Just when you thought the backlash to  watching  children molested by government employees might return a little sanity, moderation at least, to air travel, we are staring at the next great devolution of civil rights instead.  The irony is astounding, as it comes from our great victory against the terrorists, the killing of Osama bin Laden, where information was seized showing a plan to attack a train. 

As if nobody thought that possible, despite it having been part of the original 9/11 Commission recommendations because it was obvious from the outset.  But now that we have confirmation from within the million dollar mansion, it’s the new horizon of security.  Naturally, New York Senator Chuck Schumer wanted to be ahead of the curve.

A senator on Sunday called for a “no-ride list” for Amtrak trains after intelligence gleaned from the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound pointed to potential attacks on the nation’s train system.

Sen. Charles Schumer said he would push as well for added funding for rail security and commuter and passenger train track inspections and more monitoring of stations nationwide.

“Circumstances demand we make adjustments by increasing funding to enhance rail safety and monitoring on commuter rail transit and screening who gets on Amtrak passenger trains, so that we can provide a greater level of security to the public,” the New York Democrat said at a news conference.

Amtrack has been having a field day advertising that its passengers only take off their shoes if they feel like it.  Advocates of air travel safety have snarkily responded to complaints about the TSA by saying, if you don’t like it, take a train.  What’s next, walk?  It might have been “drive,” but who can afford that luxury?

There was little question that the “relief” felt after the killing of bin Laden didn’t spell the end of the War on Terror and the return of American freedom.  The real question was how would our success in the War be bootstrapped to justify yet further intrusions.  The argument wasn’t hard to figure out: the equation had previously been tempered by our lack of accomplishment in “winning” the war on terror, showing that while we made life more miserable and less free for all Americans, we hadn’t done a thing to the terrorists. 

And now we have.  Proof that our methods work.  Best not to think too hard about it, and just bask in the glow of success.  Now that we have enjoyed a huge accomplishment, particularly since almost ten years have elapsed with exceptional Americans looking rather impotent, we can be proud of ourselves again.

Yesterday, there was a discussion on twitter, to the extent such a thing is possible, brought about by two assertions: First, that no tear should be shed over the killing of Osama bin Laden.  Second, that we should trust the judgment of Seal Team 6 in having killed him.  Neither of these propositions is particularly controversial.  While there are some nagging questions for nit-pickers, they conform with the sensibilities of most Americans.  As people who, at least to Americans, are better off dead, OBL was top of the charts.  And as dedicated, well-trained, trustworthy military operatives go, Seal Team 6 performed spectacularly.  Certainly, no American would trade the life of a member of ST6 for that of bin Laden.

The discussion wasn’t about whether these assertions were right or wrong, but about how we explain the support for them.  The problem, as I saw it, is that the paradigm shift from war over sovereignty to war against shadows rendered all the principles upon which we historically relied too fuzzy to work.  This means that we can believe what suits our sensibilities, but we cannot offer a rational justification that doesn’t similarly apply to the methods being employed by our own government with which we don’t agree.

If OBL’s killing is justified because “we” believe him to be evil, then killing people “we” believe to be evil is justified.  Who the evil person is depends on who the “we” is, and if we are each permitted to choose one person we believe deserves to die, then we are likely to find a lot of dead bodies littering the landscape.

If ST6’s decision as to the need to kill OBL should be trusted (and assuming they weren’t under orders to make sure they didn’t return with a live body) because they are dedicated, well-trained and trustworthy, then what of the actions of police officers and SWAT teams who are similarly placed in life and death situations, forced to make split second decisions, and who shoot an unarmed person through the head?  Sure, ST6 has better training than police, but there are many who believe that police training and trustworthiness is more than sufficient to let them make the call without being second guessed.

The discussion was enlightening only to the extent that it shows how we substitute our personal sensibilities for logic when we reasoning fails.  Whenever the logical extension of an argument ran into a brick wall, it lapsed back into the irrational, “well, I think so.”  We’re a nation of people who can’t distinguish between personal feelings and reason.  We’re a nation of people who don’t want to be forced to think.

And this is how Chuck Schumer’s terrorist train list will meld with the feelings of a grateful nation, seizing the opportunity of minds muddled by feelings so strong that they preclude many, even criminal defense lawyers on twitter, from realizing that they can have valid feelings that defy reason.

For those of us who watched with dread when Congress passed the USA Patriot Act without any thought whatsoever following 9/11, a law filled with every hare-brained wish-list law enforcement initiative previously rejected as outrageous and unacceptable to a freedom loving nation, we see ourselves sliding further down a slope from which we will never recover.

It’s not that there is significant disagreement about either the killing of Osama bin Laden or that Seal Team 6 did a spectacular job on its mission.  But we recognize that not everything with which we agree can be rationally justified.  We realize that the failure to understand that sometimes, only under the most unique of circumstances, can lead us to accepting lists of people who can’t fly, can’t ride on trains, and don’t deserve to live.  And when these bad things happen, and the very same people raise their voice in outrage, those same sensibilities will prevent them from realizing that it’s nothing more than the natural product of their desire to explain their personal sensibilities.

Schumer is wrong.  This no train list takes a horrible idea and makes it worse.  Security does not enhance freedom.  And you need not have a rational explanation for why you will shed no tear for Osama bin Laden, or applaud Seal Team 6.  Sometimes, events transcend explanation, and that’s what saves us from making more terrible mistakes.