The War on Terror , abuse of power and old wisdom

[Tunnelcat]

I was reading an opinion piece about the direction America is heading with our present Administration. The story concerns Brandon Mayfield, a local Portland, Oregon attorney, an overzealous FBI, the war on terror and the loss of our freedoms in the U.S. The author has written a book called, \"Kafka Comes to America: Fighting for Justice in the War on Terror\" by Steven T. Wax. If you want a really frightening vision of when justice goes horribly wrong against an innocent person, you really should read this book. Here's a sample of the 3 part series from the Oregonian Newspaper.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index ... art_1.html

But there were two sayings that the newspaper printed in connection with this story that caught my eye and summed up to me what we are dealing with concerning the actions of the Bush administration and what our Congress has enabled:

\"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.\" - John Phlipot Curran

\"Two Wolves - An old Cherokee Story\"

An old Cherokee Chief is telling his son about life:

\"A fight is going on inside me,\" the chief said to the boy. \"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - He is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt and ego. The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. This same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too.\"

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, \"Which wolf will win?\"

The old chief replied simply, \"The one you feed.\"

The question here is our security worth the loss of our liberty and moral standing in the world?

[Spidey]

It’s funny but, the only difference I can see since 911...is the lack of further attacks. I don’t really percieve all these so called loss of freedoms, etc in my daily life.

And you should answer your own question.

[Genghis]

I don’t really percieve all these so called loss of freedoms, etc in my daily life.

Me, neither. You and I are in the majority. And since the majority aren't even inconvenienced, there's very little resistance to the new legislation.

We have to ask ourselves if we care about the minority. There are people being arrested, having property seized, denied travel, being eavesdropped on, etc. every day.

I remember in high school being taught about all the safety mechanisms in the legal system. Appeals, Miranda rights, double jeopardy, etc. I used to wonder what the big deal was with protecting criminals. It didn't occur to me that they might not all be criminals, or that one day I might be innocent yet in the crosshairs of the legal system. So far, so good, but you never know.

[Spidey]

Innocent people get arrested every day, for things totally un-related to terrorism. (murder, robbery, rape etc)
If we need to worry about innocent people getting arrested, well then we need to scrap the entire system. All we really can do is hope the system works correctly when someone is arrested, etc.

[Genghis]

I was trying to make two points, but you missed them both. Probably my fault.

My mention of the legal system is an example of how things are (or used to be) done right to protect the innocent. The legal system is now being bypassed and/or modified, so no, the system doesn't work.

But my main point was addressing your quote. Just because you haven't noticed things doesn't mean they aren't happening.

[Spidey]

Just because I still have faith in the system, doesn’t mean I didn’t get your points. (don’t assume because someone counters your statements, that they don’t understand what you said)

[Hostile]

And what part of our legal system is ever going to be so perfectly designed that it protects everyone in such as way that no innocents get jacked and all of the bad guys do. The human condition will prevent this situation from ever occuring. Not one person is incapable of making a mistake and mistakes will be made, lots of them. I'm NOT saying our system is perfect, but you can't just discount what Spidey says about nothing happening to him or not noticing because his rationale is part of the equation too. Personal responsibility/accountability is an art that seems to be fading in this country. I agree that we should do what we can to protect the innocent, but not at the exclusion of finding good ways to remove the bad apples from the bucket......

What is the solution to our real or perceived loss of liberty that also gives our government the ability to protect us properly for a-holes who don't like us..... Just saying \"Go back to the way it was before\" or \"Kill the Patriot Act because it is evil\" and just pointing out the ways it is BAD is not the answer. A lot of the bad things people are complaining about are effective against their intended targets as well as the people who are getting screwed.... I want my privacy protected as much as the next person, but it is only the principle of the thing that would be attacked should I be mistakenly targeted. I'm not saying that makes it ok, I'm just saying I have nothing to hide, again personal responsibility/accountability.

loss of our liberty and moral standing in the world?

