[vmarks]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

The revolution needs to come from within or from other Muslim nations. That's the only way to change the rulers of Saudi Arabia. There's a rather easy way to do that but mentioning that in this thread will derail it completely so I'll just let you guess it. A hint though, there is a very easy way to get SA's neighbours to be friendly enough to do something about SA.

Make a new thread on this.

And while you're at it, tell us what to do about the Saudi funded radicals throughout the West.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Make a new thread on this.

And while you're at it, tell us what to do about the Saudi funded radicals throughout the West.

Why should I make a new thread on it? I said that I would refrain from mentioning it to keep this thread on track. So please tell me why I need to start a new thread on it.

And it doesn't matter what you do to them. Free speech is a b*tch. Deal with them with the hate speech laws that are already in place.

What matters is how you stop them from being able to operate. And that is where SA comes into play. Because it simply doesn't matter how many extremists you expel or arrest. There will always be coming more straight from SA.

[vmarks]

Please. you can start a new thread so that you don't derail this one- that was your intention, to not derail this one.

Hate speech laws are their own quandry- free speech as an absolute, free speech under hate speech isn't free, etc. That's a thread to itself.

And if we do prosecute them, CAIR runs to their aid, and you support CAIR unquestioningly.

So there's no win there.

So start the thread, and tell us what the policy is to get the neighbors of our-friends-the-Saudis to reform?

Or is it a secret? Afraid to tell? Don't worry, I won't tell a soul!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I'm still confused on why it is difficult to get an F-ing warrant though. Maybe this is just my seemingly natural state of distrust in the government (and seeing Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room just the other day sure didn't help).

I thought I addressed this. The Constitution doesn't provide for a warrant in this kind of case. So you can't go to a court to ask for something that in this kind of case they aren't empowered to give. Courts only have a role when either the Constitution or a statute requires it. Without that they have no jurisdiction to play any part in our government. That is the constitutional scheme.

Congress could have required warrants when it drafted the relevant laws, but decided not to require warrants. Congress (and in fact, a 1977 Congress run by Democrats) decided it wanted executive subpoenas. The executive and the courts can't ignore that and ask for warrants because Congress didn't provide for warrants here.

[Chuckit]

And that is what the Times' editorial on the matter criticized, by the way. They essentially said Congress was being slack in its responsibility for the powers it was granting.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Congress was being slack in its responsibility for the powers it was granting.

The criticism was over how they were slack 30 years ago?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And that is what the Times' editorial on the matter criticized, by the way. They essentially said Congress was being slack in its responsibility for the powers it was granting.

Well, no, they didn't say that. The Times didn't bother to explain that the program was legal and authorized by statute, and in fact, they misleadingly implied that it was illegal. And of course, they didn't mention Congress. They talked about what the Bush Administration was doing. They didn't say that the Administration simply did what Congress invited it to do, enforcing the criminal laws enacted by Congress, and using the procedures laid out by Congress.

In fact, it turns out that the statute most relevant here was the Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. The New York Times didn't even mention it in their story. We only know that is the issue because a lawyer did the research on the weekend and got it printed in an online magazine. So to suggest that the Times was worried about the statutory scheme is wrong indeed. They never mentioned the law in question.

If the Times were simply objecting to the statutory scheme enacted by Congress, it could, of course write about that subject without disclosing classified information. The US Code is publicly available, and you can look at it and discuss all kinds of hypothetical subjects. Law journals are full of such discussions.

[Chuckit]

The editorial I was talking about does mention Congress. Several times, it includes ideas similar to this actual quote from the article: "Congress, as usual, has never exercised any oversight." It sounds like they object to the administration's actions, but blame Congress for allowing it. That's the impression I got.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The editorial I was talking about does mention Congress. Several times, it includes ideas similar to this actual quote from the article: "Congress, as usual, has never exercised any oversight." It sounds like they object to the administration's actions, but blame Congress for allowing it. That's the impression I got.

That is a different issue. You talked about the Times saying that Congress granted too much authority. They did not argue that, and indeed, gave the misleading impression that Congress hadn't granted authority when in fact it had. Authorithy is done by passing a law. Laws were passed here by Congress, and the Administration was following them. The Times just didn't tell us that and gave the misleading impression that something that was legal was illegal.

Oversight is something that is generally done by committees afterwards to see how the laws Congress passed are carried out - if Congress chooses to do so. In the case of classified programs, there are two intelligence committees who conduct oversight in secret. Obviously, you can't conduct hearings about secret programs in public or the secret wouldn't be a secret any more. Both those committees apparently were informed (committee members and the Administration have since said that they were), so the Times editorial is simply wrong. That editorial is part of the Times' retroactive spin cycle. It's a post hoc rationalization published after the criticism of the Times began. And it's claims are factually incorrect.

Even if the Times were to believe that Congress didn't hold hearings when it could have done, the way to get Congress to hold hearings into a secret program is not to blow the secret on the front page of a newspaper. Here, any hearing would determine that the program was legal and valuable -- except that it is no longer valuable, thanks to the Times. So the Times' actions still beg the question I started with, that is, whether they are simply opposed to any program that catches terrorists, since any program that catches terrorists has to keep details of how it traps them secret. If you announce the secret program you destroy it. And when as here there is no argument that it was illegal, why destroy it? The Times has given no justifiable reason, which is why they are throwing things in the air trying to obscure the fact they made a horrible miscalculation that nobody is defending as the right decision.

[Troll]

Wow, what a thread. Reading the first post, I thought it wasn't the set up that it turned out to be. Besson3c showed some amazing restraint back there.

I don't want to deal with what the NYT or "liberals" think because as this thread illustrates, once you're put in a particular box you're crucified for things that you don't necessarily believe. So here's what I think - me, personally.

