Where do you get sarcasm out of that? I’m perfectly serious when I say that I am not a terrorist. What can I do so that you’ll believe me? What can I do for the state so that they’ll eventually believe me, when I say that I am no danger to anyone?
Apparently, you continue to miss my point, as you have done throughout this thread. By the same token, I find your question really rather beside the point, even though I have done my best to answer it. There is no need whatever to reduce the number of civil liberties I enjoy, as I am no particular danger to the airline industry, or the state. The state has reduced everyone’s civil liberties because it is not smart enough to figure out who or where the real dangers are, or even what specific dangers exist at a given moment. I understand that, and put up with it, but I stop at embracing it. So sue me.
Two weeks ago, I made a round trip from the US to Canada by air. I was searched thoroughly going both directions, and I am happy to say the state determined that I was not in fact a terrorist, at least for that trip. I carried toothpaste and shampoo in my carry-on luggage; the state let them pass without comment. Neither of these items blew up on board, or showed any particular unwanted behavoir of any kind.
This week, were I to make the same journey, my toothpaste and shampoo would be contraband. I used both these items this morning before I came to work. I noticed no unusual changes, but clearly the state has seen something different in them that I was too blind to notice. Who am I to argue, then, since, as you pointed out, the state knows much better than I what is a danger and what is not?
Once again, I’m sorry if you find my response to your questions unsatisfactory, but I have given you several times what I feel are fair and pertinent answers and I have nothing else to offer.
So if a potential hijacker could just make one round trip without blowing up a plane, he could make the list and we’d be rid of him as a potential problem?
Or do you think we should only search guys who look like terrorists? That’s racial profiling. We can’t do that.
How many times do I have to say that I tolerate being searched? I don’t pretend to have all the answers. All I know is that every single search I have been subjected to has been a complete waste of time.
I hate to disturb anyone’s sense of security derived from building more tanks and airplanes but isn’t the “war on terror” is more like the “war on crime” or the “war on drugs” than it is like WWII (although there is an actual “war” element to it that didn’t exist in the other two “wars”). You have to believe the flypaper theory to think that the war in Iraq is of any use in fighting the war against terrorism (which makes you wonder why we recently uncovered a terrorist plot outside of Iraq, or is the idea that we would be uncovering one of these every week but for the war in Iraq?).
The torture and illegal surveillance arguably has some direct utility on the war against terror (of course there are some people who see many similarities between Geroge Orwell’s 1984 and what’s going on these days) but a lot of people (who are in a position to have valid opinions on the matter) think that the vast majority of the people shooting at us in Iraq are no longer the foreign jihadists that have come to Iraq to fight the American infidels but are actually Iraqi nationalists who want to get us out; Baathists who would stay in Iraq and try to take over; Sunnis who are trying to take over; Shia who are pissed off at the Baathists and Sunnis; etc.
Do we really think that Iraq will turn into a training ground for terrorists? Aren’t there already adequate havens for terrorists all over Africa, other parts of the middle east, North korea, etc. What exactly are we preventing or achieving by staying in Iraq any longer?
If not, then are we merely trying to prevent a civil war because a civil war will make everyone point at us and say “See we told you that taking out Saddam hussein was going to leave a power vaccuum that would lead to a civil war”?
I can understand the argument for the curtailment of civil liberties (the total outrage at the curtailment of civil liberties is probably the clearest sign that we don’t have to worry about the curtailement of our civil liberties… YET) and I understand the concerns but I am not really worried about that yet, I am worried about spending 250 million dollars a day and losing soldiers every day to fight a war that has become meaningless (if it had any meaning to begin with).
I’ve been searched aplenty, and I’m no terrorist, either. Somehow, I don’t think putting my hand over my heart and pledging to TSA that I’m not a terrorist is going to convince them.
I don’t know what to tell you. If the government compiles a big honking database on all it’s citizens, then we get cries of “Big Brother”. If they let a single bomber through, then they are lax buffoons who shouldn’t be in office. If they take our toothpaste, then they’re jackbooted thugs who want to deny us our freedoms.
I agree that taking away the toothpaste is extreme. If a plane had been brought down first and it was somehow determined that the explosive was smuggled aboard in a toothpaste tube, then what? We’re right back where we are, but with one less plane full of passengers. I despise all the “what if” hypotheticals, but just as soon as somebody exploits one thing that wasn’t on the “what if” list, the whole game starts anew.
