Against the War on Terror

From the explainer box on the newish blog, Against the War on Terror:

The war on terror is more than just another public policy. It tries to turn the reduction of even the smallest risks into the highest goal of government and the fundamental purpose of politics. We at Against the War on Terror aim to challenge the idea that security, rather than liberty, should guide our political life. We reject the very premise of the war on terror…

More here.

Comments

[Allen]

Don't these guys know that there's a war on? 😉

[Sandy]

Potentially a good resource...but c'mon, it's 2006, don't we know that light text on a dark background isn't readable?

[Warren]

I don't have a problem with the light on dark, but the increasing font size has the text overlapping itself on my browser.

[Michael]

What should we do the next time an enemy attacks us and and kills three thousand or so Americans? Speak freely? Peaceably assemble? I know, let's all band together and refuse to quarter troops. That'll show 'em!

[Warren]

I support their stated aims. I don't think drawing parallels to France is particularly apt. I also wish there was an acknowledgement of how the encroachment on liberty done in the name of the War On Terror is an extension of encroachments done in the name of the War On Drugs.

They do feature this stunning link.

[R C Dean]

It tries to turn the reduction of even the smallest risks into the highest goal of government and the fundamental purpose of politics.

I think this has been happening on a number of fronts for decades. Nanny state, anyone? Precautionary principle? Assigning it solely to the WOT smacks of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Still, point taken. The WOT may represent the exporting of the precautionary principle to foreigh policy.

I think that perhaps the fundamental disconnect in the WOT is the different risk assessment that people assign to fundamentalist Islam.

If you believe there is some non-negligible risk of the Islamonutters getting their hands on nuclear or biological weapons, then you tend to think that a very aggressive, pro-active, call it "war-fighting", approach to them is called for.

If you think the Islamonutters really don't and won't pose much of a risk to the US/West, that 9/11 was a one-off regardless of our response, that they are little more than nuisance in the big scheme of things, then you tend to think that a reactive, low-level, call it "law enforcement", approach is what is needed. The corollary to this assessment is that a war-fighting approach presents more risks than the Islamonutters themselves do.

The corollary to the war-fighting assessment is that taking a law enforcement approach merely postpones the day of reckoning, possibly at a catastrophic cost, and possibly to a day when out enemy is in a position to prevail. Personally, I believe that the day Iran detonates its first nuclear bomb may someday be a more important milestone than the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Stretch]

What should we do the next time an enemy attacks us and and kills three thousand or so Americans? Speak freely? Peaceably assemble? I know, let's all band together and refuse to quarter troops. That'll show 'em!

I know! We could preemptively attack a country that posed a non-immediate threat! And then we could institute a national ID system, warrantless searches and indefinite detention. That'll show 'em, er, us!

On a more serious note, it's not so much that we've sacrificed liberty for security; it's that we've sacrificed liberty for impotent, half-assed measures that really do nothing to increase security. I would argue that terrorists operate in such a way as to make true prevention an impossibility. There's really not much we can do. Hey, maybe the democracy in the ME gambit will work out, but it will be a long, bloody time in coming.

[thoreau]

I actually agree with a lot of what you said, R C. We might disagree substantially on how to go about it, but I wouldn't mind a war on terror that focuses solely on WMD, terrorist groups, and their sponsors. I think we would agree that a lot of what's done in the US is mere "security theater." Lots of checkpoints, ID, random bag searches, and Gray Davis closing down bridges is, at best, a way to squeeze the balloon. An open society will always have vulnerabilities to attacks with mundane tools. Rather than trying to plug every vulnerability with "security theater", we should work on the problems that you cite.

Now, you and I might disagree on methods, but I do agree that you've highlighted the core issues.

[R C Dean]

it's not so much that we've sacrificed liberty for security; it's that we've sacrificed liberty for impotent, half-assed measures that really do nothing to increase security.

Preach it, brother.

[John]

I have no doubt that when there is another terrorist attack that kills a few thousand Americans these same people will be opening the "Impeach Bush for not Protecting America" website.

[John]

On a more serious note, it's not so much that we've sacrificed liberty for security; it's that we've sacrificed liberty for impotent, half-assed measures that really do nothing to increase security. I would argue that terrorists operate in such a way as to make true prevention an impossibility. There's really not much we can do. Hey, maybe the democracy in the ME gambit will work out, but it will be a long, bloody time in coming.

I know what we can do, hunt the fuckers down and kill every God damned one of them and everyone who sympathizes with them before they have a chance to do anything. If the choice is give up my liberties, keep my liberties and live in fear, or just kill murder the bastards at every opportunity and keep my liberties, I am taking option number three.

[Don Pazuzu]

kill the murdering the bastards at every opportunity

is that ironic or just self-contradictory?

[R C Dean]

I think we would agree that a lot of what's done in the US is mere "security theater."

Yup.

[Dave W.]

Let's see:

If you believe there is some non-negligible risk of the food becoming poison through large scale genetic engineering, then you tend to think that a very aggressive, pro-active, call it "regulatory", approach to new food compositions is called for.

If you think the new foods really don't and won't pose much of a risk to the US/West, that long term health risks associated with food don't matter because they are more diffuse than a 9/11, and that the FDA is little more than nuisance in the big scheme of things, then you tend to think that a reactive, low-level, call it "fraud prevention", approach is what is needed. The corollary to this assessment is that a regulatory approach to new food compositions presents nutritional problems, or costs, of its own.

There's some symmetry for RCD, except that the RCD's warfighters get a much, much bigger piece of my tax money than my regulators do. As such, I think the warfighters (their elimination, specifically) is libertarian job 1, highest priority. It amuses me that there are so many quote-unquote libertarians who seem to take the RCD's of the world seriously.

[Les]

If the choice is give up my liberties, keep my liberties and live in fear, or just kill murder the bastards at every opportunity and keep my liberties, I am taking option number three.

But hasn't the government been attempting option number three for four years now? In the process it's managed to kill and imprison quite a few innocent people. Why do you trust the government to execute (the rather simplistic) option number three honestly and competently?

[Stretch]

I know what we can do, hunt the fuckers down and kill every God damned one of them and everyone who sympathizes with them before they have a chance to do anything. If the choice is give up my liberties, keep my liberties and live in fear, or just kill murder the bastards at every opportunity and keep my liberties, I am taking option number three.

#1. Do you really live in fear? And if not, is it really because of the "security" measures taken by the government?

#2. Good luck trying to kill every terrorist and sympathizer in the world. Honestly, I don't even disagree with that, except that it's simply impossible. Given that impossibility, I fail to see why our civil liberties should be threatened. I think, for the most part, that we could have done just as good as job killing terrorists without those infringements.

[Dylan]

John: "hunt the fuckers down etc. etc." is exactly the attitude that gave rise to the trend of people around the world killing themselves in order to damage America in some way. "Security Theatre" sounds benign, but imprisoning and torturing innocent intellectuals in order to satisfy state fear quotas is inspiring many more around the world to take up arms or lay down their lives to desperately strike back in whatever way they can. John, I am a sympathiser.
If you want to kill me, you'll want to kill millions more.