SovereignLife for Offshore Banking and Asset Protection
On The Morality of National Security
The following is an essay I wrote for a communications class I had. It was written as an evaluation of a speech made my current Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff. Remembering this context will help you make more sense of the essay. The original intent of this paper was to evaluate his morals and values system, but it works too as a critique of "homeland security" in general. Or at least I hope it does!The Ethical Foundations of National Security Arguments
Though his speech to the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute on March 16th, 2005, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff articulated to his presumably educated audience his views on how the “War on Terror” should be carried out. Generally speaking, Mr. Chertoff appeared to perceive American national security as a worldwide project, involving governments and individuals from all over the globe.To begin, the Secretary characterizes this worldwide struggle as “...the greatest struggle of our generation”. He draws a connection between today's “war on terror” and World War II, arguing that today, as in the 1940s, Americans have the moral obligation to stand up to foreign aggressors in order to protect liberty. In fact, his description of the values of freedom that “...this nation has long subscribed [to]” effectively create a division within the attending audience. According to this argument, one must either side with his own “correct” argument, otherwise you are siding with the enemy. As is typical with many moral arguments, Chertoff does not leave much- if any- room for ideological or practical compromise.
The speaker then ties the concept of moral choice into the moral value of bravery and persistence. Evidence of this is found almost from the very beginning, where he says, “Of course, as with the Cold War, we know that this struggle will not be won for many years to come. This is a marathon, not a sprint”. Like his predecessor, Tom Ridge, Mr. Chertoff attempts to drive home that, though the challenge will last for many years, Americans can surmount such obstacles if they remain determined, alert, and resourceful.
About one quarter of the way into his speech, the Secretary touches on the core value of his moral argument, which is that Americans should “...adopt a risk-based approach” to national security, in which potential terrorist threats are evaluated according to their likelihood and potential danger to human life. He encourages Americans not to “shut down, board up, wall in, or become a fortress”, but rather to take some realistic measures to preserve what he sees as the “American way of life”. In stating this, he acknowledges that terrorism is a constant threat, but, at the same time, reassures his audience by countering that accidents and misfortunes happen every day, thus one should be careful, but not constantly paranoid.
In closing, the Secretary reiterates his belief that national security is built on the values of cooperation and community when he says, “Let me emphasize this: Homeland security does not simply rest upon federal action; it requires collective national action”. In addition, Americans must work together with other nations to further enhance our own protection as well as theirs: “We also want to look more closely at how we can align with our international allies to build common security plans”. Here, it is clear that Chertoff believes that cooperation is a pragmatic solution to fighting terror, and is more important than America's “independent” national self-image.
In terms of my own moral code, I found the events of September 11th, 2001 to be a tragedy, but I found America's response to the disaster to be even more tragic. After all, there are undoubtedly 3,000 homeless adults and children who die all the time in America, without anyone noticing or really caring about them. The federal government's use of the victims of the World Trade Center's destruction to impose itself on Americans is a disgrace to not only the victims and their families, but also to all those who die in obscurity every day. That said, I find Secretary Chertoff's comparison of the “war on terror” to the Second World War to be reprehensible, as it tries to disguise government interference as a morally acceptable course of action.
I also have trouble accepting the idea of an “unofficial” worldwide conflict to which no definite end is given, even by the most high-ranking officials. The Secretary may be in fact right that the war on terror “will not be won for many years to come,” just like the Cold War. Certainly, this is not a good thing at all. Like in the Cold War, today's government is quick to use conflict and “emergency situations” as an excuse to bully Americans and pick fights with other nations without good cause.
Though I do not agree with the doctrine of preemptive war as standard policy, I do, at least in theory, agree with Mr. Chertoff that the values of cooperation and logical risk assessment are sound. However, I would argue that harnessing the common cooperation of a people to facilitate their own oppression and censorship is fundamentally wrong. The main reason for this is that, as during the Cold War, many people have been arrested and held prisoner for false or weak accusations. While there were a few isolated cases where Communist collaboration occurred, such cases were very rare, and surely not worth the pain and anger caused to so many other innocent, law abiding citizens. Also, the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns could be seen as parallels to Korea and Vietnam, engagements that resulted in US military victory, but ultimately did little to solve long-term problems.
