Are you concerned that the war on terrorism might erode/will erode/has eroded our civil liberties? An effective executive branch assumes more power in the case of war, and when governments have too much power it almost always leads to some abuse if there is no oversight/accountability. But in times of danger a weak government can’t protect its citizens. Do you think our/your government has a good balance between the two extremes?
On a related subject, do you think the U.S. should ban people from burning, or threatening to burn, the Qu’ran or other holy books?
The “War on _____.”
Fill in the blank — drugs, poverty, terrorism, illegal immigration –, when those words precede anything, it’s almost certain to be a failure and/or result in unintended (or undeclared) results.
I think that there has been some excesses in the name of the “War on _____” that have not produced the desired results, have perhaps been detrimental and have adversely impacted civil liberties. There is a balance, but I don’t know how good it is.
The only direct impact I’ve seen is increased security at airports — I haven’t flown since for over 5 years — and, whenever I go back to work as a contractor at the place I retired from, I have to prove I’m a US citizen. Before we go to Canada again, we’ll have to get passports.
While I abhor burning anything of reverence — holy books, flags, etc. — I don’t think a ban is appropriate and such a ban as what you are talking about would likely be found to be unconstitutional.
Mike,
The main effect on us has been air travel. My husband refuses to fly…he was in the army for two years and refuses to be that regimented. We don’t travel that much, but it is a nuisance when we have to drive to see my daughter and son-in-law.
I agree about not having a ban. I’ve been seriously considering the question because a friend of mine thinks there should be one. I’ve been reading about the anti-blasphemy law in Indonesia and it’s a tricky way to go. Who decides what religions should be protected and who decides what blasphemy is? It would be especially tricky here in the U.S. where the Native Americans have so many sacred sites. I’m sure they think we descendants of immigrants are regularly tromping on their sacred ground.
I spent plenty of time in Singapore where drug traffickers are efficiently put to death and all religious groups are prohibited from saying a bad word about any other religious group on pain of being shut down. The jails aren’t overcrowded due to the efficacy of caning in reforming criminal behavior at minimum cost. Never felt particularly threatened or vulnerable, although it is admittedly difficult to take up employment as an opposition politician.
Perhaps we need a “War on overheated rhetoric”?
All that being said, I am still an American and prefer our overall way of doing things.
Violence is justified by arguments of urgency and imminence. This applies to all the wars on whatever. The striking thing is that they have all been failures (long-term, expensive, failures).
In Australia it’s different. We haven’t had any terrorist incidents of anything approaching the 11th of September things. So the Australian governments overheated and ludicrous responses just seem pathetic as well as absurd.
Most of the measures taken have been on the loony right’s wishlist for ages. The link to the prevention of terrorism has never been made.
I think that terrorism relies on secrecy. So the prevention measures should be publicly scrutinised.
I don’t really think that private violence is worse morally than state sponsored violence. Would Hiroshima have been worse if it had been done by a religious/cultural group instead of the allies (of which my government was a part)? The initiation of violence by governments against private violence isn’t something I can take seriously as a way of dealing with terror.
As to prevention. It is convincing people that they have a stake in the system and can be included. Killing, and passing laws against the cultural practices of, members of out-groups is the way to encourage terrorism.
Looney,
“…a ‘War on overheated rhetoric’? ” I like that idea, but I’m afraid the politicians will never go for it. 🙂
Evan,
I’m not sure we can agree to all practices of minority groups. For example, if one forced 12- to 14-year-old girls to marry older men against their wills. All members of the group might not want to change their cultural practices even though they might want the benefits of the larger society.
About Hiroshima… war and nuclear bombs are horrible things, and considering the circumstances at the time I think dropping the bomb probably saved more lives than it cost.
Hi Jean,
I wasn’t advocating cultural relativism. You’ll be pleased to hear that there are many parts of US culture that are morally objectionable in my view. My point was to not marginalise the groups on this basis: if you wish to change their practises (as I most assuredly do) then criticism and marginalisation is counter-productive.
About Hiroshima.
‘Predictions are difficult – especially about the future’. –
Imagine the allies going into WWII with this proposition: At great cost in the lives of our soldiers, we will kill many German and Japanese soldiers and bomb civilians. We will then poor billions into Japan and German while impoverishing Britain.
