Domestic counterterrorism measures primarily manufacture fear rather than safety [contrarian]
Seen in perspective, the domestic War on Terror is not really about keeping Americans safe as much as it is about creating a spectacle of fear. During the Cold War, schools routinely conducted “duck and cover” drills in which students and teachers hid under tables, supposedly to protect them from a blast in the event of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. Whatever the marginal benefits of ducking under a table, the ability to survive a nuclear bomb depends on one’s distance from the blast, not on the furniture. The real goal of such activities was to keep the threat of attack alive and to foster fear and paranoia. In the War on Terror era, color-coded “terror threat levels” (ultimately phased out in 2011) and “if you see something, say something” signs in airports and subway stations have served a similar purpose by generating the spectacle of terrorism. And mainstream media coverage of “foiled terror plots” orchestrated by the law enforcement community only serves to reinforce this atmosphere.
XREF: Parallels the duck-and-cover critique and broader claims that security theater serves political ends rather than protection.
Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politi…, loc. 484