Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on July 07, 2005, 09:25:06 PM
-
Standing by sadly absorbing the terrible details of the recent terrorist attack on the innocents of London, I think it be worth remembering why the Patriot Act was ever created.
It's too easy to fall into complacency regarding security when there hasn't been an attack in a while, but when discussing the Patriot Act and other attempts to make our countries more secure, I think it is wise to always remember the alternative.
My sympathies to all effected by the terrible acts in London, and my hopes that we can and will do everything necessary to prevent future attacks such as this.
dago
-
Pffft.
-
ok, i'll bite...
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
:aok
-
I'd rather live with the risk, thank you.
-
I'd rather we attack at each and every location we feel terrorists might be, but that is not gonna happen.
-
Terrorism isn't an ideology. It's a method for waging war.
Being the world's only superpower means that all of our battles will be asymetric. From now on, we can expect each and every one of our enemies to use this method. To take the U.S. on toe to toe is the height of foolishness.
Every one of these "terrorists" probably has friends and family that will respond with anger and violence to our own attacks. Attack, reattack, rinse, lather, repeat.
We have but one solution... genocide. Yeah baby... kill 'em all.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Terrorism isn't an ideology. It's a method for waging war.
Being the world's only superpower means that all of our battles will be asymetric. From now on, we can expect each and every one of our enemies to use this method. To take the U.S. on toe to toe is the height of foolishness.
Every one of these "terrorists" probably has friends and family that will respond with anger and violence to our own attacks. Attack, reattack, rinse, lather, repeat.
We have but one solution... genocide. Yeah baby... kill 'em all.
I agree with Sandman?! Smash the Fax Machine!!!!!
Karaya
-
Lift the assault weapons ban, then I'll feel safe.
-
maybe its time to get ride of all kinde of arabic/islam immigrants?
Stop giving them asylum and ask to live
As survey saiz 40% of young muslims said they will go to fight together with osama against civilised worl. 40% of GB young muslims!
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
Lift the assault weapons ban, then I'll feel safe.
It expired last June.
Long live Bush! :)
Ban Liberals, not Guns!
dago
-
Not to be rude or anything but the attack realy wasnt that big.
The only thing special about it, is the fact that it was a terrorist attack.
Planes crash and kill more people than that and 911 was 100X bigger.
Plus there is even more attacks in Israel happening 24/7, but the fact that it was in London and London is a ally of the US and this could mean that London will go 100% with Bush's plan on terrorism, is the only reason its making headlines, but yes my heart does go out to those innocent people.
Maybe now the US will have more support to stop terrorism, but in reality it will never be stopped.
-
Originally posted by faint
Not to be rude or anything but the attack realy wasnt that big.
The only thing special about it, is the fact that it was a terrorist attack.
Planes crash and kill more people than that and 911 was 100X bigger.
I don`t think body count was the objective for any of the terrorist attacks.
The most attention, headlines and the impact on the countries attacked were.
Homeland Security and the Patriot act can be both bad and good.
It must be constantly monitored and kept within bounds.
-
Waging conventional war on nations will likely only increase terrorism.
Terrorism is the most effective method for waging war if your resources millitarily are thin on the the ground. Quite a few Partisan groups in WW2 knew that as did the British and US govts who funded equipped and trained them. Big armies and millitary responses are not the solution.
As I see it there are two options. We either begin using simmilar tactics. Kidnapping leaders assasination, covert operations etc which realy reduces us to a similar level as thosewe are trying to defeat.
Or we concentrate on a Moral victory. Not allowing ourselves to become the kinds of societies that these people come from. Controlled dictatorial dogmatic and most definately not free. If we win the Moral victory we will win that elusive battle for hearts and minds. The terrorists in the Muslim world are still the minority. If we continue our current policy there they will become a majority.
Not very sensible.
Moral victory not millitary victory that is the answer.
-
our response will escalate in kind with the level of terrorism...
when it is proven Iran has given the nuke suitcase to the cheekbones that set it off in NY, Tehran will be a parking lot
-
who cares if iran has the bomb? what is the difference between america and a "rouge nation"? because they might use it? then why does the US have em if we dont have the will to use them? iran is just protecting its national interests.
-
"He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.” - Thomas Jefferson
-
"He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.” - Thomas Jefferson
Very misleading in this context.
-
The patriot act is a sign that the terrorists are winning
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.” - Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
Very misleading in this context.
Howso?