Terrorism is a problem that we have faced for time immemorial. It’s new to the United States, but it's a problem other countries have been living with for decades. We will inevitably have to deal with terrorism for the simple reason that there will always be a certain number of people that disagree with the rest vehemently enough to turn to violence. Terrrorising a population is simple. So the first thing I’d say is don’t trust anyone who says he is going to eliminate terrorism. What we have to learn to do is to live with terrorism, to minimise terrorism – we cannot eliminate it.

Second thing I’d say is that it’s wrong to assume that terrorists are mentally unstable or psychopaths. Some of them may be, but psychopaths can’t sustain a killing spree because they have no core beliefs that bind. Psychopaths are a threat we’ve always been able to deal with through civilian mechanisms. Terrorist organisations are dangerous because they are able to sustain a campaign over years precisely because they appeal to reasonable people. History is littered with quite intelligent, sane people who turned to terrorism. Many of them can quite eloquently explain to you why they turned to violence. Terrorist groups are almost all based on a simple notion – that they represent a groups whose existence is threatened by a system that is intrinsically stacked against them in such a way that the only way for them to protect themselves is to destroy the system through violence. ETA believed that Spain was set on eliminating the Basque language, culture and systems and it believed that because Basques were a minority in democratic Spain, there was nothing they could do through the system to protect themselves. The ANC turned to violence because it believed that the apartheid system that threatened the rights of black people in South Africa was set up in such a way that it could not be challenged peacefully. Al Qaeda similarly believes that the only way to free the people of the Middle East from dictatorships and irreligious, immoral government is to inflict violence against the international system that support those governments.

I think that before you can start dealing with terrorism, you need to understand where it is coming from so that you can target your response. If you look at any country that has successfully dealt with terrorism, this is what they all have in common. The best way of undermining the appeal of terrorism is to give the people that a terrorist organisation might appeal to, other outlets than violence. You need to undermine the central notion of the terrorist organisation, that the system is set up in such a way that violence is the only way to protect yourself. In Spain, the Spanish government weakened ETA by legislating the protection of the Basque language, creating a Basque parliament and doing a number of other things that made Basques feel less threatened without exposing Spanish people to more violence. Convincing sane people to kill is not easy and gradually Basque support for ETA dwindled because Basques started to see that there were other ways of effecting change. Around this point, I will be accused of being a terrorist sympathiser and people will say that Al Qaeda has no valid gripe. I disagree on that but that’s not really the point. It doesn’t matter what ETA’s core beliefs are or how reasonable they are. What matters is that they are able to draw people to those beliefs. What you have to do is turn off the appeal of those beliefs which is actually a heck of a lot easier than destroying the beliefs themselves.

The American people need to understand that they are not alone in facing terrorism; their government needs to put the threat in context. In reality, the UK is just as threatened as the US is at the moment and yet travelling to those countries and looking at what dominates the political discourse, it’s like two different worlds. The world also needs to get away from fundamentalist leadership. Fundamentalist like the Bush Administration are obsessed with binaries and they reduce every problem and it’s solution to extreme solutions. Some conservatives here have this idea that the response to terrorism must either be military in nature or police enforcement in nature and they want us to choose. Either we must recognise that bombs are needed to fight terrorism in which case sit back, shut up and let the President do whatever he wants or we must go for criminal enforcement. That’s the kind of binary logic I’m talking about. Why can’t it be both? Which brings me to the next point - the fundamentalists on both sides think that the other is evil and that evil can only be beaten with violence. If we apply the kind of blanket violence that war involves, we play into their hands. Terrorists want a violent conflict because it lends credence to their core belief that the system is hell-bent on destroying them. Look at Palestine where the Israelis attempt to win a war on terrorism hasn’t worked in 50 years. Their only option now is to do what they could have done 50 years ago in aiding the birth of a Palestinian state or commit genocide against Palestinians which will probably have no effect on terrorism against Israel. Wide-scale violence fuels the appeal of a terrorist movement and makes the group that you have to deal with bigger and bigger. Setting up the conflict as a war with terrorists legitimises their beliefs and increases their numbers.

This is a huge topic, so here’s what I think we need to do to deal with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. First, we need to draw Muslims into decision-making processes. We need to formalise consultation with Muslim groups that feel marginalised. In most countries, the links between clergy of other religions and the government are formal and strong – we need to do the same with Muslims. Second, on an international level, we need to start dealing with the problems in the Middle East more effectively and more fairly. Starting with the Palestinian question. This conflict is at the root of all the appeal of terrorist manifestos. We need to play a more neutral role and we need to put more pressure on Israel to get out of those territories and help set up a viable Palestinian state. On our shortened timetable not on Israel's. This is now our problem as much as it is Israel's. We need to get over the notion that the Middle East is a big pot of oil and recognise that our relations with the states in the Middle East have an impact on the local people. I think that by doing these things (and other things generally aimed at giving Muslims and Arabs a sense that they are part of the global community), we will reduce the appeal of fundamental Islamic ideas. And as the numbers of people willing to die for those ideals reduce, we need to do the third thing which I believe is to use targeted force (through the military and the Police) to eliminate the psychopaths and the brainwashed and the unreasonable who cannot be convinced. However, I believe that we should be using the military effectively as a global police force for specific, internationally-backed, morally justifiable, defined interventions. We should not be fighting wars that will inevitably cause large scale civilian losses and hardship (a la Iraq) that draw people to the ideas we are trying to draw them away from. Then I think that we also need to look at global instruments for dealing with terrorism. We need a treaty or treaties that deal with terrorism on a global level.

