Whatever his reasons were for disclosing this information, there is no need for us to know what it is. It goes without saying that the Commander-in-Chief decided to disclose this at this time because doing so was necessary for our protection, and by questioning his motives, all we do is embolden the enemy and make terrorists attacks more likely, something to which I, for one, have no desire to contribute. So I'll just celebrate the Great Rescue along with my fellow grateful citizens.
Amidst the celebrations, though, one can't help but marvel at just how ridiculous and inane these scary terrorist plots appear to be even when they are deliberately depicted so as to achieve the maximum possible scare value. Here is how the President described the plot:
We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad -- the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks -- had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Liberty [sic] Tower in Los Angeles, California.
The very notion that someone was going to breach the cockpit door of an airplane by detonating a shoe bomb is so absurd that even the journalists who cover The White House noticed it and objected:
Q Scott, I wanted to just ask a follow-up about the LA plot. Is there something missing from this story, a practical application, a few facts? Because if you want to commandeer a plane and fly it into a tower, if you used shoe bombs, wouldn't you blow off the cockpit? Or is there something missing from this story?
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're referring to about missing. I mean, I think we provided you a detailed briefing earlier today about the plot. And Fran Townsend, our Homeland Security Advisor, talked about it. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting it.
Q Think about it, if you're wearing shoe bombs, you either blow off your feet or you blow off the front of the airplane.
MR. McCLELLAN: There was a briefing for you earlier today. I think that's one way to look at it. There are a lot of ways to look at it, and she explained it earlier today, Alexis, so I would refer you very much back to what she said, what she said earlier today.
And then there were the geniuses who planned to "blow up" the Brooklyn Bridge using blow torches (only to be miraculously thwarted by our warrantless eavesdropping program), a plot which Bob Barr described thusly: " this so-called plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was bogus because it had to do with a group of idiots who were planning to dismantle it with blow torches." The more we hear about these scary terrorist plots, the more Al Qaeda resembles The Three Stooges rather than, say, Lex Luthor.
The reality is that the White House doesn't care how transparent their manipulation of terrorist threats is, because this manipulation is not aimed at our rational faculties. What they want is for there to be scary pictures constantly flashed on the television screen of Muslims wearing ski masks with ground-to-air missiles on their shoulders and prolonged shots of our tall buildings and hastily arranged news conferences by city officials talking about security measures and faux terrorism experts parading around on TV talk shows with gravely concerned expressions as they warn us, yet again, of all the different ways that we are at risk.
Unleashing all of those images over and over triggers, as intended, fresh waves of fear that we are all about to be blown up or zapped with radiation. How absurd the underlying facts are is irrelevant; anything that serves as a pretext for new waves of frightening images does the trick just fine.
This is really the aim and the work of the terrorists -- to keep the targeted population in the grip of fear. Here is how the Department of Defense describes the defining goal of terrorism:
"the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
Terrorists don't expect to achieve their goals through the physical destruction of a society using violence, the way a nation at war attempts with its military. The violence inflicted by terrorists is simply a tool for ratcheting up the fear level, and the fear of the violence, rather than the violence itself, is the primary tool of the terrorist. The greater the fear of the targeted population, the closer the terrorists are to achieving their goals.
When it comes to Al Qaeda's targeting of the U.S. in this manner, nobody helps the terrorists achieve those objectives more than the Bush Administration, which (like Al Qaeda) really does have as its principal goal -- particularly in an election year, and particularly when it faces all sorts of political difficulties on an array of fronts -- keeping the fear level as high as possible. The more frightened people are, they believe, the more likely they are to support the President and his party. And so fear-mongering becomes the first and really only political weapon they have.
The orange alerts aren't really that effective any more. Orange is so un-scary. But tales of thwarted terrorist attacks on our cities always give rise to the same set of images and warnings which keeps the fear level nice and fresh and edgy. It's only February -- I have no doubt we will be treated to many, many more episodes like this. The question is, with 9/11 now more than 4 years away, is there some limit to the water in this well?
I think the media is starting to tire of this. They welcomed this plot news pretty cynically, at least for them. The Fox contingent will wet their pants with worship that Bush saved us again, but beyond that, I think this act is wearing thin.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't called the Liberty Tower. It's the Library Tower. Bush, um, mispoke when he called it that.
ReplyDeleteI know this. But it sounds so much less glorious to save the Library Tower than it does the Liberty Tower.
I still can't get over how transparent an attempt at purely political fear-mongering this was. Even Bush's diehard supporters had to have seen right through this one. In the middle of a controversy over his terrorism policies, he calls a press conference to discuss some thwarted plot from 3 years ago? (and a silly one at that) Please. You'd have to be born yesterday not to see this as a ham-handed attempt at distraction.
ReplyDeleteWasn't there a line of questioning when Abu Gonzales was testifying about the legality of propaganda and false reporting to sway the American public??
ReplyDeleteI seem to remember this but can't place the Senator who was doing the questioning....
Glenn Greenwald posits that the Bush administration is exaggerating al Qaeda's threat to the United States for purely partisan gain.
ReplyDeleteOne can only hope he and his allies in the Democratic Party continue with this line of attack through November. The result will be an electoral triumph for the Republicans.
You see, Glenn, al Qaeda really is a threat to the United States. As such, we must do everything in our power to thwart their designs to foment mayhem and promulgate murder. You may not understand this, but most Americans are more than willing to sacrifice our civil liberties (much more so than we have done so far) in this effort.
Glenn, have you ever heard the term "useful idiot"? The term was used most recently by Anthony Brown in The Times (the British one):
Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union — useful idiots."
Anon, did you look up the dictionary definition of "useful idiot"? I think that one of the examples was people who believe that you can usher in a global theocracy by flying planes into buildings.
ReplyDeleteTerrorism is a threat to life, liberty, and property. So's crime and cancer. The question is whether we are reacting to it appropriately, or reacting to it hysterically. The people think that terrorism is a threat to our way of life in the same way that Nazism and Communism were threats to our way of life are, quite obviously, reacting to it hysterically.
Now, if a significant terrorist plot were thwarted, don't you think there was much discussion in the WH about it. The intended target was discussed many times and, I'm guessing, the CORRECT NAME of that target was used. Over and over he had to hear, "Library Tower"..."Library Tower"..."Library Tower" and then he calls it "Liberty Tower". It would be like calling "September 11th" the "4th of July".
ReplyDeleteUnless...it wasn't significant and was just brought out for propaganda and he had never heard of it before (or only in passing). Hmmmmmmm, I wonder which.
Well, judging by the post of our anonymous troll who describes anyone who isn’t a Bush idolater as a “useful idiot” - if the water in the well has a limit it’s still probably deep enough to get Bush through the next three years. Fear works.
