Another attack? 100% Certain, sez Intelligence. Discuss.

[Stoid]

How can they call something like that an absolute certainty? They have, though. Creepier still, there are "Vague intelligence reports" that echo the kinds of reports that had been received prior to 9-11. Hey, that's greeeaaat.

So...predictions? More of the same? As bad? Worse?

Everyone stockingup on canned goods and gas masks? Glad you have those y2k supplies in the garage?

And here's my prediction: If there is another, and it is roughly the same or somewhat lesser magnitude than 9-11, our collective grief will be shallower and briefer. And if they continue, I predict it won't be very long at all before we become like Israelis... hey man, shit happens, but life goes on. Reminds me of one of my favorites from the Onion prediction thread:
America Target of International Terrorism; "Join the fucking club!" says rest of world. (Sorry, don't have the credit at hand)

Ain't it a shame. I can't decide whether this would be fundamentally good or bad. A little of both, I think.

[Darwin's Finch]

They can call it an absolute certainty simply because we have not caught all potential terrorists within our borders. The "surprise" of the 09/11 events was not "if" but "when".

As for the next attack, I'd say it will likely be in the form of a car bomb (or, perhaps more likely, a truck bomb). Relatively easy to make (or so they say -- I'm hardly an explosives expert), harder to catch beforehand, and still quite destructive (witness Oklahoma City). Chemical and biological agents aren't exactly something you can pick up at the local hardware store, so I seriously doubt that that will be the most likely choice. That and you can't really accomplish anything symbolic with invisible agents such as those. Blowing up a major, highly-visible building, on the other hand, scores major propaganda points.

[Sam Stone]

Plus, the intelligence community has picked up all kinds of evidence that there is *something going on, they just can't figure out where. There are lots of strange movements of terrorists going on right now that mirror what happened just before the WTC attacks, according to CNN today.

Don't forget that they found 'box cutters' on several aircraft that were grounded after the first two hit the WTC. Since we know that there were at least 4-5 terrorists on each plane, you know that there are at least 10 people willing to die for the cause running around in the U.S. right now. And for each one of them, there had to be other terrorists who supplied them with cash, information, etc. There are probably hundreds or thousands of them in the U.S. as we speak. Once a shooting war starts, I think it's fair to say that it's a virtual certainty that they'll do *something.

[Tranquilis]

Just to be cynical for a moment:

"Another attack is coming!" is a safe cry, especially if you want to divert attention from your mistakes, or wish to have a bigger slice of the budget. They totally missed the previous attacks, but now, suddenly, their capabilities have expanded, thier vision is more clear? Well, maybe a little, but I'm suspicious. Of course there's another attack coming! Duh! That's usless info. Tell me when the next attack is coming. Tell me where the next target is. Tell me who the next batch of a$$holes are. Running about yelling "the terrorists are coming" isn't helpful. and if the attack doesn't come soon, they can claim "we scared them off", whether or not there ever was an attack planned for a certain day, place, or whatever.

After years of listening to our government attempting to strip away our privacy and gain unregulated law-enforcement powers with the cry "the hackers are coming", I have a jaundiced view when they suddenly drop that form of rhetoric, and commence a hue and cry over a new (and vicious) foe. This is custom made for the kind of people who sprang Carnivore on us, pass legislation that makes it a crime to publicly report, or even investigate, weaknesses in software (DCMA), and want to require ISPs to monitor your web traffic.

Yup, there are terrorists out there, and they're evil bastards, but there are some bastards in our own government, and I'm suspicious of their motives, especially after the number of recent warnings that turned out to be baseless.

Government types: Listen up! If you want my trust, tell me why you believe there to be another attack. I don't need specifics, but vaugely-worded "warnings" that turn out to be unfounded are killing your credibillity!

[kniz]

First we had McVeigh and now bin Laden, so it doesn't take much to predict there will be more terrorism in the U.S. I agree with Tranquilis that this is a safe call that has been made to draw attention and funds. It does nothing to help us deal with the situation.

[musicguy]

I think that California could be a target for attack (Of course, living in California helps one ponder these thoughts far too much). With our recent energy-related economic woes taking their toll, our industry and large population, and our many achilles heels, I think we could be caught with our pants down. Starting a bunch of fires would overwhelm our emergency crews, lowering our defenses. Taking out the nuclear plant in San Clemente could do a lot of damage. Setting a bomb off in Disneyland would carry a lot of shock value. Or even this...

I wouldn't be surprised to see the entertainment industry hit. I would think that it would be seen as highly immoral to a religious fanatic. I also can't help think that taking out a bunch of celebrities would have major economical ramifications to this industry and deal an emotional blow to all of the people across the world that unfortunatly idolize this segment of society.

Having said this, I sincerely hope it doesn't happen anywhere. I hope hightened awareness my law enforcement and intelligence can detect a catastrophe before it happens. Another tragedy the magnitude of the WTC is something I hope I never see in my lifetime.

[musicguy]

Sorry...

It should have read "hightened awareness OF law enforcement..

[Monster104]

What about a pirated cargo ship detonating a bomb in LA Harbor? (Or any harbor?)

[Yuck]

How about these predictions being dragged out for another almost four years so that we can suffer four more?

First he talked the economy to hell, now he's inviting more attacks. Thank God for the Supremes, eh?

[Monster104]

How can they call something like that an absolute certainty? They have, though. Creepier still, there are "Vague intelligence reports" that echo the kinds of reports that had been received prior to 9-11
I have to comment on this.

The reason they can call it a certainty is due to the huge amount of info gathered during the vast international investigation.

My prediction is much different from yours, Stoid. I believe that if the attack is equal to or greater in damage, or if it is nuclear, biological, or chemical, that the US will initiate tactical nuclear assaults on the Taliban and bin Laden. This is due to my feeling that Americans are far more easily angered than most other cultures.

Eh. I'm tired and cynical. I bet I'll feel better in the morning.

[London_Calling]

The Security Services get, what, 20 rumours/leads/suggestions each week from different sources about this kind of thing ?

I just see the publicity for this particular claim as another very good indicator that 'we' are about to begin air strikes (probably within the next 5 or so days IMHO) – just one of the final media exercises to boost international support - if it needed boosting - for the impending action.

Looks to me like one of those 'can't prove, can't disprove' thangs so there's nothing to lose and maybe something to gain by saying it. A sound political tactic.

[squeegee]

Depending on who's talking, quite a lot of this is 'spin'. Remember, Congress is in the process of passing antiterrorist legislation, and they're reluctant to grant new authority to the Feds that could restrict liberties in the future.

So when you hear someone, especially Ashcroft shudder, making dire predictions, this is meant for congress' ears or for constituents who can pressure lawmakers into giving the administration what they want.

[Spoke]

Tranquilis wrote:Of course there's another attack coming! Duh! That's usless info.

It is beyond useless. It is counterproductive, inasmuch as it helps the terrorists accomplish their goal: terror. These pronouncements only feed the atmosphere of unease, and create drags on the economy by (for example) keeping folks off of airplanes.

[elucidator]

"Tranquilis", eh? Rather suspicious. Sounds rather like "peace". Hmmmmmm. Goes on to suggest that our Leaders are venal and self-serving, even though anyone can clearly see that they are wrapped from head to toe in redwhiteandblue bunting. Certainly there is a place for dissent in our society, but now is the time to take an airplane to the mall and buy! buy! buy! Better have look at this e-mail while we're at it. Could be one of those knee-jerk peace-creeps who are spitting on firemen in airports.

[DocCathode]

I OTOH love Big Brother. I know that the Thought Police would NEVER claim another attack was coming just to get more funding, or cover up their incompetence (How can you call them incompetent? They've done such a great job so far!), or distract the public while our civil rights are stripped away (like we need civil rights. War is peace! Slavery is true freedom!). I know that the government would never lie to us. If they say another attack is coming, it's because they always share information with us. How could anyone think that they would have an ulterior motive?


PS We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania.

[The Ryan]

I don't see another attack, at least of the same type, as being very likely in the near future. If they had 10 more people willing to die in an attack, why didn't they send them on Sep 11? It's going to be much harder now to do that then it was then.

[Sam Stone]

I think Bin Laden is a smart guy. As such, he knew that after Sept. 11 it would be very difficult to get agents into the U.S., and very difficult to acquire weapons of terror.

So if you are a smart guy, and you know that, what are you going to do? Answer: You're going to have your people and weapons in place BEFORE the attack. My opinion is that there are a large number of terrorist cells in the U.S., each one of which was given 'marching orders' before Sept. 11, either triggered by pre-determined events (like a U.S. retaliatory strike), or by coded message either through HF radio or some other signal.

[Hazel]

Originally posted by The Ryan
I don't see another attack, at least of the same type, as being very likely in the near future. If they had 10 more people willing to die in an attack, why didn't they send them on Sep 11? It's going to be much harder now to do that then it was then.

I think the poster you're responding to was saying this: if hidden box cutters were found on two airplanes that means that those two planes had would-be hijackers aboard. These two hijackings were prevented when all planes were grounded. Aprox. 8 to 10 guys who were intending to hijack a plane for a suicide bombing are still out there, somewhere in America. They want to die for their cause. What will be their next move? Are they on their own, or are they in touch with an HQ that can send them money and instructions?

