comment-questions on liberties/terrorism

Two clear consensus' remain in the four+ years since the 9/11 attacks: we were very unprepared for those attacks, and more attacks on a similar or larger magnititude are being planned.

How are we to fight Al Queda terrorists currently plotting these attacks without violating their civil liberties (being that due process of law is entirely circumvented by the bullet of a Force Recon sniper)? Clearly everyone agrees that no such liberties should be respected absent the title of American citizenship. How then do we act upon these liberty-less terrorists engaged in phone conversations with domestic, constitutionally protected terrorists? Not listen to half of the conversation?

Some naysayers of the Patriot Act, particularly those who frequently quote Ben Franklin, resign to allowing X amount of terrorist attacks so long as they have Y amount of liberty (I doubt any of them work in a downtown metropolitan skyscraper). To you I ask, what if entirely credible evidence surfaced, along with the open declaration by Al Queda, that Al Queda had possession of dozens of nuclear bombs and was fully committed to detonating them in American cities? Now how much of that X amount of terrorist attacks are you willing to tolerate from your suburban nests?

To those naysayers of the Patriot Act who have any sense and reject the notion that large scale terrorist attacks are acceptable but rather must be prevented, in what ways do you make America safer following the attacks on 9/11 without scaling up government power in any way?

There is no inverse relationship between terraism and freedom. Your premise is wrong.

Also, terraism is merely an excuse. Our intelligence people spend much, much more time spying on the administration's political adversaries than they do looking for so-called terraists.

[lehighguy]

You can stop terrorist from hijacking planes again, but you can't stop them from strapping on a bomb and walking onto a bus.

With this is mind, why are we curtailing our civil liberties even though it doesn't make us safer.

[ QUOTE ]
You can stop terrorist from hijacking planes again, but you can't stop them from strapping on a bomb and walking onto a bus.

With this is mind, why are we curtailing our civil liberties even though it doesn't make us safer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it that you entirely discount any notion that an intercepted phone call from a foreign terrorist leader to his domestic cell awaiting instructions which bear details of the suicide attack could in any way prevent the attack.

I specifically addressed part of my post to you:

<font color="green"> To you I ask, what if entirely credible evidence surfaced, along with the open declaration by Al Queda, that Al Queda had possession of dozens of nuclear bombs and was fully committed to detonating them in American cities? Now how much of that X amount of terrorist attacks are you willing to tolerate from your suburban nests?
</font>

[ QUOTE ]
There is no inverse relationship between terraism and freedom. Your premise is wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't make this premise; I merely addressed those who feel this way, and absent any complete, documented refutation of their opinion on your part (which needless to say would surprise the hell out of me) then your lack of reading comprehension is and has become expected.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, terraism is merely an excuse. Our intelligence people spend much, much more time spying on the administration's political adversaries than they do looking for so-called terraists.

[/ QUOTE ]

More of your ridiculous, evidence-less claims. I have come to believe you are a right wing faux troll (and my hats off to you, you do a good job).

[lehighguy]

No, not really. Anyone can find bomb making instructions and materials on the internet. They don't need any kind of vast network. The Isrealis have much tighter security and they can't stop it, we can't either.

As for your second scenerio, your best bet would be to lock up every Arab in the country in camps. At the end of the day that is the only effective method of stopping terrorism. If there is a nuclear attack on the US that will probably happen.

If not then I don't see why we are wasting time and money on [censored] that doesn't work.

I'm reminded of a story. After a battle a greek king had captured 10,000 POW. He had imprisoned them and didn't know what to do with them. His advisor suggested that he kill them all to save resources and send a message to his enemies. The king said no, he did not want to anger is enemy. The advisor then suggested he return the prisoners to the enemy to gain favor. The king again said no, saying that he did not want to face these soldiers again on the battlefield. Then the advisor said that the current cost of action was the least favorable option. Not only would his enemy be mad at him for keeping prisoners, but he would spend precious supplies tending to them. Choose one extreme or another, because the middle ground accomplishes nothing and costs a great deal.

The creation of the department of homeland security, wiretaps, all of that is [censored] that doesn't do anything. Either do what you know will work or do nothing and stop wasting everyones time.

