You don’t think there are any terrorists out there attempting to cause domestic harm against the United States?
The thing about 9/11 like attacks is they take an incredible amount of organization and planning. To expect another one within four years of the last doesn’t really accurately reflect the capabilities of an organization like Al Qaeda. From my estimations it’d take at least 6-8 years after 9/11 for another attack of that scale to be possible.
I can’t believe people are actually taking the position, that since there has been no successful terrorist attack in four years against the United States, we’re obviously stupid to be trying to prevent them with the precise type of precautions that would have stopped 9/11.
You mean like the idealism that inspired a bunch of colonists with the idea that they could take on the most fearsome miltary in the world and win? This country was founded on idealism and the fact that so many are willing to throw it away so easily makes me want to puke. [Insert obligatory Ben Franklin quote here]
The idealism I am referring to is the people who think in absolutes based on their ideology. It doesn’t seem to matter to them that a threat still exists…they oppose any sort of activity that doesn’t jive with the world that they think they live in. I coined the phrase “idealism without consequence” in another post. What I mean by that is some people want the luxury of criticizing and obstructing security measures without coming up with alternative solutions.
Whether some people find it ideologically palatable or not, there are people out there that want to kill as many of us as possible. I am not willing to lay down on the altar of civil liberties and allow them to slit my throat as a sacrifice.
It is true that an incredible amount of organization and planning went into the 9/11 attacks, maybe a little more than 3 years according to the 9/11 commission. But most of this effort was to get english-speaking terrorists semi-legally into the United States while only arousing a little bit of suspicion. The attack-specific planning–using sharp objects to hijack some big flying things into boxes full of people–is pretty straightforward. If there were already sleeper cells trained and here, I would think the turnaround time would be much shorter. Anybody can come up with ways to kill lots of innocent civilians. That’s the easy part. The hard part is getting the people to do it in the country and reasonably assimilated.
It is equally difficult to believe that you think the current homeland security policy would have stopped 9/11, or that this government is doing all it can to prevent terrorism (i.e. following the recommendations of the experts they appointed).
Right. lonesome loser hit the nail on the head. Al Qaeda, et al can just sit back and watch as our leaders flail around the edges, like making people take of their shoes, while they haven’t put anyone to work on strengthening serious weaknesses like our seaports. And on such marginal things we spend billions.
Some mischief at the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach, New York Port Authority ports and the Port of New Orleans would nearly isolate us from the rest of the world (except for telephones from India).
Yes, there is danger to us. There always has been danger, and always will be. We must fight that danger while maintaining the ideals and the rule of law that this nation was founded on. You support fighting to save America whilst simultaneously destroying everything that makes America what it is. The ends do not justify the means. The means you support will, in the long run, destroy this nation far more thoroughly than anything our enemies are capable of.
I understand the reasons behind why civil libertarians are upset by some of the provisions and practices of the Patriot Act and other activities. However, I would like to step away from theory and into the real world for a moment. I have two questions that I would like anyone to answer.
How exactly is America being destroyed? Please tell me something other than ideological or theorectical objections.
Everyone chooses where the goalpost on this one is. You have two very polarized segments of society that accuses the other of vigorously undermining America on a daily basis. And forgive me, but your answer does not seem to be the concrete example I’m looking for.
So you are advocating not using tools at our disposal that can detect terrorists before they strike…in the name of a political ideal that less than 50 percent of the population holds?
Yes, everyone chooses where the goalposts are. That doesn’t mean everyone is equally right.
And the point of my answer is that you can make the claim that these policies undermine America without concrete examples of civil liberties being violated. If we are prepared to allow those violations, *that * is what undermine American ideals.
This has to be one of the most aggravating statements in the whole range of possible statements. Before we accept you as the judge of what is or is not in the “real world” we need to see a rundown of your qualifications for that exhalted position.
Asking a single individual to come up with a complete, alternative plan for how to combat terrorism is asking too much. Our leaders, with all of the resourced they have at their disposal, haven’t come up with anything like a coherent effort so far.
The US was not in immediated danger of collapse and a rapid scan of the scenergy of air and ground traffic would show a strong likelihood that the terrorsts had shot their bolt for the present.