[Hazel]

Just read Sam Stone's post. I think he's right. There could well be a lot more then just 8 or 10 terrorists already here, just waiting for a pre-determined date or event, or for instructions.

I don't see much liklihood that they will try more hijackings. The old concepts about hijackings are utterly dead (the assumption that hijackers should not be reisted; that they just want a trip to wherever or a batch of hostages).

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally posted by DocCathode
I OTOH love Big Brother. I know that the Thought Police would NEVER claim another attack was coming just to get more funding, or cover up their incompetence (How can you call them incompetent? They've done such a great job so far!), or distract the public while our civil rights are stripped away (like we need civil rights. War is peace! Slavery is true freedom!). I know that the government would never lie to us. If they say another attack is coming, it's because they always share information with us. How could anyone think that they would have an ulterior motive?


PS We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania.






B.B. is not quite upon us yet, but there are some pretty eerie things going on. Public video cameras to match our faces to suspects’? Unsubstantiated arrest figures making headlines? A long-term war with a nebulous, unidentifiable enemy? Dramatic rights-affecting security legislation titled “Patriotic” or some such nay-vote-prevention name? National Identity Cards being seriously considered – cards with strong corporate sponsorship? Yes, the times are eerie. But we are not quite up to a B.B. scenario yet. Besides, it wasn’t until the incident that I noticed Bush has such a nice smile.

[msmith537]

Originally posted by DocCathode
I OTOH love Big Brother. I know that the Thought Police would NEVER claim another attack was coming just to get more funding, or cover up their incompetence (How can you call them incompetent? [/B]


I swear to God. Orwell should have never written those stupid books. Thanks to him, every time they put a video camera on a public street, people start complaining about Big Brother is watching them. How does monitoring email/cell phone traffic, DNA or biometric testing, or videotaping me buying coffee on my way to work interfear with my rights? Personally, I could care less of some beurocrat has to sit through my mundane conversations with my girlfriend if it will prevent terrorists from driving a car bomb into the Lincoln tunnel or something.

Quite frankly, it is mind-boggling to me that some people are actually more worried about phantom government conspiracies than an actual threat.

P.S. - The Taliban is one of the most repressive governments I've ever heard of. They also have almost no advanced technology. Our freedom as Americans has nothing to do with video cameras or security cards.

[DocCathode]

Originally posted by msmith537
I swear to God. Orwell should have never written those stupid books. Thanks to him, every time they put a video camera on a public street, people start complaining about Big Brother is watching them. How does monitoring email/cell phone traffic, DNA or biometric testing, or videotaping me buying coffee on my way to work interfear with my rights? Personally, I could care less of some beurocrat has to sit through my mundane conversations with my girlfriend if it will prevent terrorists from driving a car bomb into the Lincoln tunnel or something.

...Our freedom as Americans has nothing to do with video cameras or security cards.

You honestly don't see the FBI or CIA reading your email or monitoring your cell phone calls as violating your Constitutional right to privacy? If Orwell were alive today, he'd probbaly agree that he shouldn't have written those books. Because he wouldn't believe any one had actually read them. You've just said that you're willing to give up some of your rights so that the givernment can better protect you? Think about that for a while.

Have you ever heard of the Gestappo? Or the Soviet Union's Department Of Internal Security? Granted, these organizations were much more effective in stopping crimes. They were also effective at making innocent people disappear. Were they BB? No, but only because they lacked that level of technology.

I have no problem with increased airport security. But if anyone is tapping my phone or monitoring my computer, they had damn well better have a warrant( currently, they can put a keystroke log on my computer without a warrant of any kind). That warrant had damn well better hold up under scrutiny. This is not a slippery slope argument. Ashcroft and others have made it clear that they would take away all kinds of rights if they could.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by msmith537
[QUOTE] Thanks to him, every time they put a video camera on a public street, people start complaining about Big Brother is watching them. How does monitoring email/cell phone traffic, DNA or biometric testing, or videotaping me buying coffee on my way to work interfear with my rights?

Because the idea of unrestricted searches is unconstitiutional. A video camera that monitors me on a street corner is as much a search as a tapping my phone or searching my desk drawers.

To monitor my cell-phone/e-mail, to search my house or my car, the people doing the monitoring have to get a court order which allows them to do so. To do DNA tests, they need my consent and (maybe) a court order.

Put up cameras on every street corner, they can monitor me at will, without court orders.

This is a major difference between the two and, IMHO a gross Constitutional violation.

Fenris

[msmith537]

Originally posted by DocCathode
You honestly don't see the FBI or CIA reading your email or monitoring your cell phone calls as violating your Constitutional right to privacy? ...You've just said that you're willing to give up some of your rights so that the givernment can better protect you? Think about that for a while.


I just did a search of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights at http://www.nara.gov and nowhere did the word "privacy" come up. Thus, we do not have a Constitutional right to privacy.

I don't see it as "giving up rights for safety". We sacrifice convienience for the sake of safety. When we go on an airplane, we and our luggage are searched as thouroghly as is practical. Is that a violation of our 'unreasonable search and seizure' rights? I think not. It's not unreasonable to expect to be inconvenienced a little in order to prevent the deaths of 50, 500, or even 5000 people.

Specifically regarding phones/cell phones/email. I don't really have the answer as to what level of security is reasonable. But think of it this way. If you are having a conversation with someone on the street, anyone within earshot can hear that conversation. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that situation.

I don't have a problem with a camera monitoring public areas. It doesn't affect my freedom of movement or expression. I don't even have a problem with a camera that matches my face against any potential criminals. IMO, it would be the same thing if there was a cop walking a beat down my block.

Where I see a potential problem is if a record is kept of my comings and goings or my conversations. I would be concerned that maybe those records could be used to profile me for a job or health insurance or something.

Basically, I don't think that our freedom is protected by hamstringing our law enforcement agencies. I believe that its protected by putting checks and balances in place that ensure that our government is looking out for our best interests.

As kind of a side note, I saw something interesting about German law enforcement. Germany is very privacy concious (presumably in light of WWII). When a camera takes a picture of you speeding in your car, they block out the pasengers face.


Originally posted by DocCathode
Ashcroft and others have made it clear that they would take away all kinds of rights if they could. [/B]

Could you provide a site for this?

[Stoid]

Constitutional right to privacy is implied in several ways, as the courts have ruled. It is the right to privacy which is cited as the basis for a woman's right to choose.

But aside from that, random surveillance of the citizenry is a direct violation of this: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches..."

stoid

[Beagle]

Originally posted by Fenris
...A video camera that monitors me on a street corner is as much a search as a tapping my phone or searching my desk drawers...
Fenris [/B]
[legal mumbo jumbo]
No, no "reasonable expectation of privacy."
[/legal mumbo jumbo]
Think about it, if the cops could just watch you (like on the street) it is not a violation of your privacy that they use a camera to do it. I think people forget that in 1984 the "telescreens" were in living rooms. Cameras on streets are not really all that frightening. "Public" streets: the polar opposite of "private."

[Yuck]

In response to those who believe that our civil rights are not at risk here, I offer the following from the NY Times:


But last week Mr. Fitzwater said in an interview that he did not necessarily feel the same way about the war against terrorism. "I think this conflict is going to require a suspension of freedom and rights unlike anything we have seen, at least since World War II," he said.


History has shown us that civil rights are hard to get, but easy to give up. I have to assume that they will also be hard(er) to get back.

I disagree with the notion that the freedoms my forefathers died for can be relinquished in order to save even one person's life.

I think that the intelligence agencies ought to pay attention to all of the scenarios of Tom Clancy's books.

[waterj2]

Constitutional right to privacy is implied in several ways, as the courts have ruled. It is the right to privacy which is cited as the basis for a woman's right to choose.
I think it was originally Griswold v. Connecticut that established something of a general right to privacy. Basically, the reasoning seemed to be that while no such right actually exists, the purpose of limiting the government's powers as the Constitution does would seem to indicate that people have the right to expect that their privacy be respected. This case was then used to justify the Roe v. Wade decision, which I believe takes a right to privacy a bit further.

Altogether, due to the murkiness of the Constitution and subsequent USSC decisions (Griswold is famously poorly written), a right to privacy is a pretty debateable issue. But there is certainly something to it. In The West Wing a potential Justice's views on the issue were the deciding factor in his being rejected in favor of another candidate.

Just in case it's not clear, I'm expanding on what Stoid wrote, not disagreeing with it

[Tranquilis]

Originally posted by elucidator
"Tranquilis", eh? Rather suspicious. Sounds rather like "peace". Hmmmmmm...
...Could be one of those knee-jerk peace-creeps who are spitting on firemen in airports. Heh!

Very funny. I think it's suppossed to be funny, yes? "Tranquilis" comes from my Shell-Back initiation, wherein I emerged, finally, after a day-long ordeal, as a Spiny Shell-Back from the Sea of Tranquility. This happened while I was on active Naval service, doing things that I can tell my children about in another about 15 years or so. Maybe.

Having been on the pointy end of military... hmmm... activities... tends to give one a jaundiced view.

[Tranquilis]

Originally posted by msmith537
[QUOTE]....Personally, I could care less of some beurocrat has to sit through my mundane conversations with my girlfriend if it will prevent terrorists from driving a car bomb into the Lincoln tunnel or something.

Quite frankly, it is mind-boggling to me that some people are actually more worried about phantom government conspiracies than an actual threat.