All we had to do to prevent 9/11 was to enforce laws already in place.
-
Chronology of the USA Patriot Act
October 24, 2001 – Less than six weeks after the 9/11 attacks and shortly after the anthrax letters to congressional offices, the U.S. House of Representatives passes the final USA Patriot Act (H.R. 3162).
October 25, 2001 – With little debate, the Senate passes the bill. Congress purposefully includes sunsets on the most contentious parts of the law, which require Congress to take a sober second look at the provisions before the end of 2005.
October 26, 2001 – President Bush signs the Patriot Act. The final bill – which becomes Public Law No. 107-56 – replaces a compromise measure agreed to unanimously by the notoriously partisan House Judiciary Committee not three weeks before. The bill, as passed, closely resembles the expansive authority initially requested by the Administration in the days after 9/11.
March 18, 2002 – Denver, Colorado becomes the first major metropolitan area to pass a resolution critical of the Patriot Act. It affirms Denver’s support for the war on terror and the city’s commitment to the Constitution.1
February 7, 2003 – Legislation drafted by the Justice Department as a sequel to the USA Patriot Act is leaked. The proposed legislation would grant federal law enforcement sweeping new powers to wiretap, detain and punish suspects while limiting court review and cloaking certain information from the public.
April 14, 2003 – Various organizations from across the political spectrum join forces in a loose-knit coalition to oppose any effort by the Administration to expand the government’s powers through a sequel to the Patriot Act, now dubbed “Son of Patriot” or “Patriot II.”
April 27, 2003 – An editorial in the Orlando Sentinel (Florida) states that the Bush Administration’s call for eliminating the sunset clause the make the Patriot Act permanent, is “not only bad faith; it’s bad policy.”2
July 22, 2003 – The House of Representatives votes overwhelmingly to support an amendment offered by Rep. “Butch” Otter (R-ID) prohibiting implementation of section 213 of the Patriot Act, which permits federal agents to search your home and confiscate property without notifying you that a search is happening. The provision is stripped from the final legislation by a conference committee.
August 21, 2003 – An editorial in the Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colorado), urges Congress to give the Patriot Act the kind of “close scrutiny and skeptical inquiry that were absent in those panicked days following Sept. 11” when the Act was passed.2
October 2, 2003 – Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduce the bipartisan Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act that would preserve the added authority in the Patriot Act, but would surgically add more court review and other checks against abuse.
October 20, 2003 – Durham, NC, becomes the 200th city to pass a resolution in support of civil liberties and Patriot Act reform.
October 20, 2003 – An editorial in the Orange County Register (California), expresses support for the bipartisan SAFE Act.
November 18, 2003 – Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that he “strongly believe(s) Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing ‘mission creep’ into areas outside of national security.”2
January 24, 2004 – Attorney General John Ashcroft sends an extraordinary letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) saying he will advise President Bush to veto the bipartisan SAFE Act, should it pass.
February 4, 2004 – The New York City Council, sitting just a few blocks uptown from Ground Zero, passes a resolution calling for Patriot Act reform and a restoration of checks and balances.1
March 23, 2004 – The state of Maine joins Alaska, Hawaii and Vermont as the fourth to pass a statewide resolution in support of Patriot Act reform and civil liberties.1
April 25, 2004 – While acknowledging that the core of the Patriot Act is vital to fighting terrorism, an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News urges Congress to “temper the ability of law-enforcement agents to carry out searches without informing a property owner that a warrant has been issued.”2
July 8, 2004 – The House – on a tie vote -- fails to amend part of the Patriot Act that allows the government to learn the books people buy or borrow.
July 16, 2004 – Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) introduces a bill (Tools to Fight Terrorism Act), which bears a remarkable resemblance to the “Son of Patriot” legislation leaked from the Justice Department in February 2003. In response to overwhelming public opposition from across the political spectrum, the Senate does not consider the legislation.
July 30, 2004 – The well-publicized report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission states that “a full and informed debate on the PATRIOT Act would be healthy.” The Commission also specifically recommends that “The burden of proof of retaining a particular government power should be on the executive, to explain (1) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive’s use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties . . . to properly confine its use.”
September 22, 2004 – Bob Barr testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the “post-9/11 debate over civil liberties is the most important issue faced by America in a generation.” Noting that he voted for the Patriot Act because he believed the Administration would respect Congress’ inclusion of sunsets, he now urges the Senate to rein in the Patriot Act by passing the SAFE Act since it is clear the Administration is vigorously campaigning to have the sunset provisions made permanent.
