Striking the Right Balance between Security and Freedom
WATANABE Yasushi / Professor, Keio University
May 24, 2013
A month has passed since the Boston Marathon Terrorist Bombings. I was particularly distressed by the misfortune that befell this town so full of memories of my days there as a student. At the same time, I saw signs of hope amid the tragedy.
I was struck by the speed with which the investigative analysis led to the identification of the suspects, the precision of the command structure in closing down parts of the city and, above all, the understanding and cooperation shown by the families, schools, churches, hospitals, stores and businesses toward the shutting down of certain urban functions. The Mayor of Boston and the Governor of Massachusetts lost no time in launching a fund-raising campaign for the victims, collecting nearly 30 million dollars to date. Citizens volunteered one after another to give blood and clean up the mess.
In his memorial speech, President Obama declared his dauntless stance: “If they sought to intimidate us, to terrorize us, --- it should be pretty clear by now that they picked the wrong city to do it. Not here in Boston. Not here in Boston.” If it had happened in Japan, a self-restraint mode might have prevailed in the nation.
It is important that the Obama Administration decided to treat this case as an ordinary criminal case and try the suspect in the open federal court system in accordance with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Political restraint was apparently exercised against the temptation to subject the suspect to rigorous interrogation in a camp for enemy combatants and conduct the trial in a secret military tribunal. When the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) released the photographs of the two suspects, it refrained from making any reference to their ethnicity or religion, lest such reference should incite hatred against certain groups of people.
At the same time, the incident brought into sharp relief the dilemmas within the American society.
For example, when the suspect became reluctant to respond to the interrogation after he was informed of the Miranda rights (the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning), the Conservatives insisted that he should be deprived of such rights. However, these are rights firmly established based on the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, the Conservatives adamantly oppose gun control, claiming that it violates the right guaranteed by the Constitution. One can hardly find these positions to be ideologically consistent. Nor is it easy for ordinary people with common sense to understand why the Conservatives, who vaunt their intolerance to terrorism, are so tolerant to gun possession (though they apparently have their own rationale).
Since the simultaneous terrorist bombings in London in 2005, “home-grown terrorism” has come to be a focus of vigilance as a new form of terrorism. According to the CRS (Congressional Research Service), there have been 42 cases of such terrorism, including attempted terrorism, in the United States since 2009. The shocking tragedy in Boston will propel the authorities to step up intelligence-gathering and surveillance.
President Obama said in his inaugural address for his first term, “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” and “we will not give them (those ideals) up for expedience's sake.” The inherent tension between security and citizens’ freedom is likely to surface further in the future.
Since the simultaneous terrorist attacks in 2001, there have been increased incidences of hate crimes against people of Arab descent and Muslims. Among these people, no small number has been subjected to police questioning or wiretapping, breeding mistrust and grievances on their part.
It will take time to get to the bottom of the bombing attacks. In the meantime, Islam phobia may be exacerbated. It is often said that if you treat someone with hostility, he or she will become your real enemy. To what extent does the American society have the resilience to break such a vicious cycle? Therein lies the true test of the supreme ideal of the United States, “Unity in Diversity.”
It is a test not just for the United States today, when people, goods, money and information travel so easily across national boundaries. There may be some in positions of power who misguidedly utter words inciting hatred of “others” and devoid of human warmth to show off their assertive vigor. Japan is not immune to such follies.
Yasushi Watanabe is Professor at Keio University. This article originally appeared in the May 13, 2013 of the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper and was partially revised by the writer.
I was struck by the speed with which the investigative analysis led to the identification of the suspects, the precision of the command structure in closing down parts of the city and, above all, the understanding and cooperation shown by the families, schools, churches, hospitals, stores and businesses toward the shutting down of certain urban functions. The Mayor of Boston and the Governor of Massachusetts lost no time in launching a fund-raising campaign for the victims, collecting nearly 30 million dollars to date. Citizens volunteered one after another to give blood and clean up the mess.
In his memorial speech, President Obama declared his dauntless stance: “If they sought to intimidate us, to terrorize us, --- it should be pretty clear by now that they picked the wrong city to do it. Not here in Boston. Not here in Boston.” If it had happened in Japan, a self-restraint mode might have prevailed in the nation.
It is important that the Obama Administration decided to treat this case as an ordinary criminal case and try the suspect in the open federal court system in accordance with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Political restraint was apparently exercised against the temptation to subject the suspect to rigorous interrogation in a camp for enemy combatants and conduct the trial in a secret military tribunal. When the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) released the photographs of the two suspects, it refrained from making any reference to their ethnicity or religion, lest such reference should incite hatred against certain groups of people.
