8 ms·
The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless. I agree. H
by s_q_b 11y ago
The cynical view is that these people are simply using the attacks as a way to push through legislation that they wanted to push through regardless.
I agree. However, I believe the reason for this is more legislative laziness than anything else.
In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer. The executive's law enforcement and intelligence agencies typically have a wish list that they repeatedly ask the legislature to enact, because it would make their jobs easier. The legislature, under tremendous pressure to do anything and fast, does not attempt to really analyze the legislation, but rather uses every parliamentary trick to rush it through.
The executive uses these expanded powers to check off national security goals it already had in mind (see e.g. the hundreds of arrests during the French state of emergency.)
The end result is threefold:
First the executive is emboldened to at least look like they're increasing security at home and abroad. At its worst, it either draws the nation into a war on territory chosen by the terrorists (see e.g. Afghanistan, the rock upon which the Soviet military machine shattered), or needless wars of choice which drain economic and military effectiveness (see e.g. Iraq)
Second, the country experiences an economic shock far out proportion to the actual attack, due to the fear of the populace, which directly and indirectly depresses multiple sectors of the economy.
Third, the country produces highly visible, although not necessarily highly effective, responses at the expense of sacrifice of civil liberties and personal convenience.
What's more is that terrorists count on this reaction.
They know that the costs of the response will vastly outweigh the actual damage of the attack.These particular non-state actors are deemed "terrorists" for a reason. Because their most powerful weapons are not airliners, or bombs, or assault rifles.
Their most powerful weapon is fear.
They use that fear to cause nations to make poor decisions, then exploit those decisions to advance their causes. The only solution which I can devise is simply not let fear arbitrate our decisions.
We must announce, as one voice, that we are no longer afraid.
- jacquesm 11y ago> In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer. Ah, but therein lies a little problem: we probably can't be made safer and eventually this will become obvious to the general population as well. Terrorists have it super easy in soft bellied countries like the west. We have but two choices: change our societies drastically for the worse or accept the fact that complete safety and societies such as the ones that we live in are mutually incompatible.
- s_q_b 11y agoWe're definitely on the same page. [W]e probably can't be made safer and eventually this will become obvious to the general population as well... Exactly. How can you stop a few individuals from shooting up public spaces, especially in the United States? For that matter, how would you stop a pair of family members from carrying out attacks with homemade bombs? We have but two choices: change our societies drastically for the worse or accept the fact that complete safety and societies such as the ones that we live in are mutually incompatible. Agreed. If we win this conflict, but sacrifice who we are in the process, then we are no better than those whom we fight.
- vonmoltke 11y agoUnfortunately, when this dos become obvious to the general public the rhetoric will change from "we need this to keep you safe" to "we need this to minimize the danger to you". You can already see the shift in the talk after the recent attacks as the governments are trying to get ahead of this curve.
- jacquesm 11y agoThat has a very high probability of being true.
- leaveyou 11y ago"In the wake of a terrorist attack, the public demands that laws be changed to make them safer" = false. The public never said that. You can watch any public rally condemning any terrorist attack and you will never see: "we want more laws and tighter filters and controls everywhere and higher and more taxes spent on security and defense". That's what the government says that "the public wants". In reality most of the public just asks themselves why the authorities are so lazy and or incompetent to use the tools and the powers they already have and why so many terrorists were already known to the special services which so often "fail to recognize the danger or act". And I bet a lot of people start to ask themselves why these terrorists blame the UK, French and US governments and armies for invading their lands but they keep attacking UK, French and US civilians which, is obvious by now, are incapable of controlling their governments and armies at all. It's the governments and the armies who try to "destroy ISIS" not the civilians, wouldn't make sense for ISIS to attack governments instead of civilians ?
- crdb 11y ago> The public never said that. The "public" is not the people at rallies, not even what people in the street and cafes are saying, but the tally of the vote at the next election, and politicians act accordingly. As you can see from the first round of the regional elections, the French "public" overwhelmingly voted for more.
- leaveyou 11y ago"they act accordingly" by doing exactly what suits the power structure and their campaign sponsors best and the public never really wants.. what a convenient response.
- agumonkey 11y agoTypically the kind of things that makes me thing democracy as it is is broken. It's a self-sustaining low-hanging-fruit race. I wish I knew how to tweak it back into sense.