War on terror - When Ashcroft met his match

Great Debates
61

december, you’ve been repeatedly asked to explain your reasons for asking a particular question, only to admit that it’s a tough one and then stop.

Not good enough, not in this forum, and not IRL either. No ducking permitted - if you have a question, have an answer prepared, or else do the tough thinking that’s required and propose something. Perhaps by reasoned discussion we all can come up with increased understanding.

What you’re doing with your current approach is simply creating heat, not light. Trolling, that is.

62

What particular question are you talking about?

63

Such as Tinker AFB in Oklahoma City, OK, Fort Jackson in Columbia, SC (and these are state capitals), both of which would be major targets; Tinker is the main maintenance station for AWACS, and Ft. Jackson is a major basic location. Or how about everything in the Florida panhandle, close to where your hero’s brother lives? Or Sumter, SC, which has a very large F-16 population? A nuke on Shaw AFB would take out Columbia for sure.

My Lord, december, what kind of barbarians put their military installations right in the middle of a civilian town?

64

An afterthought: If you like, I’ll pull up my old list of military installations from when I was writing newcomer guides for the Non Commissioned Officers Association and make a list of urban and suburban installations. But off the top of my head, I’d bet that less than 1% are in the middle of the desert like Area 51.

65

december, reread Page 1. Look for almost any post with your name on it.

Troll.

66

Translation into English:

**ElvisL1ves ** admits that his accusation had no basis in fact apologizes. Apology accepted.

67

december, I am with ElvisL1ves in that you keep dancing around the bush without proposing anything concrete and just implying the governnment should have discretion in holding people with no due process and when confronted with the question your only answer is that it is a difficult question. Ok, if you don’t have an answer have the kindness to shut up and stop beating around the bush. Your posts contribute nothing to this thread. If you don’t have an answer just don’t post.

In civilised countries we do not imprison people for what they might do in the future but only for crimes they have already committed in the past. If there is suspicion someone is planning a crime, then he is placed under surveillance and if he is indded conspiring, he is arrested and accused of conspiring to commit a crime which is a crime in itself.

You akeep implying the man referred to in the news maybe should not go free. He is innocent and there is no excuse to hold him except your fascist and racist inclination. If the authorities think he might be planning something they can keep an eye on him but that’s it. Or do you want us to think he can manufacture and detonate a nuclear weapon in a matter of minutes and without calling any attention?

68

Always look at costs and benefits

I guess my posts weren’t fully clear. That’s because I was addressing the OP on several different levels. Also, we disagree. Here’s what I think:

  1. The judge made the right decision to refuse extradition.

  2. Ashcroft may have made the right decision to try to get extradition. He should be aggressive in fighting terror, as long as he’s acting within the law.

  3. Some posters suggested that Ashcroft’s action will lead our allies to mistrust us. However, it’s equally possible that Ashcroft’s aggressiveness will inspire our allies to be more aggressive as well.

  4. I disagree with the nature OP, because it looked at the disadvantages of the extradition effort, but ignored the potential advantages. Most actions have costs and benefits. It’s never fair to look at one side only.

  5. I disapprove of the demonization of Ashcroft. First of all, Ashcroft represents the US and our allies against terrorism. If he did wrong, then so did sailor, ElvisL1ves, and I.

  6. There is no doubt that Ashcroft is acting in good faith. He received no monetary of PR benefit from trying to extradite Raissi. He’s doing his best to protect the country against new terrorist acts within the limits of the law. He doesn’t deserve disdain.

69

>> 1. The judge made the right decision to refuse extradition.

Given the information we have it certainly looks like it

>> 2. Ashcroft may have made the right decision to try to get extradition.

Given the information we have it certainly doesn’t look like it. With the evidence presented there wasn’t a chance in hell it would be granted. He wasted a shot for nothing. Do this a few times and when you have a real case then America’s requests will be discredited and less effective. You ever heard about the boy who cried wolf?

>> He should be aggressive in fighting terror, as long as he’s acting within the law.

This is not being aggresive, it is being foolish.

>> 3. Some posters suggested that Ashcroft’s action will lead our allies to mistrust us. However, it’s equally possible that Ashcroft’s aggressiveness will inspire our allies to be more aggressive as well.

I fail to follow your logic but with the semester so advanced I am not even going to try. I will just point out that in fact, in the real world, European countries have expressed deep reservations about America’s tactics. I find the idea that more “aggressive” tactics would be convincing to them quite silly. Or are you implying they can be bullied into submission?

>> 4. I disagree with the nature OP, because it looked at the disadvantages of the extradition effort, but ignored the potential advantages. Most actions have costs and benefits. It’s never fair to look at one side only.

OK, let’s look at both sides:
Disadvantages: It makes the US look foolish for persecuting a man with no evidence in hand to present.
Advantages: None

>> 5. I disapprove of the demonization of Ashcroft.