[tolbiny]

"I take it that you entirely discount any notion that an intercepted phone call from a foreign terrorist leader to his domestic cell awaiting instructions which bear details of the suicide attack could in any way prevent the attack"

Fisa was set up just to do this- you know how long it takes to get a wire tap from them? -3 days. Thats right, negative three days. you are allowed to apply for a tap up to 3 days after installing it.
So tell me again, why is it nessecary to circumvent the law.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
Some naysayers of the Patriot Act, particularly those who frequently quote Ben Franklin, resign to allowing X amount of terrorist attacks so long as they have Y amount of liberty (I doubt any of them work in a downtown metropolitan skyscraper). To you I ask, what if entirely credible evidence surfaced, along with the open declaration by Al Queda, that Al Queda had possession of dozens of nuclear bombs and was fully committed to detonating them in American cities? Now how much of that X amount of terrorist attacks are you willing to tolerate from your suburban nests?

[/ QUOTE ] I guess I'm in this crowd. Strange comment about Ben Franklin, though...especially since right-wing types are usually the one hearkening back to a bygone era and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, unless you are arguing that Ben Franklin is not a Founding Father. I also work in a downtown metropolitan skyscraper that is, actually, directly in the flight paths of a semi-major airport(Love Field). Your question is a bit dubious, too...since I don't know anyone who says we shouldn't act on credible evidence. I think our problem is the methods to which we obtain said evidence. Quite simply, the phrase "by any means necessary" is terrific for sound bites, and terrifying for domestic policy.

There are many ways to gather evidence that do not violate civil liberties. Why is it too much to ask that we gather our evidence within the confines of our Constitutionally-assured rights, instead of barging ahead, like brainless idiots, oblivious to the reasoning behind many of these protections?

Riddick, what you fail to grasp, presumably because you are blinded by your fear of the unknown, is that the only way the terrorists truly win is if they manage to scare us into no longer living the way we want to. That's what terrorism is...that's why the word "terror" is inside the term. What makes us great, and what the terrorists hate, is that we do not have fear in our lives, the way they do. They want us afraid. They want us to heighten our sense of alert, make us start arming ourselves at all times, never getting a moment's rest.

The truth of the matter is this: it doesn't really matter what we do. If a terrorist is motivated enough, and creative enough, then he can hit us. Does that mean we don't fight back? Of course not, but it does mean that we need someone to fight. We can't just create a phantom enemy...that makes us into Quixote. Punish action, rather than thought. There have always been lunatics in this world, Riddick, and I refuse to live my life in fear of what MIGHT happen, simply because there are insane people in the world whose particular psychosis is destroying the greatest civilization since Rome.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
"I take it that you entirely discount any notion that an intercepted phone call from a foreign terrorist leader to his domestic cell awaiting instructions which bear details of the suicide attack could in any way prevent the attack"

Fisa was set up just to do this- you know how long it takes to get a wire tap from them? -3 days. Thats right, negative three days. you are allowed to apply for a tap up to 3 days after installing it.
So tell me again, why is it nessecary to circumvent the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the FISA courts might ask the administration for inconvenient things like evidence and probable cause. We can't have that when there's millions of terrorists with thousands of nuclear bombs lining up to destroy America. Can't you understand that? The President ha to be able to act, even if he couldn't find a terrorist walking down Pennsylvania avenue with an AK-47 in one hand and bundle of dynamite sticks in the other hand.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
No, not really. Anyone can find bomb making instructions and materials on the internet. They don't need any kind of vast network. The Isrealis have much tighter security and they can't stop it, we can't either.

As for your second scenerio, your best bet would be to lock up every Arab in the country in camps. At the end of the day that is the only effective method of stopping terrorism. If there is a nuclear attack on the US that will probably happen.

If not then I don't see why we are wasting time and money on [censored] that doesn't work.

I'm reminded of a story. After a battle a greek king had captured 10,000 POW. He had imprisoned them and didn't know what to do with them. His advisor suggested that he kill them all to save resources and send a message to his enemies. The king said no, he did not want to anger is enemy. The advisor then suggested he return the prisoners to the enemy to gain favor. The king again said no, saying that he did not want to face these soldiers again on the battlefield. Then the advisor said that the current cost of action was the least favorable option. Not only would his enemy be mad at him for keeping prisoners, but he would spend precious supplies tending to them. Choose one extreme or another, because the middle ground accomplishes nothing and costs a great deal.

