The Super Slippery Slope

by Lady Liberty
02/10/2003

The Super Bowl is a major and uniquely American event. Last year, only a few months after 9/11, those very factors would make the championship football game an attractive target for terrorists. As a result, the security measures undertaken to ensure a safe event were unprecedented in both scale and scope.

Despite the fresh memories of 9/11, many Americans were taken aback by some of the more invasive aspects of the security. Much ado was made of rules that prohibited backpacks and even purses, and of long lines at metal detectors. Afterward, there was a significant public outcry when it was learned that a host of cameras and facial recognition software were employed. Civil liberties groups denounced such practices, and many citizens sided with them.

This year, things have been very different. There's been no recent terrorist attack on American soil and, despite a slow economy and the threat of a war with Iraq, there's a feeling of normalcy. In a way, the idea that everything is okay may be even more frightening than the "spectacular" terrorist attack the FBI occasionally predicts!

Though the security for the Super Bowl in San Diego was no secret - media reports were widespread and relatively thorough - there was little if any reported public protest. Is this because security was less prevalent or intrusive this year? Not at all. In a report published online by CBS News, an expert in NFL security is quoted as saying, "We're doing a lot of the same things" as last year. He claims that, because "we're doing it better, more efficiently", security measures are simply less noticeable. I believe he's wrong, that people notice just as much. Unfortunately, they care a lot less.

You might suppose it's good news that facial recognition software wasn't used this year. It's actually more pragmatism on the part of security forces than it is any concern for civil liberties that engendered the decision to forego the technology in San Diego. Wired News published an article that says facial scans aren't reliable, and that the head of Super Bowl Security for the San Diego Police Department "heard too many bad reports" to include such a system in his plans.

As if to make up for its failure to include such scans of the crowds on Super Bowl Sunday, more than fifty cameras were in place at Qualcomm Stadium, all of which were wired in such a way that law enforcement personnel from all over the country could monitor whatever they wished in real time (a password was required for access, a nominal safety check at best on the privacy of countless innocents). CBS says that the president of the company that created the camera system worked to provide "more cameras" and "more control of the cameras" for the event.

MSNBC, meanwhile, printed a story that claimed more than 4,000 law enforcement personnel were on hand at the venue, including forces ranging from local police to the FBI, military, and Secret Service. National Guardsmen were tapped to keep an eye on nearby fuel storage tanks, the airspace over the stadium was interdicted, and fighter jets were in the air.

One of Tampa Bay's team members told reporters that he wasn't worried about security because, "Driving down the Pacific Coast highway, there's not another car to be seen. Ramps are closed off." That was in addition to the parking lots at Qualcomm. Attendees were ferried to the stadium via a shuttle service. Even those taking the train were not permitted to exit their car without a ticket to the Super Bowl. Anyone needing that particular stop but not planning on seeing the game in person had to exit at stops before or after the one for the stadium.

As striking as the evidence of high security is the utter absence of complaint. Ticket holders who were told they should arrive early on game day so as to avoid long waits in the lines for metal detectors and searches meekly did as they were bid. Wired News matter-of-factly says that such precautions as all those that were taken would let law enforcement personnel focus on such suspicious things - indicators that would "raise your eyebrows a bit" - as someone wearing a coat or carrying a backpack. Nobody blinked. (Yes, San Diego is typically quite temperate, but the ocean breeze can be cool, particularly if someone is at all sensitive to it. And backpacks are extremely handy carry- alls for souvenirs, snacks, and more, especially for those people limited to shuttle transportation back to their own vehicles.)

Obviously, some security preparation and implementation is important at any large event. But no procedure, no matter how invasive, is guaranteed to stop all possibility of a terrorist attack. So why the extremity of the measures at the Super Bowl? Well, why not? No one complained. And it is there that the danger lies, not with the potential of a terrorist strike.

Imagine for a moment what would have happened if, back in the early 1930's, someone had said to the German people, "Hey! What do you say we kill all the Jews?" The vast majority of the population would have been outraged. So instead, the government registered all handguns. After nearly everyone complied, it confiscated all handguns. Guns weren't necessary for defense when a wonderful police force and investigative body (ever heard of the Gestapo or the SS?) was placed in charge of law enforcement! Then it registered all Jews, gypsies, and their "ilk". After that, it concentrated them in one area "for their own safety". Later, it "relocated" them. And of course, we all know now what happened to the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and others in those "relocation" camps.

Taken one step at a time, and with a rational explanation from the government for what it was doing, it's much less difficult to imagine that most Germans comforted themselves with the thought that the government knew best or that the government was working to protect the people - crime rates were down, and the economy was recovering nicely from the damage suffered due to World War I - and that by the time anyone realized what was really going on, the Nazi juggernaut could not be easily stopped.

Now translate these lessons to today when certain civilian and government factions are demanding firearms registration (a few are already clamoring for outright confiscation, at least of handguns). Consider the fact that the US Census, Constitutionally mandated to include only a count of citizens, now demands such information as race or ethnicity (ostensibly, the government needs this information to determine aid to communities, and it is claimed that such information is not identifiable with individuals, a matter of wishful thinking if I ever heard one). And look at the establishment of laws and agencies designed "for safety" but which, in reality, are designed to contravene the Constitutional protections we've all enjoyed - and too many of us taken for granted - up 'til now.

I don't for a moment suggest that any ethnic group is going to soon be targeted for genocide in America (although I'd have to confess I wouldn't be overly surprised to see patriots or far-right conservatives targeted in significant numbers relatively soon for jail time and government harassment, maybe even worse). But I am saying that, by taking Super Bowl security in stride, we've already shown we're ready for the next step against us and our freedom, whatever that next step may be. It's hard to care who won the football game when you realize all that's been lost.

Lady Liberty