At the same time, the incident brought into sharp relief the dilemmas within the American society.
For example, when the suspect became reluctant to respond to the interrogation after he was informed of the Miranda rights (the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning), the Conservatives insisted that he should be deprived of such rights. However, these are rights firmly established based on the U.S. Constitution. On the other hand, the Conservatives adamantly oppose gun control, claiming that it violates the right guaranteed by the Constitution. One can hardly find these positions to be ideologically consistent. Nor is it easy for ordinary people with common sense to understand why the Conservatives, who vaunt their intolerance to terrorism, are so tolerant to gun possession (though they apparently have their own rationale).
Since the simultaneous terrorist bombings in London in 2005, “home-grown terrorism” has come to be a focus of vigilance as a new form of terrorism. According to the CRS (Congressional Research Service), there have been 42 cases of such terrorism, including attempted terrorism, in the United States since 2009. The shocking tragedy in Boston will propel the authorities to step up intelligence-gathering and surveillance.
President Obama said in his inaugural address for his first term, “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals,” and “we will not give them (those ideals) up for expedience's sake.” The inherent tension between security and citizens’ freedom is likely to surface further in the future.
Since the simultaneous terrorist attacks in 2001, there have been increased incidences of hate crimes against people of Arab descent and Muslims. Among these people, no small number has been subjected to police questioning or wiretapping, breeding mistrust and grievances on their part.
It will take time to get to the bottom of the bombing attacks. In the meantime, Islam phobia may be exacerbated. It is often said that if you treat someone with hostility, he or she will become your real enemy. To what extent does the American society have the resilience to break such a vicious cycle? Therein lies the true test of the supreme ideal of the United States, “Unity in Diversity.”
It is a test not just for the United States today, when people, goods, money and information travel so easily across national boundaries. There may be some in positions of power who misguidedly utter words inciting hatred of “others” and devoid of human warmth to show off their assertive vigor. Japan is not immune to such follies.
Yasushi Watanabe is Professor at Keio University. This article originally appeared in the May 13, 2013 of the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper and was partially revised by the writer.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
安全と自由のはざま
