Does terror have a nationality?
New fears. New travel restrictions.
I’m sure we’ll have a lot to say here at The Public Philosopher about the attempted terror attack on Christmas Day, 2009. Today I’d like to write about the new screening procedures that have been implemented. I flew from Oslo, Norway on January 2 back to the United States and, along with every other passenger, I was frisked and had my carry-on luggage hand searched.
That protocol will not be followed moving forward–not for every passenger, anyway. The Obama administration has announced that this heightened scrutiny will be indefinitely applied to citizens of Afghanistan, Algeria, Cuba, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Paksitan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen and anyone who is traveling from or through these countries.
The procedures will be applied to all citizens of these nations–even those who have lived elsewhere for decades.
The procedures, it seems, are not meant to imply that everyone from one of these nations is a would-be terrorist or harbors anti-American inclinations. They instead apply to those nations that are already listed by the United States as either “state sponsors of terrorism” or “nations of interest.” It may well be uncontroversial to say that these nations have either allegedly supported or been the locations of origin for the greater share of anti-American terrorism over the last two decades.
Of course, the very nature of terrorism — even state-sponsored terrorism — is that it is not tantamount to war between two sovereign states. If it were, these procedures would be less ethically troubling. A foreign national from a warring state is by his mere citizenship an enemy and could therefore be legitimately treated as such.
But terrorism is by definition an act from outside the state–even in nations where the relationship is more intimate.
Most worrying is the application of these procedures to those who have resided in other nations for decades. The apology will likely be a practical one: why ask every Nigerian who has lived in the United Kingdom to show proof of residence–especially to simply avoid a frisking and a bag search?
This defense is sound, but it’s important to remember that responding to an ethical objection on the grounds of practicality essentially concedes the principle. It means: “Sure, you’re right, but that wouldn’t be workable.”
Perhaps the best alternative would be to provide an option. If you are a citizen non-resident of one of the 14 countries, you should have the option to prove your residency and avoid the search. If that would not appease the security concerns at stake, it would be worth examining what we really think causes terrorism.
-Sam
Related posts:
- Should terror suspects be tried in court?
- 1984 at the airport?
- It’s hard to be a saint in the (war-torn) city
- iWatch
- Havel speaks
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