ReplyDeleteThe Chicago Tribune had an interesting article on the “symbiotic” relationship between Bush and Bin Laden.
Bush and bin Laden each will get exactly what they want from the latest message, reinforcing the view that both halves of this odd couple really need each other--and neither wants to quit the other.
The fact is, each plays the role of organizing symbol for the other, strengthening respective political bases. Nothing helps a political leader rally his troops more than having a clearly defined enemy.
And when Osama magically appeared just in time for the State of the Union, the author concluded, “Bin Laden's re-emergence was so perfect it might as well have been staged by Bush strategist Karl Rove.”
If Bush gets in real trouble, he can expect Osama to come to his rescue. Heck, if they caught him, they’d probably keep it a secret and just have him make threatening videos from Cheney’s undisclosed location.
Anonymous is bat shit crazy....
ReplyDeleteYou can sacrifice your civil liberties for this farce, but I sure as hell won't.
Glenn, this administration has to be held accountable for all their transgressions, and I hope you keep up the good fight. I don't want to live somewhere I don't have the freedom to express my opinion for fear of reprisal, jail, or worse, and I feel like that's where we are heading...
I believe we all need to work to maintain our liberties and freedoms while making efforts to stabilize this problem...
Al Qaida is an issue, yes, but you are correct in saying that we've been through much worse without sacrificing the very principles that make this country what it is, "the land of the free"... We can't be bought by fear and desperation, and we can not surrender to it...
I feel sorry for people who live their lives fearing that someday, somehow another attack will happen, and happily trade their liberty for "protection" for they deserve neither, to paraphrese a certain quote. Sure we may face another tragedy like 9/11, but the odds are not much worse since that happened, our ports are still unsatisfactorily protected, our nuclear facilities are not secure, just look at Indian Point to see what I mean, and even the expert commission that was brought together gave us a failing grade in security preparedness. Come on, anyone who says we are safer noe than before is looney and ignorant of the facts. I agree we need to take defensive and offensive measures but this administration has not done that, and the things they HAVE done are illegal and self-serving.
Just to respond to pm also,
did you notice the (sic) after liberty tower? that should've tipped you off as to the mislabelling.
Just because what we're hearing about these plots has Al Qaeda resembling "the Three Stooges" will not, nor should it, provide comfort to U.S. citizens. The more memorable and relevant evidence of Al Qaeda's degree of competence is 9/11 and its series of successful attacks abroad. Perhaps not ALL of their plots reflect competence, but more than a few have, and there is no reason to think that they won't successfully strike again. We should find comfort not in the inanity of the LA and Brooklyn bridge plots, but in the reasonable assessment that, as you have pointed out, risks from terrorism are likely minor compared to a host of other commonly faced risks.
ReplyDeleteGood post.
ReplyDeleteOn the blow-torch plot, I thought the idea was that they were going to cut the anchor cables with the torches, which, IIRC, would actually be a threat to the bridge (there was a story about such a possibility for either the bay bridge or golden gate bridge in the SF Chronicle a few years back where some engineer pointed out that the place where the cables were anchored was essentially open to the public and unwatched, making the bridge very vulnerable to someone who wanted to cut the cable; the city subsequently closed off the area, I believe).
Anonymous 12:57 - have you ever heard the term, "incompetence"?
ReplyDeleteThe SF Chronicle story can be found here:
ReplyDeletelink.
But the actual, severe threat to freedom of speech and civil society in many European countries and parts of Asia are another.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of this. There are real and profound threats from Islamic fanaticism. And many in the West have ignored or tacitly defended the disgusting and dangerous violence designed to intimidate people and prevent the expression of certain views. I really couldn't believe when I was watching CNN last week and they reported on the cartoon story and blurred out the cartoon itself when they displayed it - it really did feel as though Muslim street thugs were now dictating what images and opinions we could and could not be exposed to. Anyone who values pluarlism and freedom ought to be alarmed and angered by that.
And there are definitely double standards being applied. I recall when Rudy Guiliani was Mayor and would attack specific works of art as being anti-Catholic and offensive, many ridiculed him for failing to understand the true provocative purpose of art and depicted him as a great threat to artistic freedom. And yet, many of the same people who expressed those views don't seem at all bothered by the intimidation and attacks to which artists, journalists and even governments are subjected by Muslim extremism throughout the Middle East and Europe.
Those are all valid points. The one thing I would add, though, is that a significant factor in why people don't take more seriously the real threats from Muslim extremism is because those threats have been exaggerated and manipulated for so long by people in this country playing games with it for political gain that, after awhile, people begin to think that if those kinds of games are being played with these threats, it must not be very serious after all. It's just a slightly more complicated version of the Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome.
Anonymous (one of them) likes to twist words. He also may be the only person on the planet left who doesn't see the Administration's cynical exploitation of this issue for what it is. Wonder how he explains the timing of this "announcement".
ReplyDeleteAlthough, you know, a few more of these "blow torch" and "shoe bomb" stories and I might actually start to believe the AG when he says the leak of the NSA program has caused grave damage since otherwise the terrorists would've forgotten they were being watched.
Of course, when the admin complains about the leak, they fail to mention that a) It almost certainly came from the executive and b) if they hadn't broken the law there would've been nothing to leak in the first place.
The "Liberty" vs "Library" teleprompter blunder was very telling. If King George had truly been aware, at any time, of a threat against the Library Tower, he never would have said "Liberty". You don't mis-remember things that way.
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a bunch of terrorists armed with box cutters could seize airliners and then use them as flying bombs was also facially absurd...until they actually murdered 3500 people, destroyed over a billion dollars in property and unemployed a million people.
There is nothing at all absurd about breaching a door with explosives hidden in a shoe. You shape the explosive so that it is directed, calibrate the amount so that it is just a little more than necessary to breach the lock on the door and then attach it to the door lock. This should be relatively easy to breach since no one was fortifying their cabin doors this soon after 9/11 except for the Israelis.
Let's say the terrorists overestimate the charge and blow up the cockpit as the press snidely suggested, then they have "only" managed to down a 747 and murder a couple hundred people...
I feel so much better now, don't you?
As for the goals of the Islamic fascist movement, there is no mystery. They have been telling you for over a decade now. They are using terror and the resulting fear as a means to an end, not as an end itself.
Their goal is to first establish a Caliphate islamic theocracy along the lines of the Taliban across the Middle East, then Europe and then the United States. This is an absolutely insane and unrealistic goal for which they have no chance. However, that is not the issue.
Like most totalitarians such as the Nazis and Communists, these folks have a fervent belief in their goal and are willing to commit mass murder of anyone including their own people to make this dream of theirs a reality.