All you need to do is weigh the outrage from confiscated toothpaste against the outrage from a downed plane and decide what your comfort level is, I guess.
Your inability to grasp the situation at large, the questions that have been asked of you, or what is expected of you on a debate board is bewildering. I would pit you but I have no reason to believe that the efforts would penetrate. I only hope that you are an eleven-year-old-boy, quite smart for his age. Or that you really are John Kerry. In which case, please, please, oh please decide to run. I even promise to vote for you in the primary.
In the mean-time, enjoy utopia with all your fellow non-terrorists.
magellan01, I remain bewildered what you think you are accomplishing by accusing me of being John Kerry, or why you think that is some sort of insult.
Once again, I’m sorry my posts have so frustrated and upset you. I promise not to post further to this thread, with the benefit being that you can crow that I’ve run away again. It’s all good.
Not all. I’d actually prefer that you answered the questions and attempted to support your position. You know, kinda like people do on a debate board. Maybe next time before you open your yap you’ll have done some thinking and be willing to do that, and some good will have come from this.
I spent some time interning for a judge and he used to send me down to arraignment court on mondays and it was pretty obvious to me that getting a search warrant was incredibly easy.
WAY OT: At one point I heard that one of the most reliable informants in the district turned out to be a barely coherent drunk that provided all sorts of useful information to a group of veteran police officers in the Brooklyn, the only thing that kept the cops out of trouble was the fact tha teh informant turned out to be so reliable. Sometimes a cop would come in for a search warrant and be told “you don’t have enough for probable cause” he would return less than an hour later with an affidavit saying that he had received reliable information from an informant (identified by an alphanumeric code to protect the identity of the informant). Based on the affidavit, the warrant would be issued but just about everyone in the courtroom knew that the informant was probably some fall-down drunk that would say anything for a bottle of cheap booze. The only thing that kept this entire thing in check was that the individual credibility of the cop was on the line when they used this tactic and consequently these warrants tended to result in a higher arrest rate than the average search warrant.
If I tell you that your children have been kidnapped and it was a false alarm, then I repeat this 5 times, 10 times, 100 times. At what point do you start ignoring me?
BTW why do you think phone taps cannot be used as evidence?
Its a funny quirk of the law but if I tortured you to get you to tell me where I could find evidence of a crime (e.g. where is the body buried), I could not use the evidence against you (unless an exception like “inevitable discovery” applied) because it is the “fruit of the poisoned tree” but I could use it against anyone else.
So if I capture one terrorist and I know he is a part of a larger conspiracy of terrorists, I can torture him and use any evidence that results from that torture against the co-conspirators but not agaisnt the tortured terrorist.
If I did not follow due process and I searched your home without a search warrant, I could not use the evidence against the residents of that home but I could use it against anyone else the evidence implicated.
So you think there is nothing to the argument that the revelation of a plot to blow up airplanes was timed to maximize (or at least increase) political impact?
If it was only the US who had uncovered a plot, I still think the timing was a little off and unlikely it was related. If it was the US and the UK jointly uncovering the plot, same thing except even more unlikely. With the UK and Pakistan being the ones who uncovered the plot, I can’t see that the US primaries were even remotely connected.
That’s not to say that US politicians won’t/haven’t mined it after the fact, but I don’t think the timing of uncovering the plot coincided with anything to do with US politics.
That’s also not to say that rabid conspiacy theorists won’t try to spin it to look like the ONLY reason the plot was uncovered when it was was to coincide with the US primaries. I fully expect to see it put forth that Halliburton manufactures toothpaste, and that’s the real reason toothpaste is being confiscated.
Just because some folks have turned “conspiracy theory” into a convenient alias for “crackpot idea” doesn’t mean all conspiracies are fake-Moon-landing-level crackpot schemes. I mean, just getting a bunch of oil company executives together to hash out an energy policy in secret qualifies as a “conspiracy,” too.
Not a conspiracy, merely a consensus amongst patriotic, civic-minded oil executives. They studied the matter closely, and discovered that thier financial interests and the interests of the nation were in perfect harmony! Whats good for Exxon is good for the US.