Midway through his speech, mention of the US-VISIT program is made. This system involves biometric scans of various types to identify passengers at airports or at border crossings in order to see if their profiles match entries in a secret terrorism database. I value my rights to privacy and freedom of movement very much, and systems like US-VISIT violate these values. If such invasive technology is so safe and private, why don't security officers and machine operators jump at every possible opportunity to show off their equipment? If the security people themselves distrust the technology, why should the airline passenger think any differently?
One point that I do agree with is the notion that the best plan for defending against terrorism, or really any situation, is to address the issue logically, and prioritize your information and response actions. If everything is taken in all at once, one becomes swamped with data and is unable to handle many of the tasks. Although this piece of advice is buried in the context of Mr. Chertoff's speech about national security proper, I would argue that the ability to prioritize and make coherent decisions is a skill that everyone should strive for in order to become most effective in work and life. His calling for higher levels of cooperation and efficiency shed light on the values of trust and effectiveness, moralities that we both seem to share.
The final value held by Mr. Chertoff is that Americans need to be strong and not let terrorists win by scaring us. This wording could have many interpretations. As a result, I am not entirely sure whether I agree or disagree with the Secretary. However, my own moral order would dictate that one should be resistant to fear, but not to the point that it makes you bull-headed and unable to see the full picture of a situation.
Most fundamentally, my moral disagreement with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's point of view stems from the apparent differences in our ideas of what the role of government in people's daily lives should be. For his part, the Secretary seems to believe that federal government power is essentially limitless, as long as “everyone is involved”. Total involvement does not seem to equate to group decision-making, however.
In contrast, I personally espouse a more libertarian value system, suggesting that no government, especially not the federal one should have the authority to get its dirty little fingers into my personal business or anyone else's. Especially if no one has actually been accused of suspicious behavior. As a result, I had a hard time giving much validity to Chertoff's modus operandi, or even the existence of his office and associated department.
Therefore, I just cannot buy the arguments in favor of the installation of new biometric bodily identification systems for a couple of reasons. First, as previously stated, I find such systems morally contradictory toward our rights of privacy and free movement, as dictated by the Constitution. Second, I find such technology to be too prone to abuse and compromise. Evidence of this can be found in a recent report by several evaluators hired by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to determine the reliability and safety of the proposed technologies. Their report, as broadcast by CNN on 3/29/05, cited several aspects of the system that shed doubt on the reliability and privacy of such machines.
I consider myself to be a very knowledgeable and experienced technical authority, and I have seen smaller-scale archives of personal data “disappear” or become stolen on a regular basis. An example of this is a recent case in which a popular Internet storefront had hundreds of thousands of customer credit card data stolen. To utilize the “slippery slope” scheme, if such things can happen with just financial data, imagine what could happen if data related to your physical body was compromised or abused by authorities?
Finally, the freedom of speech and expression issue is critical to the argument surrounding homeland security and terrorism. I understand the stereotypical argument that it is important to prevent criminals from spreading their messages to others in order to plan actions and to recruit new supporters. However, I believe that doing so is both morally and practically incorrect.
From a moral and legal standpoint, how can you argue with the freedoms of speech described in the Constitution, upon which all laws are supposed to be based? In a restrictive atmosphere, the words and ideas of anyone could become suspect- not just those of you and me, but even of the Secretary himself, however unlikely the possibility. I would be willing to bet that he would change his mind if faced with censorship himself.
From a practical perspective, widespread censorship makes little sense either. To me, It would make much better tactical and legal sense to preserve free speech so that suspects may be better caught “red-handed”, in the middle of an act. Legally, there would thus be more conclusive evidence of a crime, and investigators would not have to deal with the underground nature of communications forced into hiding by censoring tactics.
In conclusion, it is apparent that Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff and I adhere to many of the same values concerning national security, at least on the surface. If one is to dig deeper into the argument, however, it is clear that we differ a great deal with regard to the extent and methods that should be used to deal with this contemporary situation. Although I believe my interpretation of the controversy to be ultimately correct, I can honestly say that I have a good handle on what my opponent is saying. The next step, therefore, would be to use that insight to bring his thinking more in my direction.
If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions about this article, please e-mail me at powerpenguin@webwonders.org. Our next computer security article will cover Internet anonymity tools and practices. Please see our helpful hints in the Writings section of our site for more information.