 |
||||||||
 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
 |
Securing nation is a delicate balance
© St. Petersburg Times WASHINGTON -- If you have ever been the parent of a teenager, you can understand why the government is having so much trouble dealing with the threat of terrorism. The dilemma for parents is how to retain some control while, at the same time, allowing their teenager to experience autonomy. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to do both things at once. That's one reason why parenting is so difficult. The government, likewise, wants to protect us from danger while at the same time allowing us to enjoy the freedoms and privileges of modern life. A perfect balance between those two goals is also impossible. Consider these examples: An advisory committee will hold public hearings around the country in the next few weeks to solicit advice on the question of who -- if anyone -- should be vaccinated against smallpox. Many people fearful that terrorists will unleash a smallpox epidemic in the United States are urging President Bush to make vaccinations widely available, and perhaps mandatory. These people will surely blame him if the country proves unprepared for such an attack. But if Bush decides to vaccinate everyone, he will open himself to a different kind of criticism. Hundreds of people would likely die from the vaccine, which is not entirely safe. And, because the chances of a smallpox epidemic are small, vaccinating everyone would seem to be a brutal solution to an uncertain problem. The administration must decide whether to delay the Dec. 31 deadline for examining all baggage that travels on U.S. airliners. A law passed earlier this year would require screening of all baggage by that date, but most airports do not have the equipment to meet the deadline. The only way to do it would be to inconvenience travelers more than they already are. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta has said he does not intend to ask Congress for an extension. But officials of the nation's busiest airports are sure to make a fuss. If the deadline is delayed and terrorists succeed in smuggling explosives onto a plane, those who supported the delay will be blamed. If harsher measures are imposed, that decision will also be second-guessed. Police at the U.S. Capitol have been increasing security measures around the building for about two decades, ever since a bomb was detonated in the hallway outside the Senate chamber. Since Sept. 11, access to the building has been seriously restricted. Tourists and others who are used to having unfettered access to the Capitol think the emphasis on security has gone too far. A federal appeals court ruled last Friday that it is unconstitutional for the Capitol police to bar protesters from demonstrating around the entrances. Yet if terrorists ever succeed in blowing up the Capitol or killing members of Congress, you can be sure the public and the press will blame the Capitol police. There is no wrong or right way to decide these matters. When we are asked to weigh our desire for safety against our national values, it demands a judgment call. But we also should not leave these decisions to chance. Like parents of adolescents, we need to discuss and agree upon a philosophy we will use. There should be some consistency in how these matters are resolved. The job of proposing a nationwide consensus for balancing these concerns naturally belongs to the president. He's the one who should be saying, "We are going to take prudent steps to improve our safety, but we are not going to trample on the Constitution or victimize our citizens to do it." Like every parent, we also need to realize that it is not possible to foresee or prevent every threat. Bush needs to remind us that no matter what we do, nothing is certain to keep us completely out of harm's way.
 © 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 
|
|
Times columns today Howard Troxler Sara Fritz |
