Subscribe to RSS @
I have recently returned from a two week trip to the USA where I visited both Washington DC and New York. I have always enjoyed visiting America – I like the country and I like the people… well, most of them anyway. But as the Bush/Cheney era has plunged the country more towards true fascism, it is getting harder and harder to contemplate making future visits with any degree of pleasure.
In just two short weeks, I lost count of the number of times I had to empty my pockets into trays to be x-rayed, had to take my jacket and shoes off and walk through a metal detector. It seems that almost anywhere you go the men in black with their dour no-nonsense expressions, firearms at their side, are waiting for you while you join yet another security checkpoint line. And being a ‘foreigner’ almost guarantees a special bag search at airports or a quick scan with the wand.
I experienced the contrast most noticeably when I visited the NEC at Birmingham at the weekend. If this had been America the queue for security would have snaked out of the front doors while visitors were scanned, x-rayed and visually scrutinised. Being England, there was a polite notice suggesting that random bag searches may take place – sorry for the inconvenience. As it was there were just a small handful of guys keeping watch at the entrance and, no doubt, somewhere deep in the bowels of the building, a team watching the CCT feeds. Yet we are just as vulnerable to acts of terrorism as our friends across the ocean.
I have long argued that the new US security industry, fostered and mandated by the White House mafia, is mere window dressing and is, generally, a pointless exercise. After all, what better target for a suicide bomber than a few hundred people standing idly in tightly packed queues for a security check? It really only serves two functions: to make it appear that something is being done to protect the public and to keep that same public in a heightened state of fear.
The truth, of course, is that unless you really do have hard and reliable intelligence, there is not much you can do to stop a terrorist attack. To pretend that hardened and determined terrorists are going to be put off by security checks is quite obviously absurd. And if anyone really believes that a terrorist is going to try and get something nasty that can be easily found through an x-ray machine and metal detector, then they do not have the intelligence that most terrorists themselves have.
The New York University School of Law’s ‘Center on Law and Security’ has recently published statistics on US terrorism related arrests and convictions. (Source: PDF: Terrorist Trail: Report Card). This report takes into account every federal case in which terrorism was allegedly a factor between September 11th, 2001 and September 11th 2006. The numbers make for interesting reading.
In the period of the five years following the attack on the World Trade Towers, a period during which the Bush/Cheney administration focused so much money, effort, energy, manpower and media headlines on their so-called ‘War On Terror’, there were 510 arrests where terrorist related activity was a stated offence. Of those 510 defendants arrested, only 163 were actually indicted under a terrorist related activity. Of those 163 subsequent prosecutions, the total convictions are: 4.
(They are Zacarias Moussaoui, Richard Reid, Chao Tung Wu and Shahawar Matin Siraj. These individuals were convicted of attempting to commit terrorism. Three of the four had ties to militant Islamic fundamentalism. Moussaoui, once thought to be the 20th 9/11 hijacker, turned out not to be. Reid, the “shoe-bomber,” was apprehended by other passengers on a transatlantic flight. Wu tried to import Chinese surface-to-air missiles into the United States. Siraj was convicted for planning to bomb a New York City subway.)
What is more, the report states:
Nobody affiliated with a radical Islamic group has been charged with crimes related to chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons.
The spin that the report, the White House and Fox News put on these numbers is, of course, that their anti-terrorism measures are working. But the more reasonable and thoughtful amongst us can see a very clear alternative explanation. As the report concludes:
In sum, these numbers – and the stories behind them – tell us either that the threat is much less than we thought, or that the policies of the United States have reduced the threat of terrorism through deterrence, and, yes, through excessive vigilance. The overall record revealed in these charts suggests the presence of few, if any, prevalent terrorist threats currently within the U.S. Any future policy must be premised on this conclusion. It is time, after five years, for a sustained and comprehensive conversation about the domestic prosecution of terrorists.
The method of terrorism is to sow the seeds of fear – to engender in a population a state of fright and insecurity – a worry that they will be the next ones to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. As one who has lived through many years of constant terrorism and been in more bomb scares than airport security checks, the real terrorists in the USA seem to me to be those who live on Pennsylvania Avenue and out close to the Washington Observatory.
Andy, For once I think your tone is wrong, not what you say but the way you say it.
I think you have forgotten, that people like you and I spent a great many years watching our cities blown up by the IRA, this ‘training’, was thankfully handed out at a time when the CCTV was the exception, not the rule and the press reported the news as opposed to screamed it at us.