P.S. - The Taliban is one of the most repressive governments I've ever heard of. They also have almost no advanced technology. Our freedom as Americans has nothing to do with video cameras or security cards.
I Care. My freedom and dignity are more important than my need for security, especially the nebulous "security" offered by the various measures offered by the measures currently under consideration.

I think that is the real threat. Terrorists have largely succeeded, when intelligent people are willing to surrender their freedom for "security". Sure, it's just a little thing. After all, as things stand now, our government would never pass laws that would permit corporations to have credentialled security investigators arrested (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/20444.html) for doing their job, now would they? Oh wait... They did (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/21324.html).

As for the disparity in technology, it's a straw-man. Totally beside the point.

[Leaper]

Originally posted by Beagle
[legal mumbo jumbo]
No, no "reasonable expectation of privacy."
[/legal mumbo jumbo]
Think about it, if the cops could just watch you (like on the street) it is not a violation of your privacy that they use a camera to do it. I think people forget that in 1984 the "telescreens" were in living rooms. Cameras on streets are not really all that frightening. "Public" streets: the polar opposite of "private." [/B]

Some argue (I dunno what I think of it, but this is the argument) that while putting cops on every block to keep tabs on people is too expensive, cameras allow them to do it quickly and cheaply. Imagine, they say, the police keeping track of who goes to peace rallies and gay bars much more easily and efficently than they could sending dozen cops out on the street. Perhaps this information is passed on to higher officials, who can then alter tapes and put out trumped-up charges against "enemies of the state," or release the tape to publicly humiliate people. Since assumably the original tapes wouldn't be available to the general public, who could stop them?

All I'm saying here is that those who're opposed to this concept HAVE thought through the "public = anyone free to watch you" thing. Their point is that while you COULD hire ten more cops to do all the corrupt things corrupt leaders would want to do, it's a LOT easier with cameras.

[Sam Stone]

Something to think about, whether you are a Democrat or Republican:

When considering some new government power, don't consider how the current government would use it. Think about the scariest guy you know who could conceivably become president, then ask yourself how you'd feel if HE had that power.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Sam Stone

When considering some new government power, don't consider how the current government would use it. Think about the scariest guy you know who could conceivably become president, then ask yourself how you'd feel if HE had that power.

I do not say this to be inflammatory, I say it because it is absolutely true: You have described my current dilemma.

[Hazel]

I'd say it, but Stoid beat me to it.

[DocCathode]

I can't decide whether to enjoy being on the same side as Stoid for the first time, or take it as a sign of the apocalypse.

Back to the topic-For a long time politicians wanting to take away our rights have said (Helen Lovejoy voice) "The children!My God! Won't someone please think of the children?". Now they've switched to "The terrorists! WE've got to catch those terrorists!". But if we allow our rights to be taken from us, the terrorists become irrelevant. They won't need to destroy America, because we will have done it for them.

I'd also like to remind everyone of a man named McCarthy. His commitee on Unamerican Activities committed plenty of unamerican activities. The slope IS slippery. It DID happen here. It could happen again.

[elucidator]

Originally posted by DocCathode
I can't decide whether to enjoy being on the same side as Stoid for the first time, or take it as a sign of the apocalypse.


"And the lion shall lie down with the sheep, and the Beast With Two Backs will give forth carnivorous lambs..."

Or something like that.

As to the OP....I am writing the morning after the bombing. If they can, they will attack very soon. If they don't, we can likely breathe a bit easier.

However....the trouble with High Alert status is that nobody wants to be the guy to call it off. If something happens after that, the Designated Scapegoat law takes effect.

And to echo Doc re the "slippery slope". Keep in mind: Hitler was elected.

[Tranquilis]

Sam Stone said it perfectly, and DocCathode nicely filled-in the blanks.

Y'all mark this day, 'cause Stoid and I are on the same side for once, maybe for the only time.

[GKW]

Isn't that the job of the 'Office of the Fatherland Security' - to warn us when and where another terrorist attack will take place? Or will they just be concerned with turning us into a police state? Anyone else think it appropriate that Clarence Thomas swore Tom Ridge in?

[shelbo]

Originally posted by Tranquilis
Just to be cynical for a moment:

"Another attack is coming!" is a safe cry, especially if you want to divert attention from your mistakes, or wish to have a bigger slice of the budget.
snip
Yup, there are terrorists out there, and they're evil bastards, but there are some bastards in our own government, and I'm suspicious of their motives, especially after the number of recent warnings that turned out to be baseless.

Rudy Guillani was on the news yesterday discussing something like this. Before 9/11, NY received an average of 10 bomb threats a day. That number has increased in the last few weeks. Out of an abundance of caution, they are reacting to threats that might, previously, have been dismissed as not credible. So, while cynicism is fine, I think that in this case I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

[rjung]

I don't know where msmith537 is living, but I sure don't want to live there. The idea that the government has a right (nay, a duty!)to know each and every little thing about your life is downright creepy on so many levels. There always has to be a balance between liberty and security, but such sentiments are nothing more than glorified ways to sacrifice all of our liberties for the security of being in a cage. Thanks, but no.

As for the original OP, I think it's a tossup -- on the one hand, you're scaring the populace and doing the terrorists' job for them. On the other hand, the heightened awareness will help folks keep an eye open and hopefully prevent something before it starts. The trick is to walk the fine line without falling into complete paranoia...

Stay alert!
Trust no one!
Keep your laser handy!
--"Paranoia: The Role-Playing Game", West End Games

[Stoid]

I came into this thread with my eyes squinched shut, barely peaking through my fingers, fully expecting excoriation!

What I can't fgure out, thought, is how people who apparently never agreed with me before are agreeing with me now. It's not like these are brand new topics or brand new people... well, I won't worry about that, I'll just bask in the inclusion.

I gotta say it's an incredible relief to see that we haven't completely lost our collective heads over this, and lots of people still recognize quite clearly how giving up our freedoms to fight terrorism is exactly the wrong thing to do.

stoid

[Lemur866]

Here's the thing about video surveillance. How are you going to stop it? Digital cameras are going to be so cheap you'll get them in your box of Cap'n Crunch. Forget government surviellance, what about private suveillance? It is already completely legal for stores, banks, and businesses to videotape their property and monitor everyone who goes there. And you have absolutely no constitutional protection against this, since it is private property. Don't like it? Your only choice is to stay home.

Technology is going to make it easier and easier and easier to monitor everyone. Anonymity is going to be harder and harder and harder to preserve. The only alternative is to shut down the technology, and stop computer research. We know that's not going to happen. We already know that every email we send is a public document. Everything we say in public is public. Everywhere we go in public is public.

So...there is no way to prevent essentially unlimited surveillance. The era of privacy is over. I know you don't like it, but there's nothing we can do about it. Passing laws against it won't work. Do you think a little bitty law against video surveillance is going to stop powerful people from using these tools? No, it won't stop the powerful people, it will stop the average people, like you and me.

So what the solution? We can't stop the powerful people from spying on us. The only solution is to protect our ability to spy on them. Reciprocal transparency. Spying loses its power when it cannot be kept secret. If cops are sitting in a room watching the cameras, the solution is not to remove the cameras but to put another camera on the cops and watch the cops.

This is probably going to happen first in Europe. Americans are too paranoid. But national ID cards don't make European countries into totalitarian nightmare states, do they? Technology doesn't transform a country into a totalitarian state, *people* do. Cameras don't turn cops into jackbooted thugs, what they do with the cameras does. And how can the politicians use minor indiscretions to punish the citizens when *their* minor indiscretions are all on tape?

Ubiquitous surveillance will only be harmful if we MAKE it harmful by our own policy decisions. Privacy, cryptography, anonymity cannot protect us, since they can be stripped away without even breaking a sweat by the new technology. How are you going to use cryptography to protect your data when they can simply fly a pinhead sized camera into your office and record every keystroke over your shoulder?

But if we know who "they" are, if everyone can watch "them" at work, if everyone knows what "they" are up to, then "they" lose their power over us.

[Sofa King]

A second case of Anthrax (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25238-2001Oct8.html) spotted in Florida.

Oooh, please, Mr. bin Laden! Stop targeting our tabloid magazine employees! Next thing you know, he'll be going after e-mail spammers and personal injury lawyers, too.

[Tranquilis]

Stoid, it's all about "appropriateness" (is that a word?). When the Gov't is behaving itself, or at least appears to be in good check, your typical position is too extreme for most folk. When the gov't is out of control, or appears to be trying to slip it's leash, then your "natural" reaction is just what's needed. Right now, the Gov't appears to straining mighty hard on the leash, and needs to be brought to heel.

shelbo, I understand that times like this call for more caution, especially when sickos are phoning in threats to feed their pathetic little egos, and Guillianni has done a steller job. I'm not talking so much about him as I am about national-level politicos. Frankly, I mildly disaproved of Rudy before the 11th ("Before the 11th". Is that to become a common marker in our conversations, like "before the war"?), as I found him to be a little too authoritarian, and too uncommunicative. Since that day, he's shone like few leaders could have, and if hints of political interest have crept in, it still has been an amazing display. Bravo Zulu, Rudy! I think rjung hit it nicely: We've got to walk the path of reasonable caution, without locking ourselves into a prison of our own making.

