Privacy vs. Security?
It would be nice to have confidence in our law enforcement people, but with the sniper rampage in the Washington area going on for three weeks, seemingly unchallenged, that's difficult. The sniper team, through messages left at the scene and phone calls to police and priests, seems to have been trying to be caught. Indeed, if it weren’t for their persistence, it’s questionable whether they might not have assassinated another ten people before they were stumbled upon by the police.
This morning, political and police authorities lined up live on CNN to pat themselves on the back and praise the lord and everyone involved for "making our community safe." Governors, senators, and law enforcement trotted up to the microphone to express their great relief that the killers have been arrested. (NB: I should say alleged, but only because they haven’t been convicted. The evidence against the pair seems overwhelming.)
The fellow titularly in charge, the Montgomery Moose, was in well over his head. He had a tantrum early on when someone leaked information about a tarot card found at the scene of one of the shootings. I wondered if he was right to be upset. As a journalist, I like information to be leaked, but I wondered if such would impede the investigation.
Upon further reflection, I decided not, and for several reasons. First, it was likely that the capture would come only when someone somehow identified the sniper; a surrender seemed unlikely. So the more information the public had, the more likely someone would make a connection and call the police. Second, it must be presumed that the sniper left the tarot card and other messages to see his work in the media; why else would he have done it? That meant that the less coverage he received, the more likely he was to push the outrage envelope, killing more and leaving more messages. Which meant that the police could have been mollifying him to some degree by releasing all of the information that they had.
There didn't seem to be a pattern in choosing victims, by who or where or when, which made it a more terrifying problem. The fact that over a thousand law enforcement were involved in the manhunt might have been of some comfort if they had been turning up any clues, which they didn't seem to be doing, or if they had given the impression that they were working together, which also seems not to have been the case, at least according to a New York Times article which described a chaotic lack of coordination, with turfing amongst locals and feds apparently rampant.
According the article, the morning conference calls among chiefs of the investigation had left out a good deal of information, apparently for fear of leaks. Further, many of the people in the field were being left out of the global loop for the same reason, which didn't make a great deal of sense. If the police were to make a connection in this case, it would have clearly behooved controlling authorities to give them all of the facts. Especially considering that they'd accomplished nothing by sitting on what little information they'd managed to collect.
Should the feds have taken control of the investigation? Considering that (1) the FBI hasn't found the anthrax mailer, (2) their penchant for top-down stifling of fresh approaches, and (3) Ashcroft is a gun nut who refuses to use the resources he already has, didn't recommend them for the job. But the locals were hardly at the top of their game. Reports have it that they had already hung up on the man they believe to be the sniper several times, at least according to what was said to be in a letter found by police last weekend at the scene of one of the shootings.
Who knows? No one in authority. Why should we think the killer would ever have been caught unless he slipped up? There was no reason to be hopeful. The gun-nut lobby might think we shouldn't have laws to protect us from mass murderers, but ballistic fingerprints would be a good if late start on identifying psychotics early in their murder sprees.
I would go further. At risk of upsetting my liberal friends, I would restate my support for a national identify card. I have a Social Security card, driver’s license, FAA pilot’s license, and have been investigated by the feds for a concealed weapons permit. Who ain’t gonna be able to identify me? I would add that everyone should be fingerprinted and DNA’d. Why not? We’re law-abiding citizens, aren’t we, desirous of living in a safe community?
Indeed, the public is probably ready to relinquish considerably more rights to privacy if this sort of act could be prevented, and it could be done without ever giving up legitimate rights to safely bear appropriate arms.
And that's SetonnoteS...I'm Tony Seton.
.