The big news of the day today was that British, American and Pakistani intelligence services infiltrated and thwarted a massive terror plot by Islamic terrorists aiming to down 10 U.S bound aircraft simultaneously. The planned attack, a spectacular attack similar in scope and devastation to the September 11th attacks represented the first planned attacks of that scale since 9/11. Our intelligence was tested, and it responded in spectacular fashion, and many of the post 9/11 measures put in place played key roles in blunting this attack and arresting 24 gutless cowards who should be dealt with brutally. A major issue recently as the memory of 9/11 has faded in the minds of many Americans is that of our civil liberties versus the ability of our government to protect us from these inhuman thugs who seek to butcher Americans and destroy our way of life. While the issue is certainly worth considering, many of the arguments of civil libertarians are theoretical in nature and rooted in academia rather than in reality. The reality is that we need the Patriot Act, we need wiretaps and we need to continue to give law-enforcement and the government latitude to conduct this War on Terror and to protect us.
Over the last couple of years, as the memory of 9/11 has faded, the arguments against some of the tactics used in the War on Terror have grown louder. While there is in all political theory a liberty versus security tradeoff, some of the arguments made by civil libertarians have bordered on the absurd. Using primarily the 4th amendment, civil libertarians have routinely argued against rational security measures, claiming that they reduce our freedoms. The civil libertarians use the slippery slope argument, claiming that surrendering any of "our Constitutional liberties" will lead to tyranny and oppression by our government. These people simply are not living in the real world. No law abiding citizen who has nothing to hide stands to be hurt by any of the counter-terrorism measures implemented by the Bush Administration, and many of these measures which may lead to slight intrusions or minor inconveniences pay major dividends in terms of identifying terror plots and taking action to infiltrate cells or arrest terror suspects.
The constant arguments against the increased security usually are based in the theoretical world, and the academic world. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted as saying, "Anyone willing to trade liberty for security ends up with neither." The faulty assumption is that there's an equal tradeoff of liberty for security. For instance, allowing law enforcement more latitude in wiretapping and conducting searches with a lesser burden of proof does not infringe upon the normal law-abiding citizen at all, it simply gives the government a better tool in sniffing out threats against us. Would I do anything that would cause me to fear the government having knowledge about it? Of course not, and neither would the vast majority of Americans. Do I care if the government searches my library records or e-mail? Of course not, because I have absolutely nothing to hide. Same thing with my financial records. Additionally, there is no way that the government can use anything against me that has nothing to do with national security, and there are recourses in place in case they do. So at minimal to no cost to the individual citizens in terms of liberty, the nation gains valuable tools for improving security and fighting against terrorists. We are not yielding liberty, we are still free, and now, with these commonsense measures, we are better equipped to protect ourselves against terrorist attacks, much as they are in Britain and Israel.
The other politically correct issue involved here that makes no sense is that we do not profile at the airports. In other words, we don't use the knowledge most available to us when screening for potential terrorists. The reason is because of the politically correct lobby trying to require us to be sensitive to the needs of Muslims. Last time I checked, the only people who wanted to crash planes into buildings and blow up thousands of people in midair were extreme Muslims. As a result, it would only make sense to scrutinize Muslims much more heavily than those of other nationalities and religions. I would say the same thing about Irish people if the IRA were galivanting around blowing up planes and threatening our society. According to a recent Gallup poll, 90% of Muslims in Britain identify with their religion first, and their country second, paving the way for homegrown terror. This is a clear sign that the Muslim community needs to be much more closely scrutinized not only in Britain, but also here in the United States. A close family friend of mine is Muslim from Turkey, and he recently returned to the region, and although he clearly would never commit an attack against America, he has mentioned that he thinks he's been wiretapped, and I am glad about it, because it means that we are not asleep at the switch. Also, he has nothing to hide, so the wiretapping does not concern him.
The major problem that I have with the opponents of our increased security measures is that their arguments are based in theory rather than in logic and they are much more suited for a debate in a political philosophy class than they are for a real world policy debate. Using the political theory model, the number one role that a government has is to provide security to the people, security from external threats, protection against fellow citizens as well as protections from the government. Adopting these measures does not infringe upon the rights of the law-abiding American, nor do they bring about any sort of political persecution. One could argue that the laws were much more stringent politically during the Cold War on communist sympathizers than they are now, yet no law has ever prevented people from holding beliefs or trying to bring about lawful change within the government. The terror laws brought on by the Patriot Act, strict British intelligence laws, coordination with the Pakistanis, the villified Guantanimo Bay prison and the much maligned NSC wiretaps saved 4000 plus lives today and countless economic damage. We should be grateful for those who've had the guts to stay the course in the War on Terror rather than relent to the doves and put academic theory in the way of national security.
Comments