[besson3c]

Nice post Troll, although I hope you're prepared to be told that you are tap-dancing around the issue and haven't answered the question... I think the people posing this question are looking for a simple one or two sentence explanation that can be used as a source of debate leverage. Maybe we should move your post to a new thread where discussion is actually welcomed?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Troll

Around this point, I will be accused of being a terrorist sympathiser and people will say that Al Qaeda has no valid gripe. I disagree on that but that’s not really the point. It doesn’t matter what ETA’s core beliefs are or how reasonable they are. What matters is that they are able to draw people to those beliefs. What you have to do is turn off the appeal of those beliefs which is actually a heck of a lot easier than destroying the beliefs themselves.

What an incredible thing to admit: That you believe Al-Qaeda has a valid gripe.

You turn off the appeal in a few ways. Appeasement (which you illustrated with the ETA example), fighting back and showing that terrorism is not gaining the desired result, and education.

Terrorists want a violent conflict because it lends credence to their core belief that the system is hell-bent on destroying them.

Terrorists perpetuate violence because it gets them results. They can cast themselves as heroes, and when those they attack capitulate, concede, or otherwise meet to negotiate for peace, they can claim productive results from their violence. Which begets more violence, after all, it's getting results.

Look at Palestine where the Israelis attempt to win a war on terrorism hasn’t worked in 50 years. Their only option now is to do what they could have done 50 years ago in aiding the birth of a Palestinian state or commit genocide against Palestinians which will probably have no effect on terrorism against Israel. Wide-scale violence fuels the appeal of a terrorist movement and makes the group that you have to deal with bigger and bigger. Setting up the conflict as a war with terrorists legitimises their beliefs and increases their numbers.

Yes, let's look at Israel. Israel has rewarded and encouraged terrorism

1) by meeting with the terrorists to negotiate peace. (shows that terrorism got them to the table. Reward!)

2) by accepting concessions from Israel. Weapons, subsidy, Gaza. All are victories for terrorism.

Terrorism is getting them results. All they need to do is commit MORE terrorism to get more results, as long as Israel keeps giving in.

Israel has repeatedly aided in the creation of a Palestinian state. In 37, 47, 2000, and 2001 it agreed to a Palestinian state. It agreed to the creation of one by 2004 if the Palestinians took some simple steps on a roadmap. Israel has subsidized with money, and with weapons to arm Palestinians, the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel has given up control of land as well.

But since the terrorists claim that as a victory, it doesn't lessen terrorism, it inspires more.

This is a huge topic, so here’s what I think we need to do to deal with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. First, we need to draw Muslims into decision-making processes. We need to formalise consultation with Muslim groups that feel marginalised. In most countries, the links between clergy of other religions and the government are formal and strong – we need to do the same with Muslims.

Really? In some countries of the West, those links are weak or non-existant. There is no Church of America. The role of the Anglican church in the affairs of Britain is so small as to be not worthy of consideration. Sure, Italy is the opposite of those examples. But Italy is not the example most western countries are following. We don't all have Vaticans in our backyards.

We need to be VERY careful that if we follow your advice here, we do not give special status to Islam over other religions.

Second, on an international level, we need to start dealing with the problems in the Middle East more effectively and more fairly. Starting with the Palestinian question. This conflict is at the root of all the appeal of terrorist manifestos. We need to play a more neutral role and we need to put more pressure on Israel to get out of those territories and help set up a viable Palestinian state. On our shortened timetable not on Israel's. This is now our problem as much as it is Israel's.

It always has been the world's problem. The world has had to endure Palestinians committing international terrorism for as long as they've adopted the notion of a Palestinian people. (remember, back in 1937 they thought they were Syrians, Egyptians and Jordanians.)

It wasn't just this year that Fatah declared they would commit suicide bombings in Western countries- they've been hijacking planes and blowing things up, tossing people overboard, for years now. We've just ignored it, or pooh-poohed the idea that they should actually take responsibility for their actions of war against not only Israel, but the other countries whose citizens they attack.

We need to get over the notion that the Middle East is a big pot of oil and recognise that our relations with the states in the Middle East have an impact on the local people. I think that by doing these things (and other things generally aimed at giving Muslims and Arabs a sense that they are part of the global community), we will reduce the appeal of fundamental Islamic ideas.

Please, Arafat came to the UN brandishing a sidearm. They ran the UN conference on racism at Durban. Don't tell me they aren't members of the global community. They know they are and use it.

Heck, even the newly installed Hamas government knows it, and has gone about on tour.
Hamas officials have been busy racking up passport stamps. Visit to Russia? Check. Sudan? Check. Norway? Check. Iran and Turkey? Check, check. China? Almost there.

And as the numbers of people willing to die for those ideals reduce, we need to do the third thing which I believe is to use targeted force (through the military and the Police) to eliminate the psychopaths and the brainwashed and the unreasonable who cannot be convinced. However, I believe that we should be using the military effectively as a global police force for specific, internationally-backed, morally justifiable, defined interventions. We should not be fighting wars that will inevitably cause large scale civilian losses and hardship (a la Iraq) that draw people to the ideas we are trying to draw them away from. Then I think that we also need to look at global instruments for dealing with terrorism. We need a treaty or treaties that deal with terrorism on a global level.

What you need are people that respect treaties.

Hamas, Fatah, PLO, and other terrorists have shown repeatedly that they do not respect negotiations, treaties, and other agreements. So what option are you left with but war when such nice pieces of paper are violated? With your intervention, at what time would it be practicable to pull out such an intervention? I forsee that if you pulled out without having beaten one side, the fighting would resume. Peace comes when people decide they cannot afford to lose any more. Whoever makes that decision first, has been beaten and is ready to negotiate the peace. Negotiating beforehand simply prolongs the violence.

[Kevin]

Most of the replies in here are simply ignoring the fact that HAMAS doesn't want Israel to exist. There is no negotiating. They want Israel gone and wont stop till it is.

