Clueless CATO Institute Thinks Ban On Knives A Good Thing

[Matthew Gaylor]

[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 <dboaz at cato.org>. 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 <ieland at cato.org>, 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 at 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/
**************************************************************************