I am convinced that our two countries both have seen abdication of responsibility by our elected representatives to your congress and senate and our parliament and legislative assemblies, and have allowed the executive to usurp powers without adequate over sight and completely out with the constitutional provisions of both countries. In the process, neither have been successful in the primary objective of eliminating terror.
No, I do not think that the USA or any other country should ban such activities till such time that the other side is prepared to ban such activities like burning your or our flags, effigies of our leaders and announcing rewards for the assassination of perceived insulters of their religion, the koran and their prophet. I do not know if you saw them, but I did, the entire islamic world, including sadly, Indian muslims, danced on the streets and rejoiced on 9/11 and the subsequent days.
Evan,
Our pouring billions into Germany and Japan in addition to the rest of Western Europe is a great example of not marginalizing people whose practices we disagree with. We turned former enemies into allies and improved the world economy.
I too wonder if Churchill would have fought so vigorously against the Nazis if he had known he would lose his precious British Empire. And that he would be kicked out of office as soon as the war was over. Unlike in Germany the whole British population had been mobilized for war and the people were tired of making sacrifices.
Originally the hope was to leave Germany in a “pastoral state” so she could never again make war in Europe. The trouble was most of her fertile farmland was under Soviet control and the European economy couldn’t recover without Germany being a part of it.
It wasn’t just Britain that was impoverished by the war. All of Europe was. If you haven’t seen the 26-episode British TV series The World at War, I highly recommend it. I watched it a year or so ago and it’s still gut-wrenching for me to think of it.
Rummuser,
Thank you for reminding us about some Muslims dancing in the streets. I agree that people who are touchy should be more respectful of other people. I also feel that way about religious people who attack atheists. Needless to say, they don’t agree with us. 🙂
In fairness, a lot of people, including Muslims as I recall, extended sympathy to the U.S. after 9/11. It seems to me Bush snubbed them instead of building bridges. That hurt me more than the reactions of the U.S. haters.
We certainly have to be vigilant that our governments dont run to excess when trying to protect us.
You might be interested in checking out the case of a UK chap called Paul Chambers who is currently appealing a conviction for sending threatening messages ( £1000 fine I believe).
It’s a long story which Im thinking of doing a post about.
In essence he sent a jokey tweet saying something like if he couldnt get over by plane to see her in ireland then he would just have to threaten to blow up the airport.
The full weight of the state security apparatus decended on him. fair enough they maybe had to check him out. But he was clearly not serious. He was clearly not a terrorist. yet it seems that they first tried to prosecute him under terrorist legislation. When that wouldnt wash they used some obscure telecoms act.
That is abuse of state power.
Bunc,
Yes, I read about that story a while back.
I agree with you that people get carried away when making and enforcing laws. Did you hear about Zachary Christie, the 6-year-old who was suspended for 45 days and threatened with reform school for bringing a Cub Scout eating utensil to school? It was a combination knife, fork and spoon and schools have zero tolerance for knives. The poor kid was just so excited about the tool he wanted to use it at lunch. It was probably a good lesson about being careful of what powers you give governments. Good intentions count for naught.
It wouldn’t really be appropriate for me to comment on the US government in this matter as I’m not well enough informed. I do, however, feel that when power is more, accountability should be much more, to bring things into balance. I feel sorry for that six year old you mentioned, kids just function on a different level and don’t see things as the adult world does. They should have taken the kid’s age into consideration before banning him.
gaelikaa,
This isn’t just about the US. As far as I can tell all big governments have their idiocies… unfortunately.
In the context of a country, I’m support the theory that security and public order is the foundation to arrange everything although must be step by step. Without it, we just can say “chaotic”.
tikno,
I’ve been reading the Jakarta Globe and can see where you’re coming from. Indonesia seems to have a lot more trouble with mob violence than we do in the US. Our country started by revolting against the encroaching tyranny of England after we had decades of mostly self-rule. So for us it has been trying to find a balance between freedom and public order.
Jean,
The independence of your country that already hundreds of years old is clearly not comparable with the independence of Indonesia, which has just reached 65 years.
My post was representing my own thoughts and voices, not merely represent the principle of particular country.
tikno,
But our thoughts are influenced by our cultures, our personalities and our own history. That’s what makes the whole issue fascinating for me.
Jean,
Like you have said: “very complex”.
That’s what makes these world fascinating for me. 🙂