So what to do?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Please, Arafat came to the UN brandishing a sidearm.

What a perfect example of the halftruths and spin you use on a daily basis.

I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.

* Yasser Arafat. November 13, 1974 Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, New York

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks

You turn off the appeal in a few ways. Appeasement (which you illustrated with the ETA example), fighting back and showing that terrorism is not gaining the desired result, and education.

Agreed. Obviously I don't believe that giving into terrorists' demands gets you anywhere. What I'm saying is that the focus should be on marginalising the appeal of the terrorist manifesto and that countries that fail to deal with terrorism are those who focus on eliminating the terrorists thereby increasing the appeal of the manifesto rather than killing the organisation by reducing the appeal of the message and taking out only the extremists.

Originally Posted by vmarks

Terrorists perpetuate violence because it gets them results.

That might be true in certain limited cases but I don't think your analysis works when you look at any sustained terrorist activity. Palestinian terrorist don't want to sit around a table and meet with Israelis, they don't want subsidies - they want a Palestinian state and/or the end of Israel. They haven't achieved that so I disagree with you that the problem has been giving into them. What the Palestinians have achieved in 50 years is way, way less than what they've always asked for. In fact, on their core demands, they've mostly gone backwards.

Originally Posted by vmarks

Really? In some countries of the West, those links are weak or non-existant. There is no Church of America. The role of the Anglican church in the affairs of Britain is so small as to be not worthy of consideration. Sure, Italy is the opposite of those examples. But Italy is not the example most western countries are following. We don't all have Vaticans in our backyards.

I would be the last person to suggest mixing church and state. That's not what I'm suggesting at all. What I'm saying is that there are established lines of communication between other religions and the state that there aren't for Islam. President Bush knows full well what the Christian fundamentalists in the US think and Blair knows what Jewish leaders think. World leaders meet with the pope, Arch bishops, cardinals and rabbis but rarely with Muslim representatives. France took steps to formalise communication channels between the Muslim community and the state and France is THE example of a secular state. It is possible to create a sense of representation without preferring one religion over another.

Originally Posted by vmarks

What you need are people that respect treaties.

Hamas, Fatah, PLO, and other terrorists have shown repeatedly that they do not respect negotiations, treaties, and other agreements. So what option are you left with but war when such nice pieces of paper are violated? With your intervention, at what time would it be practicable to pull out such an intervention? I forsee that if you pulled out without having beaten one side, the fighting would resume. Peace comes when people decide they cannot afford to lose any more. Whoever makes that decision first, has been beaten and is ready to negotiate the peace. Negotiating beforehand simply prolongs the violence.

And what you need to realise is that terrorists don't abide by the rules of the game precisely because they believe that the rules prevent them from succeeding. Israeli terrorists knew this just as well as Palestinian terrorists know this today and just as well as ETA and the ANC and every other terrorist organisation has ever known it. Expecting an organisation that is founded on the principle that violence is the only option, to abandon violence (as Israel repeatedly does) is ridiculous.

You're not really looking at what I've said. You're saying, "If not black then white," "if not negotiation with terrorists, then war." There aren't only two choices. Again, what I said is that you shouldn't focus on the psychopaths but on the reasonable people. The terrorists themselves aren't your biggest problem - it's the reasonable people they appeal to that are the problem. If you can reduce the number of members of a group, eventually it become feasible to take military action. If you respond incorrectly to the attacks by the psychopaths, you risk legitimising their manifesto and making reasonable people support them. Israel has the focus in the wrong place. They are playing into the terrorists' hands by giving them a support base. Hamas has broad support right now because it is the only group in the Occupied Territories doing something about the hardships the Palestinians are facing. Hamas makes a difference in Palestinians day-to-day. If Israel were improving people's lives the way Hamas is, people might say, "There are other ways to improve our lot than strapping bombs to ourselves." Instead, 50 years down the line, they still live in abject poverty. This makes them receptive to a message that says, "The reason we're still in this hole is because we haven't fought hard enough. The system hasn't allowed us to improve our lives over 50 years and it won't do so in future. The only way out is through violence." The more people you kill in Palestine, the more that message will resonate.

What is it that Israel wants? What is it that the United States wants? All of us ultimately want to live in peace, I believe. I don't think any of us really want war. Instead of pretending that we aren't prepared to take steps to reduce the issues that cause conflict between us (for fear of being seen as weak), we need to address them openly. Meeting with Muslims to discuss problems is not giving in to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. And again, I'm not saying that we don't need to use the military from time to time but we need to use it in a way that we don't cause more reasonable people to signup with the terrorists.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Most of the replies in here are simply ignoring the fact that HAMAS doesn't want Israel to exist. There is no negotiating. They want Israel gone and wont stop till it is.

So what to do?

Sit them all down for group therapy?

And then blow up the room?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Nice post Troll, although I hope you're prepared to be told that you are tap-dancing around the issue and haven't answered the question... I think the people posing this question are looking for a simple one or two sentence explanation that can be used as a source of debate leverage. Maybe we should move your post to a new thread where discussion is actually welcomed?

The problem is he addressed everything but the topic of the thread. I was asking about the use of law enforcement tools -- and specifically against the background that the methodology of law enforcement investigations must necessarily be conducted in secret. I see nothing in his post that addresses the topic.

I suppose the alternative to pointing out he discussed everything but the subject of the thread would be to read the omission as a tacit argument that terrorism should be decriminalized (or at least, not prosecuted). If that is not the case, then I would be more interested in his views of the subject of the thread -- law enforcement and whether people will support it when it must be secretive -- rather than in his discussion of all the well-trodden matters that I tried to exclude (because we have debated them to death).