Not sure what you mean by the loss of our moral standing in the world, but just look at France and ask yourself if they care what anyone else feels about their moral standing in the world, or any other standing for that matter.......

P.S. I can't believe I agree with France on anything, but I have to hand it to them on that one....

[Genghis]

Well, Spidey, I saw no indication in your post that you had understood my points, since you didn't reference my main point at all and appeared to misunderstand my second one. I didn't read your response as a counter to mine so much as parroting my own point back at me, minus the extrapolation I was trying to make. In any case, I think I understand you now.

Hos, I agree that there's a balancing act between catching bad guys and protecting good guys, and our previous system did pretty well at that. I don't think we've found a very good balance post 9-11 yet due to the fear factor and politicization of the issues. Yes, some of the new programs are effective but many are completely ineffective \"security theater\" that just mess with ordinary citizens and have little chance of catching a bad guy. Security should be risk assessment based on costs, and right now we're skipping that step.

And I still don't see how personal accountability/responsibility (pa/r) plays into it. For example, if I have nothing to hide and am a perfect citizen, yet still am denied air travel, how has my pa/r helped me? I also don't see how Spidey's \"not noticing\" has anything to do with pa/r.

[Hostile]

Hmmm. My post was getting long so I probably wrapped it up too early. The not noticing part is just in reference to the fact that the vast majority of people like Spidey here are not inconvenienced and therefore don't notice the improper treatment. You know how it is, a lot of people need to get out more, or at least be informed (not referencing you in particular Spidey ). And YOU, G, are a perfect citizen from what I know and you haven't been denied air travel. I would say that your pa/r is helping you perfectly. I would also say that your experience is typical and not the exception bringing us full circle back to your original point of the minority of people that are being affected negatively. How do we fix that problem and still face the challenges of our present world.

Saying that the old way worked pretty good does NOT work with the new way the world is behaving.... I agree that the balance post 9/11 is not very good, but neither was pre-9/11 for the post 9/11 world. We just don't live in that time any more. So my previous question more specifically is \"what is the risk assessment based on costs' step that we are skipping. Everyone says we need to change this or we are skipping this step. Well, what is the step that needs to be taken. What are the ideas that need to be brought forward to change the system. Simply saying it needs to be done is irrelevent without action.

[sarcasm]P.S. I really hate saying 9/11. It seems so cliche to talk about 9/11. Couldn't we come up with a better mainstream name that doesn't just use 9/11 as the title. I mean, aren't we being unfair to the minority of people who are born on 9/11 and have to be reminded of that every time they hear about 9/11 or see 9/11 in the news. I don't think we have done a very good job post 9/11 of treating that minority of people with respect and sensitivity.... I think the old system of not using dates to describe world events as a title like 9/11 is better than today's system. No one says, 12/7 (Pearl) or 4/19 (OKC) to describe those terrorist type actions.... [/sarcasm]

[Tunnelcat]

I guess what scares me about the present state of security in the U.S. is that the majority of the population seems happy and oblivious to all the spying, privacy invasion and trampling of our constitutional freedoms that our government is now employing in the name of national security. All they have to do is keep the fear level high enough to delude people into thinking that all these so-called law enforcement activities are needed to protect us from the bogey man.

It doesn't scare you that just because you have a different religion, never mind that you have been a law abiding citizen of this country for all of your life, that you can be targeted for surveillance based on shoddy, rushed and trumped up investigative work, have your house broken into and examined from top to bottom by total strangers, repeatedly, invade and scrutinize your every personal detail of private life, without a search warrant in violation of your Constitutional Rights? I mean the FBI didn't even bother to check the Spanish fingerprints to see if there was a positive and unequivocal match! This guy was even in the U.S. military as well as a born U.S. citizen for crying out loud!

