“Lockdown” has become an increasingly frequent term in the
news. I don’t merely mean frequency of usage, but frequency of the phenomenon
denoted by that term.
It’s not just that lockdowns seem to be more frequent, but
the scope of lockdowns is quietly and steadily expanding. At least that’s my impression.
When I was growing up (60s-70s), lockdowns were limited to
prisons when inmates rioted. At least that’s my recollection.
But more recently, you have school lockdowns when a
suspected shooter is on the loose. I understand that authorities wish to contain
the area to prevent the suspect from escaping, but in the process they are
locking students in with the shooter. I often wonder if that’s even legal. Do
school administrators (or local police) have the authority to prevent students
from exiting the building when they feel–often rightly–that their lives are
endangered by hiding huddled in classrooms as the sniper goes from room to
room, seeking fresh victims?
Be that as it may, the Boston bombing introduced a citywide
lockdown. Hotels were locked down within a certain radius of the crime scene.
What does that mean, exactly? Does that mean there were
security guards or policemen stationed at hotel exits? What would happen if you
tried to exit the hotel? Would you be arrested? Shot on sight?
Although it maybe convenient for the authorities to declare
a lockdown–the better to facilitate their manhunt–is that legal? Doesn’t that
really assume an undeclared state of martial law, where normal civil liberties
are suspended and authorities can impose a curfew on the citizens?
It looks like we’re beginning to take lockdowns for granted,
as a normal part of life, even though that’s extralegal or unconstitutional.
When did Americans agree to this? Is this an Act of Congress?
Moreover, this involves a false dichotomy. We know the
profile for likely suspects in terrorist incidents: twenty-something male
Muslim bachelors.
Why should all ordinary Americans surrender their civil
liberties to protect Muslims?
Liberals scream “racial profiling,” and unilaterally take
the profiling of Muslims off the table. That leads to the false dichotomy:
between public safety and civil liberties.
Even setting aside the civil liberties issues, what are the opportunity costs of adopting this attitude of hyper-safety-ism? Risk aversion is costly and paralyzing:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=48833#comments