September 29, 2004 – A federal judge in New York rules that the section of the Patriot Act expanding the FBI’s ability to demand information from Internet services providers without judicial oversight or public review is unconstitutional.
October 4, 2004 – The In Defense of Freedom Coalition sends a letter to Congress outlining issues that should be considered as legislation is drafted based on the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The letter warns that there may be unintended negative consequences for privacy and civil liberties if precautions are not taken.
December 17, 2004 – Bush signs a bill prompted by the 9/11 Commission’s report, which includes law enforcement provisions augmenting the Patriot Act even though they were never called for by the 9/11 Commission. One provision gives the FBI unchecked power to demand disclosure of financial records and other information, without the approval of an independent judge and without proof of a connection between the individual and a terrorist group.
February 14, 2005 – At a swearing-in ceremony for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, President Bush asks Congress to immediately make the entire Patriot Act permanent.
March 22, 2005 – Leading conservative organizations, led by former Republican Congressman Bob Barr, launch a new alliance -- Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances – to urge Congress to review those provisions of the Patriot Act that are up for renewal in 2005 to bring them in-line with the Constitution. Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances sends a letter to President Bush urging him to reconsider his blanket support for making the Patriot Act permanent.
-
One day later and you're already using that tragedy to attempt to make a point to re-legislate that bill.
Wow.
-SW
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.” - Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gunthr
Very misleading in this context.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howso?
All we had to do to prevent 9/11 was to enforce laws already in place.
__________________
Well, consider the very high security of Israel's El Al airlines. You definately give up some liberty when travelling with them - in exchange for the very good security. Does that mean that you deserve neither liberty OR security?
No. It just means that you are not stupid.
And what about a military unit in a combat zone that sets up security on the perimeter - restricting liberty for the sake of protection and security?
In this context the quote implies that any person who gives up any liberties that would allow the prevention of terrorist attacks deserve neither liberty OR security. I don't believe that is the spirit of Jefferson's words.
-
I am not for losing liberty in the faint hope that the government, given more power over citizens lives, will then be able to protect us.
lazs
-
The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:
Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
"Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties
One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens' activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.
Unchecked power
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:
The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.
Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:
Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
2. More secret searches
For centuries, common law has required that the government can't go into your property without telling you, and must therefore give you notice before it executes a search. That "knock and announce" principle has long been recognized as a part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property - and not tell them until later.
Notice is a crucial check on the government's power because it forces the authorities to operate in the open, and allows the subject of searches to protect their Fourth Amendment rights. For example, it allows them to point out irregularities in a warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that the scope of the warrant is being exceeded (for example, by rifling through dresser drawers in a search for a stolen car). Search warrants often contain limits on what may be searched, but when the searching officers have complete and unsupervised discretion over a search, a property owner cannot defend his or her rights.
Finally, this new "sneak and peek" power can be applied as part of normal criminal investigations; it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or collecting foreign intelligence.
(continued)
-
3. Expansion of the intelligence exception in wiretap law
Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires.
A 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created an exception to the Fourth Amendment's requirement for probable cause when the purpose of a wiretap or search was to gather foreign intelligence. The rationale was that since the search was not conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence to put someone on trial, the standards could be loosened. In a stark demonstration of why it can be dangerous to create exceptions to fundamental rights, however, the Patriot Act expanded this once-narrow exception to cover wiretaps and searches that DO collect evidence for regular domestic criminal cases. FISA previously allowed searches only if the primary purpose was to gather foreign intelligence. But the Patriot Act changes the law to allow searches when "a significant purpose" is intelligence. That lets the government circumvent the Constitution's probable cause requirement even when its main goal is ordinary law enforcement.
The eagerness of many in law enforcement to dispense with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment was revealed in August 2002 by the secret court that oversees domestic intelligence spying (the "FISA Court"). Making public one of its opinions for the first time in history, the court revealed that it had rejected an attempt by the Bush Administration to allow criminal prosecutors to use intelligence warrants to evade the Fourth Amendment entirely. The court also noted that agents applying for warrants had regularly filed false and misleading information. That opinion is now on appeal.