The creation of the department of homeland security, wiretaps, all of that is [censored] that doesn't do anything. Either do what you know will work or do nothing and stop wasting everyones time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this post intensely interesting, lehigh, are you saying you are in favor of and advocate concentration camps for Muslims in the US?

way to break the string of three respectable posts CoRed

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[lehighguy]

No. Just that camps and leaving everyone alone are the two options. I favor leaving everyone alone.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]


How are we to fight Al Queda terrorists currently plotting these attacks without violating their civil liberties (being that due process of law is entirely circumvented by the bullet of a Force Recon sniper)? Clearly everyone agrees that no such liberties should be respected absent the title of American citizenship. How then do we act upon these liberty-less terrorists engaged in phone conversations with domestic, constitutionally protected terrorists? Not listen to half of the conversation?



[/ QUOTE ]
If the US person is a suspected domestic terrorist, then get a secret warrant from a FISA court and listen in. If time is of the essence then get it 72 hours after you tap the phone and your're fine.

If you don't like the FISA law that protects US persons from baseless survailence, then take your case to the people's representatives on the hill. What you don't do is simply refuse to get a warrant, secretly breaking the law.

[Exsubmariner]

You mean like Bill Clinton did?

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no inverse relationship between terraism and freedom. Your premise is wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't make this premise; I merely addressed those who feel this way, and absent any complete, documented refutation of their opinion on your part (which needless to say would surprise the hell out of me) then your lack of reading comprehension is and has become expected.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe, Riddick talks gibberish.

Riddick is also still forming an opinion on this latest development (I still haven't read my trusted Cato scholars who often tip the scales) so I'm simply tossing around ideas and could do without the bull [censored].

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean like Bill Clinton did?

[/ QUOTE ]

Okey dokey, show me the link that states when Clinton broke the FISA law and I'll show you how you're wrong (if you are in fact wrong I might add).

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
To you I ask, what if entirely credible evidence surfaced, along with the open declaration by Al Queda, that Al Queda had possession of dozens of nuclear bombs and was fully committed to detonating them in American cities? Now how much of that X amount of terrorist attacks are you willing to tolerate from your suburban nests?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is some dumb [censored]. No really.

Why does the current Kool Aid slurping crowd assume that those opposed are also opposed to all covert surveillance?

What I want is legal wiretaps. I want some independant body to verify the legitamacy of the request. I don't want the current chief banana to just listen on whomever he wishes without probable cause.

What's so hard to understand that part of what we are trying to protect here is our way of life and our constitution (that even includes the pesky bill of rights)? Not just buildings and bodies.

Whats the big problem with checks &amp; balances? Why do we need to vest all the power at the top with no review? Haven't we learned anything about absolute power corrupting absolutely?

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can stop terrorist from hijacking planes again, but you can't stop them from strapping on a bomb and walking onto a bus.

With this is mind, why are we curtailing our civil liberties even though it doesn't make us safer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it that you entirely discount any notion that an intercepted phone call from a foreign terrorist leader to his domestic cell awaiting instructions which bear details of the suicide attack could in any way prevent the attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I will be the first to admit that almost anything is possible, I think you (as well as much of the American public) is vastly overestimating the value of intercepting phone calls. Mind you, I don't suggest we stop trying to intercept phone calls, only that we be realistic as to what we hope to accomplish.

First, there's a huge parlay that needs to take place in order for an intercepted phone message to work. First, we have to intercept a relevant conversation. We have to suspect it is relevant enough that we prioritize it in giving it to our translators. When it is translated, we need to be able to figure out that it is indicating an attack is occurring, even though it is unlikely to do so explicitly. Even when we do, we have to hope there is enough information available in that conversation (and perhaps future intercepted conversations as well) to successfully prevent the attack.

That's a lot of things to break our way. Because of the value of success, it's worth going for this parlay even though the chances of success are going to be rather slim.

I know this is obvious, but it's worth emphasizing...

We are unlikely to intercept a phone message that says "Mr. Zarqawi is calling to inform you that the mission should begin on Saturday, January 13 at 2:45 P.M. Don't forget that you are going to Smith's shopping plaza and you are to wear a green shirt and a black mask. That's Smith's shopping plaza, on the corner of Lee and Third."

We are much more likely to intercept a message that says (in a dialect of Arabic of course), "The plans should begin on the seventh day of the third moon in the Land of the Evil Infidel." Presumably the person receiving the information can figure out the day and the place based on previous conversations. We have to hope that we can find other conversations which make similar references to times and dates, and hope that we can figure out the "key" that encodes their messages.

Similarly, terrorists can make hundreds of phone calls between themselves that tell an attack to take place. However, it might be that only one or two of them contain a code word or phrase that "activates" the message and informs the terrorist to carry out his attack. It's pretty hard to fight through all of that "noise" and figure out where the attack is really happening, and it would be a terribly expensive drain on resources even if we could somehow manage to translate all 100 messages and act on all of them just in case.