[Troll]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The problem is he addressed everything but the topic of the thread. I was asking about the use of law enforcement tools -- and specifically against the background that the methodology of law enforcement investigations must necessarily be conducted in secret. I see nothing in his post that addresses the topic.

I suppose the alternative to pointing out he discussed everything but the subject of the thread would be to read the omission as a tacit argument that terrorism should be decriminalized (or at least, not prosecuted). If that is not the case, then I would be more interested in his views of the subject of the thread -- law enforcement and whether people will support it when it must be secretive -- rather than in his discussion of all the well-trodden matters that I tried to exclude (because we have debated them to death).

What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to me - that's what I posted about. The thing is your post is designed to draw us into your binary logic. You start off asking a general question in the thread title and then set up a series of extremes (1's and 0's) forcing anyone answering to choose one of two incompatible responses. The point I made is that life is not binary, we don't have to make the choices you want us to make. We can use all of the tools that are available for fighting terrorism all at the same time.

What you haven't understood about the core of the "liberal" criticism of Bush's WOT is that it's not so much about what he aims to do but how he does it and the results he achieves. War in Iraq may have been a good idea but not the way in which he pursued the war which has made more terrorists and more terrorist sympathisers. Equally, using the military against terrorism may be a good idea but not setting the conflict up as a war or a crusade.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Troll

What method of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to me - that's what I posted about. The thing is your post is designed to draw us into your binary logic. You start off asking a general question in the thread title and then set up a series of extremes (1's and 0's) forcing anyone answering to choose one of two incompatible responses. The point I made is that life is not binary, we don't have to make the choices you want us to make. We can use all of the tools that are available for fighting terrorism all at the same time.

What you haven't understood about the core of the "liberal" criticism of Bush's WOT is that it's not so much about what he aims to do but how he does it and the results he achieves. War in Iraq may have been a good idea but not the way in which he pursued the war which has made more terrorists and more terrorist sympathisers. Equally, using the military against terrorism may be a good idea but not setting the conflict up as a war or a crusade.

What I asked was a question that leaves aside the war issue. I already know we disagree about that. I want to ask people like you (well, mainly I was asking Americans) about an issue that up to now I thought we agreed with -- the use of law enforcement tools against terrorist organizations.

You say that you answered the question of what form of tackling terrorism would be acceptable to you. But in a long post you did not mention catching terrorists and arresting them and charging them with the many crimes on the books that apply. You still haven't discussed it. Do I take it that this omission was not accidental? Are you suggesting that law enforcement is not acceptable to you?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Troll

The American people need to understand that they are not alone in facing terrorism; their government needs to put the threat in context. In reality, the UK is just as threatened as the US is at the moment and yet travelling to those countries and looking at what dominates the political discourse, it’s like two different worlds. The world also needs to get away from fundamentalist leadership. Fundamentalist like the Bush Administration are obsessed with binaries and they reduce every problem and it’s solution to extreme solutions.

Sorry, the difference between the USA and UK with regards to terrorism is nothing to do with Bush.
It's because we're used to terrorism.

Originally Posted by Troll

What I'm saying is that there are established lines of communication between other religions and the state that there aren't for Islam.

There are established lines of communication between Sikhism and the UK government?
Arh, there must be - that's why the Sikh community isn't suicide bombing tube trains in London.

The answer is sitting in front of your face. You just don't want to believe it.

[christ]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Sorry, the difference between the USA and UK with regards to terrorism is nothing to do with Bush.
It's because we're used to terrorism.

... and we have some experience of beating it, too. Mainly because some of us try to remove the reasons and thus support for the terrorism, not try to defeat terrorists by declaring war and invading mostly unrelated countries.

It appears that if GWB had had trouble with the IRA, then his answer would have been to demonise Catholicism, and invade Rome.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by christ

... and we have some experience of beating it, too.

Capitulating to it, you mean? Because last time I looked that's what we did.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by christ

It appears that if GWB had had trouble with the IRA, then his answer would have been to demonise Catholicism, and invade Rome.

It's always seemed to me that Bush has actually been excessively careful to keep religion out of his War on Terror. He's gone out of his way to clarify that he doesn't view it as a war on Islam.

[christ]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Capitulating to it, you mean? Because last time I looked that's what we did.

Is pride more important than peace?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by christ

Is pride more important than peace?

Of course. Didn't you know that?

Pride matters the most.

The world is black and white.

There is only good and bad.

01001001 01110100 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01101100 01100100 00001101 00001010

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by christ

Is pride more important than peace?

Something like this?

[Y3a]

Wouldn't it be better to just let the terrorists blow up our cities and property and kill portions of the populace and forget about trying to battle them or track them, cosidering how it offends liberals, and costs "SO MUCH" ?? That way we wouldn't HAVE to use 'unethical methods' to stop them. This would make ALL the liberals and those concerned with invasion of privacy issues.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Wouldn't it be better to just let the terrorists blow up our cities and property and kill portions of the populace and forget about trying to battle them or track them, cosidering how it offends liberals, and costs "SO MUCH" ?? That way we wouldn't HAVE to use 'unethical methods' to stop them. This would make ALL the liberals and those concerned with invasion of privacy issues [happy].

Why are you making the assumption that by not respecting the law the US will be attacked. Your statement seems to imply that the only way we can prevent terrorists from blowing up our cities is by using "unethcial methods" or invading privacy.

Well guess what,
here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN track down and capture terrorists using ethcial methods.
Here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN prevent future terrorist attacks all the while maintaining the right to privacy of American citizens.
Here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN both be respectful of the Constitution and diligent in capturing those who harm us.