When I first moved to Tamworth, to work in Brum, about 5 miles from Spaghetti I can clearly the remember my colleagues response to hearing a ’suspicious vehicle’ has been found on Spaghetti Junction, and therefore the Police has to stop traffic using the Junction – a junction that feeds the ‘busiest stretch of motorway in Europe’, the response -" in that case I’m going to pub for a pint,after work the traffic will be awful"
In the same way when I went to work at Ford in Essex, on the day of my interview, June 30 2005, my interview took place 13 miles outside London, I got the contract and started on July 11 2005, of course in between a group of men and blown the crap out of London.
The only way to defeat terrorists is to be careful and live your life, you cannot let fear dictate, because then they have won, the reason I take issue with your article, is that you forget that to the American’s, this is like Pearl Harbour, whereas to a Brit, it is just yet more extremists, and I would like to think that we should be a little more understanding of their fear.
I agree 100% with everything you say and still believe 100% in everything I said! The fear IS whipped up by the administration and the right wing media.
On July 30th of this year, counter-terrorism ‘expert’ Juval Aviv told Fox News that there was a planned major terrorist attack against America in “six, seven or eight cities simultaneously” within “ninety days at the most.” Fox and the media went wild for a week. In 5 days time, assuming it doesn’t happen, I wonder if it will even get a mention – a footnote even buried in the small hours.
Most of the Americans I know, many friends amongst them, see though this and take the ‘English’ attitiude. But I have also met a few who live every day in fear. And they believe everything they are told – like the above.
I think I do understand their fear but let’s be honest – through all the years of IRA mainland bombing campaigns we never had to deal with a Bush or a Cheney at the same time!
On a related note, when I am feeling mischievious, it does no harm to remind them that they financed most of the IRA atrocities against England…
Working with an American at Ford, the latter point was slipped into one of our discussions, something about a state’s right to attack countries funding terrorism.
He conceded he had never considered that !
With regards to the expert, I was told and have yet to see otherwise, that expert translates into EX – a has been and SPURT – a drip under pressure.
You were lucky. Most Americans I talk to either don’t know about ‘NorAID’ or, if they have, think I am making it up that it funded the ‘troubles’. Mind you – I am not sure how many Irish-Americans I may have met…
I do know of a few Americans who believed noraid was for rebuilding roads and the like, in the same way I know of an American called Sally who was upset at the way the British had dragged their country into a war with Afghanistan and Iraq, thankfully the way I came to learn about Sally was through an American friend, Tracy, who lives here and corrected her friend Sally, who was horrified to discover there was ‘another side’ to the argument.
I’ve read that twice and I’m sure it makes sense, needless to say Sally and Tracy are not the real names…..
Well at least Sally doesn’t watch Fox…! Which also means she probably still likes the French and Belgians as well.
We were Bush wacked! We voted for the idiot twice. Well once, he just got elected twice.
Interesting article… although I think it was written with a certain angle in mind from the onset and that makes it fairly predictable in the conclusions. That said, there are a couple of points that are so obvious that I almost hate to point them out, but what the heck…
The comment about terrorists being too smart to get caught at one of the screening sites; well, duh! That is the point! The screening is not necessarily to actually find something (although it probably would have caught Richard Reid; he was that dumb), but to ensure that those that would want to do harm know that they would get caught. In that regard it works. It can be a pain, but it does serve the purpose.
The comment about not being able to keep track of the number of times you were scanned is silly. You were scanned each time you got on an airplane. For the most part, significant buildings in Manhattan will have you run bags through a detector, but that is not unreasonable. Unless you were visiting secure facilities outside Manhattan, the rest of the US (which happens to be a pretty big place) has no overt security. My guess is that you spend very little time outside Manhattan when you are in the US.
The comments about Fox News are… confusing! Why, exactly, would you care about what opinion any media outlet would have?
Lastly, if you choose not to come back the the US because you don’t want to get scanned at the airport, well, your life must be pretty rich already to weigh the downside of the hassle of air travel against the upside of all the US has to offer and decide that the hassle is just too much… we’ll miss you, but it sounds like your attraction to the US is limited to begin with.
@Bill Cage: Most of the time I spend in the US is outside New York. I have just returned from a three week stay that took in Nevada, Arizona, Utah and California and have learnt an important lesson. These places just go on with normal life – the only place I went through security checks were airports. Compared with the east coast this was a breath of fresh air.