渡辺 靖 / 慶應義塾大学教授
2013年 5月 24日
ボストン・マラソン爆破テロ事件から一ヶ月。学生時代の思い出がつまった街の不幸はひときわ身にこたえるが、悲劇のなかに希望も感じた。
容疑者特定にいたる情報解析の素早さ。市内封鎖をめぐる指示系統の的確さ。そして何よりも、都市機能の制限へ向けた家庭、学校、教会、病院、商店、企業の理解と協力。市長や州知事は直ちに犠牲者のために募金キャンペーンを立ち上げ、現在までに３０００万ドル近くが寄せられている。献血から清掃まで市民の自発的な献身も相次いだ。
オバマ大統領は追悼演説で「犯人が私たちを怯えさせようとしたのなら、彼らは間違った街を選んだ。ボストンは屈しない」と毅然たる態度を示した。日本だったらすぐに自粛モードに覆われていたかもしれない。
そのオバマ政権が今回のケースを通常の刑事事件として公開法廷で合衆国憲法の規定により裁くと表明したことは重要だ。収容所で徹底的に尋問したうえで秘密の軍事法廷で裁くべきだという誘惑に対して政治的な抑制が働いたといえよう。連邦捜査局（ＦＢＩ）にしても、特定の民族や宗教への憎悪を刺激しないよう、二人の容疑者の写真を公表した際、そうした属性については一切言及しなかった。
その一方、今回の事件は米社会が抱える難題も浮き彫りにした。
例えば、ミランダ権（黙秘権や弁護士の立ち会いを求める権利）を告知された容疑者が取り調べに慎重になるや、保守派は同権利の剥奪を訴えた。しかし同権利は合衆国憲法に基づいて確立したものである。その反面、銃規制については合衆国憲法で保障された権利として反対を貫いている。そこにイデオロギー的な整合性を見出すのは難しい。テロへの不寛容を誇る保守派が銃所有に寛容なのも世間一般には分かりにくい（一応、彼らなりの理屈はあるのだが）。
2005年のロンドン同時爆破事件以降、「国産（home-grown）テロ」は新たなテロの形として警戒され、米国議会調査局（CRS）によると２００９年以降に未遂事件を含めて４２件起きている。今回の惨劇を契機に情報収集や監視はますます強化されるだろう。
オバマ大統領は一期目の就任演説で「安全と理想を天秤にかける誤った選択を拒絶する」「我々は時々の都合で（理想を）放棄したりしない」と述べたが、安全保障と市民的自由のあいだに横たわる本源的な緊張関係は、今後、さらに顕在化しそうである。
２００１年の同時多発テロ以降、米国ではアラブ系住民やイスラム教徒へのヘイトクライム（憎悪犯罪）や人権侵害が強まった。職務質問や通信傍受など、当局による日常的な監視下にあるケースも少なくなく、彼らの不信・不満の温床となっている。
今回の事件の全容解明には時間を要するが、その間にもイスラム・フォビア（恐怖症）は助長されかねない。「相手を敵視すれば本当の敵になる」とはしばしば指摘されることだが、そうした負のサイクルを断ち切る耐性がどこまで米国社会に備わっているか。まさに「多様性の中の統一」という米国の崇高な理念の真価が問われている。
もちろん、ヒト・モノ・カネ、そして情報がたやすく国境を越え得る今日、これはアメリカだけの課題ではない。たとえば、「他者」への憎悪を煽る、人間としてのごく基本的な温かみに欠ける言葉を「威勢の良さ」と一部の為政者が混同してしまう愚挙は日本でも容易に起こり得る。
（筆者は慶應義塾大学教授。読売新聞２０１３年５月１３号に掲載された記事を筆者が一部修正したものである。）
容疑者特定にいたる情報解析の素早さ。市内封鎖をめぐる指示系統の的確さ。そして何よりも、都市機能の制限へ向けた家庭、学校、教会、病院、商店、企業の理解と協力。市長や州知事は直ちに犠牲者のために募金キャンペーンを立ち上げ、現在までに３０００万ドル近くが寄せられている。献血から清掃まで市民の自発的な献身も相次いだ。
オバマ大統領は追悼演説で「犯人が私たちを怯えさせようとしたのなら、彼らは間違った街を選んだ。ボストンは屈しない」と毅然たる態度を示した。日本だったらすぐに自粛モードに覆われていたかもしれない。
そのオバマ政権が今回のケースを通常の刑事事件として公開法廷で合衆国憲法の規定により裁くと表明したことは重要だ。収容所で徹底的に尋問したうえで秘密の軍事法廷で裁くべきだという誘惑に対して政治的な抑制が働いたといえよう。連邦捜査局（ＦＢＩ）にしても、特定の民族や宗教への憎悪を刺激しないよう、二人の容疑者の写真を公表した際、そうした属性については一切言及しなかった。
その一方、今回の事件は米社会が抱える難題も浮き彫りにした。
例えば、ミランダ権（黙秘権や弁護士の立ち会いを求める権利）を告知された容疑者が取り調べに慎重になるや、保守派は同権利の剥奪を訴えた。しかし同権利は合衆国憲法に基づいて確立したものである。その反面、銃規制については合衆国憲法で保障された権利として反対を貫いている。そこにイデオロギー的な整合性を見出すのは難しい。テロへの不寛容を誇る保守派が銃所有に寛容なのも世間一般には分かりにくい（一応、彼らなりの理屈はあるのだが）。
2005年のロンドン同時爆破事件以降、「国産（home-grown）テロ」は新たなテロの形として警戒され、米国議会調査局（CRS）によると２００９年以降に未遂事件を含めて４２件起きている。今回の惨劇を契機に情報収集や監視はますます強化されるだろう。
オバマ大統領は一期目の就任演説で「安全と理想を天秤にかける誤った選択を拒絶する」「我々は時々の都合で（理想を）放棄したりしない」と述べたが、安全保障と市民的自由のあいだに横たわる本源的な緊張関係は、今後、さらに顕在化しそうである。
２００１年の同時多発テロ以降、米国ではアラブ系住民やイスラム教徒へのヘイトクライム（憎悪犯罪）や人権侵害が強まった。職務質問や通信傍受など、当局による日常的な監視下にあるケースも少なくなく、彼らの不信・不満の温床となっている。
今回の事件の全容解明には時間を要するが、その間にもイスラム・フォビア（恐怖症）は助長されかねない。「相手を敵視すれば本当の敵になる」とはしばしば指摘されることだが、そうした負のサイクルを断ち切る耐性がどこまで米国社会に備わっているか。まさに「多様性の中の統一」という米国の崇高な理念の真価が問われている。
もちろん、ヒト・モノ・カネ、そして情報がたやすく国境を越え得る今日、これはアメリカだけの課題ではない。たとえば、「他者」への憎悪を煽る、人間としてのごく基本的な温かみに欠ける言葉を「威勢の良さ」と一部の為政者が混同してしまう愚挙は日本でも容易に起こり得る。
（筆者は慶應義塾大学教授。読売新聞２０１３年５月１３号に掲載された記事を筆者が一部修正したものである。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