So many conservatives think that if you complain about how the government does something you must be opposed to what it is the government is trying to do and, in my case, there could be nothing further from the truth. I want to government to pursue terrorists both overseas and here at home. BUT I don't want to government to sacrifice the tenets of the Constitution we hold so dear in order to do so. That makes a mockery of the values we claim to hold and greatly dminishes the value of the meaning of the Constitution.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Why are you making the assumption that by not respecting the law the US will be attacked. Your statement seems to imply that the only way we can prevent terrorists from blowing up our cities is by using "unethcial methods" or invading privacy.

Well guess what,
here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN track down and capture terrorists using ethcial methods.
Here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN prevent future terrorist attacks all the while maintaining the right to privacy of American citizens.
Here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN both be respectful of the Constitution and diligent in capturing those who harm us.

So many conservatives think that if you complain about how the government does something you must be opposed to what it is the government is trying to do and, in my case, there could be nothing further from the truth. I want to government to pursue terrorists both overseas and here at home. BUT I don't want to government to sacrifice the tenets of the Constitution we hold so dear in order to do so. That makes a mockery of the values we claim to hold and greatly dminishes the value of the meaning of the Constitution.

[Kevin]

Well so far the way we are doing it now seems to be working.

No attacks have been pulled off. And we have caught several in the making.

So much for calling it a failure.

Can't say the same about the 90s.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Why are you making the assumption that by not respecting the law the US will be attacked. Your statement seems to imply that the only way we can prevent terrorists from blowing up our cities is by using "unethcial methods" or invading privacy.

Well guess what,
here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN track down and capture terrorists using ethcial methods.
Here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN prevent future terrorist attacks all the while maintaining the right to privacy of American citizens.
Here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN both be respectful of the Constitution and diligent in capturing those who harm us.

So many conservatives think that if you complain about how the governemtn does something you must be opposed to what it is the government is trying to do and, in my case, there could be nothing further from the truth. I want to government to pursue terrorists both overseas and here at home. BUT I don't want to government to sacrifice the tenets of the Constitution we hold so dear in order to do so. That makes a mockery of the values we claim to hold and greatly dminishes the value of the meaning of the Constitution.

We have shown that the program that the program the Times exposed was legal and constitutional and consistent with other law enforcement programs that investigate complex crimes. That being indisputably so, it it "ethical" in your view?

If you believe that is was ethical (as well as legal and constitutional), would you be willing to criticize the Times for its actions? Or if you believe it is not ethical, what would make it ethical in your view?

I'm asking because otherwise there is a danger that people can make general statements of support for fighting terrorism, while in practice rejecting every specific means. If every specific means ends up getting rejected, those general statements of support are worthless, and whether intended or not, disingenuous. Do you see that issue?

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Why are you making the assumption that by not respecting the law the US will be attacked. Your statement seems to imply that the only way we can prevent terrorists from blowing up our cities is by using "unethcial methods" or invading privacy.

Well guess what,
here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN track down and capture terrorists using ethcial methods.
Here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN prevent future terrorist attacks all the while maintaining the right to privacy of American citizens.
Here is one liberal who thinks the United States CAN both be respectful of the Constitution and diligent in capturing those who harm us.

So many conservatives think that if you complain about how the government does something you must be opposed to what it is the government is trying to do and, in my case, there could be nothing further from the truth. I want to government to pursue terrorists both overseas and here at home. BUT I don't want to government to sacrifice the tenets of the Constitution we hold so dear in order to do so. That makes a mockery of the values we claim to hold and greatly dminishes the value of the meaning of the Constitution.

OK, so what methods DO YOU SUGGEST. Here is an opportunity for a liberal to offer actual suggestions, not merely stating the most obvious.

[besson3c]

This thread is so circular...

There already been some suggestions, they just weren't expressed in simple terms. I don't think anybody is interested in providing you with any answer that you would find satisfying, because there simply aren't simple answers. If you feel you have a simple answer, chances are its flawed or there are some tradeoffs you may not have considered.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Y3a

OK, so what methods DO YOU SUGGEST. Here is an opportunity for a liberal to offer actual suggestions, not merely stating the most obvious.

Try reading the whole thread, jackass!

On page 4, I posted a thread with specifics on how to fight the war on terror.
On page 6, I replied to my own post because there were two pages of bickering. Followed up by three replies of mine, all on page 6 as well.
On page 7, is my above post which seemed to get you so riled up.

So, jackass, before you want to go and get all self-righteous, read my posts where I offer specific, concrete steps for the US to take to fight the war on terror. It might do you some good.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by besson3c

This thread is so circular...

There already been some suggestions, they just weren't expressed in simple terms. I don't think anybody is interested in providing you with any answer that you would find satisfying, because there simply aren't simple answers. If you feel you have a simple answer, chances are its flawed or there are some tradeoffs you may not have considered.

'Round and 'round we go. Where will it stop? Only the admins know.....

[nath]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Oversight is something that is generally done by committees afterwards to see how the laws Congress passed are carried out - if Congress chooses to do so. In the case of classified programs, there are two intelligence committees who conduct oversight in secret. Obviously, you can't conduct hearings about secret programs in public or the secret wouldn't be a secret any more.

Seems that there is some conflict about whether the committees were actually informed after all.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202689,00.html

Obviously, you can't conduct hearings about secret programs if you aren't actually told about them.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

We have shown that the program that the program the Times exposed was legal and constitutional and consistent with other law enforcement programs that investigate complex crimes. That being indisputably so, it it "ethical" in your view?

If you believe that is was ethical (as well as legal and constitutional), would you be willing to criticize the Times for its actions? Or if you believe it is not ethical, what would make it ethical in your view?

I'm asking because otherwise there is a danger that people can make general statements of support for fighting terrorism, while in practice rejecting every specific means. If every specific means ends up getting rejected, those general statements of support are worthless, and whether intended or not, disingenuous. Do you see that issue?

