.

I drive every day 8.8 miles to work, then 8.8 miles home with idiots, maniacs, and just plain thoughtless people. I am fearful of these people. If I allowed this fear to do so, it could paralyze me to the point where I couldn't even leave my apartment in the morning. Would I be safer if the speed limit was lowered from 45/55 mph to 20. Yes, of course. Would I be safe? Absolutely not. The proper reaction is to perform the actions that ensure my safety as best I can, and to accept tradeoffs.

jarbabyj, your tradeoff is either to accept the risk of living in a city which is most likely a high priority target of terrorism (as it would have been a high priority target should we have had a nuclear war with the U.S.S.R.), or to move somewhere that isn't. Robert Heinlein wrote some fascinating essays during the Cold War, of which a standard subtext was: if you are afraid of being nuked, leave the places that will certainly be nuked.

The American psyche in general seems to require the removal of all risk, and all danger from life. As Jurph has iterated and reiterated, that ain't never gonna happen. I do sympathize with your fear; your fear does not require me to allow my government to seize my liberty to assuage it. As the great American poet Eminem once said, "Am I afraid of death? Hell, yes, I'm afraid of death." But it's going to happen someday, sometime, whether on Parker Road at 6:45 in the morning or of a heart attack after talking to that client in Texas one too many times or in a nursing home cursed by the aide for fucking up his day or in a bed in my home surrounded by generations of loving descendants.

I'm sorry, but I would rather die for my liberty than give up my liberty to allow you to feel safer.

[Baldwin]

I'll tell you right now -- I've got things to hide. Not illegal things...necessarily. Just... secret things. If Cheney gets to hide whether oil company executives got to dictate public energy policy, I can hide what's up in my closet, on the left, in back. "Why should somebody who's not guilty have anything to hide?" Because it's fun. Life is risky.

I think the foreign policy actions of the current administration have made future acts of terrorism within the U.S. more likely than they were three years ago, but I'm not gonna let fear rule my life. Terrorism, schmerrorism.

[Johnny L.A.]

Tracking every citizen? Is this really a good idea? The sheer amount of data that would be generated every day is staggering - who could possibly sort through all that?
It worked well enough in Brazil. ;)

[Mr2001]

"Why should somebody who's not guilty have anything to hide?" Because it's fun. Life is risky.
Hear, hear. It's an awfully boring person who has nothing at all to hide.

[SnakeSpirit]

If they had some reason to believe I could lead them to a terrorist, then sure! AFAIK, It's not like they're just going to come in, mess up my scrapbooking table, drink my diet coke and pee on stuff for fun. They wouldn't come to my house unless I was a suspicious person.
You certainly do trust easily. Power corrupts, and I've met a lot of people corrupted by power. Police that will trash your stuff just for fun. "Counselors" who will falsify your records cause they feel like it. Doctors that will do things to you "for your own good."
Trust too easily and you WILL get fucked. That's a guarantee.
Especially be wary of:

Those who ask you, "Trust us."
People who have power over you, including medical personnel, mental health professionals, lawyers, and everyone in government.
Your parents (gee, I guess that goes without saying) : rolleyes :

This is not to say they are untrustworthy, or that you should never trust them, but if you value your freedom, pay attention.


S¬
..V

[Zagadka]

If they had some reason to believe I could lead them to a terrorist, then sure! AFAIK, It's not like they're just going to come in, mess up my scrapbooking table, drink my diet coke and pee on stuff for fun. They wouldn't come to my house unless I was a suspicious person.
Yea, and lets make a bunch of national guard reservists in charge of guarding prisoners. It's not like they're going to pile them into naked pyramids and rape them with flashlights. O_o

Sad thing is, I'm 95% sure that someone at the Pentagon actually said that.

While I'd hate to cry slippery slope... you give them an inch, they take a mile. Government agencies and prosecuters make CAREERS out of bending the rules to insane degrees already... using decades old decisions to justify an unrelated case... I'd hate to see them start using the PA in the future. It is too powerful a weapon.

[Johnny L.A.]

if you value your freedom, pay attention.
"If you ignore your rights, they'll go away."

[Revtim]

Probability-wise, aren't we still far more likely to be killed by such "old" things such as car accidents?

Why is there no discussion of giving up freedoms to prevent car accident deaths? Shouldn't the gov't prevent people from driving, for their own protection? Shouldn't we all be willing to give up our "right" to drive, in the face of this threat that kills far more Americans than terrorism ever will?

Surely if terrorism, which so far has killed many fewer Americans than cars, is a big enough threat to curtial our freedoms, then we MUST ban private ownership of cars.

