London Bombings and National Security
I wish to make some comments concerning the recent bombings in London. My prayers and sympathies are with the victims of this tragedy. Sadly, these attacks may only just be the beginning.
It probably would not take much to understand who would've done this and why they would want to do this. As it's well known, the British are actively involved with the war in Iraq, and Tony Blair has been a staunch defender of this war. All this despite the fact that a majority of the British public opposed military action. It's not at all improbable that the attacks (if conducted by Islamists, which authorities claim are responsible) were somehow connected to this fact. Sadly, these attacks maybe used as a pretext for attacking Iran or even possibly Syria, who knows! Attacking more countries will not help solve the problem.
I'm not really into conspiracy theories, but Roy P. Moore of the Distributist Review has done a very interesting commentary on this incident and how some of the pieces of this puzzle just don't fit. I suggest everybody read it.
One interesting point that Moore makes is how much video surveillance there is in London that it's extremely odd that the authorities would not have been able to pick up on this. Well it's actually quite easy. Much has been written about the many flaws concerning surveillance technology. Biggest flaw is the human watching the television screens. London is a very huge city with a large population. You'd need a pretty well sized force of people to continually watch those screens at every moment, but that simply is not possible in many ways.
In order to combat the terrorist campaigns of the Irish Republican Army, the British government has done much to step up its surveillance capabilities to spy on its own citizens. It's even possible to be arrested and held for several days without being officially charged with a crime. This was all done in the name of combating terrorism. Sound familiar? Well after the 9/11 attacks, Congress seized on the fear those attacks caused to pass the Patriot Act. This was done to increase police powers in dealing with terrorist cases.
Yet even the evasive powers of the British government(which go way beyond what even the Patriot Act allows) did not manage to stop this attack. The Patriot Act would not have been needed to prevent 9/11. In fact all what was needed was for police to enforce the laws they already had on the books!
The lesson here people is that governments often will try to use tragedies like these to push for more evasive powers and stricter regulations. Just like how the government used several of the school shootings to push for greater gun control (all of which would've done nothing to prevent the shootings), or even the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan to push forwards the Brady Bill. Yet in almost every case, all these new laws did was give the government more power than it really needs or should even have.
I strongly urge the British people, while grieving for those slained, to resist any attempts made by their government to further restrict their freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. I also strongly urge people here in America to resist any attempts made by the Bush administration to use this incident to renew or even expand the Patriot Act. Protect your freedom!
It probably would not take much to understand who would've done this and why they would want to do this. As it's well known, the British are actively involved with the war in Iraq, and Tony Blair has been a staunch defender of this war. All this despite the fact that a majority of the British public opposed military action. It's not at all improbable that the attacks (if conducted by Islamists, which authorities claim are responsible) were somehow connected to this fact. Sadly, these attacks maybe used as a pretext for attacking Iran or even possibly Syria, who knows! Attacking more countries will not help solve the problem.
I'm not really into conspiracy theories, but Roy P. Moore of the Distributist Review has done a very interesting commentary on this incident and how some of the pieces of this puzzle just don't fit. I suggest everybody read it.
One interesting point that Moore makes is how much video surveillance there is in London that it's extremely odd that the authorities would not have been able to pick up on this. Well it's actually quite easy. Much has been written about the many flaws concerning surveillance technology. Biggest flaw is the human watching the television screens. London is a very huge city with a large population. You'd need a pretty well sized force of people to continually watch those screens at every moment, but that simply is not possible in many ways.
In order to combat the terrorist campaigns of the Irish Republican Army, the British government has done much to step up its surveillance capabilities to spy on its own citizens. It's even possible to be arrested and held for several days without being officially charged with a crime. This was all done in the name of combating terrorism. Sound familiar? Well after the 9/11 attacks, Congress seized on the fear those attacks caused to pass the Patriot Act. This was done to increase police powers in dealing with terrorist cases.
Yet even the evasive powers of the British government(which go way beyond what even the Patriot Act allows) did not manage to stop this attack. The Patriot Act would not have been needed to prevent 9/11. In fact all what was needed was for police to enforce the laws they already had on the books!
The lesson here people is that governments often will try to use tragedies like these to push for more evasive powers and stricter regulations. Just like how the government used several of the school shootings to push for greater gun control (all of which would've done nothing to prevent the shootings), or even the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan to push forwards the Brady Bill. Yet in almost every case, all these new laws did was give the government more power than it really needs or should even have.
I strongly urge the British people, while grieving for those slained, to resist any attempts made by their government to further restrict their freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. I also strongly urge people here in America to resist any attempts made by the Bush administration to use this incident to renew or even expand the Patriot Act. Protect your freedom!
posted by Perun at
2:11 PM
2 Comments:
Thank you for your comment. Im not at all saying that police should be denied any and all powers to defeat terrorism.
What I am saying is that the police, if they would enforce the laws already on the books, would be more than able to contain most terrorist threats. Giving them more power when it's not necessary is dangerous for the freedom of the citizenry. 9/11 could have easily been prevented without the Patriot Act.
Catholic Social Doctrine warns against giving government too much power, because due to our fallen nature there's too much potential for its abuse. Hence why subsidarity is a key component of Catholic doctrine.
And indeed, much of these new national security measures violate that principle, since more often than not it gives the federal government more power to intrude in peoples' lives.
I forgot where exactly, but even Hans-Hermann Hoppe gave a critique of many of the myths of national security.
I certainly am not a Libetarian, but neither am I in support of giving the government supreme power.
Perun,
I think that we are philosphically in agreement, but in terms of the particular application of our convictions in this situation, we are differing sides. While I agree with you that we should be wary, for reasons of theology and practicality, of giving government "supreme power," the Patriot Act's provisions fall far short of such a grant of authority. As a lawyer, I can tell you that the Patriot Act as currently constituted does little more than simply stream-line and simplify mechanisms for law enforcement that the federal government was already authoritized to use. What the Patriot Act does do is eliminate a few hoops that the feds usually had to jump through in order to get information, obtain a warrant, etc. But it doesn't appreciably expand the scope of federal power. It makes that power procedurally easier to exercise, but it does not grant, in my view, very many new substantive powers to federal law enforcement agencies.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home