4. Expansion of the "pen register" exception in wiretap law
Another exception to the normal requirement for probable cause in wiretap law is also expanded by the Patriot Act. Years ago, when the law governing telephone wiretaps was written, a distinction was created between two types of surveillance. The first allows surveillance of the content or meaning of a communication, and the second only allows monitoring of the transactional or addressing information attached to a communication. It is like the difference between reading the address printed on the outside of a letter, and reading the letter inside, or listening to a phone conversation and merely recording the phone numbers dialed and received.
Wiretaps limited to transactional or addressing information are known as "Pen register/trap and trace" searches (for the devices that were used on telephones to collect telephone numbers). The requirements for getting a PR/TT warrant are essentially non-existent: the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
The Patriot Act broadens the pen register exception in two ways:
"Nationwide" pen register warrants
Under the Patriot Act PR/TT orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge's jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States. This "nationwide service" further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's explicit requirement that warrants be written "particularly describing the place to be searched."
Pen register searches applied to the Internet
The Patriot Act applies the distinction between transactional and content-oriented wiretaps to the Internet. The problem is that it takes the weak standards for access to transactional data and applies them to communications that are far more than addresses. On an e-mail message, for example, law enforcement has interpreted the "header" of a message to be transactional information accessible with a PR/TT warrant. But in addition to routing information, e-mail headers include the subject line, which is part of the substance of a communication - on a letter, for example, it would clearly be inside the envelope.
The government also argues that the transactional data for Web surfing is a list of the URLs or Web site addresses that a person visits. For example, it might record the fact that they visited "www.aclu.org" at 1:15 in the afternoon, and then skipped over to "www.fbi.gov" at 1:30. This claim that URLs are just addressing data breaks down in two different ways:
Web addresses are rich and revealing content. The URLs or "addresses" of the Web pages we read are not really addresses, they are the titles of documents that we download from the Internet. When we "visit" a Web page what we are really doing is downloading that page from the Internet onto our computer, where it is displayed. Therefore, the list of URLs that we visit during a Web session is really a list of the documents we have downloaded - no different from a list of electronic books we might have purchased online. That is much richer information than a simple list of the people we have communicated with; it is intimate information that reveals who we are and what we are thinking about - much more like the content of a phone call than the number dialed. After all, it is often said that reading is a "conversation" with the author.
Web addresses contain communications sent by a surfer. URLs themselves often have content embedded within them. A search on the Google search engine, for example, creates a page with a custom-generated URL that contains material that is clearly private content, such as: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=sexual+orientation
Similarly, if I fill out an online form - to purchase goods or register my preferences, for example - those products and preferences will often be identified in the resulting URL.
The erosion of accountability
Attempts to find out how the new surveillance powers created by the Patriot Act were implemented during their first year were in vain. In June 2002 the House Judiciary Committee demanded that the Department of Justice answer questions about how it was using its new authority. The Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department essentially refused to describe how it was implementing the law; it left numerous substantial questions unanswered, and classified others without justification. In short, not only has the Bush Administration undermined judicial oversight of government spying on citizens by pushing the Patriot Act into law, but it is also undermining another crucial check and balance on surveillance powers: accountability to Congress and the public.
Non-surveillance provisions
Although this fact sheet focuses on the direct surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act, citizens should be aware that the act also contains a number of other provisions. The Act:
Puts CIA back in business of spying on Americans. The Patriot Act gives the Director of Central Intelligence the power to identify domestic intelligence requirements. That opens the door to the same abuses that took place in the 1970s and before, when the CIA engaged in widespread spying on protest groups and other Americans.
Creates a new crime of "domestic terrorism." The Patriot Act transforms protesters into terrorists if they engage in conduct that "involves acts dangerous to human life" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." How long will it be before an ambitious or politically motivated prosecutor uses the statute to charge members of controversial activist groups like Operation Rescue or Greenpeace with terrorism? Under the Patriot Act, providing lodging or assistance to such "terrorists" exposes a person to surveillance or prosecution. Furthermore, the law gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to detain or deport any non-citizen who belongs to or donates money to one of these broadly defined "domestic terrorist" groups.
Allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens. The Patriot Act gives the attorney general unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants. The attorney general can order detention based on a certification that he or she has "reasonable grounds to believe" a non-citizen endangers national security. Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial.
-
I'm leary of giving broad reaching powers to the government in the name of security too. At the same time, I'm resigned to the fact that people will demand security from terrorism and that means that there will be a trade-off. It s all a matter of degree.