Anyone care to answer this, or just shout down someone else with hypocritical bullcrap?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

We have shown that the program the Times exposed was legal and constitutional and consistent with other law enforcement programs that investigate complex crimes. That being indisputably so, is it "ethical" in your view?

If you believe that is was ethical (as well as legal and constitutional), would you be willing to criticize the Times for its actions? Or if you believe it is not ethical, what would make it ethical in your view?

I'm asking because otherwise there is a danger that people can make general statements of support for fighting terrorism, while in practice rejecting every specific means. If every specific means ends up getting rejected, those general statements of support are worthless, and whether intended or not, disingenuous. Do you see that issue?

Is this specific search of SWIFT financial records ethical? Maybe.
Is it legal and Constitutional? Yes.
Should the NYT be criticized for revealing the practice? Probably. But I think the reasons why it should be criticized is debateable.
(Tell me this, since it is legal and Constitutional actions by the government they are reporting on why shouldn't they report it? Is it wrong to report on legal and Constitutional activities the government performs?)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Anyone care to answer this, or just shout down someone else with hypocritical bullcrap?

Which poster are you accusing of spouting off hypocritical bullcrap?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by christ

Is pride more important than peace?

What peace is that? Because last time I looked the Real IRA and Continuity IRA were still blowing things up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continu...epublican_Army

19 April 2006: 250 lb bomb discovered in Lurgan, Co Armagh. Four men arrested.

[tie]

Originally Posted by nath

Seems that there is some conflict about whether the committees were actually informed after all.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202689,00.html

Obviously, you can't conduct hearings about secret programs if you aren't actually told about them.

This is just another case of the NY Times showing itself to be on the side of terrorists. It was completely inexcusable for them to report Hoekstra's letter. The American people have no right to know that the chairman of the house intelligence committee isn't being briefed about major intelligence programs. For us to know that can only help the terrorists. Simey, back me up here with some irrelevant checks and balances babble. TIA

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

This thread is so circular...

There already been some suggestions, they just weren't expressed in simple terms. I don't think anybody is interested in providing you with any answer that you would find satisfying, because there simply aren't simple answers. If you feel you have a simple answer, chances are its flawed or there are some tradeoffs you may not have considered.

For one to take most of said suggestions in here seriously, one must first live in a ideal world.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Which poster are you accusing of spouting off hypocritical bullcrap?

You. You clearly skipped Simey's question, then hypocritically ranted at someone else about not reading the whole thread. All you had to do was read one post up, and answer the tough question.

I see you went back now and attempted an answer, but basically I think Simey's point has been made.

The law-enforcement angle was itself a “suggestion” of liberals not so long ago of how we should fight terror (oh wait, everyone deny that, even people who made the argument THEMSELVES!) and yet now it's suddenly okay for the NYT to expose law enforcement methods that are legal and it'll just be excused and rolled over with a bunch of “Let's pretend it was illegal,” and then “Ok, so it was legal, well, let's pretend it wasn't working,” and then on to “Oh, okay, so it worked too, so then let's pretend we can't see what's wrong with the NYT giving it away!”

So then the original argument sounds like it was only so much BULL from people who never did care about having to live up to any actual details of what they claimed to be advocating.


That's the issue that Simey is talking about:

I'm asking because otherwise there is a danger that people can make general statements of support for fighting terrorism, while in practice rejecting every specific means. If every specific means ends up getting rejected, those general statements of support are worthless, and whether intended or not, disingenuous. Do you see that issue?

[BRussell]

This is such nonsense. You can believe in a free press that informs the public about the activities of your government, at the same time you believe in fighting terrorists. (Unless you're a very unpopular Republican and see an opportunity to rev up your base by bashing the press, that is.)

Information about what government does to get bad guys isn't new. The investigative techniques that police use are widely known and publicized. It's a favorite topic among the public - true crime books, police shows, how they catch criminals CSI-style, etc. I don't know of anyone who believes that the public shouldn't be informed about such things, nor do people who like such things support criminals.

But this is just standard fare in this new age of war conservatism: It's not so much about effectively fighting terrorism (God knows we never would have gone into Iraq if that was the case), it's about winning elections by hating liberals.

I want to be informed about what my government is doing. Especially this government. I don't trust them, and I think there's very good reason not to. If you guys didn't defend absolutely every last thing the administration did, I'd take your protests more seriously, and as more than just silly liberal-hating.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BRussell

This is such nonsense. You can believe in a free press that informs the public about the activities of your government, at the same time you believe in fighting terrorists. (Unless you're a very unpopular Republican and see an opportunity to rev up your base by bashing the press, that is.)

Information about what government does to get bad guys isn't new. The investigative techniques that police use are widely known and publicized. It's a favorite topic among the public - true crime books, police shows, how they catch criminals CSI-style, etc. I don't know of anyone who believes that the public shouldn't be informed about such things, nor do people who like such things support criminals.

But this is just standard fare in this new age of war conservatism: It's not so much about effectively fighting terrorism (God knows we never would have gone into Iraq if that was the case), it's about winning elections by hating liberals.

I want to be informed about what my government is doing. Especially this government. I don't trust them, and I think there's very good reason not to. If you guys didn't defend absolutely every last thing the administration did, I'd take your protests more seriously, and as more than just silly liberal-hating.

Many extreme right-wing folk seem to have difficulty understanding layers of abstraction. If it isn't the most plainly obvious, easily explainable, simplistic/reactionary thing, it often escapes them.

Just my experience. I say "many" as to not generalize.

[Y3a]

DC...


OK, I read your posts, including the typical shallow name calling. Big deal...

