Civil Liberties vs. National Security

[jBirch]

Ran into this article on Ars Technica...

http://arstechnica.com/articles/cult...iberties.ars/1

He makes a couple of beautiful points which I think are interesting. First, that the tool of law enforcement is naturally reactionary (we punish the murderer after the murder) and deterence oriented. The punishment for murder is severe so we don't murder. The problem comes when you have someone willing to die while committing the crime (like a terrorist suicide bombing). In this case, the punishment aspect is useless in preventing the crime in the first place.

Second, he makes the point that what is lacking in any system for dealing with this unique threat is not the guarentee of no mistakes but rather the transparency in the process. We really shouldn't worry that the government has our names in some secret database and is coming to get us because we should have the ability to look at that database at any time (how this is supposed to be rectified with national secrets is a bit beyond me).

Finally, he lays all of this on a foundation of communal responsibility. That the "government" is responsible for nothing and that "we" are.

Interesting nonetheless.

James.

[KD5MDK]

Most criminal motivations are personal. Bank robbers want money, etc. Deterrence works to a limited degree. As noted in the article, a "crime rate" is acceptable, and the goal is keeping things to a moderate level. I agree that terrorism works on a different scale.

I agree that a "terrorism rate" may not be, when the risks are high enough, acceptable. It should be noted that Israel has managed to survive with a "terrorism rate" by sharply limiting the ability of the terrorists to build anything long term. However, the cost of this measured in terms of the occupation of territory and proactive counter-terrorist measures is extremely high.

[PalmFrond]

Don't forget the part that social conditioning plays in preventing crime, as well (although I suppose that one could argue that it embeds deeply a fear of reprisal, hence acting as an aid to deterrence). Most criminal acts - assault, murder, the theft or destruction of property - are heavily stigmatised, even among children. The people who commit crime are, IMO, mostly those who come from a social milieu where stigma is attached to different actions (for example, it's okay to steal from strangers, but not from your friends), or those whose motivation to commit crime is much greater than their conditioning not to (e.g. junkies desperate for a fix).

Terrorists do not see their actions as crimes, but as perfectly valid responses to some kind of oppression or evil - a colonialist or dictatorial regime, or the continued existence of non-believers, inter alia. That, and if applicable, their willingness to die, makes deterrence pretty pointless. The only people who can be deterred are the terrorist leaders/coordinators since they are the ones who have something to lose.

The article focuses almost exclusively on the procedural aspects of dealing with terrorism. While this is important, I don't think that it is as important as destroying the basis of terrorism - by removing terrorists' motivation and leadership.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by PalmFrond

...The article focuses almost exclusively on the procedural aspects of dealing with terrorism. While this is important, I don't think that it is as important as destroying the basis of terrorism - by removing terrorists' motivation and leadership.

Coming from Ireleand, I suppose a statement like that has certain reasonable assumptions built into it.

But in the current world context, how exactly does one remove the motivation of Radical Islam's religiously inspired hatred? There are terrorist activists that believe (like you believe the sun will rise in the morning) that the West embodies all that is evil; that being secular and non-theocratic is the same as aligning oneself with the devil; that it is one's duty and salvation to confront those who do not believe same.

I concur with your statement. Mere mechanics are not sufficient. However, removing motivation that is so deeply rooted seems an impossible thing to contemplate.

Regards,
Feltan

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by jBirch

{snip}
He makes a couple of beautiful points which I think are interesting. First, that the tool of law enforcement is naturally reactionary (we punish the murderer after the murder) and deterence oriented. The punishment for murder is severe so we don't murder. The problem comes when you have someone willing to die while committing the crime (like a terrorist suicide bombing). In this case, the punishment aspect is useless in preventing the crime in the first place.

To an extent--but the law enforcement "response" to terrorism is not the only model. Law enforcement (and other agencies) also engage in counterintelligence operations which are geared towards prevention--not punishment.

Surely the threat during the Cold War of nuclear annihilation was at least as great as the threat of terrorists. But there wasn't a huge groundswell for revamping the Constitution.

Also, he is unclear (at least in the part of the link available) on what, exactly, he was talking about when he said: "we have to grow up and accept the fact that we have to accept some intrusion on our liberties if we're going to save the system that is the guarantor of our liberties."

Second, he makes the point that what is lacking in any system for dealing with this unique threat is not the guarentee of no mistakes but rather the transparency in the process. We really shouldn't worry that the government has our names in some secret database and is coming to get us because we should have the ability to look at that database at any time (how this is supposed to be rectified with national secrets is a bit beyond me).

I think some fundamental problems are the related issues of trust and mission creep. Many do not trust that data ostensibly collected for one purpose won't be used for other purposes. Also, powers that are granted to protect us from terrorists seem to be also being used for garden-variety crimes.

Interesting article, nonetheless.

--Philistine

[PalmFrond]

Originally Posted by Feltan

Coming from Ireleand, I suppose a statement like that has certain reasonable assumptions built into it.

But in the current world context, how exactly does one remove the motivation of Radical Islam's religiously inspired hatred?

Out of curiousity, which reasonable assumptions do you see in my post? (usually they're not all that reasonable )

I suspect that the leadership of radical Islam will continue to promulgate religion-based hatred for the West as long as they have something to gain from it. Efforts to (1) close down the outlets for their teachings, such as radical madrassahs, and (2) bring the leaders into some kind of non-violent negiotiation with the West might be the route to go. And while I'm playing God, I reckon that making some effort to alleviate ignorance and poverty in the poorer parts of the Muslim world would help too.

True, most of this is based on what I've seen in Ireland: terrorist leaders who are for all their demagoguery fairly pragmatic, and the effects of poverty on people's politics. It's interesting to note that the most extreme ideology and violence are usually on show in working-class parts of Belfast (goes back to what Stendhal said about people only throwing themselves from the top floor, I guess).

edit: I know that the majority of the above is probably wildly unrealistic...I certainly don't know how to start implementing it.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by PalmFrond

Out of curiousity, which reasonable assumptions do you see in my post? (usually they're not all that reasonable )
.
.
.
True, most of this is based on what I've seen in Ireland: terrorist leaders who are for all their demagoguery fairly pragmatic, and the effects of poverty on people's politics. It's interesting to note that the most extreme ideology and violence are usually on show in working-class parts of Belfast (goes back to what Stendhal said about people only throwing themselves from the top floor, I guess).

PalmFrond

That is what I meant; your observations about terrorism in general must certainly be flavored by the experience of Ireland in specific.

My concern is that the lessons of Ireland are probably not transferable to what the West faces today. I believe you are correct in that Irish terror leaders had a streak of pragmatism. I also believe that current Radical Islamic terror leaders do not. Hence, the very nature of today's problems are not necessarily solved, or even made better, by drawing off lessons learned in different environments.

Regards,
Feltan