Obviously, things are more sophisticated than my silly examples, both in how terrorists try to pass information without it being comprehensible to anyone who should manage to come across in and in the techniques that the U.S. government can use.

But basically, the idea that we are going to prevent an attack in this way is probably grounded more in wishful thinking than in reality than most of us would like. It's possible and it is worth trying, but I think we need to be realistic as well.

(Also, the spying has other benefits as well, which may help us to catch terrorists after they have commmitted an attack or make it more difficult for them to communicate with each other.)

My biggest criticism of Bush and the "War on Terror" is that in my opinion, he has a very poor strategy to prevent terrorism. It's basically the "try at any cost to stop terrorism in the most naive way possible" approach. So we have basically spent a huge amount in resources which have only made it marginally more difficult for a terrorist attack to succeed. (Let me be clear, though. Some of Bush's decisions, such as to pursue al Qaeda in Afghanistan and to remove the Taliban from power, were good strategic decisions. I mostly refer to his claim that we are making ourselves safer from a terrorist attack through the War in Iraq -- a naively short-term view of things in my opinion -- and many of his domestic homeland security principles.)

In my opinion, there are steps that are sensible for us to take in order to help reduce the possibility of a terrorist attack, and some of them may involve a loss of previous liberties. I am okay with that. But I happen to think that transparency in government is a great thing, and while we cannot disclose everything we know, I find the burden of proof to be with the administration when they say something is protecting American lives. If their arguments tend to be accepted among a vast majority of retired agents from the CIA, then I will tend to support their policies.

When I hear the president claim that we are being endangere by having a newspaper report that he is spying on people who the FISA law says can be spied on, I find that rather lacking in credibility. The newspaper article didn't inform terrorists anything they couldn't find out by keeping up with American laws, except that Mr. Bush was ignoring a provision to obtain court warrants from a court that generally rubber stamps most requests.

Anyway, that's just my perspective, and I hope it is helpful to you in forming your own opinion, even if you end up figuring out that I am completely wrong. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
To you I ask, what if entirely credible evidence surfaced, along with the open declaration by Al Queda, that Al Queda had possession of dozens of nuclear bombs and was fully committed to detonating them in American cities? Now how much of that X amount of terrorist attacks are you willing to tolerate from your suburban nests?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes - the "what if" -

nothing like taking a situation and hypothesing ad-infinum until you get a result that supports the course of action you want to take, which includes surveillance on AMERICANS, not just the foreign terrorists..

I know...WHAT IF - Al Queda develops technology that allows them to smuggle flamethrowers in their ass....AND they can fart at will, launching fire at HELPLESS AMERICANS -

SHOULDN'T WE DO SOMETHING - Ass inspections? - increased scrutiny and erosion of Civil Rights? - WHAT IF?-

Wanna know what makes me safe? - it's not GWB with his over-reaching powers of surveillance - It's not the Justice Dept. going after people posting on internet boards about how they dislike the govt. or NYC cops being overzealous in shutting down protestors at the RNC -

It's knowing that IF terrorists take control of another plane, and IF it has passengers, that the chances of them crashing it into another building are slim and none without overwhelming numbers - because ANYONE on an aircraft that gets hijacked is going to seriously consider going Vigilante like they did in PA -

That's the reason we're safer - it's been established that the TSA restrictions put in place after 9/11 are woeful inadequate, but any terrorist who gets on a plane and says "don't worry - sit down and you won't be harmed" is likely to hear a resounding [censored] from the plane and will hopefully find himself clawed into 20 different pieces shortly thereafter.

And Americans should feel safer knowing that if I'm on one of those flights going to Vegas - (I must have flown 12 times this year between Vegas, Montana, Reno, and NYC) - and if my flight is hijacked - rest assured you've got one guy on there willing to go Chuck Norris on their ass given half a shot - cause I'll never believe that plane is gonna land safely anyways....so let's try to even the odds a bit that it makes it safe by placing a nice well planned foot in an aisle as he goes walking by - get him on the ground and stomp his head in - THAT'S anti-terrorism - not spying on the ACLU -

that makes me feel safe - my fellow American citizens - not spying on them or using 9/11 as an excuse to expand surveillance operations to illegal and extra surveillance of Americans under Patriot Act manifestos.

And certainly not the grinning chimp we have running the White House...

