灭顶级别的水平，08年总统奖学金得主了

ethanfly

作者是RJ 07的毕业生，08年获总统奖学金赴耶鲁大学读“伦理，政治和经济”学( Ethics Politics and Economics.  



How far should a government go in its counter-terrorism effort? [RJC Promo/07]

David Chan

Nietzsche once said, “In fighting monsters, be careful lest you turn into one yourself.” 200 years later, the symbolic resonance of his quote still remains. Even in this new age of global terrorism, governments often have to adopt a panoply of counter-terrorism policies to combat this scourge, ranging from the United States' Patriot Act of 2001 to the United Kingdom's Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1974 and Singapore's Internal Security Act of 1960. Yet at the same time, one questions the extent to which a government can go in its efforts, given the fact that when a state steps in to ensure security, civil liberties are often compromised.

'They that give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety'.This comment by America's foundation father Benjamin Franklin serves as a stark warning to governments seeking to limit terrorism. In the aftermath of September 11, Congress unanimously passed the landmark Patriot Act, which gave authorities the right to track conversations of citizens and the right to arrest and individual without a warrant. The policy appeared, prima facie, to be a necessity at that time; however, what ensued in its genesis was nothing more than ill-targeted efforts that failed in most cases. The arrest of Brandon Mayfield after the Madrid train bombings in May 2004 bears testament to this. After being interrogated and confined by the FBI for weeks on the suspicion of Mayfield;s involvement in the attacks, the FBI realized that it had caught the wrong person and had to apologize for its actions. Likewise, the United Kingdom's shoot to kill policy caused an uproar when policemen accidentally killed Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes. These shortcomings of the various counter-terrorism measures not only cause citizens to lose respect for their governments but also serve to undermine the credibility and ability of a government to combat terrorism.

The crux of the arguments lies in the fact that when civil liberties are compromised for policies which do not bring results, then these policies cannot be supported or implemented. Critics of the Patriot Act lament its ostensible abrogation of the US Bill of Rights, which accords its citizens the right to speak and be free, amongst others. Given the multiple failures of the Patriot Act, it is not surprising that he Congress is now vehemently opposing President George Bush's plan to institutionalize Patriot Act 2, which calls for more intensive counter-terrorism efforts.

Furthermore, it may be the case of pure opportunism that rives governments to implement counter-terrorism policies. After the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attack in 1995, the Japanese government allowed itself greater autonomy to seize the assets of suspicious firms and organizations. Likewise, the European Union was able to push a long-stalled warrant proposal after the Madrid bombings which allowed unfettered criminal arrests in 32 countries, even if these criminals were not suspected of terrorism activities. This opportunism t gain first mover advantage of sorts is hard to justify, given that governments often base these policies on the potential outcome(i.e terrorist acts) which may not materialize.

On the other hand, one wonders how effective these counter-terrorism policies are in combating terrorism. The torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay not only causes the United States to lose its moral high grounds but also legitimizes the terrorist acts of Al-Qaeda. Jemaah Islamiayah and the like. Terrorism is an amorphous enemy and the attack against it is, as George Bush puts it, ' a battle of hearts and minds'. By sanctioning gruesome acts of torture such as waterboarding and starvation which essentially abrogate fundamental human rights, you not only give these terrorists greater legitimacy of their cause to respond likewise but also perpetuate the cycle of intense hatred and animosity. Even if the Americans or the British or the Spanish are able to eliminate Osama bin Laden from the face of the earth, his death would only raise up a generation of fanatics and fundamentalists who will be more than happy to fill his shoes. As Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak puts it, the failure of counter-terrorism efforts would only 'spawn hundreds of bin Ladens.' Even if these torture methods serve to deter potential terrorists, the fact that they contravene the tenets of international law and the Geneva Conventions should prevent them from being accepted at any cost. The recent Congress campaign led by Republican John McCain against American torture is perhaps comforting in this respect. Yet, the fact that the wear on terrorism is an ideological one implies that more needs to be done to effectively limit its proliferation.

However, one cannot deny that 'the price of security is eternal vigilance', as Thomas Jefferson once wrote. As bound by the social contract Rousseau talked about, governments are intrinsically mandated to guard their citizens and ensure their safety. It would be inconceivable if the United States or the United Kingdom chose not to implement any counter-terrorism measures at all after their respective September 11,2001 and July 2005 attacks. The imperative to present a cohesive and strong front to terrorists remains the cornerstone of American and British anti-terrorism policies, and in this respect, credit must be accorded to these governments for preventing potential terror attacks from occurring within their borders, such as the detection of a possible 10 August 2006 attack in Britain. The need to cover up loopholes in the system remains paramount in this day and age of terrorism, which George Orwell terms 'a faceless enemy'. The arrest of suspected terrorist Jose Padilla in 2002 to find out 'what he knows' underscores the importance to level the asymmetries in information in this war against 'the faceless enemy'. As Dick Cheney says,' It is not about punishing him(Padilla) about finding what he knows.' If this information can be used to save thousands of lives, then it may well be possible to justify this extent to which governments implement counter-terrorism policies.

Ultimately, the inherent nature of terrorism has indeed given governments all around the world a justification o take action in order to safeguard its citizens. At the same time, these governments ought to recognize how delicate this war on terror is and the need to weigh their actions against the yardsticks of success and liberty remains evident. It is certainly true that no government can pursue a policy of either extremes and the challenge now is to find that balance that will ensure long term victory and success. Perhaps, as governments accustom themselves to this new asymmetrical form of warfare, the need for greater tact and understanding is no doubt greater. And while governments seek to 'limit the liberties of their citizens to prevent them from being a nuisance to others'(John Stuart Mill), they should always consider the extent to which this is efficient and effective, to avoid becoming a monster themselves.