Lemur, You've got an excellent point, but we don't have to be on the "inevitable" path to universal monitoring. The trick is to slap the politicos whenever they get out of line. For example, there is an alternative (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/21992.html) to Carnivore, created by a private company, costing less than Carnivore, that does precisely what it's told, and nothing more, as defined by the limits of a particular court order. In other words, it has the granualarity that indiscriminate beast, Carnivore, lacks. That's a path we can follow: One where safeguards are put into place, and technology is only permitted where it's appropriate. The way to that path is narrow, and steep, and slippery slopes are on both sides, but we can walk it, if we keep out eyes on the goal: A world where the gov't serves us, and not the other way 'round.

[DocCathode]

Originally posted by Tranquilis

The way to that path is narrow, and steep, and slippery slopes are on both sides, but we can walk it, if we keep out eyes on the goal: A world where the gov't serves us, and not the other way 'round.

"That this government, of the people, for the people and by the people shall not perish from the face of the Earth"

Stoid-I feel the same way about you as I do Bob Dole or John McCain. While I usually disagree with your positions, I know that you are acting out of an obligation to do what you see is right. We both want the most good for the most people. We just disagree on how to get it.

[UncleBeer]

First he talked the economy to hell, now he's inviting more attacks.
Didn't take long for the republican bashing to appear in this thread. I'm glad to find I wasn't disappointed. Ya gotta citation for those assertions of fact there, Yuck? 'cuz frankly, I'm inclined to doubt both of the two.

Also,
History has shown us that civil rights are hard to get, but easy to give up. I have to assume that they will also be hard(er) to get back,
I'm glad to see that some of the things we pro-2nd amendment people have bee saying all along have finally sunk in.

[Blacksheepsmith]

Originally posted by Stoid
Originally posted by Sam Stone

When considering some new government power, don't consider how the current government would use it. Think about the scariest guy you know who could conceivably become president, then ask yourself how you'd feel if HE had that power.

I do not say this to be inflammatory, I say it because it is absolutely true: You have described my current dilemma.

Whether or not you meant it that way, Stoid, that is highly inflammatory. It just doesn't help, you know?

Bush isn't Hitler. He's not Stalin.

He's not even Osama bin Laden.

Let's not abandon our perspective for the sake of an easy rhetorical flourish...

[Sofa King]

Bush isn't Hitler. He's not Stalin.

...And Hitler wasn't Hindenberg, either, which is exactly how he got hold of the tools he needed to turn Germany into a totalitarian state. We can't tailor our rights to the individuals in office.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Blacksheepsmith
Let's not abandon our perspective for the sake of an easy rhetorical flourish...

I haven't. I just don't share your perspective. And a perusal of this thread shows that a number of people do share mine.

stoid

[Tranquilis]

Stoid, about this bit?What I can't fgure out, thought, is how people who apparently never agreed with me before are agreeing with me now. It's not like these are brand new topics or brand new people... well, I won't worry about that, I'll just bask in the inclusion.Think on this question you've asked, long and hard. It's an excellent question, and shouldn't be shrugged off. Some of the possible answers you come up with, if you're unflinching, may suprise the daylights out of you. They may even make you pretty darn uncomfortable, but maybe those answers have some value, too.

[Ned]

Off topic a bit, it turns out that this is the statement that bush has been frothing about and using to justify limiting constitutional oversight rights of congress.

What about this information makes it legitimately classified information? Beyond the fact that it would seem to be almost a given are there any possible repercussions to the release other than political? It seems like paranoid spin control to me.

[Tranquilis]

Nah, Bush is pissed because some Senator (Thurmond, maybe?) blabbed real classified material to the press, thinking it was UNCLAS. This is the Prez getting a little pay-back at loose-lipped Sentators. You can bet that the blabber-mouth is catching all kinds of heat from his buddies that don't get to share the jucy tid-bits anymore. Those Senators required by law to recieve briefings are still getting them. You can be sure if he cut out, say, the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee Chairman, or the Chairman of the House Armed Forces Committee, to pick a couple of examples, we'd be hearing about it, big time.

[Ned]

Do you know this? It was reported on CNN today that this was the information that he was refering to. I assume you have better information?

[Aester]

Originally posted by Blacksheepsmith

Bush isn't Hitler. He's not Stalin.

He's not even Osama bin Laden.

Ah, but have you ever seen them in the same room together?

Aester

[Tranquilis]

I assume you have better information? Unfortunately I don't have a cite, it came from one of my news rags, but I can't remember which one. IIRC, I read it before the 11th, that a Senator had blabbed classified material to the press, not realizing that it was classified. The story went on to state that the Prez was tightening the screws on classified briefings, and was pretty chapped about the whole thing. That, of course, is oddly prophetic (no, I'm not suggesting that the Prez knew about the 11th), but I heard yesterday on CNN and two different radio broadcasts that the Prez was still planning on briefing those legislators that, by law, are required access. This AM, I heard it again from NBC, only more strongly worded.

The rest of my earlier post was interpretation, based upon what I know of Capital Hill politics and past behaviour, which, of course, makes my conclusion specullative. I'm pretty sure, but hell, I've been wrong before.

[elucidator]

Anyone else detect a ray of hope?

Have they shot thier bolt? I would have thought that OBL had something else to throw at us, some plan for a terror attack in response to the bombing. I can't imagine him witholding out of "humanity". If he had anything, he would have used it. His call for jihad doesn't appear to have any more effect than the usual rioting and demonstrations. Not pleaseant, to be sure, but no comparison to the horror that would be unleashed if his message resonated to the extent he had hoped.

WTF? (he said, eloquently)

[storyteller0910]

Stoid, just to be clear on this:

Are you maintaining that George W. Bush, the current president of the United States, is THE single scariest person who could possibly be president at this particular moment? THE scariest? Scarier than David Duke, scarier than Jerry Falwell, scarier than Howard Stern, scarier than ANYONE?

Because that's pretty clearly what you stated, and it seems miles away from the sort of perspective we need to handle these issues effectively.

- Frank

[Stoid]

Originally posted by storyteller0910

Are you maintaining that George W. Bush, the current president of the United States, is THE single scariest person who could possibly be president at this particular moment? THE scariest? Scarier than David Duke, scarier than Jerry Falwell, scarier than Howard Stern, scarier than ANYONE?


None of the others you mentioned have the slightest possibility of ever becoming president, except in a parallel universe.

Among successful politicians, he's pretty much at the bottom of my list. I don't want to be forced into saying just how much he disturbs me, in great detail, because then everyone will just start yelling at me again. Suffice it to say that I sincerely and deeply do not trust at all that he is a fundamentally good person, and I do not trust that given enough power, he would not abuse it and end up doing things that I would find appalling and even terrifying.

Now, can we just leave it there? I have a right to my opinion, I am not the only one who holds it, and I've expressed it as delicately as I can, and I am asking you not to press me on this point.

Thanks.

stoid

[Waneman]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
I think Bin Laden is a smart guy. As such, he knew that after Sept. 11 it would be very difficult to get agents into the U.S., and very difficult to acquire weapons of terror.

So if you are a smart guy, and you know that, what are you going to do? Answer: You're going to have your people and weapons in place BEFORE the attack. My opinion is that there are a large number of terrorist cells in the U.S., each one of which was given 'marching orders' before Sept. 11, either triggered by pre-determined events (like a U.S. retaliatory strike), or by coded message either through HF radio or some other signal.

The above quote is the basis for my theory.

Here's the rest:
Lets say there are 100 Bin Laden terrorist here in the US.

Bin Laden might have already instructed 50 of these terrorists to different targets across the US. I'm not talking major cities here either. The idea would be that no one is safe not just those who live in a large city. Targets such as Malls, Schools, churches, you get the picture. At a pre-defined time and day they would commit their terrorist act. This may be a car or truck bomb but I am guessing more like a back-pack bomb. Something small and portable made from TNT, plastic explosives or the like. It could either be remotely detonated or they themselves could do it while yelling their favorite "Last second" phrase.

What effect would this have on our nation? People would be afraid to send their kids to school or attend any type of social gathering. Many people would stay home from work. Our economy would shatter. We would become weak from the inside.

In the end, only half of the terrorists would have been used. The rest could be waiting for a second wave.

So does he have 100 terrorists here? How about 1000? When would this happen? What could we do to prevent it? If it did play out this way, how can we keep up with "business as usual" to save our economy?


-Waneman

[ssabmr]

Tranquilis, I don't know why several of the highjackers made trips to Las Vegas--perhaps to witness the decadence of America?? But, in answer to one of your questions, the "where" of the next attack may be Las Vegas--the modern Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Sam Stone]

We have absolutely no idea how many terrorists are in North America right now. None. The government has admitted that over half of the terrorists who died in the hijackings were 'new actors', meaning that they were not identified in any way as terrorists before that day, nor were they on any 'watch lists' that any of the intelligence agencies might have.

We do know that Bin Laden has trained somewhere around 50,000 people in his camps. The vast majority of those would have remained in the Middle East. Another percentage of those would be abroad.

So I think we could put an upper limit on the number of terrorists in the U.S. at maybe a couple of thousand, and a lower limit of maybe 50. That's a pretty wide range of possibilities. Given that officials have already arrested some 350 people, I'd have to guess that the number is closer to 1000 or more.

[elucidator]

So, why haven't they? The most likely moment for a terrorist attack in retribution would have been last Monday, would it not? I'm not asking this in furtherence of my agenda, just why?

