On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Keep in mind, Arthur, that you can't have it both
ways. You've got to
choose between security and freedom. I think what Sellam is driving
at is that every externally imposed effort to ensure your security
impairs someone's freedoms.
What I'm saying is that every time something like this happens, we react
by putting more security in place, while we continue with the policies
that created the atmosphere that made yesterday's attacks possible. If
this keeps up, one day we won't be able to go anywhere without a security
agent tracking our every move and listening to our every word. Is that
the solution you want?
I would much prefer that the US "leadership" perform that role (i.e.
lead) appropriately by re-evaluating the policies that would make us so
hated that some group would carry out an attack such as yesterday's.
You can throw all the security you want at it. It still won't stop people
from wanting to bring harm to the US and it's
people.
Perhaps we don't all see it that way, but it could
be argued.
Nonetheless, I don't feel that letting someone look in my carry-on
luggage to make sure I don't have guns, knives, bombs, etc. is a
reasonable infringement, partiticularly since I've effectively agreed
to allow this invasion of my privacy as part of the contract
associated with air travel.
I don't think it is a reasonable infringement either, but when they start
checking up my ass everytime I want to get on a plane, then I'll just stay
home.
I'm sure the "essential liberty" to
which Ben was referring didn't
include the liberty to be irresponsible or selfish to the extent that
it risks social order and encourages terrorists by overtly hiding them
in our midst.
Of course not, but it gets at another fundamental truth, which is that you
cannot solve the problem by hiding it under a bandage.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org