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?

Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism
 

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.

Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism
 

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.

Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism
 

[ 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>

Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism
 

[ 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).

Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism
 

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.

Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism
 

"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.

Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism
 

[ 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.

Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism
 

[ 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.

Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism
 

[ 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?