But why should I not worry about Fox News? Everyone with an IQ above 50 should worry about Fox News. It must have one of the highest bullshit indicators on the planet.
Glad to hear your recent experience in the US proved it has been less “plunged…toward true fascism” than at first imagined.
As far as Fox news goes; wanting to silence dissenting opinion (even if it has one of the highest bullshit indicators on the planet) is actually the best way to “plunge…[society] toward fascism” that I can think of. Maybe we can start small (censor bloggers) and move up to eliminating Fox News. If we are successful with that lets then take on talk radio! …sorry, I’ll pass.
I stopped visiting the U.S. two years ago. Ever had the pleasure of being chosen for an “advanced security control”? Never ever again.
On the other hand – European airports do their best to keep up with these stupid security measures. First body scanners are installed right now, Amsterdam is using one for over a year now.
And finally: Yes, 9/11 was the worst terrorism act ever. How many people have been killed? 4.000? 5.000? But how much money has been wasted since? How many people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq? How many civil rights have been cut down? Do the math and put that in a relationship to 100.000+ victims of south-asias tsunami-desaster four years ago. It makes no sense at all.
@Neoras: You have my agreement. I am not so sure that 9/11 WAS the worst act of terrorism ever although certainly the worse in my lifetime. Terrorism is a very ancient method and always, ultimately fails. It depends on the response and in this case the Bush administration really did exactly what the terrorists wanted.
Saying what you wouldn’t do is always easy, especially in hindsight… what should Bush have done?
@Bill Cage: Gosh – I had to go back and read all this again. Nice to hear from you.
I think it was right that America should have gone after Bin Laden and the group responsible for 9/11. That had (and still has) my support 100%. Therefore something had to be done about Afghanistan. However a little night time reading of history would have shown the Bush – Cheney – Rumsfeld group that waging and winning wars in Afghanistan is virtually impossible. Many have tried and all have failed. There is also the issue of how to fight terrorist organisations and their allies. What you can’t do is take western style armies and march into such places and expect a conventional war. Experience in Vietnam should have warned them of this.
Iraq, of course, was a different issue and I believe that was more personal. Bush and Fox and Blair were the only people who made claims of (a) Iraq’s involvement in 9/11 and (b) that they had serious weaponry. Iraq should never have happened and that was obvious from before the invasion (and not hindsight!). And once again the White House went into Iraq expecting a conventional (and quick) war which is what they got with the Iraq army but clearly not what they were going to get subsequently.
The simple truth is that you do not defeat terrorism with armies and wars. The two wars were exactly what the terrorists wanted – that and the domestic fear. It swelled their numbers and forced other nations to ‘take sides’. I should do more research for this argument but I challenge anyone to name one real terrorist organisation that has been subdued by military action.
Stopping terrorism always comes down to talking. That doesn’t mean giving them what they want but it does mean finding ways of reducing and neutralising their grudge. This has always been the only real way. The key to all this was and remains Israel. The imperative for the last 60 years has been to resolve the problem of Palestine and that takes political will and courage sadly lacking in all of your Presidents except one (Jimmy Carter/Egypt). (Yes – and sadly lacking over here as well although it is impossible to do anything when America backs Israel without question).
It is interesting to remember that Israel came into being through American recognition (Truman) following a terrorist campaign against the British (and, if i recall correctly, the French?). These acts of terrorism took many lives but were totally condoned by the US administration. But of course, American lives were not at stake. The British and Europe begged Truman not to go ahead and recognise the state of Israel as we could see the problems that would ensue including the years of genocide against Palestinians. Plus this was giving in to terror. What needed to happen then was dialogue to control borders etc. What actually happened was the US giving the new state the support to do what it liked and we are still paying the price of that folly today.
Interesting perspective. I think you are right on in nearly every aspect, but I would be less likely than you to accept the stated reasons for the invasion of Iraq and then very easily discard them as flimsy.
Obviously what was done with the creation of Israel cannot be undone. If your premise is accepted that this is the root problem then the real question is what do you do about it? I think the statement that none of the American presidents have had the political courage and will to tackle this is wrong… I think it is that there are no easy solutions. Any one of these people would have loved to have the “I solved world peace” trophy on their resume at any price. Just no method to get there is apparent.