And as with the Nazis and Communists, the only way to defeat them is to take the battle to them until they are destroyed like the Nazis or simply weary of the fight like the Communists.
However, you don't win the fight by withdrawing into a Fortress America, appeasing them or unilaterally giving away key intelligence weapons.
Will you PLEASE forget about George Bush. This war will be going on long after he has left office and will continue into administrations of both parties.
9/11 was planned and carried out over both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. The enemy doesn't care who we have in office. They have repeatedly told you that they want to kill you. How many more will they have to murder before you take them seriously???
ej said:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12:57 - have you ever heard the term, "incompetence"?
Perhaps you should read an article before you use it to make a point:
"The numbers can't be compared in any meaningful way," said John O. Brennan, acting head of the NCTC, which produced the statistics. He said his agency had revamped the process of counting terrorist attacks after last year's embarrassment in which the State Department withdrew its first report and admitted it had significantly understated what turned out to be a record number of attacks. This year, Brennan said, 10 full-time intelligence analysts -- up from three part-timers -- searched for terrorist incidents to include, resulting in a much higher total than met the government's criteria for classification as a "significant" attack.
In other words, the statistics provide no useful way to guage the effectiveness of our efforts to contain terrorist attacks. Therefore, your charge of "incompetence" must be adjudged venal rather than accurate, i.e., based on an unbiased and generally accepted set of evidence.
The timing on this story makes it a four-day-old dead fish. Not to mention that Library Tower isn't that big a target - yes, it's tall, but so are the buildings around it! It's also quite narrow - maybe a hundred feet in diameter, less in the top section. I can see them going for the high-rises in Century City, which are easy to pick out; I can see them targeting the Strip in Las Vegas (gambling, naked women, alcohol: what better target for Islamic terrorsts can you think of?); but one high-rise in a large group, for a half-trained pilot? Four-day-old dead fish.
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous liberal: love your great site, and the post of yours yesterday in which you referenced Glenn. Looks like yours is another site that will become invaluable, and everyone should read it.
ReplyDeleteAs for the L.A. matter, what mostly frightens but also amuses me is how gullible people are, including the Democrats. Anyone could see at the time that the "anthrax" threat was a hoax by the Bush administration to rev up public fear, but I bet 90% of Democrats believed that. The real problem is how gullible and, well, yes, stupid people are. At a conference of logicians, none of this would have gotten past Square One. Worth noting is how the ineffectual Democrats are not protesting the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, except Feingold. Thank God for him. I'm thinking seriously of starting a "Republicans for Feingold" group to raise money for him in case he wants to run. It's important to note that this is so far from a Republican vs. Democrat thing. The people on both sides (the few of them) who share our views on this site should be identified by name and exclusively and agressively supported.
Sorry for typo. Make that "aggressively." Don't want to talk about people being stupid and end with a word spelled wrong :)
ReplyDeleteFollowing up on the depressing theme of how easy it is to fool gullible people, which is a big part of the current problem, anyone who believed that Brooklyn Bridge blowtorch story is dumb enough to try to buy that same bridge. Many people keep their mouths shut when confronted with preposterous assertions so as not to elicit the immediate attack: "tin foil hat wearing moon bat." That has to stop. There's a conspiracy of arrogance, manipulation and falsehoods going on and nobody should be afraid to comment on these transparently fraudlent assertions by Bushco.
ReplyDeleteDear Glenn,
ReplyDeletewhile I fully agree with your analysis of the 'scare the Nation' tactics of the Administration, and fully support your effort to raise public consciousness about the gravity of the attack to the Constitution that W & Co. are perpetrating under our sleepy eyes, please be careful when you writhe things such as "one can't help but marvel at just how ridiculous and inane these scary terrorist plots appear to be" because unfortunately it will take just one 'black swan' (a successful new attack in spite of the work of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies) to allow the cohorts of the fundamentalist defenders of the Administration to dance around you with 'I told you so's. You --we-- will have lost the war. And we can't afford to lose it!
Keep up the good work.
Let's say the terrorists overestimate the charge and blow up the cockpit as the press snidely suggested, then they have "only" managed to down a 747 and murder a couple hundred people...
ReplyDeleteI feel so much better now, don't you?
It's a simple question of perspective. There are lots of things which could bring great harm to our country -- the polar ice caps could melt, more devestating hurricanes may come, new viruses could be introduced into the population. Each of those could be far deadlier than 9/11, and yet we don't re-structure our country and our lives to avoid those risks. We assess the magnitude of the risks and manage them accordingly (or, if we don't want to confront the risks, we do what we can to prevent scientists from making us aware of them).
Every time I write one of these posts pointing out the latest exploitation by the Adminitration of terrorism, someone comes along to point out the irrelevant and the obvious -- that terrorists really are capable of doing harm, even substantial harm, to this country. Nobody doubts that. To say that a risk is exaggerated is not the same as saying the risk is non-existent. A country which has as its principle engine fear of being attacked, and which has as its overriding national aspiration a desire to eliminate that risk, is a country that isn't going to be great for very long.
Bart, you said: "You shape the explosive so that it is directed, calibrate the amount so that it is just a little more than necessary to breach the lock on the door and then attach it to the door lock."
ReplyDeleteGreat, now you've done it. Now the terrorists know how to do it. Stop enabling them already, so they can forget how to terrorize and harm us!
I agree about their goals, and I don't believe that anyone has said to the contrary. When the talking heads can actually be bothered to discuss "what the terrorists want" this is invariably what they talk about (i.e., re-establishing a Caliphate). However, I've seen no evidence in the last five years that "taking the battle to them until they are destroyed" is a viable plan. That may not be because of any inherent problem in that plan, rather the problem lies in how it has been executed (see: Iraq). Perhaps someone with military acumen--or one who would take heed to those generals who have it in abundance--could pull off a military solution. But somehow I don't think so. Not when it is performed in a bubble, without paying realistic attention to factual intelligence, nor the well-laid plans of those like Richard Clarke, whose plan at this point we may never know whether it would work or not.
9/11 was planned and carried out over both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. The enemy doesn't care who we have in office. They have repeatedly told you that they want to kill you. How many more will they have to murder before you take them seriously???
ReplyDeleteHow many Iraqi and Iranian civilians will have to die before you feel safe?
Even the lowest estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, are 10x the casualties of 9/11. There is no way to construe that as a success.
You are right, though. It's not just about Bush, H. Clinton is in favor of most of these unethical and ineffectual Republican policies, too. It is about whether or not America will quit using fear to motivate national policy.
No good can come from cowardice.
