August 20, 2006
Response to Comments on Terrorism--Posner
Let me respond briefly to some of the comments.
I do not know on what basis Mr. Fallows in the Atlantic Monthly believes that we have broken al Qaeda's operational capacity. Granted, we have seized or killed many of bin Laden's henchmen, and his sanctuary in Pakistan is less secure than his pre-9/11 sanctuary in Afghanistan, so it is fair to surmise that we have weakened al Qaeda. But the Heathrow plot suggests (though does not prove) that al Qaeda can still orchestrate a devastating, though fortunately foiled (well, al Qaeda's 1995 plot to blow up airliners over the Pacific was also foiled, and that didn't prove that al Qaeda had been broken), attack on the United States. It makes no difference whether al Qaeda employs British Muslims or Saudi Arabians to carry out the attacks that it plans.
I disagree with the comment that says that we should spend less on antiterrorism because terrorism kills fewer people than ordinary crimes. First, it is harder to limit terrorism than to limit ordinary crime; the terrorists are more determined and less deterrable. More important, the potential threat posed by terrorists in an era of proliferation is much greater than the potential threat posed by ordinary criminals.
When I said that our current expansive conception of civil liberties dates from a time we felt safer, I didn't mean to disparage the fear of nuclear war during the Cold War. After communist subversion in the United States was defeated in the late 1940s and early 1950s, we felt pretty safe from domestic threats, the kind of threats that put pressure on civil liberties. We no longer have that feeling of safety.
Finally, I was asked about profiling. I am not an enthusiast for profiling. Apart from the resentment it causes on the part of people (American Muslims) whom we very much want to keep loyal to the United States, it can be circumvented by recruitment of terrorists who do not fit th eprofile. More and more "white" Europeans are being converted to Islam and some of them may become terrorists. On the other hand, some limited, discreet profiling is efficient and I very much agree with the commenter who said there should be a "pass" from security checks for people who have security clearances or are otherwise certifiable as safe.
Posted by Richard Posner at 11:51 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1285
Comments
I think Professor Posner hit the nail on the head. For frequent flyers, it would be worthwhile to take the time and pay a fee to get a "security line e-z pass." Of course, an elaborate system would have to in place for this to work properly, but I think there are enough frequent flyers to support it. About five years ago, the gym at my college had fingerprint identification pads, so I doubt this technology is outrageously expensive today.
Although, there is a risk of placing too much emphasis on someone's "clean-cut" background, I think the benefits outweigh the costs. For example, someone with a background like Professor Posner may be an al-Qaeda terrorist (for all we know he has Bin Laden on speed-dial); however, the odds of this are far, far less than that of the plane's fuel tank exploding mid-flight or crashing from some "old fashioned" reason.
Posted by Andrew at August 20, 2006 1:23 PM | direct link
I bet you your hot items will be sold out soon. With its protecting system, your business interest will be guard against those business scams, you wonder like me where to start your business on Call2biz.com, the Call2biz.com is your source of detail information need to do it. We would help you and marketing your products without any charges of fees! You will save up to 100% and earn more easy money on Call2biz.com. with a only computer and phone at your home, you can, while being successful, enjoy this easy-money-making experience online. A homebased business will begin at http://www.Call2biz.com.
Posted by call2biz-blog at August 20, 2006 10:01 PM | direct link
I still find all of this to be highly reactive, as opposed to proactive, because the focus is on response as opposed solution. If this is really an "era" of terrorism (when did it start...this has been going on well before 911), perhaps we need to look long term.
If counteracting terrorism is to be seriously discussed, shouldn't there be at least some discussion of root cause? Without determining the root cause, it will be difficult to find a solution to the terrorism problem. However, both this blog and most editorial commentaries in major newspapers and television avoid this topic. Perhaps it is due to the possible causes being too controversial for discussion.
Two causation theories are commonly bounced around in political yelling matches. The first is relating to fundamentalist Islam and the second being US military action. Although it is often said by high-profile, upstanding Muslims that "Islam is a peaceful religion" or White House administration members saying that the US government "doesn't engage in torture," most Americans probably find a reason not to believe one of these or both.
Is the source of terrorism rooted in Islam? Is the source related to the actions of the US government, or other governments such as England, France, etc for many years, strongly trying to influence the situation in the middle east for many years?
If the issue is Islam, how does this explain the fact that the PLO or Hezbollah has not attacked the US government or engaged in attacks on US soil? What about Hamas? Why is it just al-Queda? Perhaps there are more political forces at work. Was Tim McVeigh a follower of fundamentalist Islam? How about Ted Kazcinski? There should be more scholarly research here.
Why is the history of the US government's actions in the middle east not discussed in the mainstream media, including this blog? Has someone already dismissed this as being a cause with sound data?
It is my belief from years of working in the corporate world, that finding the root cause is the first step in finding a solution to the problem, to effectively find corrective action.
Posted by shaum at August 22, 2006 11:29 AM | direct link