Originally posted by NagThe War on Terror is everybit of a war as is The War on Drugs. You cannot defeat terrorism, you cannot eliminate every single terrorist cell from the globe. There are no objectives, no clear enemy, no path to victory. Terror is a word an idea, bullets, missiles and bombs can topple governments and nations but it cannot destroy words or ideas. Even someone as stupid as Bush knows this, I have yet to figure out how almost half of my countrymen don't. The War on Terror is double speak for, let Elmer Fudd...I mean George Bush and his fascist buddies have carte blanche in establishing his draconian law in this once great country. As long as he is passing out his evangellical flavoured Kool-Aid, all is right with the world.
Things like this is EXACTLY what Bin Laden wanted, and well, it's exactly what Bin Laden got.
I was going to respond but Nag you said it quite well. Until people understand that there are indeed outcomes worse than terror in a country like ours, I fear for our country.
Not to be flip about such things as terror and death, but all the sleeper cells in the world right now could not do a damn thing to this country except to make us mad and kill a couple of us. So it's kind of a strawman to set up as though the choice is between allowing wire tapping or ascession to an Islamic state.
And one of the great Western influences, one of the most original ideas that defines Western civilization is civil liberties. The destruction of America will not be from a few Islamists with vendettas. The only way we go down is internally, if we give in to all of our worst impulses, among them the desire to surrender our liberties for the promise of security.
"All" they can do is kill "a couple of us"? What more is there?
And there is no one that seriously fears that we will turn into an Islamic state. The reasons why people like Bin Laden and his Islamofacist buddies are called "terrorists" is because they kill to try to cause political change because they have no popular support. 30 9/11s wouldn't turn this into an Islamic State, but is that the price we're willing to pay to protect some of our civil liberties?
Civil liberties are great, and you're one hundred percent right about certain civil liberties being the basis of Western Civilization. But no one cares about civil liberties when their life is threatened. No one who is actually killed in a terrorist attack is likely to be thankful that they lived without their civil liberties encroached upon.
I'm not willing to give the government free reign in protecting us from terrorism. Look at the other thread about the kid who checked out the Little Red Book. Is that book banned? No, it isn't. Was the student thrown in jail for reading the book? No, he wasn't. All that happened was that DHS checked him out because of a number of factors. As far as I'm concerned that's the way to take protective measures without running roughshod over people's rights. But to some that means that the USA has suddenly become a totalitarian state.
It's easy to say from the safety of our own homes that we should never give up liberty for security, but unless we want to run unecessary risks of being attacked by terrorists, it's silly to cling to the exact same lifestyle we had before 9/11.
Go back and read Shep's post. After quoting a Bin Laden fatwa he says:
Originally posted by ShepYou are really splitting hairs with your ends and means. They want the resurgence of the dominance of the Islamic World, which means the death of Westerners and their influences. But let's not get off the topic of domestic surveillance.
I read that as his saying those are the stakes in this battle. Which just is not going to happen. With the zealots running things on all ends the world will go up in flame before that happens.
I live in Chicago, one of the biggest cities in the world. I know that 9/11 could have just as easily happened to the Sears Tower and John Hancock building (both building which I have worked in) as to the WTC. So I feel like yes, I am threatened by the spectre of terrorism. And I am still quite concerned with my civil liberties.
As for the idea no one killed in a terror attack is happy their civil liberties weren't infringed upon...I'm going to guess every person killed in gun violence last year would more than happily rip the 2nd Amendment to shreds. And that number is a lot bigger every year than we've lost to terrorism in the 200+ year history of this country. But I'm going to assume that the folks very in favor of selective culling of civil liberties in the pursuit of safety aren't going to call for the repeal of the 2nd anytime soon.
And really...from everything I've read, it sounds like we had plenty of intelligence with pre 9-11 powers to capture everyone who was involved in the WTC attack, but didn't act on it. I agree that we need to be more vigilant, but to me the idea of checking out a kid for reading Mao is about as useful as having 90 year old women from Dubuque taking off their shoes at the airport. We need to be targeted in our actions (which is why I tend to give a deaf ear to people who complain about profiling, when as of now the only people we know about actively trying to kill us are in fact young Muslim males) and use our resources in places they can actually make a difference. I know personally too many people who have been harassed for being in the anti-war movement to think that we are doing such well-targeted efforts at this time.
Given the level of the rhetoric I feel like I'm going off topic, but here's (arstechnica.com) an interesting attempt at technical analysis behind how exactly the NSA might be monitoring phone calls.
What I find interesting is that its not quite as simple as "Bush-is-recording-everything-you-say." It makes sense that this system doesn't fit within the scope of current laws, and if Bush/the NSA didn't want to tip their hands about it, then they would have to go about enacting this behind closed doors. Of course, then one might start to question who Bush was afraid of tipping his hand to...
Originally posted by ShotGunShepNag, what the hell are you talking about? Here is your logic...
I am not saying "don't try". I'm simply, asking, for realistic objectives to be set forth in which we actually attempt to accomplish. Don't think that is too much to ask.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch. But I do question this. A nation that spends more on it's military, then all the nations in world combined, I can go to a link on this site right here and with anyones address tell you what kind of car you drive; yet, we have not been able to catch Bin Laden? That trick is as old as warfare itself. As long as the duck is still flying, someone still gets to hunt.
