Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?
We have had some terrorist attacks in the EU recently and the discussion is again: safety versus democracy and personal freedom. How far do you go to keep people safe? What measures actually help? Can you ever truly prevent such attacks?
As for me, I do not believe in going too far with snooping and restrictions, in fact, no further than we are now, and if possible, back track many of the terrorist laws with destroy democracy.
But people seem to think otherwise in the USA??
Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in
the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America
Darren W. Davis
Michigan State University
Brian D. Silver
Michigan State University
In the tradition of research on political tolerance and democratic rights in context, this study uses a national survey of
Americans conducted shortly after the September 11, 2001 attack on America to investigate people’s willingness to trade
off civil liberties for greater personal safety and security. We find that the greater people’s sense of threat, the lower their
support for civil liberties. This effect interacts, however, with trust in government. The lower people’s trust in government,
the less willing they are to trade off civil liberties for security, regardless of their level of threat.
https://www.msu.edu/~bsilver/AJPSCivLib.pdf
Mind you ,that was just after 11. September. What do people think now?
Spiegel online:
A Time for Nuance and Calm
Particularly in times of chaos and uncertainty, it is more important than ever to view and analyze events in a nuanced manner and to remain calm despite feelings of dismay that are, of course, understandable.
Yes, the terrible images coming out of Paris have shocked us, in no small part because they are pictures that are not typically part of our free society. For us as Europeans, it is self-evident that streets, stadiums, restaurants and concert halls are safe places. This fundamental trust is the foundation of our public life. In Paris, this foundation has been shaken. It is only natural that people begin doubting the efficacy of our security.
And therein lies the long-term danger. If we allow ourselves to limit the scope of our public life, then the terrorists will not only have achieved their short-term goal of murdering and spreading chaos, but also their long-term goal to damaging the foundations of our public life. We cannot allow this to happen.
Paris Terrorist Attacks and the Need to Protect Our Freedom - SPIEGEL ONLINE
Then there is this for-and-against article:
Terrorism: The challenge Brussels poses to democracies (Opinion) - CNN.com
What do you people think of this?
Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?
Civil liberties make it harder for governments to govern. Governments will use any excuse to curtail freedoms. It is said that restrictions on freedoms (ie Patriot Act) were already drawn up before 911 and 911 was merely the excuse to implement them.
There is little accountability when it comes to the effectiveness of specific controls in combating terrorism. The government will say it helps prevent but there is no audit, no figures, no details to proof this. Everything is shrouded in the national secrets laws.
My view is modest controls (ie metal detectors) will prevent most of the amateur terrorist attempts like airplane bombing or highjacking but are taken too far. The controls do little against well financed professional terrorists especially when they can easily switch targets to public places like malls, buses etc. The most effective precaution is intelligence from infiltrators.
In my view any proposed control that curtails civil liberties must present a sound legal argument in court that it would be of significant value and then should only be authorised for a limited period after which evidence must be presented as to its effectiveness if the control is to be continued.
Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denzark
Civil liberties make it harder for governments to govern. Governments will use any excuse to curtail freedoms. It is said that restrictions on freedoms (ie Patriot Act) were already drawn up before 911 and 911 was merely the excuse to implement them.
There is little accountability when it comes to the effectiveness of specific controls in combating terrorism. The government will say it helps prevent but there is no audit, no figures, no details to proof this. Everything is shrouded in the national secrets laws.
I have to agree with you on this, same where I am and it is a problem.
Quote:
My view is modest controls (ie metal detectors) will prevent most of the amateur terrorist attempts like airplane bombing or highjacking but are taken too far. The controls do little against well financed professional terrorists especially when they can easily switch targets to public places like malls, buses etc.
While at the same time making endless bother for ordinary citizens!
Quote:
The most effective precaution is intelligence from infiltrators.
I do not think you can rely on that, but I think that more resources to police and intelligence should be the answer without any more laws. It is crimes, pure and simple, and calling it 'war' is just an excuse to, as you implement laws to give more poser to the government.
In my view any proposed control that curtails civil liberties must present a sound legal argument in court that it would be of significant value and then should only be authorised for a limited period after which evidence must be presented as to its effectiveness if the control is to be continued.
Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denzark
Civil liberties make it harder for governments to govern. Governments will use any excuse to curtail freedoms. It is said that restrictions on freedoms (ie Patriot Act) were already drawn up before 911 and 911 was merely the excuse to implement them.
I'd guess that most governments - certainly all security services - have a wish list of control and surveilance powers they'd like if it were politically possible. So when the time comes, they just copy and paste that list into draft legislation.
Quote:
The most effective precaution is intelligence from infiltrators.
Whilst it might not get reported, it doesn't appear that infiltration has been an important tool. In this country the efforts of the police and security services to use infiltration against such noted terrorist organisations as Greenpeace and the Hunt Saboteurs have mostly ended in embarrassing exposures, so I frankly hope the same people are not trying the same tactics against IS.
In countries like ours terrorists rarely operate alone: they rely on the support of an inner circle of true believers for the hard stuff like guns and explosives, and a larger group of half-converted and useful idiots for harmless-looking things like rooms and lifts, all embeded in a community of mostly decent law-abiding people who would turn them in if they knew. The evidence from trials, and from those reports that I can believe about foiled plots, is that what usually stops them is some ordinary citizen noticing something wrong, or one of the outer circle losing their nerve, and alerting the police. Infiltration in such small groups is very hard, but getting the community to notice a problem is not hard ... so long as they aren't all turned against the police and society by systematic abuse and injustice. Unfortunately, most of the panic measures to restrict civil liberties target those communities hardest, as they are designed to, and thus do the recruiters' jobs for them.
This is usually treated as an unintended consequence, but one has to wonder. Oppressors and terrorist resisters need each other, to justify their own existence. Terrorist organisations are quite open and clear about their attempts to make the authorities behave more oppressively to foster radicalisation (it's in Marx and Mao.) Politicians and security leaders are not so frank about wanting to provoke more extreme terrorist violence to justify their own power grabs: but sometimes it's hard not to see it that way.
Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denzark
Civil liberties make it harder for governments to govern. Governments will use any excuse to curtail freedoms. It is said that restrictions on freedoms (ie Patriot Act) were already drawn up before 911 and 911 was merely the excuse to implement them.
I'd guess that most governments - certainly all security services - have a wish list of control and surveilance powers they'd like if it were politically possible. So when the time comes, they just copy and paste that list into draft legislation.
Quote:
The most effective precaution is intelligence from infiltrators.
Whilst it might not get reported, it doesn't appear that infiltration has been an important tool. In this country the efforts of the police and security services to use infiltration against such noted terrorist organisations as Greenpeace and the Hunt Saboteurs have mostly ended in embarrassing exposures, so I frankly hope the same people are not trying the same tactics against IS.
In countries like ours terrorists rarely operate alone: they rely on the support of an inner circle of true believers for the hard stuff like guns and explosives, and a larger group of half-converted and useful idiots for harmless-looking things like rooms and lifts, all embeded in a community of mostly decent law-abiding people who would turn them in if they knew. The evidence from trials, and from those reports that I can believe about foiled plots, is that what usually stops them is some ordinary citizen noticing something wrong, or one of the outer circle losing their nerve, and alerting the police. Infiltration in such small groups is very hard, but getting the community to notice a problem is not hard ... so long as they aren't all turned against the police and society by systematic abuse and injustice. Unfortunately, most of the panic measures to restrict civil liberties target those communities hardest, as they are designed to, and thus do the recruiters' jobs for them.
This is usually treated as an unintended consequence, but one has to wonder. Oppressors and terrorist resisters need each other, to justify their own existence. Terrorist organisations are quite open and clear about their attempts to make the authorities behave more oppressively to foster radicalisation (it's in Marx and Mao.) Politicians and security leaders are not so frank about wanting to provoke more extreme terrorist violence to justify their own power grabs: but sometimes it's hard not to see it that way.
Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?
@leo9 - I oversimplified when I said infiltration. I did not mean James Bond so much as informers like those you alluded to on the outer circle. Although it is secret there have been statements that give us indications. In the USA it has been admitted there is high (almost total) reliance on electronic surveillance (and torture haha). In the UK (because we are poor haha) there is more emphasis on human menthods like informers.
