When the history of the first decade of this century is written, a long chapter will be devoted to real and lasting restrictions of civil liberties justified by vague and ephemeral threats. Even though Randy Kuhl's decision to lock the doors of his local service offices won't make any history books, it still fits the same, depressing, three-step pattern of liberties restricted "for our own good":
- Exaggerate: The real threat to Randy Kuhl's office is the embarrassment and inconvenience of having a set of anti-war protesters take over for a day. Since that threat doesn't justify a lockdown, his spokesman had to invent a new one: "future, more radical protesters". But even she admits that those threats aren't real: "I believe we have received some threats, but I'm not positive about the nature of them."
- Over-React: Common sense indicates that the real threat, non-radical protesters, could be dealt with in ways that fall short of locking office doors from here on out. How about locking them on days when protests are happening? How about working with police to ensure a more aggressive response? Instead we're left with constituents having to make appointments just to speak with members of Kuhl's staff.
- Publicize: As soon as the decision was made to lock doors, Kuhl's spokesman was all over the press talking about it. If it were smart to publicize every change in security, then we'd see headlines like "Local Bank Begins Use of Dye Pack Decoys". Since we don't, I have to assume that the real reason that Kuhl's change in security made the paper wasn't because it's smart, but instead because it fit his political agenda of appearing as a helpless victim of crazy radicals.
We began this month with a few harmless hippies spending a day in a couple of Randy Kuhl's offices. We end it with his offices on perpetual lockdown, justified by vague, unspecified threats of future radicalism. This is a classic case of "look what you made me do", and it would be comical if it weren't so common.
Comments
I’m really irritated by the spokeswoman claiming she thinks there may have been threats but isn’t positive. Yeah, right. This weasel-y language may work for wingnuts who don’t read the papers, but I doubt it’s going to be persuasive rhetoric for anyone else. I am pleased that Kuhl is locking his doors, however, ‘cuz that sure makes ol’ Randy look out of touch and like he like he is trying to lock out his constituents, who are overwhelmingly against George Bush’s fiasco of a war.
Michael Chertoff: "Summertime seems to be appealing to [terrorists]"
...sigh.
Locking the doors. This is more and more ridiculous.
There was chatter, Anne, lots of chatter. And a memo that read "peace activists determined to strike inside Kuhl's office." Nothing you'd call actionable intelligence, though.
I agree, Anne - it sounds like Kuhl's spokesman isn't even convinced herself.
If there had been an actual threat, there would be a police report and Kuhl would be all over the media describing the threat by those crazy hippies. Neither of these things has happened. There has been no threat.
The funny thing is: Kuhl's made his bones by being accessible. Even us liberals will occasionally give him a bit of credit for at least having the town hall meetings. It seems to me that this runs contrary to his image until now, and is probably not likely to endear him to his constituency, who will doubtless view him as a pansy.
But then, there's rumors he's not running again, so I don't know if it matters. But if it doesn't matter, why would he pull these stunts?
Holy crap... Is Randy going senile?
There might or might not be a police report - if the threat was made to the DC office, then the Bath PD wouldn't have one.
General point: Getting hung up on the threat, if any, leaves you one step behind. Just assume there was a threat -- is the response proportional?
By the way, that's good general advice for those who have issues with our current "take no chances" response to threats, real or perceived. The debate shouldn't be solely (or even mainly) about the threats, it should be about the intelligence and proportionality of the response.
Now I have read everything (the "lockdown"--lol).