So I guess if you're a nice little Christian American family, you'll have nothing to worry about. You won't get put on any security radar and go through hell like Mayfield did. You'll be sitting around in your happy little homes, secure in the knowledge that you've got nothing to hide and no on will break into your home, throw you into jail and destroy your life based on some little scrap of information data-mined from all the spying that is being done right now on EVERY American citizen, thanks to Bush and the telecoms. But that's how government fear control works, isn't it. As long as you don't think you have done anything illegal, you'll be safe. But you'll never know when some innocuous little detail of your life comes under someones scrutiny, for the most inane reason and you become a government target. What parentage of Americans will this have to happen to before we realize we've lost our Constitutional Rights and freedoms that we all value most in the name of so-called security. Frankly, I worry more about government 'security' and the loss of my freedoms than the chance a 'terrorist' is going to kill me. I would rather be dead, frankly, than living in a cozy, supposedly safe government security cage. Freedom is taken for granted until you lose it, then it's almost impossible to get it back.

[Duper]

Oh tunnel, you can be sure it's been going on longer than Bush has been in office. Remember Watergate and the Cold war? It's just easier now and you hear more about it because of the war.

[CUDA]

the Oregonian

not discounting the story tho.

[Hostile]

So Tunnel you are saying you would rather be dead than live in the world you think you live in right now? Please don't kill yourself..... It is NOT as sensational as you are trying to make it out to be.

[Spidey]

Why do I get the feeling this thread is the typical “Republicans are evil” and want to kill your babies stuff, more than true outrage over peoples civil rights being stomped on?

I hear stories like this one all the time…

Law enforcment breaks into someones house in the middle of the night, killing some of the occupants while they are trying to defend themselves from a middle of the night break-in. (drug bust)

And then it turns out, they were innocent, and the police acted on an anonymous tip, without further investigation. (was happening here in Philadelphia a lot, back a little while ago)

Where’s your outrage over that?

[Tunnelcat]

So Tunnel you are saying you would rather be dead than live in the world you think you live in right now? Please don't kill yourself..... It is NOT as sensational as you are trying to make it out to be.

I agree that the U.S. hasn't reached the point that I would consider leaving or death. But with the new technology and data collecting methods our government has at it's disposal, it now has almost unlimited access to our personal lives, not so true in the past. This is far more frightening than McCarthyism and the Watergate scandals of the past.

This is not a 'Republican's are evil' problem. This a Bush Administration problem and the resulting unchecked power, corruption and a complete disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law. Remember the Lord Acton saying, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The human tendency is to crave power and it has to be carefully checked to rein it in, that's the struggle our founding fathers worried about when they wrote the Constitution. Power balance. If our Justice Department doesn't get out of the President's bed and Congress refuses to get a backbone, what will happen in the future to our liberty. If all this power Bush has consolidated is left unchecked, will the next President use it for nefarious purposes? Would you want a Democratic President with unchecked power either?

Don't get me started on the 'War on Drugs'. Another wonderful idea that's filling our jails with users that isn't solving the problem and isn't really putting a dent in drug problem. Frequently overzealous law enforcement (another abuse of power) ensnares innocent people in the process, based many times solely on someone's anonymous tip. Hmmmm, that sounds just like the FBI in the Mayfield case. Be VERY worried.

We may not have reached the total loss of our freedoms yet, but we may be headed there in the future. My point is we as a nation need to quit falling for the 'fear' message, it's just a form of control, and be more vigilant about what our government is doing with the power we give it, that's all I'm concerned about.

[Spidey]

I understand your concerns, but the only option for protecting our security without using the tactics being used now, would be to totally eliminate every potential enemy we have. And I’m sure the world would not be a better place if that were to happen. So we need to take steps to mitigate the dangers, short of mass bloodshed, that can and prolly do step on some of our freedoms…but it’s a choice. Some day we may live in a world where we can have all our freedoms and security…but I’m not holding my breath. So for now we need a prudent plan that addresses the world we live in now.

BTW, I’m not falling for any “fear” tactics, the danger happens to be real.

[Will Robinson]

Amen to Hostiles point about balancing our methods and responses pre and post 9/...er...al Queda day.

And remember guys this isn't anything new, Bush didn't invent these tactics, he's just the first guy to try and make them legal. Example: who was it that had Dr. King wire tapped?

[woodchip]

Lets look at our freedoms pre 9/11 what with Jamie Gorlicks \"the wall\" and post 9/11. In both cases does anyone see anyone being arrested because somehow their personal freedoms have been violated? No they have not.

On the converse, the people who died on 9/11 and their family's, were their freedoms affected? Do you suppose their surviving family members wish todays security measures were in affect prior to 9/11?

So to all of you who somehow think as TC does, that death is preferable than todays security measures, I sincerely suggest you get a grip. Unless you are involved in terrorist activity, you will not be affected in the least. The alternate concept led to the worst terrorist act in the history of the United States. The govt has been spying on it's citizens for a very long time. Our judicial system prevents such gathered information from being used against you. So grow up and stop navel gazing.

[Foil]

Unless you are involved in terrorist activity, you will not be affected in the least.

You're claiming that no non-terrorists have been hurt? I'd say some of the incidents referenced above make that statement questionable at least.

The govt has been spying on it's citizens for a very long time. Our judicial system prevents such gathered information from being used against you.

That's the crux of the matter to me.

Yes, I want our national security agencies to be able to investigate whoever they need to. They need the ability to take action when it's warranted. As you said, they've had this power for a long time and are held accountable for their actions; and I think that's a good thing.

While that's the case, the judicial oversight you mentioned is the big issue here. When we begin allowing those security agencies to act without the oversight and accountability (e.g. some provisions in the Patriot Act), we have just granted an unchecked power, and that's just plain scary. It doesn't matter how well-intentioned it is, or how few people it has hurt so far... we all know what that kind of power eventually becomes.

So grow up and stop navel gazing.

Nice.


------------------


You know, I think people in this debate have more in common than they might think.
- Both sides want the government to have the ability to protect us.
- Neither side wants that ability to have the potential to turn against us.

So the question then becomes one of "how do we balance the power of our protection with the potential it has to hurt us?", and the answers are then based on our perspective of the threat:

- If we see the threat of domestic terrorism as greater than the threat of an unchecked internal power, then we'd probably agree more with Woodchip.

- If we see it the other way around (as I tend to), then we'd probably agree more with Tunnelcat.

[Note: 'Dems accusing 'Pubs of fear-mongering, or 'Pubs accusing 'Dems of supporting terrorism... as far as I'm concerned, those are weak arguments worth nothing more than the partisan rhetoric they come from.]

[Bet51987]

...But with the new technology and data collecting methods our government has at it's disposal, it now has almost unlimited access to our personal lives...

I find that a good thing. For example, I want every communication intercepted and monitored. Maybe I'm naive but I don't understand how the government can protect me without knowing what the terrorists are up to. You didn't explain how you think the government would protect us.

I agree, however, that it's pointless to put drug users in prison. I would release the simple users and keep the sellers in but that is another thread.

So, how would you keep us safe.

Bee

[Kilarin]

"how do we balance the power of our protection with the potential it has to hurt us?"
...
If we see the threat of domestic terrorism as greater than the threat of an unchecked internal power, then we'd probably agree more with Woodchip.
- If we see it the other way around (as I tend to)...

I'm with you on this. Without belittling the danger of external threats at all, The BIGGEST threat is the power of your own government. Just look at history. The threat from terrorism doesn't hold a candle to the threat of a government out of control.

The founding Fathers of the US recognized this threat and built in a system of checks and balances to attempt to keep the government on a leash.

Honestly, think about it. In a world where they certainly DID have problems with Royal Sympathizers, they built into law defenses against unreasonable search and seizure and insurances of due process. But today, the president claims the power to declare anyone, even American Citizens, to be foreign combatants and to hold them without charges indefinitely.

Now the abuses of this system have NOT yet reached the level where they are making the average citizen uncomfortable. Yet. But we've set the precedent. And what make you think the NEXT president won't take that power a bit further? And the next president may or may not be aligned with your particular political point of view.

I want every communication intercepted and monitored. Maybe I'm naive but I don't understand how the government can protect me without knowing what the terrorists are up to.

Do you trust the government with that kind of information? Are you certain they would handle it appropriately? You might want to read up on j edgar hoover He would have agreed with you.

[Bet51987]

Do you trust the government with that kind of information? Are you certain they would handle it appropriately? .

No, I don't, but it's a chance I'll take every time.

Again.... When terrorists are communicating with each other to plan their next event, how else would the government be able to listen to them...

Bee

[Foil]

It's interesting, I wasn't thinking about this thread earlier today, and just happened across the story of Mario Savio, the activist famous for the impassioned speech during the civil rights era ("...you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop...").

Turns out that the FBI had him trailed for years, without a court order. They not only monitored him and delved into his personal information without a warrant, they put him on an unauthorized list as a dangerous person who could be detained without due process.

---------

Yes, I know, it's only an anecdote. I brought it up because it was interesting that I came across it today, and it's a good example of the kind of abuse of power that can happen even when safeguards are in place. Take away those safeguards, and the potential is considerably more frightening.

So, how would you keep us safe?

If you don't mind me answering, I'd like to toss my answer into the ring:

I would do everything we currently do about national security, and more. Our airports have beefed up their security, but I think there is more we can do at schools, public events, etc.

With that said, I would absolutely keep oversight provisions in place. Without them, there's not only the potential of power gone awry, I believe it would also lessen the quality of our protection. Lack of accountability naturally leads to lower standards, and that's the last thing we want in our national security.

[Foil]

Again.... When terrorists are communicating with each other to plan their next event, how else would the government be able to listen to them...

Just exactly like they do (and should do!) now, under the right accountability and oversight.

Don't misunderstand. No-one here is advocating that we stop agents from doing what they need to do to protect us. That would be idiotic.

The issue is whether they should be able to do it with no accountability or oversight for their actions.

[woodchip]

- If we see the threat of domestic terrorism as greater than the threat of an unchecked internal power, then we'd probably agree more with Woodchip.

I do not agree that safety from terrorism is greater than unchecked surveillance powers of the the govt. No one does. What I pointed out is the govt. does have ways of gathering intelligence, they also have limitations as to how they may use it. All I have seen so far is a lot of passive observation to locate those who may do us harm. I'd worry more about the security cams that are just about everywhere before I'd worry about my cell phone being listened into.

[Bet51987]

No-one here is advocating that we stop agents from doing what they need to do to protect us...

I don't know what our agents are allowed to do but I would like TC, since it's his post, to let us know what he is willing to tolerate...

For example, would everyone here agree to have all cell phone conversations monitored so the suspicious one's can be identified? And, if not, what kind of cell phone surveillance would you tolerate.

Woodchip... Those security cameras have been instrumental in finding criminals and especially instrumental in viewing Joseph Smith abduct 11 year old Carlie Brucia in a parking lot, rape and kill her. That camera stopped him from doing it again. It's a great tool.

Bee

[Foil]

...would everyone here agree to have all cell phone conversations monitored so the suspicious one's can be identified? And, if not, what kind of cell phone surveillance would you tolerate?

Honestly, I'd probably feel a bit invaded.

However, when I think about it, I'd be perfectly okay with it if they monitored my cell phone... as long as I know they went through the right channels and there is protection in place (i.e. they are kept accountable for any actions taken).

[Edit: That's the way it worked in the Carlie Brucia case. They did what was needed, went through the right channels to get the security tapes. I'm glad they were able to catch him, so that psycho can't hurt anyone anymore. Having oversight didn't prevent law enforcement from getting this done; in fact, I think it helps make sure they get it done right, so there's no question about the validity when he goes to trial.]

That way, even if I'm taken in for suspicion of something, I know I'll be okay because there is some oversight regarding what happens to me.

On the other hand, if there is a possibility an unaccountable agency could bring me in and detain me with no recourse and no one keeping them accountable... then there's no way I'd agree to it.

(Which again makes my point; identifying the bad guys is made considerably harder if people have reason not to trust the people trying to protect us.)

[Tunnelcat]

I find that a good thing. For example, I want every communication intercepted and monitored. Maybe I'm naive but I don't understand how the government can protect me without knowing what the terrorists are up to. You didn't explain how you think the government would protect us.Bee

Bet, you find it a "good thing" that the government has been collecting, en-mass, like an indiscriminate vacuum, every U.S. citizen's emails, phone logs, internet visits, essentially all electronic data that travels around the net through the telecoms? You're entire private life for some stranger's perusal and scrutiny? You may not think that you've done anything to warrant notice, but you never know, for this information is still going to be around for a long time in storage somewhere. What government in the future will eventually search and use some of this data to go after some individuals or groups of people that it considers a threat? You just don't know what mundane thing will be considered subversive, it could be something totally innocuous that you said in a email or some web site you accidentally visited.

As for solving the 'War on Terror', we will not be able to stop an enemy as diffuse as this until we take the time and figure out WHY they hate us as a nation. Sure you can always state that it's our support for Israel, which won't be solved until Israel can come to terms with the Palestinians in a fair settlement. There are some other deep seated reasons for this hatred of the West in the Muslim World, most likely our foreign policy and craving for oil. This nation can either put on blinders and take the stance of kill them all (not even remotely possible in my mind) or else find the root cause of this hatred to resolve it at the source. If we don't do that, there will always be a unending supply of people to fill the terrorist ranks and an unending war. People don't seem to realize that this is a different type war from fighting a nation-state. The enemy is diffuse and spread out and impossible to destroy. We will end up destroying ourselves and our country with the tactics now being employed. Our government's actions are only exacerbating the problem, not solving it in the long term.

I know that some of you don't agree with this, but if you value your liberty, you can't let the government gain too much control over our lives, or use the War on Terror to generate fear to gain power and control, even if it's for our own 'so-called' protection. Once we go down that road, it's hard to turn back.

[Bet51987]

TC.. Not all Muslims hate us but you can bet the Taliban hate us simply for not letting them be Taliban and, as long as those people want to rebuild their oppressive society, and as long as the west continues to try to stop it, there will always be terrorists. And, of course, our support for Israel. The internet is full of reasons the middle east hates us but the bottom line is still the terrorists. So, how do we as a free loving nation listen in to suspicious conversations without getting the ACLU up in arms.


Foil... Then you're ok with authorities monitoring the airwaves in hopes of picking up something suspicious even if it means you may be talking. Is that right? I liken it to the police cruiser on the side of the hill watching you and other cars going by in hopes he can catch a dangerous driver. If you don't stand out then you're ok.

And, from what I understood in the Carlie Brucia case, they simply asked the owner if they could check his camera and he said yes...immediately. I don't know of any special channels that were followed.

Bee

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think the reason that it's so difficult to make some people see the threat of government overstepping its bounds, is that they may have nothing to fear. No one's going to come after Bettina for being a nurse. What's important to remember and maintain is that our lives are not subject to government approval, and when certain freedoms are encroached upon it doesn't really matter why. Do you value the freedoms we have as Americans? If we give them up because it's convenient, when will it be convenient to get them back? If there is one universal constant, it's that things will go bad. If everybody gave 100%, unselfishly, that wouldn't be the case, but... no one does. It's not human nature. And beyond selfish, foolish, naive, or lazy there are people that are downright evil, who's interest is only themselves, while others are casualties (especially the ones that are naive).

I share your feelings about government protection, to some degree, Bettina. I've given some thought to whether it might not actually be necessary to give up various freedoms so that the government can be effective, and my conclusion so far is that people who decry the government's actions as all-out attacks on freedom are naive to the threat, while many people in the government are doing their job and in many ways we benefit from it, but at the same time I believe that someone has not been inventive enough, or appreciative enough of our freedoms, or they would have found another way. I believe it'll come back to haunt us at some point if we don't have an appreciation of our freedom (or of freedoms gone by).

