RitterSport
11-09-2010, 05:49 AM
Allow me to introduce David Headley: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/world/asia/08terror.html?_r=1&ref=politics
He was a drug informer that was released from parole by (maybe) the D.E.A. in order to help with the "war" on drugs in Pakistan. Unfortunately, he was also a radical Islamist who helped coordinate several terror attacks, including a big one in Mumbai. Whoops! Our bad, India. Boy, is our face red!
But, really, how could we have known? Oh, that's right, three of his ex-wives/girlfriends warned us that he was becoming radicalized (is that like a bee that becomes Africanized? Or a metal that is galvanized?). But, they were just women scorned, so easily ignored.
To me, this raises three questions (at least):
1. Which war is more important? I think most people would go with terror, but the government seems to go with drugs. (My view is that both should be treated like crimes, not wars)
2. What's the point of giving up our civil liberties so the government can have all of this extra info? My view is that the problem is too much information, and we've seen many examples where the government had information in hand but ignored or overlooked it (see also the underwear bomber, whose father had been warning the US that he was becoming galvanized, uh, radicalized).
3. Was there some subtle sexism in play in this case? I think yes. If this had been a radical Islamist woman whose exes were warning about radicalism, the government agencies would have paid more attention.
This happened during the Bush administration, but so what? The Obama administration has been just as bad or nearly as bad with expanded executive branch powers. And, sure, there's an overwhelming amount of information coming in, but the technology will catch up, and then the apparatus will be in place for really serious civil liberty intrusions. If not the Obama administration, it will be the 2016 Palin administration or the 2024 Chelsea Clinton administration.
He was a drug informer that was released from parole by (maybe) the D.E.A. in order to help with the "war" on drugs in Pakistan. Unfortunately, he was also a radical Islamist who helped coordinate several terror attacks, including a big one in Mumbai. Whoops! Our bad, India. Boy, is our face red!
But, really, how could we have known? Oh, that's right, three of his ex-wives/girlfriends warned us that he was becoming radicalized (is that like a bee that becomes Africanized? Or a metal that is galvanized?). But, they were just women scorned, so easily ignored.
To me, this raises three questions (at least):
1. Which war is more important? I think most people would go with terror, but the government seems to go with drugs. (My view is that both should be treated like crimes, not wars)
2. What's the point of giving up our civil liberties so the government can have all of this extra info? My view is that the problem is too much information, and we've seen many examples where the government had information in hand but ignored or overlooked it (see also the underwear bomber, whose father had been warning the US that he was becoming galvanized, uh, radicalized).
3. Was there some subtle sexism in play in this case? I think yes. If this had been a radical Islamist woman whose exes were warning about radicalism, the government agencies would have paid more attention.
This happened during the Bush administration, but so what? The Obama administration has been just as bad or nearly as bad with expanded executive branch powers. And, sure, there's an overwhelming amount of information coming in, but the technology will catch up, and then the apparatus will be in place for really serious civil liberty intrusions. If not the Obama administration, it will be the 2016 Palin administration or the 2024 Chelsea Clinton administration.