We don't really have to discuss that now, though. American citizens will demand it shortly after we have another major attack right here in America.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Well, consider the very high security of Israel's El Al airlines. You definately give up some liberty when travelling with them - in exchange for the very good security. Does that mean that you deserve neither liberty OR security?
No. It just means that you are not stupid.
And what about a military unit in a combat zone that sets up security on the perimeter - restricting liberty for the sake of protection and security?
In this context the quote implies that any person who gives up any liberties that would allow the prevention of terrorist attacks deserve neither liberty OR security. I don't believe that is the spirit of Jefferson's words. [/B]
I agree with you in that context
But your entire arguement hinges on laws and protocols that were largely already in place
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I'm leary of giving broad reaching powers to the government in the name of security too. At the same time, I'm resigned to the fact that people will demand security from terrorism and that means that there will be a trade-off. It s all a matter of degree.
We don't really have to discuss that now, though. American citizens will demand it shortly after we have another major attack right here in America.
Quite right.
dago
-
sorry Dred, I'm not really part of the debate about your points... it just bothered me when somebody (west) throws out a quote that supposedly has some meaning related to the situation.
I'm afraid of big government and abuses too, and I don't trust any of our politicians. I'm against knee jerk politician's remedies where they think they can fix something by passing another law. But I'm ignorant about the details that you are talking about - still checking it out.
-
the gov ain't the bad guy here - it is the cheekboness whose actions reguire/allow the gov to enact the Pat Act
you hold the govs feet to the fire when an attack occurs and whine at every attempt they take to prevent it... can't have it both ways
sounds like some of you are ok with terrorism as long as you do not lose your "freedoms" - lol
-
Originally posted by Eagler
sounds like some of you are ok with terrorism as long as you do not lose your "freedoms" - lol
Freedom is not free. It is the risk we take.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Waging conventional war on nations will likely only increase terrorism.
Terrorism is the most effective method for waging war if your resources millitarily are thin on the the ground. Quite a few Partisan groups in WW2 knew that as did the British and US govts who funded equipped and trained them. Big armies and millitary responses are not the solution.
As I see it there are two options. We either begin using simmilar tactics. Kidnapping leaders assasination, covert operations etc which realy reduces us to a similar level as thosewe are trying to defeat.
Or we concentrate on a Moral victory. Not allowing ourselves to become the kinds of societies that these people come from. Controlled dictatorial dogmatic and most definately not free. If we win the Moral victory we will win that elusive battle for hearts and minds. The terrorists in the Muslim world are still the minority. If we continue our current policy there they will become a majority.
Not very sensible.
Moral victory not millitary victory that is the answer.
Win the hearts and minds of who?
This sounds slightly familiar. :)
The "hearts and minds" of the groups supporting, training and carrying out these terrorist acts will never be won over to "our" way of thinking. You are talking apples and oranges. Our beliefs, value of human life, compassion and intended goodwill means less than nothing to these people.
If left alone they will train more, recruit more and in turn attack more.
They must continue to be protected against. They must also continue to be sought out and destroyed at the very roots of the organizations to stem the flow of supplys , training and support.
Sitting back , sticking your head in the sand and hoping it will go away is exactly what they desire. This gives them more time, money and planning for the next attack.
They will not quit until they are wiped out or at least put under so much loss that they cannot gain momentum.
Focusing on other matters while not taking care of this problem and ignoring them plays right into their hands and sets us all up for more and more attacks as they gain ground, grow and glean support from other radical groups.
In the last few years they have accomplished what their attacks set out to do. In other words, they have been allowed to grow to the point of getting history`s largest FREE advertisement campaign. This was accomplished by being ignored while they trained and garnered support and finances. If not controlled or destroyed from the very roots they will get more serious and more bold as time goes by. The attacks we have seen so far would look like a Sunday walk in the park compared to what time, funding and training will produce if not controlled.
-
Originally posted by faint
Not to be rude or anything but the attack realy wasnt that big.
The only thing special about it, is the fact that it was a terrorist attack.
Planes crash and kill more people than that and 911 was 100X bigger.
my hope is that you are under 15 years old .. hate to think an adult thinks in these terms...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not for losing liberty in the faint hope that the government, given more power over citizens lives, will then be able to protect us.
lazs
Exactly. Its a false security.
Another one of those "feel good laws" As it does little to make us any more secure.
We would be far more secure if all we did was ENFORCE laws already in place.
The emphasis should not be on creating new laws giving the government more end ever increasing powers but instead emphasizing enforcement of already existing laws.
