Embracing common sense

It looks as if we’re going to be at this terrorism thing for a while. It behooves people of good will who oppose terrorism – and also value American liberties – to offer some ideas, and eventually a reasonably comprehensive and coherent strategy.

Of course, “war” has been declared on terrorism numerous times since the early 1980s and the effort has always petered out, mostly when a reasonably extended period of time passed with no terribly egregious terrorist acts and people forgot about it. But the effort this time may last for a while, even if it is unlikely to end terrorism in our time, let alone “rid the world of evil” – the supposed goal our president has so foolishly proclaimed.

For one thing, the scars from the hideous assaults in New York and Washington will still be evident months and years from now, making it difficult to forget. Then, there’s the matter of the sheer number of innocent people murdered. We’ll be holding memorial services for months.

All these factors will make it more likely that the politicians will want to do something – or at least be seen to seem to be doing something – for months and years to come.

That could be time enough to introduce a smidgen of common sense into the debate.

The most encouraging sign to date has been the formation of a “left-right” coalition to encourage Congress to slow down a bit as it considers “anti-terrorist” proposals that could pose a threat to civil liberties. In a joint statement Thursday, groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, the American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, Gun Owners of America and Americans for Tax Reform urged political leaders to “resist the temptation … that anything that may be called anti-terrorist will necessarily provide greater security.”

As Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform told the Boston Globe about the attitude of the group, called Coalition for the Defense of Freedom, “We don’t like bad guys, either, but let’s not sacrifice our freedoms because the FBI and CIA want more power.” As he told me when I called him, “Everything Ashcroft and the others have proposed is tired, old power grabs that have been tried before and rejected by Congress before. There’s nothing new. They were bad ideas when Clinton was president and they’re bad ideas now.

Grover Norquist thinks the coalition may be able to slow down the legislative express at least long enough to engender a real debate on whether we want to make it easier for the government to wiretap people, bug computers, control encryption, censor the Internet and the like. All of these proposals were rejected when the Clinton administration proposed them, and there is little evidence that they would be all that effective at preventing terrorism.

Some may argue that it’s all right to pass a few essentially symbolic restrictions to signal seriousness, but new laws that give government agencies new powers are more than symbolic, and liberties once given up are very difficult to restore.

I don’t much mind an essentially symbolic gesture like lengthier check-in procedures at airports, although I question whether the federal government is the correct institution to impose them. Flying as a passenger without hassle on a commercial airliner is not exactly a constitutional right. In exchange for a service you pay for, you are entering somebody else’s property – and that somebody has the right to make rules. If you don’t like the rules you are free to take a bus, drive or stay home.

At the same time, it is likely most of the new restrictions on commercial air passengers are largely symbolic and likely to do little to deter future acts of terrorism. You could make a case that a better way to deter terrorists is not to check ordinary passengers for guns and knives, but to issue guns and knives to those passengers who don’t already have them. Mark Steyn has made a pretty good case that the nannyistic FAA rules could well have contributed to the successful hijackings, insofar as they encourage people to be passive because the government has things well in hand.

Symbolic gestures that don’t do much harm are one thing. But the beginning of wisdom on terrorism is to acknowledge that it can’t be eliminated, eradicated or wiped from the face of the earth, any more than evil can (at least in this life). As long as the globe contains one nutcase with high-school-level chemistry knowledge, acts of terrorism are possible and perhaps even likely.

For this reason, although it is understandable and justifiable to interpret the assault on the World Trade Center as acts of war, it is probably unwise to view the struggle against terrorism as a war – unless you desire to have this country on a permanent wartime-status footing, which I suspect some of our leaders do because it enables power-grabs and calls for unity.