2016 Presidential Election: Terrorism

Release Date
June 25, 2016

Topic

Liberty Politics & Policy Role of Government
Description

After the terror attack in Orlando, is there anything the US government can do to protect us?
In this video, Don Boudreaux looks at the presidential candidates’ stances on combating terrorism.
Trump promises to directly target the families of terrorists. And his plan for ISIS is to “bomb the [email protected]!# out of them.”
But other candidates argued that drone strikes which harm civilians abroad may end up creating more terrorists plotting to strike us here at home.
Can we make America safer by increasing our anti-terror intervention or by limiting and focusing it?
To help the victims of the Orlando attacks, and their families, pay medical and funeral costs, head to the CrowdRise “We Stand with Pulse” campaign.
To learn more with Don Boudreaux about the important issues facing Americans this election, subscribe to our channel.

Liberty and Security (Video): We want the government to protect us from outside attacks, but at what point does that protection begin to chip away at our basic liberties?. Dr. James Otteson explores how to maintain that tricky balance between protecting our safety and protecting our freedoms. 
Guide to Election Season (program): 2016 is heating up, which is why we’re cutting through the noise to bring you the most important issues of the election- drug policy, terrorism, immigration, and more. Join Professor Don Boudreaux in this On Demand Program designed to give you the information you need this election season.
How the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion Can Help Us Understand the 2015 Paris Terror Attacks (Article): The Bay of Pigs was a complete disaster, one that we don’t want our government to repeat. So how were the Paris terror attacks similar, and what can we learn from that? 
Privatize the TSA! (Article): Everyone hates the TSA (long lines and pat-downs, anyone?), but no one wants to completely abolish the organization in charge of our airport safety. Gary Leff explores a great solution. 

>> I’m Don Boudreaux, and today we’re talking about-
>> Enemies of America.
>> Terrorism.
>> Terrorists.
>> Jihadists.
>> ISIS.
>> Al-Qaeda.
>> Global jihad.
>> Following the terrorist attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, and Brussels, terrorism has jumped to the top of the list of voter concerns, even ahead of the economy and healthcare.
In fact, the percentage of Americans who cite terrorism as their number one concern is higher today than it has been in a decade. With numerous threats on major American cities by terrorist groups, such as ISIS, concern about preventing future terrorist attacks on the homeland is entirely understandable. Some, mostly Republican candidates, say that the best way to keep us safe from terrorist attacks is to increase defense spending and broaden the powers of the national security apparatus, both at home and abroad.
One aspect of this approach means ramping up bombing, drone spikes and intervention in regions thought to host terrorist and terrorist sympathizers. Such foreign actions are what candidates mean when they call for carpet bombing, making the sand glow, no fly zones and
>> Bomb the shit out of them!
>> The other aspect of this approach involves maintaining and increasing domestic surveillance, warrantless wire tapping, and mass metadata collection. Such domestic actions are what candidates mean when they call for giving the government the tools it needs to identify and prevent future attacks. Other 2016 candidates, typically democrats, argue that we should beware of unintended ill consequences when we craft our policy to prevent terrorism.
That means arguing for a more surgical approach to keeping us safe. Rather than increasing the number of drone strikes or the amount of bulk collection of phone records, says the site, it would be more prudent to spend those resources discovering exactly where to launch a drone strike. And on discovering exactly who to intercept communications from.
Candidates advocating this position also highlight the immorality of killing innocent civilians as part of foreign interventions. And although rare, some candidates even highlight how such aggressive intervention and killing can actually fan the flames of terrorism, because it drives moderates into the arms of terrorists. Think about what you would do if your innocent loved one were killed in a drone strike by a foreign government.
This side argues that making allies with people who come into contact with terrorists is a better way to keep us safe than by antagonizing these people and encouraging them to cozy up to terrorists for protection. So what do you think? Is the best way to keep us safe from terrorism to increase intervention or to limit and focus it?