This thread is about a fact, not about demonizing anyone.

>> First of all, Ashcroft represents the US and our allies against terrorism.

I would let the allies speak for themselves and they often do and disagree like is the case we are dealing with as well as many others. As for the US he might represent the US Governemnet but I doubt even he claims to represent all of the American people.

>> If he did wrong, then so did sailor, ElvisL1ves, and I.

I don’t get that but never mind.

>> 6. There is no doubt that Ashcroft is acting in good faith. He received no monetary of PR benefit from trying to extradite Raissi. He’s doing his best to protect the country against new terrorist acts within the limits of the law. He doesn’t deserve disdain.

Hmmm, nobody is denying his good faith but good faith is very different from competence. When I go under the surgeon’s knife I want a surgeon who is competent, not one with lots of good faith. Incompetence paired with good faith are a terrible mixture. This thread is about an act which leads to suspect, and some might say prove, incompetence. Add good faith and the belief that he is acting for the superior good and you have an extremely dangerous mixture. The road to hell is paved with incompetent idiots.

70

december: *Here’s what I think:

  1. The judge made the right decision to refuse extradition. *

Looks like we’re all in agreement on that one.

*2. Ashcroft may have made the right decision to try to get extradition. He should be aggressive in fighting terror, as long as he’s acting within the law. *

I don’t think that anyone disagrees that Ashcroft should do what is legally and constitutionally permissible in searching out terrorists. As you note, it’s hard to say whether his decision in the Raissi case was a justifiable one; we don’t know what information he actually had or how good he thought his case was.

*3. Some posters suggested that Ashcroft’s action will lead our allies to mistrust us. However, it’s equally possible that Ashcroft’s aggressiveness will inspire our allies to be more aggressive as well. *

Now for this, I’d like a cite, or at least a fuller explanation. What makes you think it’s “equally” possible? If the AG makes an extradition request that gets thrown out of court for lack of evidence, it’s easy to see why that would cause our allies to lose some faith in our judgment—“those overeager Yanks, they really screwed up on this one.” I cannot see why you’d think it might just as easily inspire them to imitate our overzealousness.

4. I disagree with the nature [“of the”?] OP, because it looked at the disadvantages of the extradition effort, but ignored the potential advantages. Most actions have costs and benefits. It’s never fair to look at one side only.

Well, that’s kind of the point of debate, isn’t it? The OP posts his viewpoint and those who disagree may rebut it. If you have something to say about the “advantages” of the extradition case, feel free to say it.

*5. I disapprove of the demonization of Ashcroft. First of all, Ashcroft represents the US and our allies against terrorism. If he did wrong, then so did sailor, ElvisL1ves, and I. *

Isn’t that exactly why people here are complaining about what Ashcroft did? (And to refer to it as “demonization” is quite exaggerated, IMHO.) Since the actions of the US AG are taken to represent the American people as a whole, if he screws up, he makes us all look bad, and we should object to that.

6. There is no doubt that Ashcroft is acting in good faith. He received no monetary of [“or”?] PR benefit from trying to extradite Raissi.

Nobody’s alleging that Ashcroft is in this for the money, although it’s far from clear to me that there is in fact no PR benefit for him from such actions. In any case, I am quite willing to believe that he is not being swayed by any considerations of personal gain of any kind. But that’s not the point. Simply acting in good faith is not enough to shield you from criticism if your actions are unwise, dangerous, or just plain wrongheaded.

*He’s doing his best to protect the country against new terrorist acts within the limits of the law. *

But if what he is doing ends up making us more vulnerable to danger, we had better complain about it. It is by no means as clear to most people as it seems to be to you that Ashcroft is sufficiently concerned about protecting the civil liberties of innocent people; just ask the families of the many Muslim detainees who have been incarcerated for months on no legal pretext except trivial immigration violations.

You shouldn’t discount the concerns many people have about government abuses of power in the “war on terrorism” just because you yourself and your own friends and relatives aren’t likely to suffer from them. Remember that successful crime prevention is accomplished not just by the actions of the authorities, but by the voluntary cooperation of non-criminals. For example, the Unabomber has been mentioned in this thread: bear in mind that government agents spent years searching for the Unabomber unsuccessfully, while he went on committing more crimes. What eventually led to his capture was voluntarily offered information from his relatives when they read his letter to the New York Times. Would those relatives have been so quick to come forward if they had had cause to fear that he would have been railroaded by the authorities even if they lacked sufficient evidence, or that they themselves might be detained indefinitely on suspicion that they might be mixed up in his terrorist acts?

When many innocent people are more afraid of the government than they are of terrorists, preventing terrorism becomes much more difficult. That’s why I don’t think that Ashcroft should get a free pass for overzealousness in his accusations, no matter how noble his intentions may be.

[Note added in preview: or in other words, what sailor said, with a few extra comments.]