But even then we will never be totally secure.
someone that wants to do damage badly enough will do it not matter how many laws are in place or how much power we give the government
Im no chemist. But even I as I am sure many of you know how to make an IED, or poison gas out of largely everyday items you can buy at your local supermarket and/or hardware store.
And if I wanted to do damage I could very well do so.
Fact is I have no intention on doing so but I could, and quite easily if I were so inclined.
Security is largely an illusion that no government has ever been able to successfully acheive no matter how much power its had
-
well... to go back to the same old thing... the old soviet russia was a very safe place. despite their less than gentle foreign and domestic policies.... they had very little crime in russia and allmost no terrorism attacks on russian cities... their was a very high degree of security in that nation.
lazs
-
"Freedom is not free. It is the risk we take."
Yup. Then again the myopic and partyline types cannot (or refuse to) see that. Then the discussion gets to be like argueing cold war history with Boroda.
"I am not for losing liberty in the faint hope that the government, given more power over citizens lives, will then be able to protect us."
Here! Here! I'll second that.
-
"old soviet russia was a very safe place."
eh. On that line (very appropriate example there) uber-ultra-conservative North Korea is secure and safe. So is Cuba.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the gov ain't the bad guy here - it is the cheekboness whose actions reguire/allow the gov to enact the Pat Act
you hold the govs feet to the fire when an attack occurs and whine at every attempt they take to prevent it... can't have it both ways
sounds like some of you are ok with terrorism as long as you do not lose your "freedoms" - lol
Actually in some areas they are both the bad guys.
I hold their feet to the fire when an attack occurs needlessly when all that was needed to prevent it was to enforce already existing laws.
That lack of enforcement. Particularly on the immigration front allowed 9/11 to happen.
Another problem I have is with the way airport security was enforced.
I am VERY familiar with Newark Airport and there is no way they should have been able to get on those planes with boxcutters.
Prior to 9/11 I used to get half undressed just to get to the area to be able to meet my mother EXITING an aircraft to pick her up several times a year. I used to and still do carry knives or razor blades on my on a regular basis (for work) and would have to leave them with security while met her at the gate.
On 9/11 this same security failed to do the very job for and outgoing flight it did regularly with me for an incoming one.
Again. Lack of enforcement.
Lack of this enforcement of ALREADY EXISTING rules allowed people to get on airplanes with knives and hijack the planes.
In these areas I yes, hold the governments feet to the fire.
Laws were and are in place. The Government didn't enforce them and that resulted in the deaths of 2986 people.
There was no need for any loss of freedoms to prevent this. Only a need for enforcement.
So yes. you can have it both ways
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I agree with Sandman?! Smash the Fax Machine!!!!!
Karaya
Hmmm... I need to work on my sarcasm.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... to go back to the same old thing... the old soviet russia was a very safe place. despite their less than gentle foreign and domestic policies.... they had very little crime in russia and allmost no terrorism attacks on russian cities... their was a very high degree of security in that nation.
lazs
LOL in those days there werent very many terrorism attacks anywhere.
And with the Soviet method of news media. do we know this for sure? Or is that simply the way it was reported? LMAO
then again you say "allmost no terrorism attacks on russian cities"
Allmost is not all.
for that matter there has "allmost" been no terrorism on american cities either.
As for Cuba and NK.
Neither has had a history of that problem. It isnt that they've been able to stop it as much as nobody has really wanted to.
Curious though as to how many any of the 3 were able to prevent?
Probably it isnt so much because of theri security as mch as it is nobody was bothering to try. Or if it was tried. it went unreported. or reported as something else.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL in those days there werent very many terrorism attacks anywhere.
Ahem... in those days, terrorists were hijacking airplanes on average of one a day.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... in those days, terrorists were hijacking airplanes on average of one a day.
Yes but usually they just wanted a ride to cuba. So I dont count those.
Damn freeloaders LOL
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... in those days, terrorists were hijacking airplanes on average of one a day.
Actually I threw the last post up as a source of amusment while I tried looking it up.
Turns out I'm not all that far off the mark.
But as to your claim. do you have an sources on that? I have in this breif period of time been unable to find supporting evidence.
But I will try to find some.
the closest I've found yet was along with this somewhat amusing story
"The first recorded aircraft hijack was on February 21, 1931, in Arequipa, Peru. Byron Rickards flying a Ford Tri-motor was approached on the ground by armed revolutionaries. He refused to fly them anywhere and after a ten day stand-off Rickards was informed that the revolution was successful and he could go in return for giving one of their number a lift to Lima"
Other then that .