Glenn, I think the main point that is being overlooked by those people is your question "why now?" Why release the information about a plot several years past at this point in time? Considering the fact that these particular "keystone cops" plots always seem to get publicized during times of political crisis, and don't seem to match up with the typical well-thought-out m.o. of other successful plots, it makes one wonder if the whole thing isn't completely fabricated to inculcate us with more fear. It's a valid question.
ReplyDeleteOne wonders why, if it is made up, they chose L.A. specifically. I'm presuming that they didn't choose the Coit Tower in SF instead, since that would just have been a little too on-the-nose.
Scary stuff indeed.
ReplyDeleteHere is a Blogger commenting about the theories presented in this Blog.
Glenn, your [post] is very frightening. -- Do we target the leadership or the population? --
-- So this is what it was like in Germany when Hitler won his election. --
-- I’m scared. Glenn, do you have ideas as to what ordinary people should do? --
Read full comment here.
Glenn...
ReplyDeleteIf "the melting of the polar ice caps" or "more devasting hurricanes" were of the same immediate threat as we face from al Qaeda, we would indeed "re-structure our country and our lives to avoid those risks."
It is clear that you do not consider al Qaeda to be much of a threat at all to the United States. Neither do many of your compatriots on the left. That is the major reason why the American people do not trust you with their safety and will keep on electing Republicans.
Tricky Dick Cheney likes to say the absence of terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 is not a coincidence. Every time they bring up that crap or 9/11 in any fashion it should be pointed out that it's not a coincidence 9/11 occurred under the gross incompetence of the Bush administration. It boggles the mind that Republicans get elected by saying they are better at keeping us safe. They certainly are better at getting our troops killed, running up massive deficits, shredding the constitution, and being flagrantly corrupt. Yet somehow people buy into their crap about supporting the troops, being fiscally responsible, enforcing the law, and having strong ‘morale values’ (whatever the hell those are). It’s pathetic that the Democrats are incapable of pointing out such obvious facts and using them to get elected.
ReplyDeleteWhy Republicans, trembling in fear, are willing to sacrifice every liberty and every Constitutional right for the illusion of being protected is beyond me. They take on this tough guy pose in their public persona yet are willing allies in bin Laden's campaign of terror. Please, please daddy Bush, I know you have been pretty incompetent in winning the war in Iraq and played while people in New Orleans drowned, but I know you will save me this time. Please, please daddy Bush save me. I'm so weak and helpless and tremble in fear every time you wave a picture of bin Laden at me. Please, please daddy Bush take away all my rights, I'd rather give up my democracy and live under a strong dictator, if only you will save me from that awful terrorist.
ReplyDeleteWell, I’m a Democrat and I don’t agree. I want each and every right I’m entitled guaranteed to me in the Constitution. Terrorist exists yes and a competent government can provide protection without denying Americans their rights. It is past time to get a competent government.
Imagine that. Bush using terrorist tactics to keep the Republican Party in power. Sounds like something all those suspicious people in the rest of the world would believe.
ReplyDeleteGlenn:
ReplyDeleteIt's a simple question of perspective. There are lots of things which could bring great harm to our country -- the polar ice caps could melt, more devestating hurricanes may come, new viruses could be introduced into the population. Each of those could be far deadlier than 9/11, and yet we don't re-structure our country and our lives to avoid those risks.
Since when?
To reduce the risk of hurricane damage, we take the property rights of people who own land in flood zones or along coasts and tell them they cannot build there.
To reduce the threat of looting and violence after a hurricane, we often send in the military, take away people's normal civil rights and impose martial law.
In the case of an epidemic, we have a history of detaining the infected so they don't spread illness and death to others.
During times of war, we always change the way we live to some extent to meet and defeat the threat. In the case at point, the nation has spied on enemies, foreign and domestic, starting with the Revolution and continuing on to today.
Our differences are in how you and I would meet this threat.
You wish to treat the terrorist threat as a criminal justice matter and to give the enemy the same civil rights as American criminal suspects. In that way, you don't have to change anything in your life to meet the risk.
On the other hand, I realize that we are at war with a mortal enemy and correspondingly wish to treat the Islamic fascist movement as what they are - illegal enemy combatants who voluntarily operate outside the legal framework for war by committing the war crimes of mass murder.
Do not underestimate this enemy, Glenn.
Al Qaeda has been openly attempting to obtain nuclear or chemical weapons for years. Their leadership has flat out told you that they will not be satisfied until they kill a million Americans or so to punish us for their imagined sins. They have demonstrated to you that they are not afraid to die in any attack and therefore are unlikely to be deterred by being treated as criminals in our justice system. More importantly to you and your family, they consider your city to be ground zero.
How much more of a threat to you and your family do you need to take even the most rudimentary steps to find and stop this enemy who will stop at nothing to kill you???
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to fear a rattlesnake. But you would be well advised to respect and deal with it when it is poised to strike...
I would like to understand how the Iraq invasion protects me from al Qaeda, since bin Laden hated Hussein.
ReplyDeleteOr how a potential Iran invasion would, since bin Laden loathes the Iranian leadership.
It only makes sense if you conflate all Arabs.
Maybe we should start thinking about who our real target audience is: The majority of voters. Then campaign accordingly.
ReplyDeleteMr. Greenwald et al:
ReplyDeleteI'm commenting here as this seems like the most likely place to get relevant feedback.
My question is simply this: Isn't the WH defense of the spying program which relies on the "war powers" loophole faulty in that, despite the repeated assertion that we are "at war," we are officially at war with Iraq while the wiretapping, according to most published reports, has focused on contacts with Al Qaeda. What I'm getting at is simply that, in order for the WH enacting of the war powers defense to make sense, one has to rely on the administration's repeated (but ultimately proven false) conflation of Al Qaeda/War On Terror/Saddam as having been linked.
Isn't this essentially spying on the (for example) Swiss while being at war with El Salvador? It seems like this rationale is based in the pre-war suggestion that Osama and company were in cahoots with Saddam. Now Al Qaeda is supposedly in Iraq, but that strikes me as being evidence that only applies retroactively.
Wouldn't the NSA have to go before a court and say, "We're at war with Iraq, and here's the evidence that Al Qaeda is in cahoots with Iraq, so we're going to spy on Americans who are in contact with Al Qaeda, who are indirectly in cahoots with the country we are OFFICIALLY at war with"? It seems to me that the seemingly all-inclusive "War On Terror" is not an official war, and as such doesn't justify the enactment of "war powers."
Bart, you say that Glenn wishes "to treat the terrorist threat as a criminal justice matter and to give the enemy the same civil rights as American criminal suspects. In that way, you don't have to change anything in your life to meet the risk."
ReplyDeleteJeanne d'Arc over at This Modern World makes the sensible countercase for me (and you should, as they say, really read the whole thing):
"Analyzing 132 government files on prisoners who have filed habaes corpus petitions, and heavily redacted transcripts of 314 tribunals for Guantánamo prisoners, she found that fewer than half were even accused of fighting against the United States or its allies, and that fewer than 20 percent have ever been al-Qaeda members. Only 8 men were tied to plans for terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan. Eight. And two of those eight were released, and face no charges at home.
"Any error that costs someone his freedom is unacceptable, but this isn’t a matter of a few rare errors. It looks like the innocent, lacking guile and connections, are more likely to be imprisoned than the guilty."
Due process, as she says, is not "just a nice thought for good times."
annonymous, that is why the administration has been continuously touting the AUMF as their only needed justification.
ReplyDeleteSo by definition, President Bush (and by extension the GOP)is the greatest terrorist of all "the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
ReplyDeleteTo be successful, Democrats need to take advantage of this situation rather than fight it, because the media is aligned with the Republicans on this one.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that to be elected, Dems will need to use this to their advantage rather than become distracted with trying to disprove it (which in a perfect world shouldn't be that hard).
maybe the Dems should come up with a "Security for America" platform, only sketch out the broadest details (i.e., irrefutable political platitudes, mostly) to keep the critics from picking the details apart, make sure it subtly hints at the failures of the current administration (i.e., Port and Border Security), and make sure EVERY GODDAMN DEM and NEWS OUTLET has a copy!
The admin always has the ace in the hole on this, so it will be tricky to play.
However, you don't win the fight by withdrawing into a Fortress America, appeasing them or unilaterally giving away key intelligence weapons.
ReplyDeleteYou don't win the fight by bombing countries in the rough neighborhood of your enemies and considering 20 dead civilians per terrorist an acceptable loss, either. The more important war is the war of ideas, and Bush has given our enemies ammo in that battle every step of the way.
Even if you're right about the extent of the threat they pose - and you've given no evidence, just asserted it - it is ridiculous to think we can win it by bombing. Fighting terrorism with a combination of diplomacy and law enforcement might or might not be the most efficient way to rack up a body count of terrorists, but it is the only way to hurt their recruiting, undermine their popular support, destroy their funding base, draw attention to the differences between us and them, and prevent attacks rather than avenge them.
Most people who insist on invasion and occupation to deal with terrorism are married to the problem. They don't care about actually protecting people or getting justice, they just want to watch bombs drop on a city of brown people on TV through a night-vision camera.
I don't believe that Bush gives a damn about security. His illegal actions have harmed our security by diverting resources from legal programs that wouldn't have these Constitutional issues.
ReplyDeleteHis lying to the UN has damaged our international position, probably for years to come. This harms our security because formerly friendly countries will no longer cooperate as well as they would in the past.
His inane economic policies have damaged our infrastructure, which is of course necessary for any security measures at all.
This is a smash and grab adminstration. They never cared about security.
I think the Dems need to get out a solid message before this years elections, and this is what they are up against "Right-leaning conservatives seeking political domination need not fret over the seculars kicking God out of our country. President Bush has presented himself as the Messiah of world democracy and was re-elected, and many assured themselves that we had finally become a faith-based government. The voters' message was that we trust the president as a man of faith. We trust Him to do the right thing. We trust that under His command, our government will spy on those needing to be spied upon, torture those who are in need of torturing, start wars wherever wars ought to be fought, bomb those who need to be blown away, and castigate as evil those who are of Satan. God bless Him."
ReplyDeleteOnce we understand that this is how the Koolaid drinkers perceive the world, we can formulate a plan to overcome their fear and misguided intentions?
A key line from the film Good Night, and Good Luck was when Edward R. Murrow said of Senator Joseph McCarthy, "The actions of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay from our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies."
ReplyDeleteHistory may not repeat itself, but I sure get a strong sense of deja vu sometimes.
--
HRlaughed
Glenn -- back to an earlier topic, how to frame perception of the republicans.
ReplyDelete"The problem with republicans is that they're incompetant".
"The competancy thing".
"They can't get it right".
"They mess up all the time".
Prunes says:
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that Bush gives a damn about security.
When I read such statements from the angry left, and others infected with the virulent Bush Derangement Syndrome, I am more convinced than ever that the Republicans are going achieve a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate this fall.
When I read such statements from the angry left, and others infected with the virulent Bush Derangement Syndrome, I am more convinced than ever that the Republicans are going achieve a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate this fall.
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm probably more conservative than you. I just expect a little integrity from my employees, the public servants.
The only way you can stomach all this bull is by pretending to yourself that "the liberals" would be worse.
Since Bush has increased the size of the government, raised future taxes through RECORD deficit spending, spied on American citizens, please, please tell me WHY should I consider Bush a conservative?
This is really the aim and the work of the terrorists -- to keep the targeted population in the grip of fear.
ReplyDeleteFrom an anthropological perspective, one of the greatest failings in how America has approached this 'War on Terror' is the unwillingness of the administration to let go of the rhetorical/political advantages of fear by defusing the mystique of terrorism, and explaining it precisely to the American people.
The terrorists remain the 'other', one that has been unexamined closely by most Americans, and so an irrational response to the stimulus of fear is to be expected everytime the bogeyman is invoked. Put another way, where are the detailed analysis created (by a non-partisan gov't agency) for public consumption, the effort to defuse the fear by understanding not only worst-case scenarios, but also historical and motivational underpinnings of the terrrorist threat?
People will say 'You shouldn't try to humanize the threat', but I'd argue that by making the threat understandable, in a trustworthy manner, the hysteria engendered by a sometimes irrational fear can be lessened. In a way, that takes an arrow out of the terrorists quiver from square one. Instead, following the current path, what we get is general ignorance, lots of hyperventilating, and we cede the shape of the national psyche to the enemy, rather than defining it ourselves.
And then there were the geniuses who planned to "blow up" the Brooklyn Bridge using blow torches (only to be miraculously thwarted by our warrantless eavesdropping program), a plot which Bob Barr described thusly: " this so-called plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was bogus because it had to do with a group of idiots who were planning to dismantle it with blow torches." The more we hear about these scary terrorist plots, the more Al Qaeda resembles The Three Stooges rather than, say, Lex Luthor.
ReplyDelete"Group of idiots"?
"The Three Stooges"?
"Lex Luthor"?
Gee, if that's not more evidence that these "scary terrorist plots" are the creation of the White House, AND NOTHING ELSE, I don't know what else is.