I don't have the time for a long drawn out thought provoking post. But I am all for finding those responsible for 9-11, either bringing them to justice, or shooting to kill. But we have spent more energy on Iraq, on destroying our own freedoms with the patriot act, then doing the right thing.
To be fair, the guy did break the law, and the Bush Administration will let nothing, NOTHING, stand in the way of pursuing the proper application of the law in any circums...*falls out of chair laughing*
I'm not an Americian, so I'm sorry for intruding. Correct me if I'm wrong, if Bush and the NSA went public with how and what they montitored, the "bad guys" would just say 'ok, so now we know what we're up against!" and just work around the system. Maybe an example would be a computer gaming company saying "this is our firewall and this is how it works!". Meanwhile, some hacker knows that the source code for a hot new game is around there....wouldn't it make things easier for the hacker?
I dunno. I disagree with Bush on a few things....but I think he gets a bad rap sometimes just because people don't like him for other things he's done. It's to the point now where he could be holding a door open for his wife and someone took a picture the caption may say "Bush believes women can't hold open their own doors!'. Maybe not that extreme, but I hope my point is illistrated.
I do know that I wish here in Canada we had someone who ran our country with a shred of moral fabric and had concern for our country. Instead we have next to nothing in the way of military funding, no anti-terror measures in effect, and the moral compass is not collaberated.
(edited by El Nastio on 31.12.05 1629) To celebrate the upcoming Troll Amnesty (and for otherwise no reason at all), I present to you the very best of Trolling here on The W. This Troll Moment of the Week is brought to you by;
ChrisJo, who brought us such pieces as wisdom as: "What does that have 2 do with anything? U want proper spelling, read a book. All I want is for someone to actually express some sort of opinion about this subject. I thought this was a WRESTLING forum."
It's not about going public, it's about obtaining warrants and obeying the law. There are ways to go about this that are perfectly legal, but they have chosen to forgoe those methods and break the law for whatever reason. It's not like these laws are just arbitrary, or only apply "somtimes" - these laws exist for a reason, and that's to protect the American people.
Originally posted by Jaguar There are ways to go about this that are perfectly legal, but they have chosen to forgoe those methods and break the law for whatever reason.
And that assumes that it's been decided that there was no legal authority to this which would be a bit of a stretch.
It's not like these laws are just arbitrary, or only apply "somtimes" - these laws exist for a reason, and that's to protect the American people.
What about the laws that protect against the leaking of classified information? Do they cease to apply if the leak hurts Bush? If we're going to investigate the leak of the identity of a CIA operative, why shouldn't we do the same when the secrecy of a national security initiative is compromised?
Obviously it should be investigated. Otherwise how are we to know the details of where and how this information was obtained, etc - it could turn out that someone is selling state secrets and the revelation of this one to the general public was some kind of accident. Investigation and prosectuion are two seperate things, and I'm willing to wait and see what the Justice Department goes with this before crying foul.
As for Bush's legal authority, he's been claming that his actions are legal under the War Powers Act and that we've been at war since September 11th, 2001. Now given that the War on Terror is one that very likely has no end, as we have no stated "winning condition" or even a face to put to the enemy, I find this line of thought to not only be very shakey, but rather disturbing as well. If one good thing could come out of all this, I would hope congress would (at the very least) declare that the "War on Terror" is over, and that Bush and future Presidents are going to have to conduct national defence through normal means.
If leaks were such a big deal to the Bush administration, why did Scooter Libby get a pat on the back from the president? Why does Karl Rove still have a job? Why, if Bush himself knows the identity of the Plame leaker (as has been speculated), why didn't he come forward?
The hypocrisy of this administration is staggering.
"Oh, gosh, you know, I'm not much on speeches, but it's so gratifying to leave you wallowing in the mess you've made. You're screwed, thank you, bye."
Originally posted by Jag As for Bush's legal authority, he's been claming that his actions are legal under the War Powers Act and that we've been at war since September 11th, 2001.
Actually (or at least in addition to that), the Administration has claimed that it has the legal power/right to do this under the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). Here's (uchicagolaw.typepad.com) an analysis of why that justification is plausible coming from a guy who is pretty far from just being a Bush supporting partisan.
Originally posted by Big BadIf leaks were such a big deal to the Bush administration, why did Scooter Libby get a pat on the back from the president? Why does Karl Rove still have a job? Why, if Bush himself knows the identity of the Plame leaker (as has been speculated), why didn't he come forward?
The hypocrisy of this administration is staggering.
An indictment is a pat on the back for Scooter Libby? Since Rove wasn't indicted, let alonse convicted, for involvement in the leak why should he be convicted? Just for the sport of it? I guess everyone "knows" Rove was involved in the leak, and if he broke the law he deserves to be fired, but why doesn't Rove get the benefit of the presumption of innocence?
Time should make a new policy that the president of the United States has to do something truly extraordinary to be named Person of the Year. As it is, every U.S.