[Darwin's Finch]

A few possible (though highly speculative) reasons:

1) The heightened awareness following the 09/11 attacks has interfered with their plans, or made executing them much more difficult.
1a) Maybe they've tried and have been thwarted.

2) They over-estimated the U.S. reaction. Perhaps they were all ready to go as soon as the U.S. starting lobbing cruise missiles the day after ("Look! See how the Great Satan lashes out against Islam! We are justified!"). But we didn't, so they weren't sure what to do next.
2a) With world opinion firmly on the side of the U.S., especially in light of the initial restraint shown by the U.S. before acting, to do anything at this time will pretty much show how justified we are in our attacks, rather than show how justified they are in theirs.

3) They are still waiting for just the "right time".

[Sam Stone]

It could be that they underestimated U.S. law enforcement capabilities, and the U.S. has managed arrest most of them, or at least enough of them to disrupt their plans. Terrorist 'cells' are designed so that no individual can compromise a lot of people, but that also limits communications between them. Arrest enough cell leaders, and you can play havoc with the organization, especially if the leadership is hiding in a cave somewhere and out of communication.

Or it could be that the next attack is already underway, and we don't know it yet. Those three Anthrax cases could be the start, or there could be a bomb waiting to go off somewhere. Some forms of biological warfare could take days or weeks before people start showing up in hospitals. Anthrax has a gestation date of anywhere between 4 and 26 days. There could be thousands of people infected now, and we just don't know it.

Or, they are waiting for a signal, which they haven't received. Maybe Bin Laden had a battle plan, and it went awry because he underestimated the resolve of the States or something. So maybe he's decided that current plans need to be changed. Perhaps he's realized that killing people just makes us mad, and he's shifting the attack to economics.

Or there could be dozens of other reasons why another attack hasn't happened yet. Maybe the quick freezing of assets has left some plans incomplete.

But don't count on it. The government says there is 'credible evidence' that more attacks are coming soon. I believe that.

[Shodan]

Yes, I expect more attacks.

Probably in California. The Third World doesn't know there is anyplace in the US except New York and California. I like the suggestion of Disney World. (Although if anything would trigger nuclear strikes, it would be an attack on Mickey Mouse.)

OK, I am kidding. I think.

Probably some kind of truck bomb laced with poisonous chemicals. Not a suicide bomber, though, so we should be able to catch him. I think bin Laden used up most of his personnel who are willing to commit suicide after waiting several years in the US.

As to why the delay, I think it is possible that there are other terrorists who came over here willing to die for Islam, but got a taste of life in the US - and changed their minds.

("Let's see, 72 virgins in Paradise, or that hottie down at the 7-11 who sells me my Slurpie. Hmmmmmm...")

Regards,
Shodan

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Stoid
Originally posted by Blacksheepsmith
Let's not abandon our perspective for the sake of an easy rhetorical flourish...

I haven't. I just don't share your perspective. And a perusal of this thread shows that a number of people do share mine.

stoid

Who else thinks that George Bush is worse than Hitler, Stalin, or Osama?

[Violet]

Maybe this has already been mentioned, but today's alert:

"Certain information, while not specific as to target, gives the government reason to believe that there may be additional terrorist attacks within the United States and against U.S. interests overseas over the next several days. The FBI has again alerted all local law enforcement to be on the highest alert and we call on all people to immediately notify the FBI and local law enforcement of any unusual or suspicious activity."

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/skyfall.htm

Livin' for today...

[Miaowara Tomokato]

Originally posted by ssambr
...the "where" of the next attack may be Las Vegas--the modern Sodom and Gomorrah. I agree. The next target has to be something famous enough to be known to an ignorant Muslim peasant in the backcountry. Also 'Vegas is a shrine to fun - and fun is an offense to the Taliban. Why there's gambling, nekkid ladies, drinking, prosititution over in Pahrump (just down the road)...

Also it has SO much drive-in traffic in and out of it that providing any kind of security is all but impossible. You could get anything into Vegas.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Scylla
[
Who else thinks that George Bush is worse than Hitler, Stalin, or Osama?

Yep, that's what I said, Scylla. :rolleyes:

[Scylla]

Originally posted by Stoid
Originally posted by Scylla
[
Who else thinks that George Bush is worse than Hitler, Stalin, or Osama?

Yep, that's what I said, Scylla. :rolleyes:

Yes. It is.


You said:



Originally posted by Stoid

[quote]

[i] Originally posted by Sam Stone[i]

When considering some new government power, don't consider how the current government
would use it. Think about the scariest guy you know who could conceivably become president,
then ask yourself how you'd feel if HE had that power.



I do not say this to be inflammatory, I say it because it is absolutely true: You have described my current
dilemma.

Then Blacksheepsmith said:




Whether or not you meant it that way, Stoid, that is highly inflammatory. It just doesn't help, you know?

Bush isn't Hitler. He's not Stalin.

He's not even Osama bin Laden.

Let's not abandon our perspective for the sake of an easy rhetorical flourish...

To which you responded:

haven't. I just don't share your perspective. And a perusal of this thread shows that a number of people do share mine.

stoid

That's twice by my count.

[Stoid]

Remind me not to hire you to do my taxes... Your reading skills are also severely impaired, apparently. Note the following words in the original quote I responded to (underlines mine):


conceivably become president,


Note further the words I wrote at the top of this very page:

Originally posted by
None of the others you mentioned have the slightest possibility of ever becoming president, except in a parallel universe.

Among successful politicians, he's pretty much at the bottom of my list.


So it is quite obvious that at no point in this thread did I EVER say, imply or mean that Bush was worse than Hitler, Stalin or Bin Laden.

And since this is the second time in a week that you have seen fit to reconfigure my words to pick a fight with me, BOTH TIMES following a post from me politely bowing out of the discussion, it looks a whole lot like you are baiting me.

As I told you last time, I'm not interested in your games. I don't know why you've picked now to play them, but you'll have to play with someone else.

If you persist in this crap I will ignore you, with just a link to this thread.

Go work it out on someone else.

stoid

[elucidator]

Stoid, give it up. You're up against Sam Stone and Scylla, our own Paragons of Perspicacity. They got you dead to rights: you are not sufficiently in awe of Our Leader!

There he is, exuding sincerity and practically dripping with leadership. Never, ever flubbing his lines (well, except for that one time.}

When SS suggested you think about the worse possible etc., you said it described your dilemma. You no doubt thought you meant you were worried that the same thing might happen, but SS knew you really meant that Our Leader is worse than Hitler, Stalin, etc.

Did you honestly think you could escape the glaring probity of Scylla, the stern clarity of Sam Stone. Useless, my dear, utterly useless. I can't even tell you the number of times they have utterly and scathingly refuted arguments I didn't even know I was making!

These guys are the masters of non sequitar, you're out of your league.

You really have to understand: when a mediocre student and failed bidnessman is confronted by a major national crisis, if you surround him with flags and firemen he becomes a Leader of Men, simply oozing gravitas. I have no doubt that if it were Dec. 8, 1941, he would do exactly the same thing he's doing now! Now, go ahead and tell me that bombing Afghanistan wouldn't have totally confused the Japanese!

I will sleep well tonight, knowing that President Powell is in charge, and that we finally have a National Security Advisor who is hot!.

As a gesture of my unstinting, blind patriotism, I promise to never call Our Leader "Landslide" George again!

[Scylla]

Conceivably become President, ok.

So, is Bush worse than a serial killer?

Hitler, Osama, and Stalin can be taken figuratively as well as literally.

What if we were to elect an anologue of them? What if we were to elect a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Osama?

I'm sorry I think that I'm attacking you. I'm not. I've complimented you in the past when you've made good arguments.

Unfortunately, this week you've made several wildly insupportable and inflammatory statements. Earlier you had an immutable opinion, and argued the validity of it based on your ignorance of the subject matter.

Here, you make the rather bold statement that Bush is the worst person who could conceivably become President. Either you have a very poor imagination, an irrational hatred of Bush, or you are claiming some special insight into his character that qualifies him as the "worst conceivable."

You said you were not doing so to be inflammatory, but that was really how you felt.

I simply can't conceive of such an asinine viewpoint so I'm assuming that as Blacksheepsmith pointed out, you were engaging in a little rhetorical hyperbole to score a cheap shot.

You evaded Blacksheepsmith and chided him, stating that others agreed with you.

If you don't like having these kinds of debates I will humbly suggest you don't make post such egregiously partisan and insupportable rubbish.

So, who else agrees with you that Bush is the "worst conceivable" person who could possibly become President?

[Dryga_Yes]

Whe neither Osama, Hitler nor Stalin could possibly be elected in the USA:

Osama: This is an easy one. Osama IS NOT THE LEADER OF AFGHANISTAN. I'm AMAZED noone pointed this out yet. And as for the Talibans - they seized power through bloody revolution. After the civil war had ended, they were the only ones still standing. Fat chance of that happening in the US. And even if that were to miracolously happen, they'd just rewrite the entire Constitution to their liking, so even then it'd be irrelevant to the discussion.

Hitler was elected democratically, yes. However, he was elected in a country torn apart by war. Germany had been run through a cheese grater during WW1, and then forced to pay ridicolous amounts of money to UK and France, primarily. Post-WW1 Germany really puts the *cough* Great Depression in perspective. Again, I don't see this happening anytime.