So, negotiation fails. Outright war against the “enemy” fails. Appeasement fails worst of all… What is the solution? The only thing that comes to mind is changing the culture at it’s base and that is very hard to do; particularly when these are countries generally led by dictators or a cabal that is very adept at stoking the anti-American/Israeli fires to keep their populations focused on something other than the current state of their own situations. It is not too great a mental leap to say that the only possible way to address this is if the people of these countries would have an opportunity to have a voice in their own governments and a stake in their own situation so that they would recognize that as much as they might want to strike out at those they disagree with, it is not in their own best interest. A democratic government tends to fit that bill. If you make that mental leap, then you might say that one long term solution to peace in the middle east is democracy. History would tend to back up that assumption.
Now, take a look at the map. If you were going to try to insert democracy into the equation what country might be a good place. How about Iraq? It sits between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria (among others). It also had the convenient distinction of being ruled by a brutal, hated dictator. Going into Iraq and giving freedom and democracy then starts to make some sense. Is it achievable? That is the question! Is it a strike against terrorism? Absolutely! Will we know if it is going to work? Check back in 20-30 years.
This is not some sort of solution that can be granted by a handshake or an agreement.. there are too many self interests that compete against the problem being solved that way.
@Bill Cage: I have to be honest and say that I am not sure Muslim countries and democracy go together that well. One sees the problems that both the Lebanon and Turkey are having as examples of how fragile this can be. I think I also have to stand up and ask the question why we/America/The West (call it what you like) feels that we have the right to impose any political or governmental system on another sovereign nation? Agreed that Iraq was in the tight control of a tyrant (and one that suited America at one point in history) but that does not give us the mandate to impose our beliefs and systems on their country.
But let’s talk Israel. I agree it is not through a lack of trying many times and I perhaps chose my words incautiously. Of course every US President would love to be remembered as the one who solved the ‘Middle East’. The real problem is the 100% unswerving support for anything Israel does. Was there an outcry from Washington when Israel built nuclear weapons? When they built ‘the Wall’? When they bulldozed whole Palestinian settlements? When they extended their own borders? There is, let’s be honest, a very powerful Jewish lobby in the USA…
I firmly believe that the only way to solve the Israel/Palestine problem is to start making that support conditional…
First, I won’t defend the “moral” argument about what right does the West (primarily the US) have to impose a system of government on another country. The only right we have to impose any thing on anyone is simply because we can (or at least we have the wherewithal to attempt to impose) . Even worse we are purely motivated by our own self interests. That said, “so?” Why would we expect to be any different than any other country in a similar position throughout history (can you say “colonialism”). Now that we lost the moral argument, look more at the pragmatic.
If the middle east exported only their oil and not their violence, the West (US) would not have a military presence there. Fact is, we are plenty lazy enough to let well enough alone. We are motivated only by self interests; no surprise there.
Maybe less than 100% support of Israel would please some in the middle east, but again, the history books seem to dim the prospects of this actually working. Once again, other countries and individuals are also working in their own best interests. Arafat torpedoed some very reasonable offerings put forward by Israel (after being pushed very hard by the US) because it was in his own best interests to NOT have the Palestinian issue solved. As far as 100% support goes, that is what comes with being an ally. The US and Britain do not agree on 100% of things, but we support each other 100% that is what allies do. As an American, I am comfortable with 100% support of Israel and I am comfortable that we get 100% support in return. We don’t agree with all of Israels policies; we just have to get over that.
Although I agree that the creation of Israel has proven to be a spark that has lead to an incredible amount of strife, I disagree with you that the solution now lies in the Israeli condition. I tend to believe that if by some process the state of Israel were eliminated and the land and people simply merged into the bordering countries or even if they flipped the country from Israel to Palestine; I don’t think the middle east problem would be solved. There is a more fundamental battle being waged there and it is more about a religion. Not solvable.
Lastly, the comment about the fragility of Turkey and Lebanon is interesting since they are both examples of what democracy does. Lebanon is more complicated due to the Syrian aspect, but in general, both countries work well both within and outside their borders…. and they are muslim. If Iraq were to become as successful and as stable as Turkey, you might start to see real change in the area. Of course, it could just as easily slip the other direction and we are moving backward.
@Bill Cage: …”If the middle east exported only their oil and not their violence, the West (US) would not have a military presence there.”…
Ah…. but which came first and was a reaction to the other?