I wonder what would happen if for en exercise we counted the number of people who had committed terrorist acts in the past, multilpled by a reasonably large factor to include those who might be so inclined in the future and the divided by the population at large. In other words, how many terrorists are there anyway. anon talks about whether dems take the threat of terrorism seriously. He on the other hand is treating like some kind of cartoon or video game.
ReplyDeleteWhy would they need shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door. This was in Oct of 2001, just one month after ... well you do the math. The reinforced doors had not been put on the planes yet. How could these terrorists anticipate and plan for something like this within a month of 9/11 when what they planned for wasn't even in existance yet?
ReplyDeleteI sure am glad we have a free an inteligent press.
But public may not continue to react with fear when terror card played once people realize: (1) It was the terrorist, not government action, which "foiled" the LA plot. Bush credits US for stopping 2nd wave 9/11 attack in LA: A Malaysian recruited by al-Qaeda to pilot plane for this attack voluntarily pulled himself out of plan after seeing 9/11 carnage as he "didn't want that kind of Jihad" - "He was not prepared to die as a martyr, so he backed out."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top14feb10,0,1824967.story
(2) "Senior law enforcement officials" say "authorities have not disrupted any operational terrorist plot within the United States" since 9/11.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/wp-print.php?p=6581
5:15 p.m. anonymous makes an excellent point -- martial law could be imposed and terrorists could still attack. Israel, a much smaller country than us that has practically barbwired itself in, still has problems with the occasional bombing.
ReplyDeleteHere's a better idea for Bart and his types, get together, move to Western Nebraska, build a wall around your real estate, check everyone who comes in and out of your country, do all that which you hope to do 'for' the rest of us to yourselves and enjoy! You'll finally be safe from the Arab hordes at the gates, we can move forward as a society and everyone's happy.
Who knows what really happened on 9/11? Whatever happened to due process? Why was Hamdi let go rather than permit an open trial? Why has everything around 9/11 been shrouded in secrecy? Why are the 9/11 widows so frustrated?
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would anyone interested in security want this gang in charge? Read Richard Clarke's book! Unlike the Clinton Administration, they IGNORED many dire warnings, they did NOT spring into action to prevent attacks, and even after the attacks they failed to take the most obvious steps to protect us. Instead they were worried - immediately - about how to use the event to get support for attacking Iraq.
This administration is incompetent and creepy. If you really want people who care about you and your safety, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Another anonymous sputters...
ReplyDeleteOkay - for sake of argument I will buy the anonymous posters suggestion that islamic terrorism IS a real serious threat - so serious that average Americans are willing to sacrifice civil liberties in order to be protected. (Of course, this statement is bullshit)
Do you travel on airplanes? We are subjected to warrantless searches every time we travel via the air. Americans willingly give up their civil liberties in airports.
Just as we are willing to give up our civil liberties in airports, surveys show that Americans are willing to allow the NSA to listen to conversations held between al Qaeda suspects and their American-based cohorts.
The Chicken-little hysteria expressed by the other anonymous does little more than annoy most Americans who understand that the real threat to our civil liberties is not from an NSA team trying to intercept al Qaeda communications. It annoys us enough, however, to ensure that those who support such surveillance will get the votes for the Senate and House next November.
So keep shouting that the sky is falling, anonymous. Every echo just means more votes for our side.
I love the troll 'anonymous': How dare you accuse Bush of doing this for partisan gain, and by the way I hope you keep it up because it will benefit the GOP this November.
ReplyDeleteI for one am concerned that someone may try to chip away at the foundation of the Empire State Building with a dental pick. Give them enough time, and the building could collapse!
The Los Angeles times link posted above re how terrorists pulled out of LA tower plot is now dead. here is new link to same story.
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=1603572
Asshole anonymous: You quote my opening paragraph - but leave out the whole point of my post. You can set up the worlds most orwellian friendly police state apparatus you want, and a dedicated jihadist could still Kill you or I, if he has the brains,willingness to die and fanatacism to do so. These people are well financed - a few bribes of a mexican border guard here, some stolen guns there and voila, insta-jihad in a local mall near you. You are a naive fool to think otherwise.
ReplyDeleteYou sir/madame have a major f-ing problem. You think that the security measures you envision are gladly accepted by "americans" are going to stop some psycho from killing himself in public taking innocents out with him? Has it ever occurred to your quivering vagina that implementing the "security" measures you seem to think everyone wants IS IN FACT WHAT THE TERRORISTS WANT? I think i remember hearing somewhere that the terrorists "hate our way of life" Apparantly you do too, are you a terrorist as well?
Jay C:
ReplyDeletebut I imagine you would be unpleasantly surprised to find that your fellow citizens probably don't share, as much as you think, your cavalier attitude about giving up their fundamental rights under the laws (and note this, troll: those rights are there to protect you, me, and our fellow Americans).
Well, I guess we'll find out this November which one of us is right.
Aaron said...
ReplyDeleteBart, you say that Glenn wishes "to treat the terrorist threat as a criminal justice matter and to give the enemy the same civil rights as American criminal suspects. In that way, you don't have to change anything in your life to meet the risk."
Jeanne d'Arc over at This Modern World makes the sensible countercase for me (and you should, as they say, really read the whole thing):
I was less than impressed with the blog, but I have just printed out the series of articles from nationaljournal.com to which the blogger linked.
I'll get back to you once I had a chance to review them.
Thanks for the link.
First off who actually has had their rights violated? How are your civil rights being compromised? Both sides of the aisle were informed & none of those informed raised any real concerns regarding it. While it is arguable that the “wire taps” may or may not be legal & I am assuming that we may have to wait for the SCOTUS or some lower courts to make the final decision, no one’s civil rights are being diminished or taken away. The potential is there, but a potentiality doesn’t necessarily make it a reality. Where is the proof? Just because the acts are being preformed by an administration that you may not trust or like, doesn’t make the claims anymore valid.
ReplyDeleteAlmost all electronic media – cell phones, e-mail, cordless phones, etc can easily be compromised. Hell, scanners are available at Radio Shack or from the Internet that allow you to listen to phone calls on either cordless phones or cell phones. E-mail security w/o encryption is laughable – look at what AOL, Earthlink, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc spend on security a year & only to have some bored 14 year old dismantle it whenever they feel ike getting some attention. The satellite communications used by all phone companies, cellular companies, most ISPs, etc data stream is available to anyone w/ the knowledge or expertise to access it, encryption aside. It is all there in the air & anyone after a little bit of time & energy can easily get the information if they want. Remember Paris Hilton’s cell phone pictures?
The concept of “wiretaps” doesn’t really apply here, because there isn’t someone sitting down & listening to all of the phone calls. It is an automated system that looks for key words, phrases, etc. Once again I have to point out that you could just as easily get that information or clone a phone & listen in to phone calls yourself & the data isn’t that secure to begin w/.
