The legal, moral and political problems following September 11 terrorist attacks represented the inspiration of various political and artistic standpoints. Music, literature, arts, pros cons, debates from various perspectives. In the center: how much our freedom is/will be threaten by the legislation allowing the state to enter and access our privacy.
Most part of these statements, in my opinion, are lacking exactly the wider perspective assumed from the very beginning, by not stressing the problem of what is, in fact, the essence and content of this freedom? And, even less, the ways in order to stop or at least diminish the causes provoking this reaction from the part of the states.
The German journalist Heribert Prantl is outlining the German example, but in a very rhetorical way. Page after page, he is gathering more arguments for a public requisitorium of a more intrusive state. With roots back in the past of the German experience in facing the Rote Armee Fraktion and other terrorist threats in the 70s. Ironically enough, but not so logically unexpectedly as Prantl let us believe, one of the promoters of the strict German legislation was the social-democrat Otto Schilly, former Federal Minister of the Interior between 1998 and 2005, during Gerhard Schröder. In the 70s, the same Schilly was defending the Rot Armee Faktion members and, late in the 80s, was one of the founding member of the Green Party.
The rhetoric is continuing, but without a single line of arguments devoted to understanding the whole landscape: the causes of this situation, the alternatives and the options - how, in fact, the state ought to defend its citizens of terrorism, of being innocent victims of fanatics, the possibilities to counter such situations and to play a game with win/win outcome.
It is very easy to outline all these issues and to complain and accuse an invisible and (assumed) mighty power of the state(s), the temptation to control our privacy - doubtful, given the eagerness we, all of us, we are sharing our information and privacies online, via social networking sites, without being requested - the tighter limits to our freedom. As in the case of the Middle East, it is very easy to express an opinion, as a proof of our freedom to think, accuse, evaluate. But, in order to provide a wiser outline of the landscape, more than rhetorics are needed. For example, a critical anaylsis, going beyond the public acclaimed statements. Otherwise, we are getting trapped in the common places of the self-delivered ideas.