SOME COMMENTS:

Your suggestions stretch our troops too far. We need time to make weapons train troops, and change the opinion of the terror fighting. I'd have a really close look at the press, and the politicians that seem to be helping the bad guys. I mean IRS, and deep background snooping. If we are really serious about terrorists, it's important to know who can be trusted. There has been politicians who've taken foreign money before, so it's time to find out who and why! You are thinking in 1950's terms when this ISN'T a 1950's kind of 'war'. The UN can't be trusted, and either can the media as has been demonstrated.

You have to treat countries different than terrorist groups, and deal with countries thru the established means to have any world-wide support. That is IF you want it. I wouldn't. IF the groups had state sponsorship. you deal with them like they too were terrorists. WHY should you take the standard approaches when dealing with terrorists anyway? I'd make 'em guess what horrid thing I would inflict on them next. SCREW THE LAWS in that instance. I'd use all sorts of nasty weapons. Bioweapons on population centers, and Nukes in the mountains. I'd grab all the wealth from the banks where they have money to fund attacks on them.

You worry about oil prices. So, we TAKE the Saudi oil fields, and do the same in Iran, and Mexico.

As far as using "legal tactics" in our war, and trying to snoop the bad guys, I'd say use the same tactics on the press as the bad guys. They might turn up the same overseas connections. You have to wonder about the motives on the NYT and other liberal 'news' outlets.


Rules???? In a KNIFE FIGHT??

[besson3c]

When is somebody going to answer the original question?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell

This is such nonsense.

Perfect opening premise, because your post certainly followed it up!

You can believe in a free press that informs the public about the activities of your government, at the same time you believe in fighting terrorists. (Unless you're a very unpopular Republican and see an opportunity to rev up your base by bashing the press, that is.)

It's not the job of the press to inform you about information that's classified, and about efforts that are ongoing. The program wasn't illegal nor ineffective, which you well know. So now your pretense is to fall backon the notion that everything the government does is fair game to splash all over the front page of the NYT in the name of 'freedom of the press'. It's crap and you know it.

What this really boils down to is a very unpopular political ideology seeing aan opportunity to rev its base by bashing the President, and law enforcement and everyone else be damned.

Information about what government does to get bad guys isn't new. The investigative techniques that police use are widely known and publicized. It's a favorite topic among the public - true crime books, police shows, how they catch criminals CSI-style, etc. I don't know of anyone who believes that the public shouldn't be informed about such things, nor do people who like such things support criminals.

This is arguably one of the silliest points you've ever tried to make. Crime shows and novels? Are you actually serious?

This is so typical of liberals- bullcrap forever about 'nuance' then float the most simplistic arguments and think no one will notice.

Crime shows don't purposefully reveal secret ongoing investigations. When identities and information needs to be masked for the sake of secrecy in previous or ongoing cases, they routinely use black out techniques and disguised guests. Where things are classified, they acknowledge such and move on, not out actual classified details with no regard for the consequences.

You've been living in a fantasy if you actually thought any crime show you were watching was revealing anything other than publicly known information. Stop pretending that you can't understand that the NYT incident involves revealing secret information, the relevant specifics of which were not public knowledge, nor should they be in order to actually WORK!

By this brickskull logic, you’d have defended the press revealing the details of the D-Day invasion in 1944, because after all, why shucks, military techniques are common knowledge! They make movies and novels about it! Everyone knows that allied forces will have to attack a beach in France, heck, even the Germans know that! Never mind that the RELEVANT DETAILS are that what they don’t know: which friggen beach, when, and how! (You know, WHAT ACTUALLY F***ING MATTERS!) Let’s just splash it all over front pages because you hate the president, therefore you have a right to know.

I want to be informed about what my government is doing. Especially this government. I don't trust them, and I think there's very good reason not to.

The government isn't just G.W. Bush. You'll excuse anything, even the inexcusable, so long as you think it hurts Bush. That's the bottom line.

If you guys didn't defend absolutely every last thing the administration did, I'd take your protests more seriously, and as more than just silly liberal-hating.

If you guys didn't whine about and yell ‘fascism’ absolutely every last thing the administration does, and feign positions you later abandon in the name of "Get Bush at all costs!" -just like I suspect you'll later abandon all the bullcrap you're floating here if it's politically expedient- I'd take your protests more seriously, and as more than just silly Bush-hating.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by besson3c

When is somebody going to answer the original question?

Pillow fights? Tickle fights?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

This is arguably one of the silliest points you've ever tried to make. Crime shows and novels? Are you actually serious?

This is so typical of liberals- bullcrap forever about 'nuance' then float the most simplistic arguments and think no one will notice.

My point was absolutely serious. Investigative techniques are revealed constantly. According to your logic, we shouldn't know about fingerprinting, DNA testing, interrogation techniques, or any of the other formerly secret methods used by police. Do you support the revelation that cops use fingerprints? If so, then obviously you don't support the use of fingerprinting to fight crime. Are there any methods of fighting crime that would be acceptable to you, crash? Why do you hate America?

By this brickskull logic, you’d have defended the press revealing the details of the D-Day invasion in 1944, because after all, why shucks, military techniques are common knowledge!

You've really blown it here. This Wall Street Journal article revealed a general method of tracking terrorist financing, not a specific target or date of an investigation. We know the methods that police use in their investigations, we just don't know the details of a specific investigation. It's exactly the same thing here.

Furthermore, if this is a legal program, and the laws are publicly available, then it isn't secret. You can't have it both ways - this was secret but was also publicly available. Bush has frequently talked publicly about how terrorist financing was being investigated. By your logic, Bush should be in prison for stating such information. Let's hear it crash, why isn't Bush treasonous for revealing the secret that we were tracing terrorist bank finances?

It's not because Republicans don't really give a damn about terrorism except as a means of hating liberals, is it?