1. Naturally, we are chilled by these latest attacks in India, but it's not certain that they forebode any new attacks here. My gut feeling is that terrorism is not likely to disappear, or even decrease, because it is a more effective political tool than open armed revolt. That worked in Castro's time, but as more people in underdeveloped countries choose democracy and free markets, conditions will sufficiently improve so that extremists, whether of religious or political identity, will realize that they can never hope to mobilize the general population to bring down the government. The benefits of freedom will have become too much a part of people's lives.
No, terrorism will be the best weapon for these dangerous fanatics to destabilize the government, perhaps paralyzing it. As the global market heats up, they will feel even more pressure to take violent action. But covertly, and only against the innocent and unarmed.
2. Here in America, we are faced with daunting choices. Recently, a federal judge issued a ruling which permitted a civil lawsuit to proceed to trial. The suit was filed by two Egyptian-born men who were arrested and questioned by federal air marshals because they behaved suspiciously during a cross-country flight. What was their "suspicious" behavior? I haven't read the decision, so I only know of this from a NY Times article (11/25/08), but it seems that it was mostly because they spoke Arabic and were seen changing their seats. They were finally released after four hours.
What are we to make of this? Can innocent people really be arrested just for speaking in their own language? I'll answer that: of course they can, if the "totality of circumstances" are found too similar to the scenario of a terrorist attack, at least as conceived and rehearsed by trained security officers. But if so, how can we claim that the Bill of Rights still exists in the 21st century?
I have no answer for that now. In the meantime, I will read the judge's decison and follow the trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment