Terrorism .....are we alert enough

[Phil]

To me, I think this whole terrorism thing is a little like the Red Scare. It is making people be constantly suspucious of people that look different or dress different. I do not doubt that there is terrorism and that steps do need to be taken to prevent further acts, but it feels so restircted at times. I know it's for our own saftey, but are they really protecting us? After all, give it enough time, and we may have to go on planes naked. No quite that literal, but it will eventually escalate to the point where road trips, ships, and trains will come back into more mainstream use. Personally, I would prefer a train at this point. It's muc more roomy and there is a lot more to see than in the sky. Mark my words, commercail airline comapnies will eventually meet their demise. People will get sick and tired of being probed for a flight and will look to grounds transportation.

 

[carebear]

Carebear,

You might also note that in the United Kingdom many of the anti-terror laws provide law enforcement and intelligence agencies with far more leeway in investigating than what we have here in the U.S.

Jessica

True, but responding to tips, identifying suspects, obtaining normal warrants for wiretaps and round the clock surveillance (even for intercepting mail if necessary) are not new, special "anti-terror" tools. They have been in the police toolbox in both nations for decades. That's what caught these latest bombers.

The additional "Patriot Act" permissions are either redundant or not really necessary. I've yet to see a case where the normal, civil-rights protecting, process could not be used to equal effect. Especially here in the US when our agencies are moving so quickly no actual crimes are being committed yet thus leading to difficulties in justifying arrests and holding suspects.

 

[VintageJess]

Daisy,

I forgot to mention that I agree with the points that you are making. It bothers me when people complain but don't offer much in the way of solution. It strikes me that a lot of the same people who express outrage at some of the measures we take to prevent another terrorist attack, would likely be the first ones finger-pointing and blaming if, heaven forbid, another attack would take place.

The police, intelligence communities, and government officials do not have crystal balls. Terrorism is a very difficult thing to fight, and when you have people infiltrating your own country and using your own freedoms against you, some additional measures need to be taken.

Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War--he suspended Habeas Corpus. Now, I know many scholars will talk theoretically about preserving the Bill of Rights, but Lincoln took the steps that he felt were necessary to preserve the Union. (The Bill of Rights don't matter much if you don't have a country...)

I guess I see it as much the same way in this War on Terrorism. We as a country may need to make some sacrifices, or change our way of thinking a bit--just as we did during WWII, the Civil War, and most, if not all, of the other wars in which we have been threatened. Will I be inconvenienced at times? Probably. Will I be cautious and watchful over how the government handles the extra allowances I will give it? For sure. But I certainly don't ever again feel the way that I felt on that horrible September morning. Nor do I ever want to look my child in the face and tell him that I don't think that we've done all that we can to protect him.

Just my 2 pennies,
Jessica

 

[Salv]

Rather than quoting a lot of other posts let me clearly state my position as far as this discussion is concerned.

I'm not taking a poke at the police force, and I'm not accusing them of being a hit squad. Some people still seem to believe that de Menezes was somehow acting in a suspicious manner, that he ran from the police, was lacking "common sense" and was in some way responsible for his own fate. As Baron Kurtz pointed out this was the story spread by the police after the shooting, a story they have now admitted was entirely false. So what I'm trying to demonstrate is that de menezes was doing nothing out of the ordinary.

For a detailed timeline of events leading up to his death see this report from the Times newspaper.

 

[Spatterdash]

The police, intelligence communities, and government officials do not have crystal balls. Terrorism is a very difficult thing to fight, and when you have people infiltrating your own country and using your own freedoms against you, some additional measures need to be taken.

Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War--he suspended Habeas Corpus. Now, I know many scholars will talk theoretically about preserving the Bill of Rights, but Lincoln took the steps that he felt were necessary to preserve the Union. (The Bill of Rights don't matter much if you don't have a country...)

I guess I see it as much the same way in this War on Terrorism. We as a country may need to make some sacrifices, or change our way of thinking a bit--just as we did during WWII, the Civil War, and most, if not all, of the other wars in which we have been threatened. Will I be inconvenienced at times? Probably. Will I be cautious and watchful over how the government handles the extra allowances I will give it? For sure. But I certainly don't ever again feel the way that I felt on that horrible September morning. Nor do I ever want to look my child in the face and tell him that I don't think that we've done all that we can to protect him.

Just my 2 pennies,
Jessica

I see your two pennies and I understand your point.
My only issue is the distinct differences between the two.
War was declared and uniformed (for the most part) armies engaged each other in outright battles during the Civil War. Each side had it's governing leaders and military commanders, supply routes and outposts. It was a land war with all the trimmings and dessert and coffee afterwards. It began with declarations and ended with surrenders and captures of vital areas.

The War on Terrorism is another animal entirely. There's no defined enemy force, no clear objectives, no real end that can be considered. It's declaring war on a delusional philosophy that uses multiple techniques that are both symbolic and deadly. It doesn't attack our military as an organized force, it attacks civilians and military both with ambushes and threats. Capture or killing of commanders is fruitless, control of supplies near impossible, identification of enemy forces extremely difficult, negotiation is out of the question (who do you negotiate with and what are their demands? Will all the various terrorists groups agree en masse?)
It's like declaring war on crime. Crime kills thousands and occurs everywhere. Islamic terrorism may have a smaller list of motives and reasons but this isn't a rogue nation or even an organized group. It's several, each very fluid and capable of changing it's methods at a moments notice.
Yes, we need to combat it somehow, but I fear that declaring war on something so intangible is dangerous. If there is no end in sight, the war is eternal and so are the suspensions of our rights.
If Habeas Corpus is suspended until the surrender of General Lee, that's an objective with a timeframe.
When does the War on Terror end?

 

[Pilgrim]

Terrorism works. It undermines our sense of safety, trust in neighbors, faith in "those in charge", and political policy. It causes us to fight amongst ourselves about questions that we agree more on than not.

I do think everyone who has taken the time to write has valid points. What we probably disagree with is the degree to what steps we are willing to take for our security.

Exactly the point I addressed earlier in this thread: people of good will can disagree about where good security stops and the police state I mentioned begins.

However, IMO the current situation really does challenge us to not give in to every demand of those who urge for more, and more, and MORE security. If we don't ask questions and think it through, before we know it the basic freedoms of the US will have disappeared.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Daisy,

I forgot to mention that I agree with the points that you are making. It bothers me when people complain but don't offer much in the way of solution. It strikes me that a lot of the same people who express outrage at some of the measures we take to prevent another terrorist attack, would likely be the first ones finger-pointing and blaming if, heaven forbid, another attack would take place.

The police, intelligence communities, and government officials do not have crystal balls. Terrorism is a very difficult thing to fight, and when you have people infiltrating your own country and using your own freedoms against you, some additional measures need to be taken.

Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War--he suspended Habeas Corpus. Now, I know many scholars will talk theoretically about preserving the Bill of Rights, but Lincoln took the steps that he felt were necessary to preserve the Union. (The Bill of Rights don't matter much if you don't have a country...)

I guess I see it as much the same way in this War on Terrorism. We as a country may need to make some sacrifices, or change our way of thinking a bit--just as we did during WWII, the Civil War, and most, if not all, of the other wars in which we have been threatened. Will I be inconvenienced at times? Probably. Will I be cautious and watchful over how the government handles the extra allowances I will give it? For sure. But I certainly don't ever again feel the way that I felt on that horrible September morning. Nor do I ever want to look my child in the face and tell him that I don't think that we've done all that we can to protect him.

Just my 2 pennies,
Jessica

Very well said, Jessica. I couldn't agree more. Well done

I see your two pennies and I understand your point.
My only issue is the distinct differences between the two.
War was declared and uniformed (for the most part) armies engaged each other in outright battles during the Civil War. Each side had it's governing leaders and military commanders, supply routes and outposts. It was a land war with all the trimmings and dessert and coffee afterwards. It began with declarations and ended with surrenders and captures of vital areas.

The War on Terrorism is another animal entirely. There's no defined enemy force, no clear objectives, no real end that can be considered. It's declaring war on a delusional philosophy that uses multiple techniques that are both symbolic and deadly. It doesn't attack our military as an organized force, it attacks civilians and military both with ambushes and threats. Capture or killing of commanders is fruitless, control of supplies near impossible, identification of enemy forces extremely difficult, negotiation is out of the question (who do you negotiate with and what are their demands? Will all the various terrorists groups agree en masse?)
It's like declaring war on crime. Crime kills thousands and occurs everywhere. Islamic terrorism may have a smaller list of motives and reasons but this isn't a rogue nation or even an organized group. It's several, each very fluid and capable of changing it's methods at a moments notice.
Yes, we need to combat it somehow, but I fear that declaring war on something so intangible is dangerous. If there is no end in sight, the war is eternal and so are the suspensions of our rights.
If Habeas Corpus is suspended until the surrender of General Lee, that's an objective with a timeframe.
When does the War on Terror end?

I see where you are coming from, but we have been attacked and we need to protect ourselves. It is sad to say, but there is always terrorism, and if this means that we have to fight for our lives for the rest of our lives then that's what we have to do. If we sit back idly by, they will attack again. I do see this as a never ending battle, but remember it was based on us protecting ourselves. We don't see an end because the terrorist will not stop until they have acheived mass destruction. Because we can't see an end, only a slow decline, does not mean we shouldn't fight it. We live in a world of terrorism. People don't like our country or us, but we weren't the ones who randomly attacked and killed 3000 people. We are protecting ourselves, and fighting back. Because what we are doing does not have a name, does not mean that we shouldn't do it. I'm not saying I agree with everything that is going on, but I can't stand to just sit back and let it happen. I have to fight back.
Once again, I hear a lot of people through the media complaining about what is going on and how we are fighting the war on terror. I have yet to hear one of these people make any suggestion as to how to do this better. No matter what the government does, these people are always accusing them of doing the wrong thing, without offering a better way. If the government hadn't listened in on phone calls and an attack did happen, these people would have found a way to blame the government and say that they should have been listening in. It doesn't matter what is done, they will always be contrary, and again, will complain and whine but never offer up any helpful options. This is terribly frustrating. If they can't come up with a better or more reasonable idea, they shouldn't say anything.

 

[Spatterdash]

I see where you are coming from, but we have been attacked and we need to protect ourselves. It is sad to say, but there is always terrorism, and if this means that we have to fight for our lives for the rest of our lives then that's what we have to do. If we sit back idly by, they will attack again. I do see this as a never ending battle, but remember it was based on us protecting ourselves. We don't see an end because the terrorist will not stop until they have acheived mass destruction. Because we can't see an end, only a slow decline, does not mean we shouldn't fight it. We live in a world of terrorism. People don't like our country or us, but we weren't the ones who randomly attacked and killed 3000 people. We are protecting ourselves, and fighting back. Because what we are doing does not have a name, does not mean that we shouldn't do it. I'm not saying I agree with everything that is going on, but I can't stand to just sit back and let it happen. I have to fight back.

Once again, I hear a lot of people through the media complaining about what is going on and how we are fighting the war on terror. I have yet to hear one of these people make any suggestion as to how to do this better. No matter what the government does, these people are always accusing them of doing the wrong thing, without offering a better way. If the government hadn't listened in on phone calls and an attack did happen, these people would have found a way to blame the government and say that they should have been listening in. It doesn't matter what is done, they will always be contrary, and again, will complain and whine but never offer up any helpful options. This is terribly frustrating. If they can't come up with a better or more reasonable idea, they shouldn't say anything.

Well, waitaminute, if I see someone drowning and I can't swim, I know jumping into the water is the wrong thing to do. I need to find another solution fast. Someone pushing me into the water to save the drowning victim is gonna get my complaints if I survive. I may not know what that solution is but I can keep trying while knowing full well what does not work.
Someone in that situation should say something, not keep their mouth shut. They should yell out "I can't swim! We need another solution!"

In particular, you mentioned listening in on phone calls. Go for it, I'm all for it, just do it using the legal system. Warrants are giving within minutes in these cases. Same thing with holding suspects. Charge them and give them a trial. Do it according to the law.
I just don't see the Constitution as conditional.
I also agreed we need to combat it, I never suggested otherwise.
And yes, Daisy, it is terribly frustrating. I think that's the intention of our attackers.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

In particular, you mentioned listening in on phone calls. Go for it, I'm all for it, just do it using the legal system. Warrants are giving within minutes in these cases. Same thing with holding suspects. Charge them and give them a trial. Do it according to the law.
I just don't see the Constitution as conditional.
I also agreed we need to combat it, I never suggested otherwise.
And yes, Daisy, it is terribly frustrating. I think that's the intention of our attackers.