The first hijack of a commercial airliner probably happened on July 16, 1948, when a failed attempt to gain control of a Cathay Pacific seaplane caused it to crash into the sea off Macao. On September 12, 1948 a Greek T.A.E Airlines plane was sucessfully hijacked by 6 pro-communist students who wanted passage to Yugoslavia. The plane landed near Skopje and returned to Thessaloniki later that evening.
Since 1947, 60% of hijackings have been refugee escapes. In 1968-69 there was a massive rise in the number of hijacking. In 1968 there were 27 hijackings and attempted hijackings to Cuba. In 1969 there were 82 recorded hijack attempts worldwide, more than twice the total attempts for the whole period 1947-67. Most were Palestinians using hijacks as a political weapon to publicise their cause and to force the Israeli government to releasing Palestinian prisoners from jail.
Airliner hijackings have declined since the peak of 385 incidents between 1967-76. In 1977-86 the total had dropped to 300 incidents and in 1987-96 this figure was reduced to 212.
Other significant hijackings include:
1958 First Cuba-to-U.S. hijacking
1960 The first US-to-Cuba hijacking
1968: The first Arab-Israeli hijacking, as three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijack an El Al plane to Rome. Diverting to Algiers the negotiations extend over forty days. Both the hijackers and the hostages go free. This was the first and the only successful hijacking of an El Al flight.
1970: As part of the Dawson's Field hijackings, PFLP members attempt to hijack four aircraft simultaneously. They succeed on three and force the planes to fly to the Jordanian desert, where the hijackers blow up the aircraft after releasing most of the hostages. The final hostages are freed in exchange for seven Palestinian prisoners. The fourth attack on an El Al plane by two people including Leila Khalid is foiled by armed gaurds aboard.
1971: D. B. Cooper hijacks Northwest Orient Airlines flight 305 and obtains $200,000 ransom for the release of the plane's passengers. Cooper proceeds to parachute from the rear of the Boeing 727 and is never found.
1976: The Palestinian hijack of Air France Flight 193 airliner is brought to an end at Entebbe Airport, Uganda by Operation Entebbe: Israeli commandos assault the building holding the hijackers and hostages; they kill all the Palestinian hijackers and free 105 mostly Israeli hostages; three passengers and one commando are killed.
1977: A Palestinian hijack of a Lufthansa airliner Landshut during its flight from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt is ended in Mogadishu when German commandos storm the plane. Three hijackers are killed and 86 hostages are freed. The hand of German Red Army Faction is suspected. The pilot is killed.
1978: Two Arab guerrillas seized a plane in Cyprus. Egyptian commandos flew in uninvited to try to take the plane. Cypriot troops resisted and 15 Egyptians died in a 45-minute battle.
1979: Two East Germans hijacked an airplane to West Berlin; see Judgment in Berlin.
1981: A Pakistan International Airlines jet is hijacked and taken to Kabul, where one passenger is killed before the plane flies on to Damascus; the hostages are finally released after 13 days when the Pakistani Government agrees to free fifty political prisoners.
1983: Tbilisi hijacking incident
1984: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert a Kuwait Airways flight to Tehran. The plane is taken by Iranian security forces.
1985: Lebanese Shi'a hijackers divert TWA Flight 847 from Athens to Beirut with 153 people on board. The stand-off ends after Israel frees 31 Lebanese prisoners.
1985: Palestinians take over EgyptAir Flight 648 and fly it to Malta. All together, 60 people died, most of them when Egyptian commandos stormed the aircraft.
1986: 22 people are killed when Pakistani security forces storm Pan Am Flight 73 at Karachi, carrying 400 passengers and crew after a 16-hour siege.
1990: Hijackers seize a plane from the People's Republic of China which later crashes as it tried to land in Canton killing 128 people.
1994: Four Islamic GIA terrorists seize Air France Flight 8969 plane in Algiers. It is flown to Marseilles where French commandos (GIGN) storm the plane, killing the hijackers. 170 passengers survive.
1996: Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 crashed into the Indian Ocean near a beach in the Comoros Islands after hijackers refused to allow the pilot to land and refuel the plane. 125 passengers die and 50 survive. This is only the third incident in which there were survivors of a passenger jet intentionally ditching into water.
