Don’t Let Terror Shut America Down

Recent New Year's Eve celebrations were marred by the terror attack in New Orleans  - a city that has ancestral roots for me and which I have visited numerous times - of an apparent ISIS convert that took the lives of at least 15 of the revelers, most of whom were young at the beginning of their adult lives.  The terrorist/murderer - despite the repeated lies of Der Trumpenfuhrer and many on the political right and at faux news sites such as Fox News - was U.S. born and raised and was a U.S. military veteran.  He was NOT an illegal who had "invaded" across the border.  Of course, none of this matters to Trump and his imitators and ass kissers.  Meanwhile, there are calls to in essence close down the country and/or limit public gatherings to deprive future terrorist of targets for their depraved acts.   I condone neither the lies about the perpetrator nor the calls to shutdown and stifle public activities.  The first is morally wrong - as is most of the Trump/MAGA agenda - and the latter hands a victory to terrorists whose agenda is aimed at disrupting the country and instilling fear.  In 2015 following the terror attacks in Paris, the husband and I and three friends traveled to Paris as planned in part because we did not want to give the Islamic terrorist a win.  As a piece in The Atlantic argues, the same mindset is needed now.  Yes, do all possible to minimize dangers by improving security protocols and learning from past mistakes (the New Orleans police definitely made mistakes in not properly blocking access to Bourbon Street), but do not erase rights of public assembly and public celebration.   In short, do not let hate and terror win. Here are article excerpts: 

Despite the devastating terror attack that killed at least 10 people on Bourbon Street in New Orleans in the early-morning hours of New Year’s Day, it seemed at first as though the Sugar Bowl college-football playoff game would continue tonight in the city’s Superdome, less than two miles from the carnage. This afternoon, officials announced they would postpone the game for at least 24 hours.

Getting on with activities as normal, to whatever extent is possible, is the correct approach. Responses to terror or violent attacks need to be based on the specifics of the incident, but the default should always be to remain open. A nation, any nation, must have the capacity to mourn and move forward simultaneously.

The question isn’t whether proceeding with scheduled events is disrespectful to those who have been directly affected by terror. . . . . the decision should be based less on emotion and more on the level of ongoing risk, and the available security, for those who are asked to continue with their lives.

First, can the situation legitimately be described as no longer posing a continuing danger? In 2015 in Paris, a wave of terror attacks over one long night resulted in 130 deaths. The entire country was placed under what amounted to a three-month lockdown, with most public events canceled. That made some sense, given the sophistication and planning behind those attacks, and the fact that a concert hall and sporting venue had been targeted.

In a statement, the FBI identified the [New Orleans] suspect as 42-year-old Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a U.S. citizen from Texas. He was killed at the scene by law-enforcement officers. An Islamic State flag had been located in the vehicle, the FBI said, and law enforcement is working to determine the suspect’s affiliations. Although what additional information might be available to the FBI remains unclear, the unified messaging suggests they are not overly concerned about continuing risk.

Second, if a city chooses to close down or delay events, does it have clear standards for what will allow it to reopen? This was the dilemma after the Boston Marathon bombings on a Monday in 2013 . . . . European cities such as Brussels have faced the same issue after major attacks. It is easy to close down but harder to have metrics for what is perfectly safe, because that is an impossible standard.

Third, can public-safety resources and planning be redeployed or reassessed in light of the terror attack without forcing the city to a standstill? A preplanned sports event, such as the Sugar Bowl, already has in place safety and security protocols that can be amended in just a few hours to allow for more resources from other jurisdictions and changes to vehicle access. Indeed, just a day after Boston’s lockdown, the Red Sox played at Fenway with a ramped-up public-safety presence. The Hall of Fame slugger David Ortiz memorably welcomed the anxious crowd by saying, “This is our fucking city.” He was reflecting a sense that terrorists elevate their cause if they can affect entire populations, and the best response can be an insistent normalcy.

There is no perfect answer to the challenge posed by an attack, but asking the public to stay put can be unnecessary. In Maine in 2023, after the tragic shooting of 18 victims by a lone gunman, the town of Lewiston and areas across southern Maine went into shelter-in-place mode for several days until he was found dead from suicide. Fear and isolation may have been unnecessarily amplified by the lockdown, originally issued for an indefinite period.

After the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush tried to calm a grieving nation by telling citizens to still “go shopping for their families.” The quote has been mocked as both tone-deaf (the term consumer patriotism was coined) and insensitive, but the for is often forgotten in the retelling. No matter how terrible an attack, we still need to be there for one another—whether that means gathering or grieving or, when the time comes, just watching a football game.