[Cuda68]

I thought all this was supposed to be temporary so they could get a quick grip on how extensive the threat was, and then it would revert back after some time frame to where they would need warrants and such to proceed??

[woodchip]

You all keep talking as though the Govt is some sort of automaton programed to only steal your liberties. The Govt. \"IS\" made up of your fellow citizens who no more want to lose their liberties than you do. So lets keep this all in perspective.

[Genghis]

Bet: Security cameras are ineffective statistically, but with some good success anecdotes to make them sound appealing to the uninformed. See crime statistics in Britain related to their security camera infrastructure for details.

Woody: you state the government has limitations on how they may use their surveillance powers...we are pointing out that those limitations are being both ignored and altered, so your point is somewhat diminished.

Foil: While beefing up security in other places sounds good at first, the number of terrorist targets is effectively infinite. We do not have the resources to protect them all.

Bet: First, having every communication intercepted and monitored is illegal. Second, the current ratio of false positives is too high to make effective use of police resources (chasing down bad leads). Third, the government couldn't protect us even if they could effectively monitor all comms, because every time we alter our tactics to match the terrorists', they change their tactics. Internet and cell phones are monitored? OK, we'll use steganography and side channels to communicate instead. Fourth, no everyone here wouldn't agree to have all cell phone conversations monitored because of privacy issues...this is both emotional (privacy issues) and practical (it's guaranteed that the recorded info will not be shielded, and will eventually become available to the public. So now your secret of homosexuality is public).

Woody, your statement that no non-terrorists are affected by this echoes Spidey's statement that he doesn't notice any change. The fact remains that many more innocent people are negatively affected by this than terrorists are caught.

Hos, the \"risk assessments\" (cost-benefit analyses) I speak of have been done and published, but they are far too clinical to be implemented in the current political climate (or maybe ever, since humans suck at rationality). The government has to act like they're doing something, even though it's ineffective. That's the \"security theater.\" For example:

http://ogma.newcastle.edu.au:8080/vital ... y/uon:2068

http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty ... SA2008.pdf

For the second one, at least glance through the \"Policy considerations: premises\" and \"Policy considerations: implications\" numbered lists.

Spidey, yes the danger is real. But statistically terrorism is a very minor danger. So why aren't we putting more resources into solving more dangerous health issues? Wait, I'll tell you: the politics of fear cliche and the illusion of control (that heart attack couldn't have been prevented!).

This will be a drive-by post, sorry. I have way too much Eve Online to play and not enough free time.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Comparing terrorist threats with health threats? Are you out of your mind?

[Bet51987]

This will be a drive-by post, sorry. I have way too much Eve Online to play and not enough free time.

Then it's pointless for me to waste time pointing out the several flaws in your post.

Bee

[Spidey]

Spidey, yes the danger is real. But statistically terrorism is a very minor danger. So why aren't we putting more resources into solving more dangerous health issues? Wait, I'll tell you: the politics of fear cliche and the illusion of control (that heart attack couldn't have been prevented!).

Yes, but consider the havoc 911 caused, and the harm to our society that would be caused if we didn’t take steps to prevent terrorism…it’s much more than just getting killed.

Do you really think it would be a better place to live with random terrorism happening all the time?

People getting killed…no big thing in the long run…how the world changed after 911……understand?

[Genghis]

Comparing terrorist threats with health threats? Are you out of your mind?

Heh, health threats among others (drunk driving, gun deaths, lightning strikes, suicides, etc.) Death is bad. If we can spend our money to avoid 100 deaths by other causes for every 1 death by terrorism, that might be something to think about. For a rationalist.

Then it's pointless for me to waste time pointing out the several flaws in your post.

