WHAT DO 167 DEATHS JUSTIFY?

• Share

(2 of 2)

This argument for restraint isn't rooted in casual disregard for the murderous technology of terrorism. Quite the contrary. It is because this technology grows ever more gruesome that we should guard against overreaction in general. If one truck bomb can ignite a frenzy of law-and-order politicking, imagine the authoritarian impulses the next generation of terror could unleash.

Lurking on the horizon of plausibility are biological weapons that can bring a quantum leap in the magnitude of tragedy and are easier to obtain than nuclear weapons. Thankfully, they are not yet available to the Timothy McVeighs of the world. But a terrorist cell much better funded and much more sophisticated than the Oklahoma City operation could conceivably use a car or small plane to fill a city with anthrax spores, killing tens of thousands, if not more.

Obviously, as these scenarios grow more likely, we have to think about expanding government surveillance. And the surveillance may involve the monitoring not just of terrorists but also of biotechnology firms and medical labs where weapons could stealthily take shape. The infiltration of your hospital or your daughter's medical school may sound spookier than spying on some fringe militia. That's good. Apathy about civil liberties is too easy when the freedom at stake is somebody else's.

The growing threats from biological and conventional weapons are part of the same trend: ever wider, ever cheaper access to technology. As this proceeds, America may find it has little choice but to sacrifice freedoms, incrementally but often, until finally it feels un-American. But if that is indeed the path down which technological evolution is carrying us, we should go kicking and screaming, and with our eyes wide open.