RB

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
in what ways do you make America safer following the attacks on 9/11 without scaling up government power in any way?

[/ QUOTE ]

By scaling DOWN government power. Projection of government power overseas is one of the major reasons Al Queda is pissed off in the first place.

Al Queda's stateless nature is what makes them hard to pin down and target. If America were similarly stateless, the "asymmetrical" matchup would suddenly be a lot more symmetrical.

If the US has no coercive foreign policy, and instead only engages in free, voluntary trade, what objection can Al Queda have?

If the US has no policy-making body that can be swayed, what can AQ hope to accomplish?

[Grisgra]

It was so, so easy to replace "David Brooks" with "Riddick".

Credit: The Rude Pundit
---------------------------------------------
Rape Riddick To Save America:
Let us say, and why not, that you're Riddick, desperate apologist for the Bush administration. Let us say, and, indeed, why not, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney decided that the only way to prevent another terrorist attack was to have you raped. So Bush and Cheney went to Alberto Gonzales, who consulted John Yoo, who said, "If the Commander-in-Chief, in a time of war, having been given authorization by the Congress to do what it takes to win the war on terror, decides he needs have Riddick raped as a tactic to win that war, then the President has the inherent power to so order the raping."

Thus, having been approved by his AG, whose initials are, conveniently for the President, "AG," Bush orders that you be raped by the NSA. Now, you, Riddick, cannot be informed that such an order has taken place. And while members of Congress have been briefed on the matter, with a couple lodging concerns about the legality of raping Riddick, the rape has been ordered. So, one day, without warning, some men in black grab you, drag you into a van, gag you, pull down your Armani slacks and boxers, and [censored] your [censored] raw while driving around New York City until, their duty being done, they dump you in front of the Times building. Let's say, and why not, that this begins to happen repeatedly, these kidnappings and rapes, that you, Riddick, are gangbanged, force fisted, and turned into a jizz bucket.

Let's say you learn that a secret order, approved by the President and re-authorized every 45 days, claims that raping you is necessary for national security, that it has stopped terrorist attacks, although it's a secret how and why and what and where, that your constant, boggling, sore-inducing rapes have got those terrorists on the run. Indeed, once it's leaked to the press that an executive order calls for you, Riddick, to be raped repeatedly, the President stands before the world and says not only has he signed off on the rapes, but that he will continue to do so in the future for raping Riddick makes Americans safer. And, the President adds, he can assure the public that he is safeguarding Riddick's civil liberties while ordering his ongoing raping.

Now, if you were you being raped, and not Riddick, you may want to know why your unending string of rapes are necessary. You may want to know if it's possible that terrorist attacks could be averted without raping you. You may wonder if other possible approaches were pursued besides your rape. You might say that it's at the very least legally sketchy for a President to circumvent the law by secretly ordering your rape. You might question the motives of those doing the raping, especially since, despite assurances to the contrary, it turns out that your rapes have been "inadvertently" videotaped and watched by members of the NSA. You may think, "Why must my [censored] suffer for the nation? Why must I be made to swallow so much spy cum? Why, oh, sweet Jesus, is there no other way than raping me?" But that'd be if you were you, and not Riddick.

For if you were Riddick, you'd accept your rapings as a necessary part of the war on terror. You'd simply nod, gladly being raped repeatedly, wondering when you can be raped again for the good of America, keeping your [censored] lubricated so that you can be more easily raped when the President deems it necessary. You'd trust the Bush administration and the NSA to rape you safely, making sure you get no diseases or excessive anal tearing. And, if you were Riddick, you'd use your bully pulpit, your space in 2+2, to praise your raping and question the motives of those who think raping you is a bad idea, that you believe the President when he says that raping you is the only way to get the job done.

Which is essentially what Riddick did today in his holy-[censored]-he's-insane column, where he asks you to play President Bush and face the decisions he faced after 9/11, as well as the "effect on your psychology" of continued briefings of terrorist threats (one assumes, Riddick is asking "you" to go slightly bugfuck paranoid, which is always a good way to make policy). After a long-ass scenario of options "you" as President have, Riddick says that "you" decide to shortcut around the FISA court to spy on Americans. And, Riddick concludes, because the NSA's domestic surveillance program has been revealed, we should "Face the fact that the odds of an attack on America just went up." Man, Donald Rumsfeld couldn't have put it more crazily.

But that's Riddick - proudly bending over for the good of the White House.
-------------------
( Original column. (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/rape-david-brooks-to-save-america-let.html))