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

Great Debates
41

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

42

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.

43

A second case of Anthrax 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.

44

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 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.

45

“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.

46

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,

I’m glad to see that some of the things we pro-2nd amendment people have bee saying all along have finally sunk in.

47

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…

48

…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.

49

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

50

Stoid, about this bit?

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.

51

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.

52

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.

53

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?

54

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

Aester

55

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.

56

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)

57

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
58

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

59

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

60

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.