Living with Risk is the Cost of Freedom
We always seem surprised.
Even after Oct. 1, 1910, when a bomb destroyed the Los Angeles Times building and killed 20 men.
And Nov. 24, 1917, when 10 people died in the bombing of a police station in Milwaukee.
And Sept. 16, 1920, when 38 people lost their lives in a bombing on Wall Street.
And May 18, 1927, when 45 people, most of them children, died in a school bombing in Bath Township, Mich.
And Sept. 15, 1963, when four little girls died in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.
And Feb. 26, 1993, when a bomb in a basement of the World Trade Center left six people dead.
And April 19, 1995 when a truck bomb destroyed a federal building in Oklahoma City, claiming 168 lives.
And Sept. 11, 2001, when nearly 3,000 people were killed by hijackers who used captured jetliners as guided missiles.
Even after all those episodes and dozens more, we always seem surprised, always persist in believing the unbelievable: terrorism happens in other places, it doesn’t happen here.
No, it’s never said in those words. Rather it is something said "between" the words, something audible in the indignant tone of the news anchor, something seen in the shocked eyes of the bystander, something felt in the chambers of one’s own heart where one is surprised — and surprised to be.
Because terrorism "doesn’t happen here." And when it does, it feels as if the universe is playing with marked cards and loaded dice. It feels as if you’ve been cheated somehow by this reminder that we are, indeed, the world — and the world is a dangerous place.
But American innocence is a renewable resource. So the events of last week, the close call wherein a would-be terrorist left a crude car bomb in Times Square that luckily, blessedly, failed to explode, will eventually recede, leaving room for a new round of shocked indignation next time the reminder comes.
Meantime, we shake our heads at the closeness of the call, lionize the vigilant street vendors and the fast-acting cop who averted disaster, and begin trying to figure out how the system failed us. That it did, we have no doubt. That someone blew it is an article of faith. Already, there are questions about how suspect Faisal Shahzad managed to board a plane and almost leave the country after the near bombing despite having been placed on the no-fly list.
Obviously, we must do everything practical and possible to thwart terrorists and protect lives. But the bitter fact is that, though we succeed a hundred times, eventually we will fail. This is the thing no one says as they go about "fixing" what went wrong. The idea seems to be that if we can just perfect the system we can guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen again.
This was the subtext of all those people lauding President Bush because he "kept us safe" after Sept. 11. It was an unbearably naive assertion, born of a stubborn refusal to learn what the rest of the world already knows.
Which is that senseless violence is not an aberration of life but a part of it. So no matter how you tweak the system, we will always be vulnerable. Indeed, more so because we are free. And no system consistent with that freedom could have stopped a fanatic from driving a bomb into Times Square.
Note that even the questions being raised now concern what happened "after" Shahzad allegedly placed his bomb.
There’s a saying: I’d rather be lucky than good. Last week, we were both. But at some point, we will be neither.
So what can you do? The answer is that you do the best you can, take what precautions you can, and then you get on with it, learn to live with the risk freedom entails. You accept that risk because freedom is worth it.
And because living in fear is a contradiction in terms.
(c) 2010 The Miami Herald Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Read more by Leonard Pitts Jr.
- Terror Trials Are Our Defining Moment – November 20th, 2009
- Luster Is Off Obama’s ‘High Moral Ground’ – September 1st, 2009
- The Chimera of Total Security – May 26th, 2009
- Liberty City Case Leaves Bitter Aftertaste – May 20th, 2009
- Pelosi’s Torture Stance Is Pure Partisanship – May 18th, 2009





Shane
May 8th, 2010 at 7:54 am
Amen.
Shane
May 8th, 2010 at 7:54 am
Amen.
Bene_Tleilax
May 8th, 2010 at 11:27 am
"And Sept. 11, 2001, when nearly 3,000 people were killed by hijackers who used captured jetliners as guided missiles."
What is this Obsession around here that you post every 9/11 denying whacko but crap on anyone who doesn't buy the official conspiracy theory? Miami Freakin' Herald?
You guys still dreaming about getting your "mainstream" street creds by maintaining the absurd fiction?
Shane
May 8th, 2010 at 7:54 am
Amen.
Dminor7th
May 8th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Why sure. What else? The rewards for toeing the official line are "respectability".. a remote shot at making the big bucks in MSM or some "think tank" (actually "non-thinking tank").. or even perhaps a shot at the WH when some libertarian gets in there. The rewards for seeking truth over opportunism are.. the cynical contempt of the ruling class.. snivelling scorn from millions of brainless "morans".. and no money. Folks around here have to beg for donations to stay on line. Simple. This is exactly how the ruling class enforces conformity.
Incidently, have you donated to this site? If enough war-haters donated a few bucks here maybe these folks wouldn't be forced by economics to make pragmatic but necessary decisions?
masmanz
May 8th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I agree with the author except for the statement: "Indeed, more so because we are free. And no system consistent with that freedom could have stopped a fanatic from driving a bomb into Times Square." This seems to imply that system which are not consistent with freedom are somehow safe. Actually, such systems become more prone to violence. Russia, parts of Indian Kashmir, parts of Pakistan, many countries of Africa and South America are clear examples. Thus it should be clear that no amount of Police-state tactics will make us safer. I think 'Police State' tactics simply creates more terrorists thus offsetting any improvement in safety you were supposed to get from those tactics.
Connestee
May 8th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Paul Craig Roberts was denied the opportunity to push for a 9/11 truth commission by Antiwar.com. Here is a link to an interview with Roberts that is around 4:30 minutes long. Pay particular attention to what he says about Antiwar. com at approximately the 3:30 mark.
He was my favorite columnist on this site.
paulBass
May 8th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
i think the term "american innocence" is getting old
what you mean is "american ignorance"
it is not like americans go about there day worring about what crimes there leaders are committing, agonizing over the lack awareness or ability to stop it and then something happens to innocent joe american.
no its ignorance the active cheering and supporting of policies that are very harmful to people around the world, but not caring enough to find out what happens at the other end and they determine that the are large organizations through out the world who's only goal goal is to harm good people.
Heathcliff_Maw
May 9th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Pitts makes the argument that we are more at risk because we are free. I reject that argument. We are more at risk because we allow our government to abuse power.
Violence is the reaction when power is abused or threatened. The American people will be safer after they assert themselves to take back their power from the politicians who are stealing it by curtailing freedom. Freedom is both power and security.
Heathcliff_Maw
May 9th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Pitts makes the argument that we are more at risk because we are free. I reject that argument. We are more at risk because we allow our government to abuse power.
Violence is the reaction when power is abused or threatened. The American people will be safer after they assert themselves to take back their power from the politicians who are stealing it by curtailing freedom. Freedom is both power and security.