Vol. 26 No. 7 · 1 April 2004
pages 10-11 | 2557 words
Post-Democracy
Richard Rorty on anti-terrorism and the national security state
Europe is coming to grips with the fact that al-Qaida’s opponent is the West, not just the United States. The interior ministers of the EU nations have been holding meetings to co-ordinate anti-terrorist measures. The outcome of these meetings is likely to determine how many of their civil liberties Europeans will have to sacrifice.
We can be grateful that the attack in Madrid involved only conventional explosives. Within a year or two, suitcase-sized nuclear weapons (crafted in Pakistan or North Korea) may be commercially available. Eager customers will include not only rich playboys like Osama bin Laden but also the leaders of various irredentist movements that have metamorphosed into well-financed criminal gangs. Once such weapons are used in Europe, whatever measures the interior ministers have previously agreed to propose will seem inadequate. They will hold another meeting, at which they will agree on more draconian measures.
You are not Logged In
- If you have already registered login here
- If you are a print subscriber using the site for the first time please register here
- If you are not yet a subscriber you can subscribe here
- If you are a member of a subscribing institution or University library please login here
- If you have an Institutional print subscription and online access is not included, find out about our Institutional online subscriptions
This article is also available for purchase from the London Review Bookshop. Contact us for rights and issues enquiries.
- print this article
Letters
Vol. 26 No. 8 · 15 April 2004
From Gerald Lang
Richard Rorty suggests that if, hypothetically, a major natural disaster were to occur, with the result that thousands of people died, the survivors could expect no fundamental alteration in their country's institutional life to take place (LRB, 1 April). So how, he asks, could it be justified to alter those institutions in order to avert the possibility of terrorist attacks in which thousands of people might die? This is like saying that, since there is no point in crying over spilt milk, there is no point in taking steps to avoid spilling milk.
Gerald Lang
Oxford
Vol. 26 No. 9 · 6 May 2004
From Peter Connolly
Richard Rorty denounces the US Patriot Act without mentioning any of its provisions (LRB, 1 April). It is supported by George W. Bush and the 'thoroughly sinister' John Ashcroft and that is enough to damn it. The act was passed in Congress by large majorities of both parties in 2001 and was intended to improve the federal government's ability to prevent terrorism. It included provisions allowing the CIA and FBI to communicate with each other about potential terrorists trying to enter the US, and to make it easier to obtain warrants to examine computers. The act also allows warranted searches of stored voice-mails on the same legal basis as stored emails, and national (as opposed to single-jurisdiction) search warrants for terrorism. It has not chilled public debate over the Bush administration and its actions. All of its provisions will be debated when it comes up for reauthorisation next year. It would be helpful if they were debated on their merits, weighing the sometimes conflicting demands of civil liberties and the prevention of terrorism.
Peter Connolly
Washington DC
Vol. 26 No. 10 · 20 May 2004
From Phil Edwards
Objecting to Richard Rorty's denunciation of John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, Peter Connolly writes that the act was 'passed in Congress by large majorities of both parties' (Letters, 6 May). True, but it's worth pointing out that the act that was passed was not the act that had been approved by the House Judiciary Committee, in accordance with normal congressional procedure. Instead, shortly before the vote in Congress, Ashcroft's office prevailed on the congressional leadership to substitute a new draft. This version of the act, rather than the draft that had been discussed, amended and approved in committee, was voted into law without members of Congress having any opportunity to read it, let alone debate it. One of the few votes against the act in its revised form came from John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who had sponsored the original act. Whatever the merits or demerits of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, to give it its full name, Ashcroft's conduct in this case goes some way towards explaining Rorty's characterisation of the US attorney general as 'thoroughly sinister'.
Phil Edwards
Salford
