Cave Tagem!

Submitted by dds (Canada), Jan 3, 2006 at 13:41

Alas, two of the links in this article ("used since March 2005" and "reasonable success") offer some cogent arguments against an electronic monitoring program and simply reinforce the corollary of Murphy's Law, which states that when you open a can of worms, the only way to re-can them is to get a bigger can. Besides, considering the London Underground bombings happened after March 2005, we may want to re-think the definition of "reasonable success".

I'm also highly skeptical of the Germans' efforts to "assess" Islamists, since it appears to be based on potential terrorists' giving honest answers to questions like, "were the 9/11 attacks a good thing or a bad thing?". As with Canada's feeble attempts at gun legislation, the honest, law-abiding ones will wind up being needlessly persecuted and the dishonest ones will sneak past the system.

Besides, any talk of marking people based on their faith leanings sends shivers through one who's read the Book of Revelation. It's no use to say, "well, we're only tagging radical Islamists", because one just KNOWS that, in these politically-correct, everyone-is-really-beautiful-and-we-all-need-to-be-tolerant times, someone will say, "right then: we'll tag EVERYBODY just to be fair!" ... so everyone "takes the mark" ... not this hombre.

There is no quick-fix for this situation.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".