71

>> Incompetence paired with good faith are a terrible mixture

[Mrs. Buckett]

Or should that be “Incompetence paired with good faith is a terrible mixture”?

[/Mrs. Buckett]

72

I’ve been here before, and I’ve found my self holding the horses while December, Sailor and Elvis whale on each other before. None-the-less, there is a fable that may throw some light on the Dept. of Justice’s approach to this mess:

Once upon a time, there was a boy who was sent out to watch the village’s sheep in the hills behind the town. “Go watch the sheep,” he was told. “If the wolf comes to attack the sheep all you have to do is shout ‘Wolf! Wolf” as loud as you can and the men of the village will run out to chase the wolf away.” So the boy goes up to the hills with the sheep and after a while he starts getting scared and lonely and he thinks about the wolf and he becomes even more frightened. So the boy starts yelling. “Wolf, Wolf!” he yells and the men all come running but they find no wolf….Aw, you know the rest of the story. When the wolf finally comes the men ignore the boy’s shouts because he had already called in a half-dozen false alarm.

It seems to me that if this keeps up other nations are going to decide that the US is just shouting wolf and that when and if real trouble comes the nation is not going to get much help until after the wolf has eaten up all the sheep. The Department of Justice and the Terror Czar would be well advised to pipe down and to choose their fights more carefully. The guy in Britain is a pretty good example of the wrong fight. It cannot help but injure the D of J’s credibility.

73

That is physical (or environmental) evidence, not circumstantial evidence. There is an important difference.

74

That looks like the beginning of a slippery slope.

By the same logic, all politicans must be retained because there is a chance they would do something terrible.

Hitler was a politician. So was Tojo.

They both killed far more people than all the terrorists combined.

So I say we lock up all the politicans, starting with Dubya, Ashcroft, Rumsfield, an Cheney :stuck_out_tongue:

75

Everyone else seems to have given this one a pass, but I am curious as to how we arrive at the conclusion that Ashcroft acted in good faith. Acting in good faith does not mean avoiding bribes. Acting in good faith means that all of one’s actions are done in the belief that one is following the ethical standards associated with those actions. One does not have to accuse Ashcroft of personal interest to note that this does not look like a “good faith” effort.

What it appears to many is that Ashcroft decided, on flimsy evidence and possibly based on emotional appeal, to incarcerate a person and to throw up a enough dust to get a foreign court to support him as he acted on his personal whims. Dragging up the charge of perjury (as if he could turn Raissi into Hiss II) is also not an act of good faith, but an act of vindictiveness.

Acting on good faith might indicate that he believed his agents when they (erroneously or maliciously) claimed that they had an open-and-shut case. For Ashcroft to pursue the matter, personally, in the face of dwindling evidence, indicates vengeance, not good faith. (And if Ashcroft does have better evidence that he is refusing to reveal, then he is acting in bad faith by not attempting to use the evidence, hoping that he can bluff his way through the courts on the strength of his “character” or his position.)

76

As a resident of an allied country, I can assure you that this incident is highly embarrassing to the reputation of the US.

Britain is ready to fight terrorism, and has sent troops to Afghanistan.
We went to great lengths to put on trial the Lockerbie plane bombers.
We support your democracy and justice system (apart from capital punishment).

However we were puzzled by the US decision to send ‘terrorists’ to Cuba (a country still under some sort of US embargo) and hold them in some sort of military camp and not try them in regular courts.
OK, we arrested a suspected terrorist on Ashcroft’s say-so. But we put him through our regular court of law.
He walks free, because there is insufficent evidence.
I don’t have a cite, but I remember the papers here saying we had definitely got a major link in the conspiracy.
Well somebody screwed up pretty badly.

The obvious questions now are:

  • what sort of ‘evidence’ do you have against the Cuban bunch?
  • why are they being tried under military law, not civil?
  • how much pressure is there on Ashcroft to find a scapegoat?
  • what lengths will he go to to frame any ‘Muslim’ types?

December,
all your scaremongering about ‘if we let him go, will he kill people?!’ just reinforces the above impression.
How would you feel if we here in the UK said ‘oh, somebody blew up a Federal building in Oaklahoma. He was a white American - let’s put some white Americans in custody and keep them there in case they kill somebody.’
Finally, because this seems the level you operate at, why don’t you put Henry Kissinger on trial for war crimes in Cambodia? If true, he killed lots of people and there’s a lot more evidence he was involved than this guy in the UK…

77

here’s hoping glee that Ashcroft & supporters are listening to you. Note - those comments came from one of our strongest allies. We can only imagine how dismayed some of the others feel.

78

All this reminds me of a song from Hunchback of Notre Dame:

“The Senate must vote the Chancellor emergency powers.”
“As my first act, I will create a grand army of the Republic, to counter the increasing threats of the terrorists – er, separatists.”