Are we any more secure?
By Diane Randall on 09/09/2011 @ 05:00 PM
A few months ago, shortly after I arrived in Washington to begin working at FCNL, I was waiting in Union Station for a train back to Connecticut when I noticed a local news channel reporter and camera. Sure enough, the reporter approached and asked if I would be willing to respond to a few questions.
"What do you think of the new legislation proposed by Sen. Schumer to heighten security screening on trains?" the reporter asked. Not knowing anything about the new measures, I couldn't say much. "Are you worried about terrorism when you travel by train?" the reporter pressed. "Do you think that measures that screen all train travelers will make us more secure?" No, I'm not worried about terrorism when I travel by train and no I don't think screening everyone getting on a train will make me more secure.
In the ten years after terrorism struck our icons of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, murdering thousands of people and disabling thousands more, we have reordered our public lives to accommodate insecurity. And our federal government has reordered, expanded and proliferated military and intelligence services to prevent another terrorist attack and to punish the perpetrators of the devastating tragedy of September 11, 2001.
The screening we go through at airports and the possible screening on trains is the least of it. More insidious is the growth of "security" forces and the militarizing of local law enforcement. And the greatest cost: the troops who have died and those who carry the physical and mental wounds of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These costs are emotional, financial, political and moral.
But are we more secure? Has the $1.3 trillion dollars spent on the "war on terrorism" made our country safer? Does the "see something, say something" campaign and the "homeland security" measures in our local communities find real threats to our lives and safety or do they perpetrate a society of fear and mistrust?
I'm a proponent for well-trained civilian police forces. I am happy to pay taxes for the order and structure that result from civilian oversight of effective police security. The short time I spent in Iraq in May and hearing Matt Southworth's stories of his time in Afghanistan last month make me understand the valuable role of effective civil structures and security in a new way.
I don't doubt that there are terrorists who hate the United States and who work to destabilize our country, but in the broad arena of federal policy, our lawmakers and we as citizens have to consider both the external factors that destabilize our country --foreign policy singularly entwined with economic and military interests; and the internal factors that destabilize our communities--unemployment, homelessness, violence, lack of adequate education or health care. We have to weigh the cost and benefit of what works to bring us true security.
As we mark this 10th anniversary of September 11, I am most struck by the individual human stories being reported in the media--the life stories of those who died that day as well as those who demonstrate courage, perseverance and patriotism in every way that is afforded to us in our democracy--by the choice to serve in the military, by the choice to lobby for civil rights and for peace, by those who knew little or nothing about Islam and who have responded with tolerance.
Less than two months ago, the world witnessed another shocking attack of terrorism when a young Norweigan man opened fire in Oslo on the prime minister's office and at a youth camp. In this apparent hate crime, seventy-seven people were murdered and people around the world were shocked that such an attack could take place in a country that hasn't seen that level of violence since World War II. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg’s reaction to the attacks: “The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation.”
This kind of leadership shows a different way than the direction we have chosen to respond to the violence and threat of terrorism in the USA. There is a way for us to condemn and shun violence and to pursue true security with non-violence. We can embrace our democracy with full openness and participation. We can live our lives with hope and love, building community and trust. Creating structures for peace--within the government and our local communities-- is the path we've chosen at FCNL.
Comments
Leave a Comment