I know that “stong liklihodd” isn’t “absolute certainty” but if there is one thing that the “real world” gurus among us keep harping on it is that there is no “absolute certainty” about being safe.
I would have made my best effort to not panic. Call together all of the intelligence, military, law enforcement and diplomatic experts and find out what is the real threat from groups like Al Qaeda. What is their capability for follow up to the 9/11 attacks? For what purposes are our intelligence, military, financial, diplomatic and other capabilities best used. Silly stuff like that.
That sort of thing is most definitely what we did not get.
Our best gauge of truth, as a government, is majority opinion.
But our best gauge of truth, as citizens, is reason.
If you claim that because 50% of Americans feel one way that they must be right, you are conflating these notions.
Do I think the US government should protect civil liberties based on my notion of them, ignoring what some segment of America thinks? Yes. But this is the equivalent of asking if I think I’m right and they are wrong. Of course I think this, that is what it means to hold an opinion.
If we wish to step into the real world, then let’s get some facts. Let’s see a public listing of all the people Mr. Bush ordered warrantless wiretaps on. Let’s have the president tell us, in each case, exactly why he felt he needed to bypass FISA. Let’s hear how each and every wiretap materially enhanced our national security. Let’s give the injured parties a chance to sue for damages in a public court. Let’s see the president defend his actions on a case by case basis.
AFAIK, 9/11 could have been stopped if our government wasn’t so corrupt and/or bloated. Able Danger, anyone?
9/11 really sucked, but it didn’t threaten the solvency of the US as a nation. Maybe if “they” start nuking entire cities then someone could bring up suspending civil liberties without sane people questioning their motives.
Another fun tidbit: The first WTC attack occured in 1993 and they didn’t come back until 2001. Something tells me this was their decision and not because of anything we were doing.
I would be interested to see what the line of authority on these wiretaps is myself. Did GWB himself authorize them himself or did he designate someone to make the decison? How many were done? How were they chosen?
I support hearings unless they reveal information they shouldn’t or compromise active investigations. And if it’s discovered that a wiretap was used without a specific and urgent purpose, I think that the person that authorized it should have to answer for it.
I also think that if these wiretaps gleaned actionable intelligence that prevented or impeded terrorist activity, the person that authorized them should be praised.
And how do you put the pieces together if you don’t have them to begin with? The NSA isn’t a room full of busybody’s listening in on everyone’s private conversation. There aren’t enough people on the planet to do that. They data-mine transmission patterns overseas. It’s just common sense to monitor both halves of a suspected communication (on an accelerated bases) during a time of war. Even if it involves US citizens. Speed counts and the time-honored process of wiretaps is worthless if it doesn’t keep up with the technology that is being used against us.
30 years ago it was inconceivable that someone could go to a library and send vast amounts of information to anywhere in the world in nanoseconds. Prepaid cell phones and instant access to the internet through libraries/Internet Cafés have taken communication to a new level. Data mining is the weapon of choice in an information driven war. If we can’t use the material in a timely manner than this country has no way of countering even the simplest attack.
I’m all for congressional oversight of the process but I’m against using it for political gain. It should be used (as quietly as possible) to protect our rights. Privacy rights do not supercede safety concerns. They’re a package deal.
We had plenty of pieces to put together before we started infringing on civil liberties. All of the information necessary to stop 9/11 was in our hands, we just didn’t put it together. But, FWIW, I’m don’t think the domestic wiretapping was clearly illegal or particularly egregious.
What policy are you referring to here? We have plenty of ACLU-approved ways to counter terrorism. This government is just choosing to spend the money needed for these programs on more important things, like tax cuts for the rich and monitoring Greenpeace.
No one is arguing that there shouldn’t be some happy medium between privacy and safety. What we’re arguing is that the threat to safety is overblown and that, historically, when the government has this kind of power it uses it to do bad things.
We’ve wasted $300 billion dollars assuaging bogus ‘safety concerns’ in the last three years. Before giving up our privacy on the president’s word, it’s quite reasonable to ask for proof that this isn’t all just bullshit on the level of scary old Mr. Saddam maybe busting a nuke up the nation’s skirts.