Well you're trying to reach an audience greater than me, so I say point away. And yes I'll admit there are flaws in my post; all I'm trying to do is get people to think. The question is, can others see the flaws in their own posts? The key is to see both sides of any issue, lest one find oneself a limited thinker.

Yes, but consider the havoc 911 caused, and the harm to our society that would be caused if we didn’t take steps to prevent terrorism…it’s much more than just getting killed.

Do you really think it would be a better place to live with random terrorism happening all the time?

People getting killed…no big thing in the long run…how the world changed after 911……understand?

Well I can see Spidey is at least calling a spade a spade. As long as we acknowledge that this isn't about saving lives but rather about politics and the feeling of control of our own destinies, I'm content.

Keep this in mind: we in the US are newbies to the terrorism game. Many other countries have dealt with it for a lot longer than us, and their populations are a lot less riled up about it because they've dealt with it day-to-day for generations. For them, it's just another fracked up part of life, but they try not to let it warp their thinking too much. Hopefully we'll get to that point ourselves some day.

/me zooms by the scene of the previous drive-by.

[Foil]

Foil... Then you're ok with authorities monitoring the airwaves in hopes of picking up something suspicious even if it means you may be talking. Is that right? I liken it to the police cruiser on the side of the hill watching you and other cars going by in hopes he can catch a dangerous driver. If you don't stand out then you're ok.

Monitoring 'airwaves' and watching the streets, absolutely! Monitoring cell phones with a warrant, absolutely! However, any of the above without a warrant or oversight, absolutely not.

(Again, I am not saying that security agencies should be prevented from tapping into private conversations of suspects. They need to have that ability to effectively do their job. What I am saying is that oversight and accountability absolutely must be in place when that is done.)

And, from what I understood in the Carlie Brucia case, they simply asked the owner if they could check his camera and he said yes...immediately. I don't know of any special channels that were followed.

That's exactly what I meant by "proper channels"; they obtained permission to take and use the tapes.

Note that even if the owner had refused, they could have gotten a warrant. There's no need to grant unchecked power (and lots of reasons not to allow it). Just like in this case, the process and accountability does not prevent them from doing what they need to do to catch guys like this. In fact, I believe that accountability helps ensure that they do it right.

[Bet51987]

Monitoring 'airwaves' and watching the streets, absolutely! Monitoring cell phones with a warrant, absolutely! However, any of the above without a warrant or oversight, absolutely not.

I don't know how it works, but I thought cell phones were broadcast over the "airwaves" so how can you monitor and find terrorist communications without monitoring everything.

It's like saying I have to first know the person is a terrorist before I can get a warrant and then listen in. So, back to my original question. How do you find a terrorist. Do you wait for input from other countries who do monitor and then tell us?

Bee

[Foil]

...how can you monitor and find terrorist communications without monitoring everything?

Ah, I'm beginning to see. You're picturing something akin to a facility where every single call around the country is routed through a high-tech voice analyzer, with hundreds of agents sitting in booths listening to conversations. Sure, I remember seeing something like that in movies ("Patriot Games" maybe?).

Think about it, though; attempts at that kind of vast indiscriminate monitoring would only cause more confusion. It would generate far too many false positives and false leads for agents to wade through; their job would become the proverbial "needle-in-a-haystack" simply because of the volume.

[Remember, the volume of intelligence and miscommunication between agencies was one of the reasons the WTC attacks weren't prevented. When they implemented changes to fix this, they streamlined and improved their processes, not expanded them.]

It's like saying I have to first know the person is a terrorist before I can get a warrant and then listen in.

Of course not. I'd suggest talking to an investigator if you can. They have a wealth of investigative methods at their disposal, and they can get warrants to use them when there's a valid reason. It doesn't require having 'proof' of terrorist activities.

So... How do you find a terrorist? Do you wait for input from other countries who do monitor and then tell us?

The same way we do it now! (Cooperation with other countries helps, of course.)

The kind of vast-scale indiscriminate monitoring you're thinking of would just hinder their efforts.