Freedom is TerrorJanuary 5, 2008
When people are free to go where they want, do what they want and say what they want, how can any leader assure security? The only way to guarantee no foreign enemy is walking within your borders is to know precisely every individual’s identity. The only way to guarantee no domestic enemy is plotting from their property is to monitor precisely every individual’s intentions. Make no mistake about it, a life free from any risk of terror is a life without freedom, with no exceptions. Freedom is terror. If you can accept that anything short of slavery through total submission will never reduce risk to zero, you must now at least begin to look for a reasonable compromise. Your life and liberty are not reasonable sacrifices in a war against foreign extremism if the end result is domestic extremism. In order to define a reasonable compromise we must understand the effectiveness of a policy change. There are only two metrics required to measure effectiveness — deterrence and disruption. If the policy is either irrelevant, can easily be subverted or simply not effective for another reason, than it adds no value and its usefulness for prevention through deterrence or disruption is negligible or non existent. Such a policy only serves to reduce freedom without contributing anything to security. In order to gauge deterrence we must understand what really motivates those who would do harm. If an individual is motivated by a perceived injustice that causes him physical, emotional, psychological or other damage in excess of any consequences of action, then that individual will likely not be deterred. If the risk of suffering any consequences is low, even if they are grave, that individual will likely not be deterred. If the consequences are felt by others for which the individual has no interest, that individual will likely not be deterred. In order to contribute towards disruption the policy must realistically reduce the likelihood of a successful attack. That could be achieved in many different ways: infiltration, monitoring, preventative action, etc. But ultimately there must be a realized benefit in terms of risk reduction, near and long term, or there is no point. Unless you don’t plan on hanging around, it doesn’t make sense to sacrifice long term stability for short term stability. For example, how will a national ID card deter or disrupt anybody or anything? Can identification be a deterrent against an action that will knowingly cause the offender’s death? Does possession of a national ID card prevent those with malicious intent from keeping their plans private? Does it prevent ill intentioned vacationers from entering the country? Is it a greater threat than the damage caused by Israeli settlements? Does it influence the decision making process for anybody outside the country in the slightest? Another example, will a no fly-list prevent passengers in corrupt foreign countries from boarding planes headed for America? Will it prevent them from forging documents to change their name? If it is enforced at American airports by simply returning refused individuals back out the door does it reduce the likelihood of an attack elsewhere — if these people are too dangerous to fly, why aren’t they too dangerous to drive, take the bus, or take the train? With this context clearly defined, start lining up the ideas proselytized by establishment security hawks and you will recognize that each one is more ridiculous than the last. They are easily subverted and never effective. They funnel money to big business, funnel private information to central databases and add no value to national security. In fact, if the true enemies are domestic, today or sometime in the future, these policies will make their terror more likely and more devastating. The war on terror is an indefinite pursuit because the end result can never lead to complete victory without sacrificing in its entirety what you sought to protect. Knowing that most reactionary policies implemented in the last few years do not contribute to security from foreign terror while simultaneously significantly increasing the risk of domestic terror and abuse, can you still support heading down this path?
Related posts:
1 Comment » |
Highest Rated |
Loading ...
It’s what happens when your economy is entirely based on warmaking. You end up with phony “wars”…the Cold War, the War on Drugs, The War on terrorism…pure BS, but they keep the war machine oiled and the Corporate Whores make tons of money.
We HAVE to have war because our economy runs on it. Of course the war on terror is nonsense.