[Note from Matthew Gaylor: I usually highly recommend the CATO
Institute as they nearly always take a principled pro-freedom stand
on the issues. Below is an exception. CATO's Ivan Eland writes that
"The ban against sharp metal objects (i.e., knives) aboard aircraft
is a good one." Making airline passengers an even more inviting
target is not something that strikes me as smart idea let alone a
pro-freedom market liberal ideal. In the early 1960s American
airline passengers could carry firearms on their carry on luggage- A
period that didn't see hijackings I might add. It was only after
government regulation via the FAA that effectively emasculated
personal defense from both the pilots and passengers have we seen in
flight terrorism. If you're disappointed with CATO's position I
suggest you contact CATO Executive VP David Boaz . Or
write or call the Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001-5403, Phone (202) 842-0200, Fax (202) 842-3490]
http://www.cato.org/current/terrorism/pubs/eland-010920.html
Don't Give Bin Laden Total Victory
by Ivan Eland , Director of Defense Policy Studies,
Cato Institute
The monstrous and despicable attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade
Center have given the terrorists two victories. We must prevent them
from gaining a third.
The first victory-achieving mass casualties-was obtained with a
nefarious, but deft, lightning strike that converted ordinary
airliners into explosive, building-busting weapons. The second
victory was achieved by inducing first panic, and then fear, into the
American public through the publicity that the attacks received.
The first two victories were wrought by the terrorists' own efforts
but whether they achieve a third victory is up to us. As bad as the
mass casualties and widespread fear were, the worst and most long
lasting scar from the attacks could be an alteration of the American
way of life. Politically, the United States is the freest nation on
earth. Our citizens enjoy freedoms unmatched anywhere in the world.
If the attacks result in the curtailment of American civil liberties
in the name of increased security, the terrorists' triumph will be
complete.
Added airport security might be needed but the measures chosen should
not be applied in a broad and draconian way to show that the U.S.
government is "doing something" about the problem of terrorism. The
government's tendency to overdo its response to crises is well known.
For example, after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the
1995 poison gas attack on the Tokyo subway, Congress passed the
draconian Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. That
law reduced civil liberties but did not institute measures that would
have prevented those types of attacks.
Instead, any new airport security provisions adopted should
specifically help address the threat. The ban against sharp metal
objects (i.e., knives) aboard aircraft is a good one. The bans on
electronic ticketing and curbside check-in seem to be an example of
government measures that have only a tangential relationship to the
problem of hijacking. The apparent justification for them is that
terrorists might opt for other means of attack if hijacking with
knives is denied to them. If that is the case, then maybe we should
prohibit all air travel.
Although the public's desire for increased security is
understandable, security measures should not be so onerous that air
travel becomes a nightmare. If the speed limit on the highways were
reduced to 5 miles per hour, many lives could be saved but our
society would grind to a halt (or at least slow down dramatically).
In anything we do in life, we take some risk. Despite the heat of the
moment, terrorist attacks and airplane hijackings are still rare
occurrences.
Terrorism is like water flowing in a stream-it follows the path of
least resistance. Like moving water, which flows around rocks, logs
and other obstacles, terrorists will change their tactics to move
around defenses and attack the weakest point. Terrorism, perpetrated
by loose associations of small shadowy groups, also is hard for
intelligence agencies to detect and is therefore difficult to stop.
We can only institute so many security measures to prevent terrorism
before the burden to an open society is too great.
Therefore, in the long-term, when the dust settles after the
predictable and justifiable military response to this heinous act, we
should ask ourselves why the United States is the target of almost 50
percent of the world's terrorism. That percentage is high for a
nation that is half a world away from most of the world's conflicts,
has no ongoing civil war, and has no hostile neighbors. We should
also ask ourselves whether increased security or intelligence
gathering would trash the civil liberties that make the United States
unique and great. That would be the greatest victory for Bin Laden
and probably the most long lasting tragedy for America.
###
**************************************************************************
Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues
Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA
on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week)
Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/
**************************************************************************
