As the nation deals with the aftermath of the attack in Boston, Mass. last week, some in the nation’s capital reacted quickly to use the attacks to justify their political goals on border security and immigration reform.
On both sides of the aisle, voices have mounted to assert that changes have to be made, from border security and stricter background checks to amnesty, because the two suspects were immigrants from Chechnya.
It’s unfortunate to see that some lawmakers are trying to exploit the tragic events in Boston to advance their legislative agendas, and it doesn’t logically follow that tightening the measure of national security and applying stricter rules on the immigration system may restore public’s sense of safety.
The emotional, political arguments haven’t made much sense so far. First, the Tsarnaev brothers didn’t sneak across the border to get into the U.S., nor were they here illegally. Second, none of the “new security” measures in the Senate immigration bill, such as biometric exit, would have helped to better track the terrorists.
Instead, the Department of Homeland Security admits it knew when the older Tsarnaev brother left the country to travel to Chechnya and Dagestan. In other words, the existing system worked.
We don’t know whether the Tsarnaevs were radicalized before immigrating here or after they came to the United States. Any attempt to relate Boston to argue that we need to strengthen our immigration measures so that we are able to identify “who is here” is simply getting ahead of the facts.
Conventional wisdom about preventing an attack is to make sure our intelligence and law enforcement have the resources they need to stop terrorists long before the public is in danger. Tragically, this was not the case in Boston.
It’s an unfortunate reminder of the fact that no matter how good our counterterrorism efforts are, we will never be able to stop every threat. The FBI interrogated the elder Tsarnaev brother a couple of years ago, but it didn’t notice anything suspicious.
Our intelligence and law enforcement know what they are doing. Indeed, their actions have been vital in busting most of the 54 Islamist terrorist plots foiled since 9/11.
Do these attacks imply that we need more government power to protect us, or should we treat them as daily accidents like car crashes?
We are falling into a dilemma. On one hand, if we demand more governmental power to prevent these tragedies, our society would be turning into a police state in which the police force is the largest terrorist group. On the other hand, suppose we follow our due process of law and limit the police power as we usually do; we certainly cannot prevent every attack. Intelligence agents should not bear the blame at this point.
While most of the witnesses of the Boston attack are still traumatized, emotionally and physically, it’s understandable that they demand more in terms of security. But they should also be reminded that what builds a great and peaceful society is not police force, but the rule of law, which can’t prevent all the crimes or tragedies, but can bring the responsible to justice.
The danger of an abusive government power always outruns the danger of those terrorist attacks. No matter how much money and manpower we pour into the counterterrorist cause, it’s still impossible to eliminate every plot. We are better off not eroding our rights by granting the government more power.
