At 4:32 AM -0600 2/15/04, Bruce Schneier wrote: > The Politicization of Security > > > >Since 9/11, security has become an important political issue. The Bush >administration has seized on terrorism as a means to justify its >policies. Bush is running for re-election on a "strong on security" >platform. The Democrats are attacking the administration's record on >security. Congress has voted on, and will continue to vote on, >security countermeasures. And the FBI and the Justice Department are >implementing others, even without Congressional approval. > >In the last issue of Crypto-Gram I published a couple of security >essays that had a political component. I was surprised by the number >of e-mails I received from people accusing me of bashing Bush (or >worse). American politics may be getting vitriolic, but I think it's >worth stepping back and looking at the political security landscape. > >I believe that the Bush administration is using the fear of terrorism >as a political tool. That being said, I'm not sure a Democrat would do >anything different in Bush's place. Fear is a powerful motivator, and >it takes strong ethics to resist the temptation to abuse it. I believe >the real problem with America's national security policy is that the >police are in charge; that's far more important than which party is in >office. > >Some of the Democratic presidential candidates for president have been >more rational about security, but none have discussed security in terms >of trade-offs. On the Republican side, I've read some criticisms of >Bush's heavy-handed security policies. Certainly the traditional >Republican ideals of personal liberty and less government intervention >are in line with smart security. And have the people who accuse me of >hating Republicans forgotten that the Clipper Chip initiative was >spearheaded by the Clinton administration? > >The Republicans don't have a monopoly on reducing civil liberties in >the United States. > >Rational security is not the sole purview of any political >party. Fighting stupid security does not have to be partisan. Bush's >White House has done more to damage American national security than >they have done to improve it. That's not an indictment of the entire >Republican party; it's a statement about the current President, his >Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland >Security. It's a statement about the current political climate, where >the police -- and I use this term to encompass the FBI, the Justice >Department, the military, and everyone else involved in enforcing order >-- and their interests are put ahead of the interests of the >people. My personal politics on non-security issues are not relevant.
-- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
