13.7: War on Terror

The 9/11 Commission Report,(p.364) indicates that quantitative measurements are unnecessary for review of progress made or measuring success against the struggle against terrorism. The author submits that qualitative measurement through benchmarks, using a vaguer goal attainment is practical and more plausible due to the type of offense attempting to measure. The report is replete with the statement that, “America is safer, but not safe,” should be an indicator of the inability to measure success to the inch degree. The fact is that this country will never eliminate all acts of terrorism, domestic or abroad, as indicated in this report. Substantial progress has been made to date but more is obviously required. The greatest enemy faced in this nation is that of “complacency.” This nation must recognize the need for vigilance and personal involvement the U.S. cannot achieve our goals of being safer (both criminal and terrorist activity).

When discussing civil rights and abuses this nation need to take a step back and examine the constitution. America’s forefathers, in their creation of the grand and glorious document that was penned into flaming gold, never promised citizens that the document would make things easier, but rather directly or indirectly through its construct ensures it’s citizens they have access to the debate. The debate can be of government, legislation, human rights, civil rights, etc. Individuals must take stock in what is important to them as individuals, what is important as a free nation and finally make a determination or come to the realization that free is not necessarily free. During the research for this discussion and through practical experience, terrorist investigations mirror many of the daily criminal investigation. The overly abused term of racial profiling can only be applied where it is clear that race is the sole determination for the police intervention. Undeniably there have been abuses, and there have been severe response by local, state and federal governments when determined to be legitimate. The distinction between race and criminal activity is required and should be promoted for greater understanding by the community being policed.

Criminal profiling is found in the landmark decision of Terry v Ohio that has been the basis for police stop and frisk for years, not to mention incorporated in most police training. The Supreme Court recognized early on there are real and significant indicators of criminal activity or criminal activity afoot. The Courts further found a need for public and officer protections that required limited police intrusions in order to determine what is going on and safety simultaneously. The Terry decision came to being during the Warren Courts of the sixties, the reality of its interpretation is that it dealt with criminal behavior easily recognizable by a trained, experience and articulate police detective. What is important in this discussion is to admit that race has played a role in the decision making of some police officers. History will demonstrate that in fact race had determined policy for some police agencies. For the most part either an individual officer or an agency inappropriately dealing with citizen’s base on race they have been dealt with in some fashion. The penalty may be in form of fines or some form of federal or state monitoring or both. Not all rights violations by police have been based on race. As is the case of NY v Ingle and Delaware v Prouse, both dealing with car stops and neither based on race but rather Fourth Amendment violations lacking probable cause in search and seizure. Ingle was a white male, long haired, micro minivan driving individual that during the time period equated to drugs. In the Prouse case a pedestrian stop by an astute police officer that generally knew who belonged in his patrol area stopped Prouse because the suspect just did not fit in. Each case went down on separate issues but both had one common denominator, police must act based on reasonable suspicion/probable cause, not because they simply fit a self-determined profile; as remains the criteria today.

The U.S. Constitution should be viewed as business document and not simply a collection of individual rights. A business document detailing what government can do and cannot due. A contract between a government under the rule of law and its citizenry. The business of government is open to public review and criticism without retribution from the government as well as input through those elected. An agreement as to how government is created and conducted (open for debate but a salient point of governmental review). Therefore, as the business of this nation changes, government should change accordingly and one would reasonably expect at the same rate of change. Perhaps this may be a flash point for discontent. However, each individual living under the cloak of freedom provided by the U.S. Constitution must take stock in personal responsibility, personal behaviors, personal accountability, and personal involvement, particularly during periods of ethical uncertainties. Citizens of America should expect government to get out of its way without sacrificing individual rights, recognizing the overarching rights of society when dealing with terrorism. Terrorism is a relatively new business for America to recognize (albeit terrorism has been around for centuries but not here), fully understanding that terrorist may want to kill Americans for no other reason than being an American. This is in uniform or civilian attire anywhere in the world and at any time.

New rules require new thinking and perhaps those as submitted in this or previous discussion, terrorism will require a new set of rules.