PROTECTING FREEDOM WITHOUT REDUCING FREEDOMS
This draft was written not long after September 11, 2001 when some columnists and people who should know better were advocating rounding up all Muslims in the US. Only spell checking and minor clarification done since then. I provide it now because it is relevant to the overall issue of freedoms in the face of military/terrorist threats.
....Keith
* DRAFT *
Locking up people who made a choice to come here - because they saw tyranny up close and personal - while leaving Hanoi Jane walking around free seems fundamentally hypocritical. What is wrong with good detective work here, and taking the war to the enemy's support bases? Why sacrifice people here?
People around the US are clamoring to lock up all Muslims because a few may be very harmful terrorists.
Oh?
Did Lady Liberty have her fingers crossed behind her back when she welcomed immigrants to the land of freedom and justice?
Did the Founding Fathers not fight a war to establish a country where individuals have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? To have their own religion, whether or not everyone else likes it?
And tell me, if potential to aid the enemy is reason to lock people up, why is Hanoi Jane still walking around free?
And what about Christians - after all, a few of them bomb clinics as a result of religious beliefs and exhortations?
Well, suppose the country decides to do it anyway. How will people be chosen? (Last I heard praying to Allah did not cause an identifying tattoo to grow on one's face. (A certain type of repeated praying may leave a mark, but is it different from skin conditions of Catholic Ash Wednesday paint? Were the September 11, 2001 terrorists such devote prayers, when they weren't visiting bars and strip joints? (A good cover personna if they intended it.)
Oh, we'll just see if they look Arab - erroneously locking up a few native Americans who look swarthy won't matter, except of course to the unfortunate individuals (but the US is not a land of individuals, is it?). (Never mind that Iranians look quite different from Saudis. And I am wondering if Muslims from SE Asia look different from other people in the region - I doubt it.) And we know that all suspected Muslims will just turn themselves in to the camps without being hunted down - sure, at the wheel of a truck full of explosives, just like good American boy McVeigh showed them how to do? Oh, you say it will take weeks to get everyone corralled? During which time not only will intended terrorists be motivated to act sooner but other Muslims may be motivated to help them. Darn! (But don't let practicality get in the way of a knee-jerk reaction that makes you feel good.)
And when people say "Muslims" surely they mean only those in the US on temporary status or illegally? Well, many advocates don't limit their description and are ignorant of classifications such as visitor, student, temporary worker, refugee, permanent resident (having worked hard to be in that status), and citizen (many being immigrants who swore allegiance to the US when granted citizenship, others born citizens who did not have to do so - and some are not allegiant). None of them tattooed for vigilante convenience when they were given their status, and some do not have status (illegal entrants). (Hey, that didn't matter in WW II when persons with old ties to Japan were rounded up, and their property stolen. Couldn't trust the Canadian and US governments then. Couldn't trust the Canadian government in 1970 when a bunch of amateur kidnappers they'd known of for years panicked them into suspending rights by invoking the War Measures Act.) But people wouldn't do that today, would they? Hah! First tell me about the airport security flunkies who now take pens away from pilots. Then about the security officials who were so caring and competent that they could not add up WTC big bomb 93, Paris suicidal hijack airliner firebomb plan 94, Pacific airliner fleet bomb plan 95, thousands of suicide bombings, and Bin Laden's declaration of war against all Americans to realize the huge downside risk. These people know what to do honestly and well?
Sure sounds like craziness to me - unjust and ineffective.
"Alright smart guy Keith, safe on the west coast, what can we do about act of war on September 11, to protect Americans? As we must."
Four things:
- take the war to where responsibility lies, to the foreign governments who aid and house the terrorists. We know who the groups are, and who the governments are. We don't need a smoking gun this time, because we know they killed Americans before and promised to do it again - so take them at their word and treat them accordingly.
- do proper detective work to identify persons still in the US who may intend further harm. (I expect most people of Arab/Persian descent would be eager to advise the FBI what to look for, to help their new chosen country. (Some are in the US military, providing valuable aid in combatting terrorism because of their language skills or appearance - you did intend to not lock them up, didn't you?) The FBI have been out doing that, though apparently learning on the job how to do it. The terrorist profile is known and police already have power.
- Stop the futile attempt to make Prohibition v2 work, and put those resources into work against terrorism.
- be alert in the near-term as police catch up to the mess the bureaucrats let happen. Coached by FBI, watch for persons fitting the known profile. (While there are citizen programs like Neighbourhood Watch, the record of knee-jerk reaction by untrained individuals in the terrorism matter is poor. However, police miss a few - CIS/RCMP in B.C. were slow to pick up on the intent of the "test blasting of stumps" they covertly witnessed - the test was actually for making the bombs that were put on Air India aircraft by B.C.-based Sikh extremists.)
- Add security and police resources from reserves (National Guard) and retired persons with experience.
A country whose freedom and justice has produced such abundance ought to be able to do it, effectively and honorably. Otherwise, as Ben Franklin said: "Those who would sacrifice their liberty to gain temporary security deserve neither."
Keith Sketchley is an aircraft electronic systems engineer and manager, living in Canada, who has visited and traded with the US for decades.
* DRAFT *
Copyright - Page version 2009.05.19
If any links no longer work please let me know - the Internet changes.