Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-30-2005, 08:03 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism

way to break the string of three respectable posts CoRed

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-30-2005, 08:03 PM
lehighguy lehighguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 590
Default Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism

No. Just that camps and leaving everyone alone are the two options. I favor leaving everyone alone.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-30-2005, 08:21 PM
twowords twowords is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Climbing to 1BB/100...
Posts: 137
Default Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-30-2005, 08:24 PM
Exsubmariner Exsubmariner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Now Declassified
Posts: 71
Default Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism

You mean like Bill Clinton did?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-30-2005, 08:31 PM
twowords twowords is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Climbing to 1BB/100...
Posts: 137
Default Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-30-2005, 08:34 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism

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].
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-30-2005, 08:44 PM
twowords twowords is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Climbing to 1BB/100...
Posts: 137
Default Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism

[ 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).
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-30-2005, 09:09 PM
Meech Meech is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Meechigan
Posts: 59
Default Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism

[ 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 & 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?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-30-2005, 11:11 PM
sweetjazz sweetjazz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 95
Default Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-30-2005, 11:49 PM
whiskeytown whiskeytown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 700
Default Re: comment-questions on liberties/terrorism

[ 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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.