The impression I got watching the Fox News Terror Porn coverage of the recent British terrorism bust at the gym, admittedly not paying full attention, was that they swept up the suspects as they were at the airport. That this wasn’t the case goes not to the propriety of the arrests, but rather to the emphasis in the way the story was reported: lead with the quotes about “mass murder on an unimaginable scale” rather than with the fact that the threat was forming rather than imminent.
Now I see that NBC News is reporting that U.S. and British authorities had a “significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.” The U.S. pressed for an immediate bust. The British wanted to run surveillance for at least another week to gather more evidence. A “senior British official knowledgeable about the case said:
The suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.
It looks like this was some good policework by the British coupled with a lot of hype about the severity of the threat coming from political sources and the cable news networks whose advertiser thrive when sensational stories are breaking.
The message I get from the Bush administration and the cable news networks: Be afraid.
If people are scared enough, it becomes easier to say all kinds of things about people who question the wisdom of the War in Iraq or the competence of the Bush administration to prosecute the War in Iraq or the even more complicated War on Terror(ism/ists). You can call them extremists. You can call them traitors. You can say that if folks with such questions win, then America loses. You can even say that rejecting Joe Lieberman in favor of Ned Lamont helps “break the will of the American people” to fight terrorists.
But that kind of nonsense, conflating the war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with al-Qaeda terrorism among other things, only works if people are scared.
It was good police work by the British, calmly and thoroughly done with minimal hype.
It is my opinion that over the last 25 years, the security measures instituted at airports have been large wastes of money and time. There is no 100% sure way to do anything and stop anything, and all our draconian measures have done is limited the size of the hole in the sieve, but with little to show for it. There comes a time when making the hole in the sieve smaller becomes more difficult and more expensive then other measures.
However, having laborious screening and lines at US airports and rules, such as limited access in the terminal to only ticketed passengers, is only effective at keeping Americans afraid. I wish Americans would get angry with the politicians foisting this upon them. These politicians are helping terrorists be successful by not funding investigations that will be effective.
A study of police work finds that the hard way – well-funded narrowly focused investigations by competent officials – are more effective – than political cure-alls like the old requirement that all air travelers be asked if anyone else had handle their bags? After over 20 years of that requirement’s existence, I’m not aware of even anecdotal evidence that it had prevented any terrorist activity.
People should be screaming about the wasteful and ineffective screening and other similar rules at airports – and start demanding that the US government officials start doing their terrorist prevention methods the harder but effective way, other than the lazy man’s way.
What year is this? 1984?
Yes, but all this is nothing new to our history. We can go back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 enacted in response to the XYZ affair and during the Quasi-war to see an analogy. I think the Sedition Act particularly interesting here. It provided in part:
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be ho]den to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.
SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in Republication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
Of course, it is easy to paint those in power who enact such laws, or who take sympathetic positions such as Sen. Santorum has done, as having only the darkest of motives. In some cases though their motives may simply stem from an exaggerated sense of their own importance (a frequent afflication of many in Washington, DC).
Having said all that though, Presidennt Adams did have a point regarding Jefferson’s misplaced sympathies toward the French Revolution (and how it was playing out). Adams though chose a lousy way to respond.
Here is the quote that frequently comes to mind when I think about the toxic brew of fear, politics, and patriotism:
I’m pretty sure that Tony Snow said they had purchased tickets.
Also I love the “mass murder on an unimaginable scale” quote. Hmmmm. 9 airliners times maybe 250 passengers each. 2250 dead. After 9/11, and of course the tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq, I really would have no trouble at all imagining that scale of death. It would have been alot, sure. But it certainly wouldn’t have qualified as an “unimaginable scale”. More facts and less hype please.
To your point, T, MOST people couldn’t imagine the scale of murder from 9/11. Israel pointed out shortly after 9/11 that they share our greif, but they have had the same number of people killed every year. Just because you and I can imagine it doesn’t mean most can. After all, we had Pearl Harbor before, right? It shouldn’t shock us, but it does.
As to the point about Fox News: I know it is generally assumed that they are nothing but Republican propoganda. However, I was aware the morning this all broke that they raided a house and that they didn’t catch them in the airport BECAUSE I watched Fox News that morning. I don’t know where everyone got the idea they were getting on the plane with this stuff, but it wasn’t from Fox.
I heard a theory going around how this whole thing was a distraction to keep our eyes off of the Israel war since they were conducting a major operation that same day. Again, if Fox is supposed to be playing ball with Bush, they screwed that up too. With exception of the morning of the airline restrction, the Israel war got the first few mintues of the story, then everything else followed.
I’m not saying they are “Fair and Balanced”, after all EVERYONE skews what they report. I think they have as much right-lean as CNN or others has left, and the result of watching both is balanced. I think sometimes it is assumed that they do more than they do, though.
After studying up on World War II just a little bit, I’m able to imagine mass murder on a scale much larger than this.
But really, we’re probably thinking too much about this. We should probably just focus on how it makes us *feel.*
Maybe some Kent Brockman quotes are more appropriate than Herman Goering:
I think it’s a stretch to say that CNN leans to the left. They simply don’t lean as far to the right as Fox.
How much air time did CNN give to folks who suggested Saddam wasn’t all that dangerous and/or invading Iraq was a stupid idea? Compare that to the air time they gave to Bush mouthpieces like Condoleeza Rice trying to scare the piss out of everybody by talking about nuclear weapons.
I think it’s fair to say that all of the cable news networks were cheering on the march to war in Iraq. (So was the New York Times, for that matter.)
The media depends on ratings – people watch when there is something sensational going on. It’s in the media’s best interest to skew whichever way promotes the sensationalism. Add to that the fact that “fear and panic” gets our adreneline pumping giving us a natural “high” and people are willing to let the media guide us in that direction over and over again. I’ve noticed that since April when Indy had the large hale storm, suddenly ALL severe weather is being reported with “chance of large hale.” Since the fair is currently going on, two murdurs in Indy have been reported as “near the State Fair” even when occuring 2 miles away from it.
Side note: seems to me the *timing* of a bomb going off on an airplane could result in significant additional deaths of people on the ground; maybe that’s where the potential for mass murdur comes in?