My point was that controls which infringe on civil liberties are of neglible value and there is no accountabily. That said there is value to governments in keeping fear in the nation and giving public the impression the government is protecting them. I heard a CIA expert talking about fear and how government uses it by raising then lowering alert levels.
That said civil rights groups are probably making too much of it. If the government is listening in when you talk to you email your girlfriend or phone for a pizza so what. If they track my surfing habits and know I'm a perv so what. For the people they want to know about the authorities will do it anyway legal or not. Hell the newpapers hack phones so lets not be surprised if the CIA do. Its not good I agree but sadly I see it as inevitable as technology makes it easier.
Sadly the most effective method in combatting terrorism is not considered, That is to look at and remove or reduce the cause. The 911 terrorists stated US support for Israel and meddling in Middle East politics was a main reason. The invasion of Iraq has not reduced terrorism, it has helped spawn IS and given us Paris and Brussels attacks, The encouragement of armed rebellion in Syria has led to mass migration into Europe for refugees and terrorists.
The sad truth is government doesn't really care about terrorism and if anything likes it. It means big fat contracts are given out in return for campaign contributions and directorships.
Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denzark
My point was that controls which infringe on civil liberties are of neglible value and there is no accountabily. That said there is value to governments in keeping fear in the nation and giving public the impression the government is protecting them. I heard a CIA expert talking about fear and how government uses it by raising then lowering alert levels.
So is the discussion going the UK at the moment, that you cannot actually protect 100% against terrorist attacks, but the government has to be seen doing something, they think, so they do what it best for them, and also what might make a show for the people.
Quote:
That said civil rights groups are probably making too much of it. If the government is listening in when you talk to you email your girlfriend or phone for a pizza so what. If they track my surfing habits and know I'm a perv so what. For the people they want to know about the authorities will do it anyway legal or not. Hell the newpapers hack phones so lets not be surprised if the CIA do. Its not good I agree but sadly I see it as inevitable as technology makes it easier.
I do not think you can make too much of personal freedom. Not only is it a right not be looked over your shoulder or have all your personal information mined for commercial uses, but at some point it will be misused even more. Big brother is here, we are on a slide here. It is the faith that if you have done nothing wrong nothing will happen, but that is not true for one thing, and the wrong government will use it for their purposes to weed out people of a different conviction but theirs.
Here the government has tried to go after the human rights laws already, and are doing their worst to get at whatever rights we have left.
Quote:
Sadly the most effective method in combatting terrorism is not considered, That is to look at and remove or reduce the cause. The 911 terrorists stated US support for Israel and meddling in Middle East politics was a main reason. The invasion of Iraq has not reduced terrorism, it has helped spawn IS and given us Paris and Brussels attacks, The encouragement of armed rebellion in Syria has led to mass migration into Europe for refugees and terrorists.
You are dead right here. And it is amazing how little is said about why terrorist do what they do. The MPs where are very busy telling everybody that the fugitives are of course not any of their doing, although they were quick enough to vote for bombing in a time when they say they have no money for hospitals. However bad, they can always find money to bomb someone.
Quote:
The sad truth is government doesn't really care about terrorism and if anything likes it. It means big fat contracts are given out in return for campaign contributions and directorships.
I fear you are right there too..
Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denzark
In the USA it has been admitted there is high (almost total) reliance on electronic surveillance (and torture haha). In the UK (because we are poor haha) there is more emphasis on human menthods like informers.
You may well laugh. The spooks insisted for years that yes, they had learnt important things through "enhanced interrogation," but they were so secret they couldn't tell anyone, not even the high government officials who asked. But it now transpires that they're so secret they can't even give the President an example of anything of value they've learnt at the cost of trashing America's reputation.
Quote:
My point was that controls which infringe on civil liberties are of neglible value and there is no accountabily. That said there is value to governments in keeping fear in the nation and giving public the impression the government is protecting them. I heard a CIA expert talking about fear and how government uses it by raising then lowering alert levels.
But again, this is clearly of value politically, but counter-productive for security, since it amounts to glorifying the terrorists to their sympathisers, giving them an importance out of all proportion to their real power. Western governments have done more to make IS look big than all the jihadists' own efforts.
Quote:
That said civil rights groups are probably making too much of it. If the government is listening in when you talk to you email your girlfriend or phone for a pizza so what. If they track my surfing habits and know I'm a perv so what.
Personally, I agree. Since CND was regarded as dangerously subversive when I was growing up, I was fairly sure I was on the security services' files before I left school, and I hoped it kept them amused. But you and I are not typical in this. It has long been argued that political debate is silenced, even in a realtively benign state like this, when people believe they are being watched by the authorities: and this has now been tested empirically in one of those sociological experiments that are of value in proving that common sense is correct. (I can't be arsed to google the reference, but I will if anyone really cares.)
Quote:
Sadly the most effective method in combatting terrorism is not considered, That is to look at and remove or reduce the cause. The 911 terrorists stated US support for Israel and meddling in Middle East politics was a main reason. The invasion of Iraq has not reduced terrorism, it has helped spawn IS and given us Paris and Brussels attacks, The encouragement of armed rebellion in Syria has led to mass migration into Europe for refugees and terrorists.
While I'm the first to say that we have not been a force for good, even with hindsight people disagree over what we did wrong, and certainly there are as many theories as there are experts for how to do better now. Even Blair has admitted, in a muttering ok-maybe-I-screwed-up way, that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq; but it seems to me that if we'd left Sadaam's regime alone it would probably by now have crumbled just like Assad's into the same kind of everlasting civil war, which would be no big improvement. And when people talk of Syria it's to argue that we should have intervened sooner and harder, like that worked so wonderfully in Libya.
It's important to remember that while anti-Western rants are effective in stirring up converts in Europe, for the men at the top attacks on the West are only a tactical move in a strategy that is really about one Muslim faction versus another in the Middle East. Bin Laden talked about Israel and Crusaders for his followers, but it's an open secret that his real issue with the US was that they had backed the other side in a feud between branches of the Saudi royal family. IS are not primarily interested in Europe: their goal is to stamp out every Muslim sect but Wahhabites, Europe and the US are only enemies insofar as they keep supporting Sunnis and Shias and Kurds. Terrorism in Europe is what we used to call a proxy war, in the days when we did it to Third World countries.
IMHO, the place where we can really make a difference to the causes of terrorism is right here at home, by doing more to make all communities feel that they have a stake in the country where they live, and that the authorities are on their side if they appeal for help against the dangerous nuts that every group has. Unfortunately, that involves doing pretty much the opposite of what recent government initiatives have done.
Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?
Yes I'm sure nothing of value came from torture. The experts say it is unreliable and besides that, they are being tortured years after capture by which time any information they could have had would be out of date. The biggest and unspoken error is in who the prisoners are. They are mostly Taliban foot soldiers who know nothing about terrorism, they fought because their country was invaded. And innocent people who were sold to the Americans for the bounty paid. This is why I advocate a complete audit of measures to review their effectiveness and justification.
I agree the west has done more for terrorist recruitment than the groups themselves.They cannot say IS is a small matter then ask for big budget. My concern is how we fail to correct the image the west is oppressing muslims. That no big heads fell over Abu Graib and other scandals is a disgrace.
Yes majority will fall silent if they think they are being monitored or on a list. But I advocate pride in being on the list. How one day it will be seen as an honor, like the germans who resisted Hitler. I advoce mass civil protest in such numbers that it clogs the sytem "I'm Spartacus monitor me".
The problem I have with meddling and intervention is the motive. \is it coincidence Libya has oil and Syria doesn't. Did we intervene in African wars when millions of civilians died. I believe western nations should declare there "values" and establish principles to define if and when they get involved in the conflicts.
Bin Ladin primary gripe is that the US supports and keeps in place the Saud royal family. The issue of supporting some dictators and seeking to overthriow others comes down to strategic interests. I advocate governments be banned from secretely interfering in the affairs of other countries. Support for a side must be in line with a nations philosophy and mission statement and approved in parliaments.