Yes Spatterdash, you are absolutely right. The terrorists are winning in a way. They are instilling fear and frustration in all of us, and that is what they want, as well as our deaths.
Your swimming analogy is a good one, and although I agree with you, I think, and this is just my opinion, that the war on terror is different. The likelihood of finding another capable swimmer in the area of a drowning person is high. With terrorism, we don't have the time to sit around and think of a plan. Being that there is no other plan in place, we are doing all that is thought of to try and combat it. If the people that I am refering to as complainers have any other better ideas, then I'd be more than happy to hear them and put them in place. But for now, these people constantly complain about how terrible the government is and aren't offering up any other feasible ideas. It just seems, that from what I've seen and read, that a lot of people find any reason to blame the government for the bad that is happening in the world. Even though a major terror plot was foiled, they still found wrong in the administration. I heard on a newscast the other day someone saying they didn't understand why the planners weren't caught sooner. The fact is, plots are being disrupted, groups are being broken up, there are certain things that are working. The administration will never get credit for what the good things that they do. People become so focused on the fact that they don't like who is in power, and will do and say anything against them. But, all I hear is how bad the administration is, I never hear of anything that they would do to fix the state of the world. When it comes election time, how will I be able to vote for such a person if I don't know anything about their agenda? I'm sorry if I come across as passionate about this, but that's what I am. I am also the type of person who looks at both sides of a story to make sure that I try to have all the facts. Like I said, these are just my opinions. I don't expect anyone to feel the same as me, if they don't want to. I do find that those who are against the administration are intent on letting me know all of the bad the administration does. I have a few friends who force these bad thoughts onto me, yet can't tell me one iota of information about agenda of the administration they are for.

 

[jamespowers]

All the terrorist have to do is be lucky once out of 500 tries and we lose even though we thwarted the other 499 times. Its not a matter of if we will be hit it is a matter of when. Then when we are hit the naddering nabobs of negativsim will say (Erkel voice) "you didn't do enough." While they were fighting against phone taps, background checks, profiling and a host of other tools that we could use to thwart just one more. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[Roger]

We know who is the enemy. It's time to face the facts.

 

[carebear]

I'm not a nattering nabob of negativity.

I just happen to know that most of what we're doing to "combat terrorism", at least the stuff being discussed in the papers, is useless and strictly for show and the rest essentially and ineffectively duplicates existing methods that remain within the law.

We can never be 100% safe. If any individual, remotely well-informed and marginally mechanically competant, truly wants to kill any person or persons, that person or people are DRT. If that individual doesn't care about their own survival it gets almost pathetically easy.

The steps that will truly keep this country safer (not "safe", safe is an illusion) from domestic and foreign terrorists are already in place and have been. They don't require additional legislation or the harrassment of innocent people.

 

[Pilgrim]

All the terrorist have to do is be lucky once out of 500 tries and we lose even though we thwarted the other 499 times. Its not a matter of if we will be hit it is a matter of when. Then when we are hit the naddering nabobs of negativsim will say (Erkel voice) "you didn't do enough." While they were fighting against phone taps, background checks, profiling and a host of other tools that we could use to thwart just one more. :

J

You make a good point. however, there has to be a time when the Big Guy in the White House stands up and says: we did everything we could within the laws of the US. We stopped 499 out of 500 attempts. We will continue to do all the law allows, and that is ALL we will do. We will not turn this country into a police state, because if we do that, the terrorists have won.

If the President isn't willing to stand up and make statements like this, get another President.

 

[Cobden]

I think the problem when it comes to terrorism is that it is nigh impossible to stop. Racial profiling won't help; the shoe bomber was a convert to Islam who felt he needed to make a penance for the wicked ways of the past (converts are considered to be one of the top three groups most likely to commit terrorist acts, along with second or third generation moslem immigrants with a criminal/ "infidel" past, and recent arrivals). Ban knifes on 'planes, they try to use liquid explosives. Ban liquids, they'll just think of something else. The only way round the problem is surveillance and penetration of these groups, yet when a cell is only three or four people, it's hard to find of their existance let alone penetrate them or keep an eye on them. This is the problem we face.

On the subject of Jean-Charles de Menezes; I honestly don't think the police would have shot him unless he did something that would trigger them to think he was about to do something; it could be something as simple as putting his hand in his pocket or fiddling with an Ipod or something along those lines, and whilst some of his acts make perfect sense in retrospect (such as running across the platform), you can understand why the police on the scene may have interpreted them differently. The other side of it - the false rumours and the like - are a completely different kettle of fish. How much of it was just convoluted information, how much was bare faced lies, etc, and that is certainly worthy of investigation and prosecution

 

[geo]

First, on the subject on racial profiling. Viola, I think, wrote this:

[QUOTEMy point was merely that I believe that those cops would have less likely to unload into a pale pink native Englishman, and that his "tan" hue contributed to his murder.
][/QUOTE]

Had the cops been looking for IRA Irish terrorists, they would have left the people with tan hues alone and focused on pink hued people. As the police were looking for Islamic terrorists, they focused on the tan hued people. I think this is just common sense.