Stalin - well, in Soviet he wasn't technically elected. However, he could concievably be elected in some other nation, but NEVER in the US. THe US is by far the most rightist and conservative nation in the western world. The anti-communist sentiments over here are just ridicolous sometimes (not because I agree with communism, but because everyone will jump on the "Commie pinko" bandwagon and brand anything bad and leftist "anti-american" (As if anti-free-speech supposedly was the American way)).

Anyway, the criteria for being a president are:

a) Having LOTS of money.
b) Either someone who got to politics from the bottom, or someone who got national fame in another war. I can't see someone like Osama or Stalin getting to president the hard way. No, it'd have to be like Dubya or Reagan - a public face and a friendly grin - and not a too big focus on what politics you're really going to have when in the White House.
c) Something that'd convince a majority of the voters that you should be president. Today it's not hard, as most voters will vote for either the democrat main candidate or the rep main candidate without thinking. The hard thing is becoming the main candidate for one of the parties.

Now, Bush got through these points by freak chance, or so it seems to me.

Now, I _can_ think of worse people in the White House - but I'll bet for that Bush is the worst the US has had ever, and that he's the worst it'll have for at least a hundred more years.

[Tranquilis]

Data points in both directions, and maybe y'all will think on this: What if a censorious mind like Lieberman came into office? How about a demagogue like Buchanan?

Either have potential to become President, depending on voter disaffection, apathy, and campaign strategy. Here's one that ought to scare everyone spitless: What if we get another whacko like that Keebler Elftm, Perot, but this time the SOB has charisma? Those kinds of people, in the White House, armed with the tools that Congress seems bent on handing them?

::shudder::

Those are the thoughts that make me grey.

[Scylla]

Dryga:

Now, I _can_ think of worse people in the White House - but I'll bet for that Bush is the worst the US has had ever, and that he's the worst it'll have for at least a hundred more years.

Well that seems to be a defensible (if rather severe) statement of opinion.

Seeing as you do reluctantly concede tha there could be worse, that doesn't help Stoid support her statements though.

I think if we elected the Antichrist, Rush Limbaugh, Anna Nicole Smith, Pee-Wee Herman, David Duke, Pat Buchanan, Jesse Ventura, Jesse Jackson, JDT, Phaedrus, or Jack Chick President, they would all be worse than Bush, to name but a few out of the thousands.

Stoid's statemtents (presented "not to be inflammatory," but simply as her honest assessment,) Seems to be not only is Bush the "worst conceivable" but that other people agree with her.

She has denied making her statement out rhetorical hyperbole, or inflammatory purpose, and seems to be unwavering in her conviction.


I think that's an incredibly bold statement, and as such needs to be supported (this is GD, you need to defend what you say,) or withdrawn.

[Ned]

I think it is Bush's utter lack of real accomplishment in life, his willingness to do or say anything to get the office, his confidence in himself unsupported by any actual personal accomplishment and his deeply held beliefs formed in an insulated life that frighten me. Your examples are unrealistic, except perhaps for ventura, but who would ever have thought that a man with Bush's resume could ever have gotten a shot at office.

Like I said in another thread. He makes me thingk we are in some sort of alternate reality where critical thought has been suspended for a large segment of the population.

[Scylla]

Ned:

Cool. You don't like him either. The question though isn't the worst "likely" it's the worst "conceivable."

All of my examples are conceivable.

[Ned]

I don't see any of them being able to get the free ride Bush gets. Would you call president antichrist's 3rd grade performance an impressive piece of statesmanship?

[Scylla]

Ned:
I don't see any of them being able to get the free ride Bush gets

::Shrug::

Probably not.

I didn't argue that they would.

The question is if you are in agreement with Stoid that Bush is the worst "conceivable" President.

Do you agree, or can you "conceive" of worse?

[elucidator]

Damn, ain't nothing like a sizzling good thread, flavored with calumny, hyperbole, and good ol' fashion partisan sarcasm! Now, as the OP.

So, where's the attack? The time for maximum impact would clearly have been just after the bombing started. But no. Is it possible that OBL (may he simmer in Hell in a pool of bacon fat, piss be on him) has shot his bolt? That he doesn't have a plan B?

Now, I am assuming that the anthrax scare in Florida is the result of an unconnected criminal endeavor (I suspect Bat Boy).

I think the FBI/CIA is covering their butt. Attack, we warned you, no attack, we're doing a great job. They have no clue as to what the Al-Q is up to. They are top heavy with cold-war relics promoted for thier knowledge of Russia, Bulgaria, etc. Remember when they mentioned the trouble they were having translating intercepts due to a lack of speakers of Farsi and Pushtu? Hell, theres 10,000 of them driving cab in NYC!

Stoking the flames of national hysteria serves no ones purpose but thier own.

[Scylla]

elucidator:



Stoking the flames of national hysteria serves no ones purpose but their own.

So, it is your opinion that the Government is being not only unnecessarily alarmist, but using this attack for it's own benefit?

If this is correct, what purpose is it serving these agencies to be alarmists?

[pldennison]

FTR, MSNBC and our local news/talk station are reporting that an NBC employee in New York has contracted anthrax. FWIW.

[elucidator]

Scylla:

"I think the FBI/CIA is covering their butt. Attack, we warned you, no attack, we're doing a great job."

(I really must learn to abjure obscurantist paraphrase.)

[Scylla]

"I think the FBI/CIA is covering their butt. Attack, we warned you, no attack, we're doing a great job."

Ok. That's a pretty serious accusation to make, suggesting that the U.S. Government is manufacturing evidence, or disseminating false information concerning the public's safety simply to cover their ass.

That's calling into question their integrity and professionalism on a pretty basic level as well as suggesting a rather large conspiracy as it would entail cooperation among both agencies (who have a notorious rivalry,) among a great many agents.

Out of all the people that need to be involved in such a conspiracy, has somebody leaked information that this is the case?

In other words, do you have any evidence to base this accusation on, or is it just your general gut feeling?

[elucidator]

Originally posted by Scylla

In other words, do you have any evidence to base this accusation on, or is it just your general gut feeling?

That's operational. Classified. Can't discuss that, national security. I could tell you, but then I'd have to flame you.

[Scylla]

I could tell you, but then I'd have to flame you.

That seems to be about par for the course.

[Tranquilis]

"I think the FBI/CIA is covering their butt. Attack, we warned you, no attack, we're doing a great job."

Ok. That's a pretty serious accusation to make, suggesting that the U.S. Government is manufacturing evidence, or disseminating false information concerning the public's safety simply to cover their ass.Not manufacturing evidence, as they've presented no evidence. It's still in the realm of "best estimate" and "credibly believe". Those kinds of warning can be given all day long without breaking any laws. NIPC did it for years, and never did anything "wrong" even though thery were never right, either. Remember the "Hacker Riot" that was supposed to wipe out The World As We Know It?

That's calling into question their integrity and professionalism on a pretty basic level...Yes, it is. ...as well as suggesting a rather large conspiracy as it would entail cooperation among both agencies (who have a notorious rivalry,) among a great many agents.No, it isn't. This kind of scare-mongering requires nothing more than a cood copy editor, a venal office-holder (a la Micheal Vatis), and a credulous media.

In other words, do you have any evidence to base this accusation on, or is it just your general gut feeling? It's certainly my gut feeling right now. Scare-mongering on this level can also be called "spin", and is a tool for shaping public opinion, and driving events to suit an agenda, such as:
- Increased budgets for law enforcement agencies (not necessarily a bad thing, and it will happen).
- Increased latitude of action for law enforcemnt agencies (very likely to happen, considering current legislation).
- Decreased oversight on law enforcement (also very likely).

Do you really thing that those in power are thinking clearly? There has already been a resolution to mandate that the CIA resume "banned" tactics that were never banned in the first place. Remember that these are politicians, not statesmen (well mostly not), and are no more special than the average boob on the street, save that they won a popularity contest. They are entirely capable of being lead by the polls when self-serving officials start the heavy spin.

[DocCathode]

Bin Laden, Stalin, and Hitler could never be elected President of the United States of America for one simple reason. None of them were born in the USA. I can see some of the others listed actually being elected.


The FBI and the CIA have plenty to gain from being alarmist. Their funding has been greatly reduced since the end of the Cold War. If they maintain that there is a constant "clear and present danger", they can get their budget increased by a sizable amount. If they maintain that terrorists are everywhere and attacks are imminent, they may gain enough support for Congress to pass laws giving them more power and eliminating restrictions on their activities.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Scylla
Earlier you had an immutable opinion, and argued the validity of it based on your ignorance of the subject matter.


Scylla, you are doing it AGAIN. You make things up, distort, re-word, ignore and take apart what I say, put it back together into a form that you are in the mood to argue with, and claim that's my position, then goad and taunt me into defending it.

And the above example proves it. What I actually did was express an opinion and explain that the topic was not my strong suit, ask for information to show me why the opinion was wrong, got information showing me how it could be wrong, could be right, and declared, as I had in the beginning of the thread, that I was not qualified to argue it, so I was not going to try.

How that mutates into me arguing the validity of my opinion based on ignorance is something only you can fathom, since it is your invention.

You also are choosing to deconstruct and reconstruct (and selectively ignore) things I've said in this thread.