I’m sorry but I am not too scared of the government or some agency listening into phone calls that any radio dork w/ $100 can do as well. If you are afraid of it then maybe you shouldn’t use the technology or communicate to anyone outside of your vocal range. However, if its use can help identify or track those that would wish to do this country or anyone else harm, then I can’t really see the harm caused or the benefit of whining about it.
How is it not playing the fear card to shrilly insist that the government is violating your civil rights or out to cause you harm? Isn’t the NYT release of the “wiretapping” information just as suspect as Bush’s release about the possible LA attacks? Frankly both sides are nothing more than partisan hacks trying to score imaginary political points & either maintain control or get back control & very little else.
The only argument in favor of the current administration is that Al Qaeda & those that support it have successfully waged attacks on American soil already & they used electronic based communications to do coordinate & perform the attacks. It seems to me if it can help & that the technology itself isn’t that secure who really cares?
Besides can you imagine what an attack on downtown Los Angles, say around 5pm, would do? Several millions panicked drivers on a limited number of roads & freeways trying to get to safety. I guarantee that the death toll would easily top 3,000. That is by all accounts a helluva lot more creditable then screaming that our sainted civil rights are be destroyed w/o any proof.
Kevin says:
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to mention that ff we don't want to be searched, we don't have to fly.
If you don't want to be listened to, don't talk to someone from al Qaeda who lives overseas.
While it is arguable that the "wire taps" may or may not be legal & I am assuming that we may have to wait for the SCOTUS or some lower courts to make the final decision, no one's civil rights are being diminished or taken away. The potential is there, but a potentiality doesn't necessarily make it a reality. Where is the proof?
ReplyDeleteBut isn't having the potential enough to make you worried? The one thing you don't hear much about in the argument for the NSA spying is that the Nixon Administration did have an enemies list and was using the federal government to spy on the people on it. Which is why SCOTUS ruled that Congress could legislate domestic spying.
So, there was a time when this "potential" was a "reality." As for the proof, well the Nixon Administration stonewalled and did everything it could to keep secret what it was doing, but luckily enough there were some diligent people who kept at the inconsistencies that kept coming up as the worked through finding out what was there. The Bush Administration sure has blown enough smoke with enough inconsistencies around this whole NSA spying to make me worried about it.
You might or might not want to go back to the days when the President could authorize federal spying solely on his own directive, but Nixon sure used the unchecked power to violate one's civil rights. That is an undeniable fact.
James says:
ReplyDeleteBut isn't having the potential enough to make you worried?
I'm more worried about al Qaeda.
Nixon spied on his domestic political opponents. President Bush is spying on al Qaeda.
You need to get a grip on reality here. We have mortal enemies.
They are not going to go away. They want to kill us. They are fascist zealots who hate our way of life. They are more dangerous than anything you can imagine in your comfortable middle class life.
It is astonishing that you and so many others here simply don't understand this.
Don't forget the abuse & illegal possession of FBI files by the Clintons - not to mention the abuses of the IRS during that administration. So now we should get rid of the FBI & IRS (actually might not be a bad idea about the IRS) because they can be or have been abused in the past? Maybe we should take away all of their authority to be on the safe side?
ReplyDeleteYour cell & home phones are not secure from your neighbors or anyone w/ an electronic scanner. Hell, your cell phone records are available to any who wish to purchase them. Your e-mail accounts are totally open to attack, your keyboard strokes to any innocuous piece of spy ware & you're worried that W might be spying on you w/ a program designed to capture terrorists? Got Paranoia?
Kevin said:
ReplyDelete"All the proof we need about liberties being endangered has been shown over and over again...Detention without charges, national security letters, eavesdropping, McCain-Feingold, free speech zones, who knows what else.
The fact that you and I can say we have not had these liberties taken away so far by these things is irrelevant. If it did happen it would be too late to make any noise about it."
That is not the half of it, I fear. I could not agree with you more.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAaron said...
ReplyDeleteBart, you say that Glenn wishes "to treat the terrorist threat as a criminal justice matter and to give the enemy the same civil rights as American criminal suspects. In that way, you don't have to change anything in your life to meet the risk."
Jeanne d'Arc over at This Modern World makes the sensible countercase for me (and you should, as they say, really read the whole thing):
"Analyzing 132 government files on prisoners who have filed habaes corpus petitions, and heavily redacted transcripts of 314 tribunals for Guantánamo prisoners, she found that fewer than half were even accused of fighting against the United States or its allies, and that fewer than 20 percent have ever been al-Qaeda members. Only 8 men were tied to plans for terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan. Eight. And two of those eight were released, and face no charges at home.
This blog which you quoted is based on a series of articles on Guantanamo written by Corine Hegland in the National Journal...
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj4.htm
A couple notes to start...
Hegland's sources are the lawyers for the detainees and partial excerpts of non-classified materials from government files and heavily redacted transcripts from detainee status hearings, also probably provided by the detainee lawyers. She has no idea what most of the evidence is against these men.
Furthermore, Ms. Hegland does not claim to have even contacted the government or military attorneys involved in this matter for their comment, nevertheless asking for their side of the story.
Your bias alarms should be ringing by now.
Finally, Ms. Hegland wants to apply United States civilian criminal defendant standards on the detention of enemy combatants. She does not mention nor does she seem to have a passing knowledge of the standards set for wartime detainees in the Geneva Conventions, which are much different. The United States has never treated wartime detainees captured overseas under civilian criminal law.
Now, let's move onto Mr. Hegland's complaints...
1) Many prisoners were not shooting at US forces when they were captured. Indeed, one was captured in an Afghan hospital after undergoing an amputation for what was most likley a combat related injury. So what? A detainee is an enemy combatant of he or she gave service, aid or comfort to the enemy.
2) Many were not technically al Qeada and were instead "mere foot soldiers" for the Taliban or Islamic terror "charity" front groups. We are not at war with just al Qaeda. We are at war with a loose network of Islamic fascist terror groups which practice terrorism against the US and our allies. The US released several of these lower foot soldiers over the past two years and found them again fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan...
3) Many prisoners were Arabs rounded up in Afghanistan and the al Qaeda sanctuaries in the northern tribal areas of Pakistan. Earth to Hegland... Afghanistan has no native Arabs. Afghanistan was own of the poorest nations on earth and had no jobs to give a reason for Arabs to immigrate there from far wealthier Middle East countries. The Arabs arrived with bin Laden, al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations like Zarqawi's group of thugs. We had the Afghans turn over every Arab they could find and there were thousands. These Arabs were processed and either released, detained in Afghanistan and a few hundred were sent to Gitmo.
