I was sitting in front of the TV and flipped to CNN. They were airing a report on NYC’s steps to monitor the subways with more police in the wake of the London bombing.

For quite some time I, and I’m sure many others, have contended that preventing terrorist attacks is simply impossible (short of astounding and intolerable government intrusion). The NYC subway was my favorite example. Any person can walk into any of the hundreds of subway terminals, and from there attack at any part of the subway system. There is no security. They could use a small bomb, or even a larger one depending on which subway station they enter (caged vs. uncaged turnstiles). They may use biological agents, which could possibly spread quickly, says the Council on Foreign Relations, throughout the subway system (perhaps depending on ventilation… see this brief article on NYC subway system safety and see the story of Tokyo’s sarin incident).

Thus, if a terrorist wants to terrorize, it can be done. I don’t think terrorists, if their aim is to terrorize, would be dissuaded by their inablitiy to blow up a huge building or an important symbolic target when they could still easily attack some less extravagant target or crowded area.

Now, in response to the bombing in London, NYC is putting more effort into patrolling the subways. But what will these extra efforts achieve? Nothing has changed. Any person can still enter any subway station with a deadly weapon. By having more police in the subway, the small chance may grow slightly larger that a policeman will (a) believe someone is a terrorist, (b) have the confidence in this belief to question the person, (c) develop an even stronger belief by the behavior and responses of this person, (d) take further custodial steps (arrest, frisk, search baggage, etc.), and (e) be correct that the person is a terrorist. (forgive this probably inaccurate analysis of police-stops, but I imagine the actual policies and practices yield a similar conclusion… you just can’t tell who’s going to blow you up, and you probably won’t catch them)

But even with the increased police presence, we still probably won’t have a better chance of catching a potential terrorist. We beefed up our security exactly when it would be expected: in the wake of a previous attack. If your goal is to blow up people without getting caught, you will probably wait until after the knee-jerk reaction blows over (even though you still would probably be successful). The only way we could get even the slightest benefit from the extra police in the subways is if they stay permanently, which is highly unlikely.

And mind you this is only the subway. The subway may be a more valuable target, since it’s destruction can halt the economy of NYC. But if the objective is killing, there are thousands of targets throughout the country where people are massed together, often within structures. They cannot all be protected, and they will not be.

Speaking of my police-stop scenario, here is what happened to a beloved (unless you’re a Star Wars fetishist) national starlet (thanks to Lakshmi Chaudhry of Alternet). Even Padme realizes she could hypothetically inflict destruction in other venues than the subway tunnel (or in the theater with aid of a George Lucas script) to which she was denied access .

Atrios and Stranger of Blah3 are rightly disgusted by the silliness of our national fear, particularly in comparison to the UK. Blah3 also points us to www.werenotafraid.com.

Are the police really achieving anything? Or are they simply massing in the subways for our piece-of-mind (and political survival)? Or is there presence along with the media fear-frenzy making us afraid in the first place? I don’t know. But I don’t think I would be any more afraid of terrorists if I were to board the NYC subway today than I was before the London bombing (I would test this belief, but I’m away for the summer).

INDICTMENTS AND THERAPY

Once again, as I keep bringing up hither and thither on this site, Rove is on to something. I have a feeling that indictments and therapy, in a loose sense, are the ways to fight terrorism. We need to look at terrorism, even international terrorism, like every other crime. How can we stop crime in general? We can’t, at least not without massive policing. But a more effective approach, and a better investment, is to create social and economic conditions whereby committing crime becomes less necessary (economic stability, education), more morally and socially difficult (community organizing, education), and less relevant (legalize drugs, start a government cartel, thereby eliminating all drug-related crime… that’s the biggest step… for another post), etc. Policing is but the reaction when therapy fails. Preventative medicine versus chemo and surgery.

The same goes with terrorism. We can make it less necessary, more morally and socially difficult, and less relevant for people to engage in terrorism if we drastically change our foreign (and by extension, domestic) policies. If we provide REAL aid and support to the poor across the world, then there will be less reason for people to get angry at us… and if they simply consider us an ally, then there is no reason why they would attack. By removing our military forces from foreign nations, just like legalizing drugs, we create no reason for them to attack us (see the penultimate paragraph of the previous front page post by MrKedder). All of this is the therapy.

The indictments? They go hand in hand with the therapy. We are cooperative with other governments, and they cooperate with us. No need to invade (there never was a need to begin with in Iraq, and maybe even Afganistan if we turned over evidence). Real international law, not unilateral idiocy. Law and order, not mass destruction.

One would rightly point out that many regimes are dictatorial or extremist, and wouldn’t allow us to be the great angel of the powerless. Then perhaps we should support civil society and oppositions. Support them how? Financially? Shed light with our bully pulpit? Economic persuasion and negotiation with the uncooperative governments (most fascistic bastards you can probably bribe)? Perhaps, even military support, as a last resort to save oppressed people. War? In this scenario, we would actually have the support of the people, unlike our usual situation (i.e., Iraq, where we starved them first, invaded second… but the Administration has never had their interests in mind). Is Rwanda a counter-example? I would say probably not, unless you believe the corporate media’s general take on it, the “purely humanitarian” mission, which I doubt… but this will require more research.

This whole post is a little straight-off-the-brain, but I’ll leave it to others to pick apart the flaws of my case.

UPDATE, 7/17/05:

I found this post on In Search of Utopia blog. Supports my thesis from a slightly different perspective. What I take from it? Even in the most totalitarian state, there will always be dissent. And the more totalitarian the state, the more necessary it will be to use violent means.

Instead of instilling fear, closing our borders, and creating a police state, we need to take a cue from Spain. On CNN this weekend, I learned that after the Madrid bombing and the election of the Socialists, Zapatero took the counter-intuitive approach by making it far easier for immigrants to obtain legal status (though there appear to be economic considerations underlying the policy as well). Naturally, this means many Muslims from Morocco and Africa were able to gain legal residency.

UPDATE, 7/21/05:

So, the NYPD is randomly checking bags of subway commuters. They can decline to be checked, however, which only means they can’t ride. Insanity? Or valuable? A bomber will see a cop and not even try to board the train. Instead, they can go into a restaurant, or a crowded street corner. The only good that comes of this is the protection of the subway system itself, which is very very important, so I’ll shut up. But I imagine theoretical bombers can still find some other way to cripple the economy while simultaneously killing people. This guy from the article essentially agrees:

Andrew Morris, a 57-year-old New Yorker who had a large bag slung over his shoulder Thursday, said he would consent to a search if asked, but added that the extra security measures are essentially useless.

“I think these terrorists go where it’s easiest to go, so if you make it hard on the subway, they’ll go where we’re weak,” Morris said.

UPDATE, 7/24/05:

Found this post, containing an Observer article, over on Steve Gilliard’s “The News Blog.” The article speaks directly to the benefits of using traditional law enforcement techniques to battle terrorism and the folly of using military invasions (not that any of us really believed these Middle Eastern wars were for the purpose of fighting terrorism, now did we?). And it is written with *gasp* facts, anecdotes, and examples. I’m no good at that, so I highly recommend reading it. The title of the post rings tru: “the law works, try using it.”

And here is a tragically humerous blog entry by Mithras which also gets at the obvious problem with NYC subway random bag searches… there are lots of subway entrances. Are cops stationed at every entrance? I highly doubt it.