I'll say it again: I'm not interested in your games, and I'm not interested in being your punching bag. You want to make up stuff to argue with and assign it to someone, get yourself a sock.

stoid

[elucidator]

Dammit, Tranquillis! Not only answered before I could but did it better! I am left with only two words as regards the FBI's professionalism and integrity: Richard Jewell.

(He's that poor SOB that the FBI damn near publicly lynched for the Olympic bombing years ago, then had to admit that he had nothing to do with it. After, of course, they had totally ruined his life.)

[Tranquilis]

Thank you, sir.

Not trying to steal your thunder, just that I've got nothing to do until this document renders. When it's done, I'll be too busy to be a gadfly...

[elucidator]

Steal all the thunder you want, just use it.

Also: nobody calls me "sir" (except for hot young babes, who have no idea they're breaking my heart).....

Well, some posters call me "sir" once in a while, but they mean "asshole".

[Scylla]

Stoid:

You seem to be taking this personally. It's not.

This is Great Debates. You've said some things. I disagree. We debate.

Despite your attempts at revisionism I almost always quote directly or reply point to point.

Here you've replied to Sam Stone to indicate that George Bush is the worst "conceivable" person you could imagine as President and that you did not mean that to be inflammatory rhetoric, it was really what you felt, and that more, other people even agreed with you (note that I'm not quoting directly here, because I have just a post or two ago.)


If you're unhappy about being put on the spot over such statements, then maybe you shouldn't make them, but you can hardly blame me for taking issue with such statements.

I'm attacking your arguments, not you. Please bear that in mind.

[Scylla]

Tranquilis:

A fair analysis. However, I think calling the CIA and FBI alarmist to protect their own interests without evidence to suggest that that is actually the case, is a dangerous and unwise standpoint.

First, I would choose to have confidence in the FBI/CIA in this until they proved to me that that didn't make sense. Motivation alone does not warrant an accusation.

Secondly, false alarm, it may be. Ignoring it would be foolish. Everytime the fire alarm goes off in this building I operate as if there were a fire, even though I know it's probably a false alarm.

Tell people it's a false alarm, and you can get them killed. You need to know, not guess.

[Tranquilis]

elucidator, however other's use it, when I use it in that phrasing, it's gesture of respect.


Scylla
However, I think calling the CIA and FBI alarmist to protect their own interests without evidence to suggest that that is actually the case, is a dangerous and unwise standpoint.Having watched Freeh and Vatis in action for a number of years, I'll respectfully disagree. I think you have many vaild points, but calling it as I see it isn't, IMO, foolish. It's necessary, I believe, or I'd not be doing it. I'm generally a slightly right-of-center conservative, but I'm conservative about many things, including believing an agancy that has fallen or hard times and questionable tactics will have changed it's stripes over-night. The Director may clean things up, but hasn't had time to do so, IMO, and now, for the last month I've heard official speculation and alarmism replacing solid facts. As stated earlier in this thread, running about yelling "the sky is falling" is counter-productive, dangerous, and aids the terrorists in their mission of spreading fear. Yes, the sky may indeed be falling, but the "it's gonna happen in a few days" warning has been repeated every few days, with no result. Of course we expect the sky to fall, but until we know where, and when, keeping the whole populace at a fever-pitch of anticipation is flat-out stupid. These officials are not stupid persons, so why else might they be scaring the populace..?

Motivation alone does not warrant an accusation. No, but past behavior and current motive certainly make for a strong suspect. I suspect them. I may be wrong. I'd be pleased to be wrong, but I won't let my hopes cloud my caution.

Secondly, false alarm, it may be. Ignoring it would be foolish. Everytime the fire alarm goes off in this building I operate as if there were a fire, even though I know it's probably a false alarm.Yup, and that's what makes it irresponsible to issue vague warnings. I'd rather my warnings be a little more solid. Saying "we anticipate terrorist retalliation, but we don't know when or where" would be fine. Reiteratining that warning every couple of days is fine, but saying "the 22nd is day of interest", "there is a strong possibility of terrorist activity this weekend", "there's very strong possibility of an attack within the next three days", and so on, ad nauseum, is foolish on their part.

You need to know, not guess.Don't tell me: I know that already. Tell them.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Scylla
If you're unhappy about being put on the spot over such statements, then maybe you shouldn't make them,

Gee, Scylla, that would be precisely the point: I didn't. YOU did. It's a little annoying being hassled to explain what YOU are saying.

Like I said, get yourself a sock.

stoid
done

[Scylla]

Stoid:

You're right, you never said that. Silly me. That was somebody else replying to Sam Stone, or else I must have grossly misinterpreted your writing through my poor reading skills.

You see, I had thought you said (without being inflammatory) that the present situation (George Bush being President) was exactly the worst choice you could conceive.

Clearly though you were saying something else. Silly me.

It's plain to see that I've angered you my that misattribution. Who wouldn't be angered by being credited with such a stupid indefensible statement as what I so fallaciously claimed you made.

Even if somebody did make such an egregiously half-witted remark, they'd probably deny it after the fact or even get angry or evasive in order to not have to deal with supporting it. Anything else would mean they'd be backed into a corner and either have to admit they were just taking a cheap shot, or else try to defend the indefensible.

But seeing as that wasn't you responding to Sam Stone, or Blacksheepsmith on page 1, it must be my mistake.

Maybe there's somebody named St0id and I got them confused with you.

My apologies.

[elucidator]

Well done, Scylla, my lad. Clearly, you have considerable experience in apologizing to women. However, as an expert, I counsel that it falls a little short in the all-important "groveling" aspect: you are clearly trying to retain a scrap of dignity. Won't do, lad, simply won't do, when you are dealing with a True Incarnation of the Goddess. But, after all, you're still young, you'll learn.

Oh, just one little thing: you post apologizing for hurting my delicate sensibilities has apparently been lost in transmission. (elucidator snuffles, shows big "wet puppy in the rain" eyes of hurt feelings}

I'm sure you will rush to correct this oversight.

[Scylla]

Tranquilis:

You make a compelling case. Except I don't know who you're talking to, I didn't say any of that stuff. Don't take my words out of context and misconstrue my arguments. I know damn well what was I was saying (but I won't tell you.).


Hey! That works pretty good!



elucidator:

What are you all peeved at me about?

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Scylla
You see, I had thought you said (without being inflammatory) that the present situation (George Bush being President) was exactly the worst choice you could conceive.

Poor Scylla. Perhaps you should say what you mean instead of saying other things instead. I find it works very well, wastes less time. Lots of upside to it.

Of all the people I can conceive of actually being elected, he’s the scariest That’s what I said, that’s what I meant, and I've never denied it.

However, you insisted that I said he was worse that Hitler, Stalin and Osama. Perhaps you can conceive of these people being elected and that’s why you accused me of saying these things. But all of these people are dead or Saudi, either one of which immediately disqualifies one from being elected President of the US. Even if these handicaps could be overcome, the PR issues would certainly put the kibosh on any aspirations they might entertain. I understood this immediately, I just naturally assumed others would as well.

Originally posted by
Who wouldn't be angered by being credited with such a stupid indefensible statement as what I so fallaciously claimed you made.

My apologies.


How lovely to see that you finally understand and have elected to apologize! I suppose it it is only sporting of me to accept your apology. I don’t suppose I could get one for the egregious disrespect and blatant rudeness you have shown me by aggressively ignoring the request I politely made at the top of this page when someone else had difficulty believing that was my real opinion, would you?

No?

Oh well.

Stoid

[elucidator]

Scylla

Please enable humor-detection apparatus.

[Scylla]

Stoid:

Well now you open a whole can of worms. What makes you think Blacksheepsmith was being literal when he said Bush was no Hitler, Stalin, or Osama? You'll recall that I addressed this possibility a page or so ago in my initial post to you. Perhaps you didn't pick up on it.

More importantly, I also addressed the possibility that Bush was the worst you could possibly concieve though I didn't think anybody would be foolish enough to take that stance (as you are now doing,) as it's a direct admission of rather feeble conceptual powers.

But, if that's the route you would like to take, that's fine with me. It seems damn similar to the "I don't know what I'm talking about enough to explain my opinion" argument of just a day or so ago in that other thread. I sense a trend.

I don’t suppose I could get one for the egregious disrespect and blatant rudeness you have shown me by aggressively ignoring the request I politely made at the top of this page when someone else had difficulty believing that was my real opinion, would you?

No. If you don't want to debate it don't post it. Nor do I feel a compelling moral reason to accede to your request. If you post something stupid, saying "I don't want to talk about it anymore" doesn't get you a free pass.

You're projecting here, anyway. You're the one that's being rude and disrespectful. I was attacking your arguments. You were attacking me.

[tinad]

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken (circa 1920)

I don't know about the rest of you, but Ive never felt safe living in America. Our murder rate is through the roof. We have all kind of polutants in the products we use. Not to mention the odds are in our favor to die in a traffic accident. This threat of more terrorist attacks is just another slight concern in the course of daily living.

Ive never trusted the government to protect my rights or my person. Now that Im frightened by Sept. 11, I find myself really wanting to believe that my government has taken care of things. Of course, with healthy skeptism, I dont.

[Stoid]

I'm just so darn mean to you! I just came after you with both barrels, didn't I? Chasing you down, hounding you! Finding a dozen different ways to call you an idiot! (oh wait, that was you calling me an idiot, my mistake) Poor baby!

Well, not to worry, I will be leaving you completely alone, I promise you.

See ya.

stoid
Really done now.

[Scylla]

Chasing you down, hounding you! Finding a dozen different
ways to call you an idiot! (oh wait, that was you calling me an idiot, my mistake) Poor baby!

Please please. Stop the melodrama. I've been on both sides of the fence with you. I've defended you're arguments when I they merited defense, and I've defended you when I thought you merited it.

I call them like I see them, and act accordingly. When you post things I think are reasonable and make sense, I say so.

For as long as you've been on this board I have not once ever seen you admit an error or apologize.

You've made a couple of unsupportable statements, and rather than simply admit you took a cheap shot, you're being evasive and attempting to claim aggrieved status.

But, I am neither chasing you down, nor hounding you. We're in a couple of the same threads right now and we are in disagreement. That's what GD is about. What I am doing is simply not letting you off the hook for your statements without addressing them.

I don't do this because I think you're stupid. Quite the contrary. You're an excellent tactical debater, IMO.

But, I really liked the Stoid that didn't take cheap shots, the one that didn't lean so heavily on partisanism, and speak the language of hate, the one that didn't have this irrational fear of Republicans and Conservatives and George Bush the way others fear and speak the language of hate about blacks and Gays and such.

I thought that Stoid had some very worthwhile things to say, and I enjoyed hearing them.

I know you said that both parts are the real you. Fine. I write bestiality stories in MPSIMS but I don't go fucking sheep in GD.

If you have this hatred of Bush and Republicans, have at it in MPSIMS or the Pit or IMHO. However, when it shows up in GD it is fair game, and I'll make an issue of pointing it out for what it is when I happen to see it.

[squeegee]

I hope the Mods move this to the Pit. This is embarrassing.
Or even better: Scylla and Stoid, please go to the Pit for more juvenile haranguing at each other someplace else. Who cares who 'started' it, just get over it.

And then maybe the topic at hand ("Another attack? 100% certain sez intelligence. Discuss.") can actually be discussed. You know, an actual debate, sans pies and epithets. This is an important topic.

Jeez.

[Sam Stone]

I've been working all day and I'm coming back into this party a little late, BUT...

I have to back up Stoid on this one. When I said, "Look at the various people who have a shot at president, and pick the worst one", She took me to mean the people who are in positions of power and have an outside shot at being president, and who meet the constitutional requirements.

AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT. No Bin Ladens, No Hitlers. The range of people I was thinking of would be nutbars like Pat Buchanan maybe on the right, and Nader or someone from Hollywood like Martin Sheen on the left. But Maybe not even that extreme.

For instance, we have this insane new anti-terrorism bill, which has measures in it which can curb speech, invade your privacy, and even managed to sneak in riders prohibiting Internet Gambling (money laundering for Terrorists, don'cha know - what a stretch that is). So for those of you on the right in favor of this, imagine what might happen if that power gets tossed around by, oh, Ralph Nader. And for those of you on the left in favor of it, imagine what fun Pat Buchanan could have if he has the power to read your mail or search your home on the thinnest of pretexts.

So Stoid got it right, and the rest of you are wrong. And I can well believe that Bush IS her 'worst of all worlds' if she narrowed her range down even a little bit more to exclude the Buchanans but include, say, any member of the House or Senate (Not that I agree with her, and I'll bet she can think of some scarier people on the right that are currently in the House or Senate, but that's okay - we can agree to disagree).

Oh, and 'Elucidator' gets a big BITE ME for that sarcastic and nasty rant of his aimed at my debating style. For your info, Mr. Snide, I have NEVER intentionally tried to obscure an argument or engage in sophistry. I try to say the things I believe, to the best of my ability. If I fail in communicating my beliefs, it's a personal failure of communication, either on my end or yours. Feel free to attack what I say, and not what you perceive are my motives.

[squeegee]

Here you go, Scylla and Stoid: you now have your own Pit thread: Scylla started it! No, Stoid did! Nyeh! Spppt! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=92794)

Go forth and bicker.

[squeegee]

...So can we now get off this stupid "who is the worst president" hijack and discuss the original post?

[Scylla]

Sam:

Well, I took "conceivably" to be a pretty broad term, and feel comfortable having done so, especially in light of Blacksheepsmith's question, I thought the context was pretty clear.

Most people I know of can conceive of quite a lot.

Also, it's a relatively easy misaprehension to clear up, and I'm disapointed and somewhat skeptical as to why Stoid didn't simply say so if that was her stance sans the histrionics.

At any rate, we've certainly pulverized the ex-horse so to speak.

[Scylla]

squeegee:

Ah yes. Thank God you came along to save the day!

[squeegee]

Yeah, Scylla, I guess you'd lose your audience. Can't have that happen. As I said (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=92794), probably a pointless gesture.

[TubaDiva]

Okay, I misread the note I received on this situation.

Lemme try this again.

Debate the issue, don't fistfight one another. Take THAT to the Pit.

your humble TubaDiva
Administrator

[squeegee]

I retract my last post with apologies. Moved to the Pit.

[Scylla]

Can I keep my brass knuckles?

(Sincerest apologies if I've pushed things too far.)

[Tranquilis]

Originally posted by Scylla
Tranquilis:

You make a compelling case. Except I don't know who you're talking to, I didn't say any of that stuff. Don't take my words out of context and misconstrue my arguments. I know damn well what was I was saying (but I won't tell you.)Your earlier post was the easiest in this thread to use for the purpose of clarifying of my thoughts & position on this subject. Your further response allowed me point out a few items I'd missed. No hostility to you, and thank you for providing the trellis for my vines.

[Scylla]

Tranquilis:

I was just being facetious there. Sorry. Sometimes it doesn't come across well when you're joking. I probably should use the smiley.

At any rate I found your arguments compelling and reasonable, and I concede that we may indeed have cause to be suspicious.

I will also maintain that this is a poor and dangerous stance to take, because they might have very good reason for making the warnings they are.

We have no choice but to take it seriously.

[elucidator]

Originally posted by Sam Stone

Oh, and 'Elucidator' gets a big BITE ME for that sarcastic and nasty rant of his aimed at my debating style. For your info, Mr. Snide......

Mr. Snide? Mr. Snide!

Oh, now I am just so upset My needlepoint is simply ruined! I mean, how did I know? Got this stern, film-noir, Raymond Chander kind of name, I thought he could take it. How was I to know he was so....emotional

Tell you what. I figure, if you can dish it out, you can take it. If that isn't the case, look carefully at the top and when you see "elucidator", just pick up your little basket and skip along.

I'll miss you, it'll be difficult at first, but somehow.....somehow....I'l go on.

No....no...don't say anything....just go. It's better this way.

[Scylla]

Tranquilis:

Another reason why I feel it's important to take this threat seriously, is the language it's couched in.

I too heard the "another attack, 100% certain" being said.

Saying you're 100% certain isn't the language you use when you're looking to cover your ass. It's what you say when you know something.

[Tranquilis]

No, I got that your were tounge-in-cheek, but I figgered it was time to appologise for using you as my stalking horse.

I understand your POV, and don't think you're entirely wrong. I hope that you're mostly right, horrible as that may sound. I'd rather have terrorists gunning for us, than our own government.

[Blacksheepsmith]

Darn.

Looks like my little statement started a good fur fight. Sorry I missed it.

I won't re-open the can of worms. But for anyone who was wondering, I was indeed speaking figuratively in regard to "a" Osama, "a" Hitler, "a" Stalin, and their relative viability as presidential candidates. I thought that would be pretty self-evident. I am familiar enough with the rules in regard to presidents and elections to know that a missing German corpse, a decomposing Russian, and a Saudi-born terrorist are against the rules.

I would argue, though, that the word "conceivably" certainly doesn't rule out a Hitler taking office one day.

It wasn't that long ago where the world we're living in right now was pretty close to inconceivable.

For some people, anyway.

[Mtgman]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I have participated in many discussions like it. I only have one thing to add.

The private island for US dopers (http://www.vladi-private-islands.de/home_e.html) fund will probably open shortly. We can get a nice place, a few thousand acres of decent farmland, an airstrip and some residences, and it's dirt cheap at about 11 million.

Steven

[elucidator]

Well, Scylla, I'm as always, reluctant to disagree with you......but...

What makes you think so? I have no info that you dont have, and my guess would have been that another attack after the air raids was damn close to 100% certain. Strange thing is, other than whateverthehell this anthrax shit is about, there really hasn't been one. WTF? So far, our intelligence community hasn't been much more help than Ms. Cleo. Predicting an attack is a no lose proposition: they attack, we told you so, they dont, we stopped them by arresting everybody we could get our hands on.

Frankly, I see no down side for them. Please enlighten.

[DocCathode]

Originally posted by elucidator
WTF? So far, our intelligence community hasn't been much more help than Ms. Cleo.

All these people have been persecuted for their beliefs. And, apparently, Miss Cleo is no different. But, she will continue to teach as a shaman, and a healer and help those who seek the knowledge.

The government will say "100% certain", when all that they're certain of is their complete lack of information. The CIA or FBI, would never qualify a statement with 'possibly' or 'maybe'. To do so gives the appearance that they are unable to find facts or actual information. To make absolute statements, conveys that they have concrete facts and all kinds of useful information. This is in addition to the increased powers and funds that I an other posters have mentioned.