THE “THREAT OF TERRORISM” AND THE RIGHT TO THE CIT
THE “THREAT OF TERRORISM” AND THE RIGHT TO THE CIT
复制标题
“恐怖主义威胁”和 CIT 权利
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2005
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Marcuse
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Marcuse
引言和摘要：面对公开宣布的恐怖主义威胁，安全问题在今天关于美国城市生活的大部分讨论中占据主导地位，经常提到2001年9月11日（“9月11日”或“9/11”）的事件。9/117之后，城市是否适当地重视恐怖主义的威胁？恐怖主义威胁实际上是9/11的产物吗？9/11事件后，城市和城市规划发生了什么变化？恐怖主义与这些变化有什么关系？本文的基本论点是，自9/11以来，无论恐怖主义的实际威胁发生了什么变化，以其名义所做的事情都发生了很大变化。我认为，对感知到的威胁既有合法的反应，也有错误的反应。合法反应的影响几乎微不足道，更像是9/11之前已经存在的趋势的延续，而不是新的东西。相比之下，虚假回应的影响是巨大的。这种错误的反应以恐怖主义威胁为借口，推行一项与人身安全或防范恐怖主义无关的议程，而是旨在赢得选举，限制辩论和异议，并对一系列民主进程保持严格的政治控制。(1)在纽约市，许多这样的议程都与下曼哈顿的真实的房地产价值的变化有关。然而，总的来说，隐含的议程是加强对异议的政治控制，限制对某些政策的大方向的辩论，并控制公共空间用于民主但持不同政见的目的。自9/11以来，这种隐含的议程一直在恐怖主义威胁的借口下推进，而不是对恐怖主义的合法回应。然而，我并不认为这些对公共空间使用的限制以及与这些限制有关的新保守主义计划是新的或仅仅与9/11有关;同样，这种模式在9/11之前，尽管它后来有所加强。(2)让我开始，具体说明我对恐怖主义的合法和错误反应的含义：反应定义的类型示例合法的目标针对接地有效：金属反应风险，无论探测器在成本机场效率低下：在机场脱鞋平衡试图监视反应平衡对相机的风险在经济和民事进入权利成本公共建筑;无效的有针对性的反应错误溢出扩大意义没有游荡的反应“安全”标志在火车站诱导建立一种气氛种族貌相，反应证明无关的移民反应限制，选举修辞，与安全无关的“安全”措施借口直接证明限制性反应无关的反应伊拉克集会有针对性的反应是旨在消除恐怖主义威胁的有效反应。…
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY: CONCEPTUAL ISSUES Security in the face of a declared threat of terrorism dominates much of the discussion about city life in the United States today, with frequent reference to the events of September 11, 2001 ("September 11" or "9/11"). Do cities give appropriate weight to the threat of terrorism after 9/117 Is the terrorist threat in fact a product of 9/11? How have cities and urban planning changed post-9/11, and how is terrorism related to those changes? The basic argument of this paper is that whatever has changed about the actual threat of terrorism since 9/11, a great deal has changed in that which is done in its name. I argue that there have been both legitimate and false responses to the perceived threat. The impact of the legitimate response is almost trivial, representing more of a continuation of trends already in place before 9/11 rather than something new. In contrast, the impact of the false response has been substantial. The false response has used the threat of terrorism as a pretext to pursue an agenda that has nothing to do with physical safety or protection against terrorism, but is directed instead at winning elections, restricting debate and dissent, and maintaining tight political control over the range of democratic processes. (1) In New York City, many such agendas have related to changes in real estate values in lower Manhattan. In general, however, the implicit agenda has been to increase the political control of dissent, to limit debate about the general direction of certain policies, and to control the use of public space for democratic but dissident purposes. That implicit agenda has been advanced since 9/11 under the pretext of the threat of terrorism, not in legitimate response to it. I do not, however, claim that these limitations on the use of public space, and the neo-conservative program with which these limitations are connected are new or solely related to 9/11; again, the pattern precedes 9/11, although it has since intensified. (2) Let me begin by specifying what I mean by legitimate and false responses to terrorism: TYPE OF RESPONSE DEFINITION EXAMPLES Legitimate Targeted Directed at grounded Efficient: metal responses risks, regardless of detectors at costs airports Inefficient: shoe removal at airports Balanced Attempting to Surveillance responses balance risks against cameras at economic and civil entries to rights costs public buildings; inefficient targeted responses False Spillover Expanding the meaning No Loitering responses of "security" signs at train stations Induced Building a climate Ethnic profiling, responses justifying unrelated immigrant responses restrictions, election rhetoric, "security" measures unrelated to safety Pretext Directly justifying Constrained responses unrelated responses assemblies, Iraq Targeted responses are effective responses intended to eliminate grounded threats of terrorism. …