1999: All Nippon Airways Flight 61 is hijacked by a lone man. He kills the pilot before he is subdued.
1999-2000: Kashmiri militants hijack Indian Airlines Flight 814 and divert it to Kandahar. After a week-long stand-off India agrees to release three jailed Kashmiri militants in exchange for the hostages. 1 hostage stabbed dead and his body thrown on the tarmac as a "warning attack"
2001: September 11 attacks, eastern USA: 19 terrorists hijack four planes (American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, United Airlines Flight 93, and United Airlines Flight 175; in three cases the aircraft is used as a cruise missile in a suicide bombing of a building; they are the three most deadly of all aircraft hijackings; in the fourth case the intention is the same but the passengers, learning of the fate of the other three planes, attack the cockpit, and the hijackers crash the plane and only the people in the plane were killed. All together, about 3,000 people were killed"
(Source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking)
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Terrorism is the most effective method for waging war if your resources millitarily are thin on the the ground. Quite a few Partisan groups in WW2 knew that as did the British and US govts who funded equipped and trained them.
Carefull, Skydancer. You are confusing guerilla warfare with terrorism.
Partisan groups backed by the Allies focused on military targets and supply and communications lines. We did not train them to randomly kill civilians by blowing themselves up in crowds.
-
Okay... I exaggerated. I'll have to check and see how that figure got in my head. ;)
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Carefull, Skydancer. You are confusing guerilla warfare with terrorism.
Partisan groups backed by the Allies focused on military targets and supply and communications lines. We did not train them to randomly kill civilians by blowing themselves up in crowds.
There was a mix of terror warfare also..
Sometimes the partisan groups were fightning against each others interests and sometimes killing people suspected of aiding germans.
although it wasn't the same all around.
Different nations, different areas... different groups...
Iraq is a mix of guerrilla and terror warfare.
Alot more terrorism than in WWII though.
However its not terrorism to put up a roadside bomb and blow up a military convoy.
I'd be interested to know whether terror and guerrilla attacks are done by same groups or totally different groups, and are they working under same strategic command or not.
-
911 did not take place because we didnt have the patriot act.
It took place because a gutted CIA didnt have enough info and the FBI and CIA didnt share info and no one thought it was going to happen.
The patriot act is not as bad as some make it out, but its not a great thing, and I dont think the government needs more power over us.
They need to address the problems in a real way like closing the borders so someone does walk a dirty bomb or a nuke into the country.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
The patriot act is not as bad as some make it out, but its not a great thing, and I dont think the government needs more power over us.
True, it's not as evil as some insist, but I agree that terrorism can be combatted without the powers it instills.
The scariest part of the partriot act was the knee jerk way that it was created and voted into law. If something like 9/11 were to happen again I think we can expect marshal law.
Here's the problem with the patriot act:
There are plenty of nations that can make reasonable claims at being "free". But the US is unique from all of these because of the contents of the Bill of Rights. Eroding these rights, even by just a little, is basically saying:
"In order to preserve what makes us special, we have to stop being special."
I don't buy it.
The whole flag desecration thing is equally inane.
If you tell me that the flag is such an important symbol of our unique freedoms that destroying it no longer falls under the category of free expression, then my reply is that the unique freedoms represented by the flag no longer exist, that it is diminished as a symbol, and nobody should care if I destroy it.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
True, it's not as evil as some insist, but I agree that terrorism can be combatted without the powers it instills.
The scariest part of the partriot act was the knee jerk way that it was created and voted into law. If something like 9/11 were to happen again I think we can expect marshal law.
Here's the problem with the patriot act:
There are plenty of nations that can make reasonable claims at being "free". But the US is unique from all of these because of the contents of the Bill of Rights. Eroding these rights, even by just a little, is basically saying:
"In order to preserve what makes us special, we have to stop being special."
I don't buy it.
The whole flag desecration thing is equally inane.
If you tell me that the flag is such an important symbol of our unique freedoms that destroying it no longer falls under the category of free expression, then my reply is that the unique freedoms represented by the flag no longer exist, that it is diminished as a symbol, and nobody should care if I destroy it.
Well said, and I agree
-
Victim one: Hey! You got chocolate in my peanut butter!
Victim two: Hey! You got peanut butter in my chocolate!
Victim one and two: M'hmmmm tastes good! Yeah!
-
Deleted.
13- Do not punt topics. Punting would be making a non-substantive post for the express purpose of bring the thread to the top of the thread list.