[chappachula]

Probability-wise, aren't we still far more likely to be killed by such "old" things such as car accidents?
Surely if terrorism, which so far has killed many fewer Americans than cars, is a big enough threat to curtial our freedoms, then we MUST ban private ownership of cars.


The question isn't how many dead people are killed(by car accidents or by terrorists)--it's how many dead people does American society accept as normal and okay.

Imagine approx 1000 dead bodies (passengers on planes):
Two planes crashing into a mountain on a foggy night does not paralyze society. Two planes crashing into an office tower on a sunny morning does.

The purpose of government is to keep society functioning--not paralyzed.So we need laws to catch terrorists before they act.

[Earthworm Jim]

Put quite simply, without the rhetoric and philosophizin that I had in my first post (which the hamster ate, Og Vorb him...) - Since 11 September 2001, many of our new security measures have been demonstrably defeated. Judging from the debates happening here on this board, our intelligence gathering and interpreting has not improved in any meaningful way. In short - I personally don't feel any safer, and in fact I feel that I'm less safe than I was on 10 September 2001.

We're breeding (indeed, we've bred) a culture of mistrust. But in my opinion, it's the guy with the power and the gun that you can trust the least. I trust a stranger in the airport more than I trust the security guy. Why? Because they're both just people, individual human beings with their own secrets and personal motives. The only difference is that the guy with the badge and the gun has Power - the Power of the United States Government. And we all know the saying about power.

As I see it, that's scary stuff. I'm far, far more fearful of being harassed, accused, and imprisoned by these guys than I am of terrorists plots. I believe the chances I'll ever encounter a terrorist in my life are pretty slim. The chances that I'll encounter a pissed off cop or security guard on a Power trip are far greater. And who will be looking out for me then?

Those who would choose security over liberty are doing so under a short-sighted belief that the person to whom you are entrusting your security will act in the best interests of everyone. Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated time and again throughout history, people just don't work this way. I am much more reluctant to hand out Power than I am to ride on a plane with some one carrying an unsearched handbag, or visit a national monument where people may enter without walking through a metal detector, or allow middle-aged ladies to take pictures of their grandchildren inside a Federal Building.

Thomas Paine said "Government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil" and "That government is best which governs least." I tend to agree with him. We are all safest when the difference between those with Power and those without is as small as possible, even if that means a few handbags don't get searched at the airport.

[DeadlyAccurate]

Those who would choose security over liberty are doing so under a short-sighted belief that the person to whom you are entrusting your security will act in the best interests of everyone. Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated time and again throughout history, people just don't work this way. I am much more reluctant to hand out Power than I am to ride on a plane with some one carrying an unsearched handbag, or visit a national monument where people may enter without walking through a metal detector, or allow middle-aged ladies to take pictures of their grandchildren inside a Federal Building.

I think this is the key here. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than know that the government has the right to do whatever they want to me, and I have no recourse. For me, the worse feeling in the world is hopelessness.

They wouldn't come to my house unless I was a suspicious person.

Yes, actually, they would and have.

What if you and I were neighbors, and I decided you'd done something I didn't like (let's say you wore stripes with plaids). I'm a malicious, hateful person who wants revenge. Under your scenario, the government has the right to do whatever they want to stop terrorists. So what can I do to really get back at you? How about planting a few seeds of suspicion that you're a terrorist. Maybe a bag or two of fertilizer and a gallon of diesel and a phone call to the right people. Now all of a sudden, you're a person of interest. They search your home, find some possibly suspicious items, and arrest you. The media hears and latches onto a story: Possible Terrorist Plot Foiled in [your home town/state]. Your name gets released and now the world is aware that you're a possible terrorist. Because you're a possible terrorist, that means no lawyers or charges.

My scenario may sound a bit simplistic, and I have no doubt that it would actually require a bit more work than that, but truly, it's not that hard to come up with
a way to pull it off.

Another, tangentially-related point:

If someone really wants to do something, they will find a way, and no one can stop them. As long as people remain human, true security is an illusion.

Want to hijack a plane and fly it into a building? It can still be done. Ah, but the air marshalls are on board, you say. So find an air marshall and corrupt him/her. There's one out there, I guarantee it. Sure, their identities are secret, but it's not as if no one knows who they are. Or find a plane without an air marshall. It's still not impossible to slip a weapon past airport security, as people have proven time and again. Or corrupt a pilot/co-pilot to do the deed. But the plane would be shot down, you say. So pick a location that's likely to not get a response until it's too late. But the government keeps tabs on possible terrorists. Find someone the government doesn't know about or have any suspicion of.

Anyway, my point is, as others have pointed out, you can't be safe, so why give up those things you should value in order to pretend you are?