On the subject of Jean-Charles de Menezes: I don't think that he acted suspiciously, but he was in a difficult situation, without him having any knowledge of the fact. First, he lived in the same block of flats as one known suspect; second, he had a physical resemblence to the suspect (same eyes); third, the police were under orders to shoot to kill, after a foiled subway bombing plot; third, the guy goes in a subway station and catches a train. He did nothing wrong, but because of a mistake in identifying him, and because of the urgency and stress of the situation, he ended op being shot.

 

[Cobden]

Had the cops been looking for IRA Irish terrorists, they would have left the people with tan hues alone and focused on pink hued people. As the police were looking for Islamic terrorists, they focused on the tan hued people. I think this is just common sense.

I must say, I'm not convinced that it is the case. The shoe bomber (whose name escapes me) was as white as I am; and as I said earlier the British police consider converts among the most likely to commit terrorist acts, so it is pretty unreliable as a method.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Richard Reid was the shoe bomber.

The problem with the "they're trying to protect us" stance is that it allows the powers that be to use this argument to defend anything that they do. Extrajudicial death squads are just around the corner (theoretically ... not actually. Maybe). "but our death squads are only killing the enemies in our midst"

As soon as you have the majority in a position that they'll accept anything you do, and any excuse you give, you can do what you want ... Fear is a major part of this.

For example: Would it make sense to lock up or deport everyone of the Islamic faith? Since the majority of terrorists we're facing today follow Islam (apparently) this should eliminate a majority of the threat - at least those present in the motherland. (disclaimer:the opinions expressed here are not necessarily the opinions of the author. This is a thought experiment)

bk

 

[geo]

I think that there is a wider issue that you're raising, and that is the issue of immigration. First, no one can deport all people of Islamic faith from the British isles, because some, such as those who were recently arrested, are British. Born and raised in Britain, so they can't be deported. So what's wrong with all these Britishers trying to blow up people? This leads to the wider issue of immigration. I understant that immigration here in Canada is needed to populate the territory, but Britain had no such problem. So, and I think that many people who are just discovering this fact are asking themselves this question, why are there so many people from muslim countries in Britain? No wonder that the new generations, who, even though they are born in Britain but educated by their parents and family in the culture and traditions of their country of origin, now want to model the British and western society to reflect their values more, and the means they take for doing this is terrorism. I think that there is no solution to this problem, as it is now to late to go back and change anything. Things will just go forward.

 

[Katt in Hat]

Rights make Might...

snip - drastically shortened {quote]


Quote:
Originally Posted by Feraud
Not that anyone cares about anything other than "their rights".

Old war wound. It acts up when I am around morons.

You mean those
"rights"
enshrined in
The Bill of Rights?

To quote Ben Franklin; "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

"There is nothing to fear except fear itself." F.D.R.

I hope and pray that the FEAR CARD has lost its ability to flummox the electorate in the coming elections.

I too can not abide morons. Common ground eh?
:arated:

 

[scotrace]

..there has to be a time when the Big Guy in the White House stands up and says: we did everything we could within the laws of the US. We stopped 499 out of 500 attempts. We will continue to do all the law allows, and that is ALL we will do. We will not turn this country into a police state, because if we do that, the terrorists have won.

If the President isn't willing to stand up and make statements like this, get another President.

I like a President who says this sort of thing:

Let no man say It cannot be done. It must be done-and we have undertaken to do it.

- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Sorry to borrow your words for context, Pilgrim. Obviously I don't mean to say that a President should say that a Police State must be created. But I rather prefer a Presidential message of strength, courage and determination. Another that makes my heart swell, from the same man:

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.



I understand that one of the foiled bombers was a woman who planned to bring her baby aboard with its bottle full of explosives. Such madness can be met with no half-measures.

I don't want my President to say "Gee, we did the best we could. Sorry about your family."

I don't disagree that I am uncomfortable with some of the directions our national government has taken in the name of security, but I think the message from the President is important both to national morale and to his own place in history. I think President Hoover will long be remembered in an unflattering light for his "we did the best we could" messages.