4) After she scolds the troops in Afghanistan for not knowing the local politics and detaining people to satisfly local vendettas, Heglan introduces us to a 17 year old Arab who claims that he learned the Quran in "high school" and just happened to be teaching the Quran in Afghanistan. Translation: This kid was one of thousands of Arab youth who travel to the radical madrassa religious schools in Pakistan which teach a radical Wahhabist view of the Quran and Islamic jihad before their students graduate into the terror networks. We have been trying to pressure the Pakistanis to shut down these places for years...
To be fair, Hegland did identify about a dozen detainees whose cases bothered me. I do not know why 8 detainees identified as civilians are still there, unless the investigations on them are ongoing. I also think that identifying a combatant purely because he wears a watch favored by al Qaeda is really pushing it.
However, most of her articles show a gross ignorance of warfare, the laws of war and are mostly hyperbole...
The reality and memory of the collapsing Twin Towers of New York have consigned the leftist sneering, eye rolling cynicism and poo pooing to
ReplyDeletethe dustbin.
You guys are going to have to grow up and deal with the realities of a conflict that is not going to be dealt with by wishing it away or burying it within the corrupt bureaucracy of the UN.
Offer some solutions and quit rolling your eyes like teenagers who grew up in the early 90's.
Thanks for that PD, you're obviously pretty scared of terrorism. Nothing to be ashamed of there, many people frighten easily. After four years of quaking in your boots about terrorism, however, you might want to ask yourself what has made you so scared, is it that the statistical liklihood of you dying in a terrorist attack is too much to handle, or is your fear spurred by the rhetoric of the political party in power, or do you just naturally piss yourself when someone says boo?
ReplyDeleteTo trade away the very rights that made this country what it is (not just your rights, mine too) because you are so goddamn scared does not seem a fair trade to me.
Of course, getting knowledge of the threat you are scared of is probably too much work for you, and a rational understanding of the threat a bridge too far.
Instead, you, and others like you prefer to shiver like chickenshits with a fear stoked by your leader rather than assess the situation honestly. Fear is your vice, one that may be overcome by knowledge of that which makes you so scared.
This "Useful Idiots" meme that's going around trying to cow people into not speaking out against the abuses of our Constitution is pathetically transparent.
ReplyDeleteHow could defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ever be the wrong thing to do?
And what kind of American would suggest it is?
prunes says:
ReplyDeleteHow could defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ever be the wrong thing to do?
Both sides of the debate are "defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."
I defend the president's powers as enumerated in Article II, and I defend my right to life as articulated in the Bill of Rights.
Our mortal enemies are attempting to deprive us of the most fundamental right of all, the right to live. The president is exercising his powers to kill them before they kill us. The fact that you do not understand this is truly astonishing.
Your whining about "free speech" is silly when compared to the threats we face.
And btw, prunes, why aren't you complaining about warrantless searches in airports?
The fact that you do not understand this is truly astonishing.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you let barely literate thugs in caves intimidate you to the point of tossing away your Constitutional protections in some supposed trade-off against a statistically unlikely and future threat is what is truly astonishing.
You wouldn't be using this logic if it were a Democrat in office. That could be the case in 2008, you know. Do you want a Democratic government with this kind of power?
And btw, prunes, why aren't you complaining about warrantless searches in airports?
I don't like it all that much, but, as you know, airlines are private entities and are entitled to require any sort of checks they wish before allowing a customer on a plane. It is true there is no right to fly under US law.
The difference, which you SHOULD care about, is that Bush surveilled American citizens without a warrant in their own homes, their own private property. That is illegal.
prunes:
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't be using this logic if it were a Democrat in office.
Oh, yes I would. I don't hate Democrats the way you hate Bush.
I don't like it all that much, but, as you know, airlines are private entities and are entitled to require any sort of checks they wish before allowing a customer on a plane. It is true there is no right to fly under US law.
Airport security is run by the federal government, and is regulated by the FAA, a federal agency.
There is an absolute right to move from point A to point B in the United States. Even so, when we do so via air travel, we are subjected to warrantless searches. The fact that you aren't complaining about this as an infringement of your rights is very telling.
They are legally distinct, and that is the difference. One is legal, and the other is not.
ReplyDeleteAnd that you don't care about THAT is what's telling.
prunes says:
ReplyDeleteOne is legal, and the other is not.
Both are not only legal, but vital to our national security.
Nixon spied on his domestic political opponents. President Bush is spying on al Qaeda.
ReplyDeleteSorry, anon, but you'll have to prove that to me. If you are full-safe certain that Bush isn't spying on political opponents, then you should be more than happy to have Congress look into it to reconfirm that he isn't.
You need to get a grip on reality here. We have mortal enemies.
As for being in reality, there are no WMDs and I don't see how anyone with a shred of logic would buy into the idea that you would take Bush at face value when he says he isn't spying on political enemies without having the suspicion to look into it.
It is astonishing that you and so many others here simply don't understand this.
And it is astonishing that you do not understand how some people are willing to face death rather than sacrifice their ideas of liberty.
Both are not only legal, but vital to our national security.
ReplyDeleteYou are simply mistaken. There is no coherent legal position that allows the President to wiretap American citizens without warrants.
Why would any American expect such a thing to be legal? It is expressly illegal, and un-American.
Anonymous said, "Anyone could see at the time that the "anthrax" threat was a hoax by the Bush administration to rev up public fear, but I bet 90% of Democrats believed that. The real problem is how gullible and, well, yes, stupid people are. At a conference of logicians, none of this would have gotten past Square One. Worth noting is how the ineffectual Democrats are not protesting the reauthorization of the Patriot Act"
ReplyDeleteLet me take that a couple of steps further. Note that just a couple of days before Patriot Act II was passed, there was an anonymous Nerve Gas Threat on the Russell Senate Office Building. Please also note that just a couple days before Patriot Act I was passed, there was a REAL anthrax attack on two US Senators, Daschle and Leahy. Note that it was passed admittedly "before anyone really had time to read it." Note that this is a huge bill to have so suddenly appeared, complete, within days of 9/11. Note also that the White House Staff was given Cipro BEFORE the anthrax attack, and, I believe, before 9/11.
Wow this blows my mind,Bush and most other politicians for that matter, both sides, have allowed mexicans to infiltrate illegaly
ReplyDeletein los Angeles ,in such great numbers as to utterly destroy it.
and now to claim he is their saviour .lol rediculous utter hogwash.
he may have saved Los Angeles from a diabolic plan of destruction if so it probably was his diabolic plan and he had a change of heart thats how he saved them haha rediculous indeed