Can we be safe and free? The dilemma terrorism creates - Law & Justice

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Jan, 2003 by Gene Stephens

In this climate of fear, "hawks" often gain the upper hand by insisting disaster is ahead unless the "enemy" is exterminated and the military/enforcement strength is enhanced to deter future attacks/crimes. While most Americans have supported a military strike as one option, few feel this will provide safety or solve the problem. In this environment, Americans are likely to continue to endure some inconveniences and intrusions (i.e., questioning, surveillance, producing identification on demand) by officials, but with no real belief that this will make them significantly safer from terrorists, they are unlikely to give up any basic liberties permanently or even for a lengthy period of time.

The stage seems set then for a search for new directions in the fight against crime and terrorism. Maybe it's time for more high-touch initiatives. Possibly the best explanation for the sharp decrease in street crime in the U.S. over the last decade has been the "weed-and-seed" approach taken in most cities and many rural police agencies. Whereas technology can't be used in this strategy, the major thrust is to weed out current problems by using street-sweeping ordinances (e.g., vagrancy, loitering, public drunkenness, and drug possession) to get the immediate problem individuals off the streets and behind bars, even if for only a short time. Then the "seed" must be planted--everything from job training to schools with nurseries for teenage mothers to assistance in budgeting and housekeeping and after-school jobs and recreation programs for students--so the neighborhood will gain pride in its possibilities and refuse to put up with drag dealing, burglary, assault, and other crimes. Some of the best "seed" programs have involved tenant management of public housing, where residents have cleaned up their homes and grounds and demanded that anyone living there do the same and stay out of trouble with the law or face eviction. Combined with community-oriented policing, a partnership has evolved between police and citizens to do frequent needs analyses to determine what problems have the potential of creating crime-breeding situations and then jointly developing and carrying out a plan to solve them, often bringing public and private social services groups into the communal effort. Where this high-touch effort has been implemented fully, criminal activities have decreased.

The lasting residual of such programs is a more-aware community of citizens who have seen crime curtailed by their joint efforts with government agents--residents who are less fearful and more confident that something can be done and their lives can be made safer by such partnerships. This may be what is needed to have any long-term impact on reducing the threat of terrorism.

After World War II, much of Europe and Asia was in ruins. Pres. Harry Truman and other leaders of Allied countries instituted the Marshall Plan to rebuild the war-torn nations--including the Axis countries (e.g., Germany and Japan). Today, those nations are again socioeconomic powerhouses and can be counted as allies, rather than enemies. Maybe it's time for a similar 21st-century effort.