« George Will on John McCain, Campaign Finance Regulation, and Free Speech | Main | The Army Corps of Engineers »

May 13, 2006

Comments

How many terrorist attacks have anti-terrorism measures thwarted?

To say 'We do not know' is weak. The best guess answer by any reasonable person is zero.

Consider the evidence that there have been exactly zero terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. Not so much as a single bomb on a bus or other public place. Not one in the entire U.S. for five years and counting.

Has the U.S. gov't thwarted every single plan, or does terrorism in the US effectively not really exist?

James

I have a hard time with all of the party line justifications for these so called anti-terrorism programs. They all decrease our security against bad acts by the government. The claim is that they also increase our security against bad acts by terrorists, and that the tradeoff is worth it.

Trouble is, all of the methods that the government is supposed to be using to prevent terrorism are variations on the theme of central planning. That turns the private problem of physical security into the public goods problem of making sure that the central planners are actually using their powers and authorities to prevent terrorism, rather than accumulating power as an end in itself. Given the conventional understanding of the public goods problem, this seems like exactly the wrong approach if the goal is to increase security. On the other hand, if the goal is simply the accumulation of power, all of these programs make pretty good sense.

James

I have a hard time with all of the party line justifications for these so called anti-terrorism programs. They all decrease our security against bad acts by the government. The claim is that they also increase our security against bad acts by terrorists, and that the tradeoff is worth it.

Trouble is, all of the methods that the government is supposed to be using to prevent terrorism are variations on the theme of central planning. That turns the private problem of physical security into the public goods problem of making sure that the central planners are actually using their powers and authorities to prevent terrorism, rather than accumulating power as an end in itself. Given the conventional understanding of public goods, this seems like exactly the wrong approach if the goal is to increase security. On the other hand, if the goal is simply the accumulation of power, all of these programs make pretty good sense.

Mike Huben

The answer is bipartisan oversight, by Congress and the courts.

The Bush administration resistance to such oversight is prima facie evidence that they are up to no good.

"Impossible to tell" would only be true if we were asking for a ridiculous perfect solution. As in economics, usually we need to settle for second best, because decisions and judgements have to be made.

James

"The answer is bipartisan oversight, by Congress and the courts."

What incentive do these parties have not to collude?

The comments to this entry are closed.