The terrorists who work for us
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Air cargo bombs: Controlled reaction | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian.
No-one rose to the bait of my smoking, helmetless, biking babies post. It's a shame, as I was looking forward to reading libertarian responses to a baby being taught to smoke, or being taken motorbike riding without a helmet. (How those one trick ponies, the statists, would respond - I already knew).
Here's another issue to test the precise location of the libertarian/statist boundary. Since 9/11 the governments of the West have forced air passengers to endure countless humiliations. We have been scanned, groped, prodded and ordered about "for our own protection" by just the sort of people we worked hard at school never to have to be bullied by again. Now it transpires that, all this time, airlines were loading unscanned freight into the holds beneath us. It was all, as some of us suspected, a monumental waste of our time. It was a fraudulent, entirely unjustified assault.
The one trick ponies will now call for massive investment in expensive men and machines to search through and scan freight. Tax bills, shipping costs (and your cost of living) will rise. Globalisation will face a setback. I heard at a conference that Germany is the last developed nation to ship the bulk of its exports by sea. Most of America's exports, by value not weight, now travel either by air or electronically. The more primitive your economy, the less it will be damaged by these measures. Meanwhile, just wait for the Guardian to tell us that the life-saving intelligence from Saudi Arabia was compromised because of their interrogation methods, so we should shut our ears to useful information from our ethical inferiors, while submitting to ever more invasive security searches.
Libertarians will argue that all the security theatre has now been proved to be just that. It was not to make us safe, it was to make us afraid. The only things we have to fear are fear itself - and the political parasites who feed on it. They assaulted, humiliated, delayed and inconvenienced us while, all the time, there was no real airline security at all. Packages of unknown origin and content were being stowed beneath our seats. No-one was even tasked to consider whether packages shipped from Yemen to American synagogues might not be kosher. I guess that would have been "racial and religious profiling", right? Libertarians will also point out that the first attempt to down a plane with a parcel bomb was foiled by the real answers to terrorism; commonsense, police work and secret intelligence.
Longrider has written eloquently on this here. He says, and he's not wrong, that politicians who foster fear in their voters for political advantage are also terrorists. We have the right and the duty to defend our civilisation and should stop being such wusses about it. Let's infiltrate the terrorists. Monitor their primitive attempts to disrupt civilisation. Arrest them if we can. Try them if we do. Assassinate them in the field if we can't. Let's give them some good, Mossad-style what for. But, whatever we do, let's stop winning their battles for them by actively inspiring terror. Let our politicians stop exploiting their activities to scare citizens out of their wits and their rights. Let them stop building their own power and privilege by betraying the liberty that differentiates us from our enemies.
I agree with you 100% about taking personal action in response to a definite act of aggression.
Where I get nervous is in handing over power for extra-legal violence to the state.
Your point about international law is well taken. The question is whether it's ethical to hold our agents of violence to a lower standard abroad than at home. Mistakes like the de Menezes episode are as likely to occur in foreign lands, if not more [1].
As I said, I'm inclined towards the hard line, but I wonder how much that has to do with the fact that I don't feel much kinship with the average Somali.
I also believe (and I expect you'd agree) that our latest adventure in Iraq completely undermines our credibility. We were the ideologically-driven aggressors in that case (using the term 'we' loosely, of course).
[1] Perhaps this isn't true. Unencumbered by due process, I expect intelligence agents and special forces can more ruthlessly and effectively eliminate the real culprits; perhaps they never would have paid attention to someone like de Menezes. I confess to feeling a thrill at the scene in Patriot Games when the SAS smoothly assassinate everyone at the terrorist training camp.
It's probably true that we sleep soundly in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf. Let's just hope that they (or their masters) have a clear sense of justice, and that collateral damage is minimised (for both moral and utilitarian reasons).
(on that note, an interesting post by Jeffrey Miron yesterday on house demolitions by Israeli forces: http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/11/which-kind-of-counter-terrorism-works/ )
Posted by: Suboptimal Planet | Wednesday, November 03, 2010 at 08:01 AM
Maybe (depending on who "these people" are in your question) someone else would judge it unnecessary, but I can't imagine trusting anyone else to decide when I can fly or not.
Posted by: Tom | Wednesday, November 03, 2010 at 05:20 AM
Libertarians are pretty clear on their obligation not to initiate force or fraud. You put it strongly, but I don't dissent completely from your diagnosis of Yemen's problems. However, our interference is unlikely to solve them. In the end, only the people of Yemen can do that. In the meantime, it's sad, but none of our business, unless (and to the extent that) one of them initiates force or fraud against us - and the local authorities fail, deliberately or despite best efforts, to protect us.
Posted by: Tom | Wednesday, November 03, 2010 at 02:00 AM
Is it unlibertarian? I am no purist and am happy to be an heretic where my conscience dictates. If a man attacks me or my family (or indeed an innocent passer by) with a knife, I hope I will have the courage to attack him - without first waiting for a jury of my peers to confirm that he did so without good cause.
I hope I did make my preference for arrest and fair trial clear though. I revere the rule of law, but I strongly doubt the existence (apart from some practical and independently enforceable treaties) of international law. At the international level, self-help is often the only remedy.
Posted by: Tom | Wednesday, November 03, 2010 at 01:56 AM
How many of all these people really need to fly?
Posted by: Demetrius | Tuesday, November 02, 2010 at 04:25 PM
'Suboptimal Planet' has it right;these solutions that have so much instant appeal are also very worrying.
I heard an 'expert' on BBC World Service radio saying that the West needs to help Yemen by giving more aid for health and education.
Education is the single biggest factor in improving quality of life.
Yemen is not blessed with great natural resources; neither are Japan or Singapore.
Yemen is poor, the other two are not.
It is not our fault that Yemen is poor; Yemen is poor because foe centuries their dark ages desert seath cult has stifled thought, educat=ion and innovation.
Posted by: 'James Strong' | Tuesday, November 02, 2010 at 02:55 PM
"Arrest them if we can. Try them if we do. Assassinate them in the field if we can't"
I confess that this hard-line approach has always appealed to me, though it does feel worryingly unlibertarian.
Where is "the field" and who do we trust to order the assassinations? If assassination is justified, why even bother trying to arrest and try them? Does a libertarian's duty to uphold individual rights and due process end at the national border?
For that matter, what places Dresden and Hiroshima in a different moral category from 9/11?
How many of the terrorists are bent on world domination, and how many see themselves as retaliating against aggressors?
I'm no pacifist, and I strongly condemn acts of terror, but the answers don't come as readily as I would like.
Posted by: Suboptimal Planet | Tuesday, November 02, 2010 at 10:40 AM
Well said, Sir. We could start with ending the absurd ban on racial profiling. Ignore the screams of 'racism' and 'Islamophobia', and start searching and disrupting bearded men with rucksacks, for example. You are right to say that we are fighting for our civilisation here. The gloves need to come off.
Posted by: Richard B | Tuesday, November 02, 2010 at 08:49 AM