The importance and effect of terrorism is not enough to curtail civil liberties or go against a nations values. How many die as a result of terrorism, How many die in road accidents or shooting deaths. Will americans cite shooting deaths as a reason to curtail the right to bear arms or drunk driving road deaths as reason to have checkpoints on roads or police stationed outside pubs. Terrorism if advertised by government with compliant media is a fear. Like shark attacks get disproportionate publicity. And when the people are afraid they will accept actions and spendings they would not otherwise do.
I agree we could do more to stop terrorism at home but disagree with your focus. Making muslims feel more at home serves to attract more immigrants and gives weight to their demands that society should change to suit their cultures.
The muslim leaders and communities must be named and shamed because of their failure to denounce radicalist and inertia. Every mosque is the meeting place and recruitment center for terrorists. The terrorists indoctrinate, recruit and plot while the imams and police watch.
Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?
I agree with almost everything you say, except:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Denzark
I agree we could do more to stop terrorism at home but disagree with your focus. Making muslims feel more at home serves to attract more immigrants and gives weight to their demands that society should change to suit their cultures.
As for attracting immigrants, people were coming here - Irish, Jews, Caribbeans, Pakistanis - back when this country was known to be institutionally racist and they knew they'd be lucky to get their holy day off. I think Muslims considering whether to come here are more worried whether they can get a job and a house than whether their wives can wear burqas.
As for change, there was a time when people were afraid that Irish immigrants would swamp us and change our culture, and if one of them could see the St. Pat's Day parades he'd say his worst fears had come true and the Irish had won. They haven't, of course; they've been assimilated, like the other minorities after them. Up here in Yorkshire the towns put up decorations for Eid and for Christmas, and only a few granddads complain.
Quote:
Every mosque is the meeting place and recruitment center for terrorists. The terrorists indoctrinate, recruit and plot while the imams and police watch.
This is a favourite story for the tabloids, but the people whose job it is to know, the security services, don't agree. Every report says that mosques are, for the most part, doing their best to preach peace and good citizenship. Radicalisation, according to studies of the French and Belgian communities, doesn't happen in the mosques: generally it happens by young men being told by some chap in the street "Yo, man, [1] your parents and your immam don't know what REAL Islam is. REAL Islam is about being WARRIORS, take a look at this website and see the TROOF!" In other words, pretty much the same way that youths from other communities get recruited to neo-Nazi groups, only the details of the pitch vary.
[1] Not exagerating, I've met young Muslims who really think this is still the cool way to talk.
Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?
@leo9
by doing more to make all communities feel that they have a stake in the country where they live
What does "doing more" mean. They are not discriminated or persecuted. If anything its the opposite, they are protected and promoted. The problem is many do not identify themselves as British nor do they share our culture and values.
As for history, people were right to fear the immigrants before. They did depress wages. Why pay more wages when the emp=loyers can get an immigrant to do the job. As for assimilation, the Irish Poles and other European immigrants assimilated because they shared the Christian culture. The muslim do not assimilate because they do not share the same culture. English government argued for multicilturalism for decades and now it has proved to be a failure have done a U turn and argue for assimilation. I went to Uni in Bradford. Its evidence of failure not success.
This is a favourite story for the tabloids, but the people whose job it is to know, the security services, don't agree.
And how do you know they dont agree. They don't tell do they and the PC means they could not anyway. Where do the radicals hand out there pamphlets. On the street maybe, the street in front of the mosque. Its logical place to advertise.
As for the mosques what happens is after prayers people stay at the moque to talk about religion. This makes it an ideal meeting and recruitment place. If you are a radical go to any mosque anywhere in the world, hang around after prayers and you will hook up and into the local radicals. This is not rocket science. Churches have historically been the meeting place. Papist, mafia, spies whispering in the pews.
Moderate immans and muslims know what's going on but say nothing for obvious reasons. Extreme immans encourage radicalism. Belgium had mosques funded by Saudi. Part of the deal was that Saudi would pay for mosques on condition they staffed by Saudi clerics. This mean radical extreme Islam was imported. And the result today is ...
I am not making this up. Its known and reported. Governments and muslims play it down for fear of attacks on mosques.
