Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Cathy Young takes on her critics and carefully explains the difference between a terrorist and a fascist.
Ashish George|9.12.06 @ 3:55AM|#
This is silly on so many levels.
"There were no gray areas of right and wrong (except among a
handful of people on the far left who were quick to see the attacks
as an understandable and perhaps justified response to American
imperialism)."
First of all, hardly anyone on what Young would call the "far left"
said the attacks were justified. People like Noam Chomsky said the
attacks were understandable in the sense that we have made many
people very angry in ways that we should have expected to elicit
such anger, but not in the sense that rational, reflective agents
would have carried them out. And secondly, this notion was and
still is shared by many conservatives, libertarians, and others
outside the left. And all those people were more sensible than
Young post-9-11, who advised us to follow the lead of atheists in
foxholes and just put our faith in a big brawny entity (in this
case, whatever expanded form of government Young thought could keep
her safe at night).
"Take, for instance, the comparisons of the radical Islamic terror
network to the threat once posed to democracies by Nazism and by
communism. Some say that the analogy is ridiculous, and that a
network of a few thousand people with guns and homemade bombs can
hardly be equated with Hitler's war machine or the nuclear
missile-armed Soviet empire. Others argue that the Nazi and Soviet
parallels may underrate the terrorist threat, since today's enemy
is far more amorphous, dispersed in our very midst, and likely,
like the hydra in Greek myth, to sprout new heads to replace
severed ones. Each side in this debate has strong and convincing
arguments."
Uh, no. The latter camp forgets that during the Cold War hundreds
of millions of people could have died because of something so
simple--and plausible--as miscommunication between two submarines
in the Atlantic or poor intelligence work in Europe. Islamic
fundamentalists lack both the resources and the training to be able
to do large scale damage to large chunks of the world in one fell
swoop.
|9.12.06 @ 7:57AM|#
Uh, no. The latter camp forgets that during the Cold War
hundreds of millions of people could have died because of something
so simple--and plausible--as miscommunication between two
submarines in the Atlantic or poor intelligence work in Europe.
Islamic fundamentalists lack both the resources and the training to
be able to do large scale damage to large chunks of the world in
one fell swoop.
George, your point here seems to concern the danger posed
by the Cold War, rather than the threat, and Young seems
to be addressing the latter in the bit you quoted. The danger
during the Cold War was extremely high, but the threat posed by the
USSR probably wasn't, as neither side wanted to die (the Russians
loved their children too). The threat posed by terrorism is in one
sense greater than the Soviets: we could take out the Soviets (and
we did) but we probably cannot take out the terrorists. That being
said, I am among those who think the fascism/terrorism analogy is
on the whole very weak.
|9.12.06 @ 8:40AM|#
Islamic fundamentalists lack both the resources and the
training to be able to do large scale damage to large chunks of the
world in one fell swoop.,
Dangerous misconception, George.
Islamic fundamentalists, may lack resources and training but they
have a single-minded, focused desire to obtain them. And they're
not afraid to die, if that's what it takes.
And as any good militery man or business owner will tell you, focus
and a willingness to take action can often make up for a lot of
other shortcomings when pursuing an objective.
I too think the fascism/terrorism analogy is a weak one. Not
because it's innacurate, but because it doesn't achieve the desired
effect. In the end, it's just another label. And labels - like
brands - only work if they resonate with what the public actually
experiences.
So far the analogy has...
1.Failed to energize an already shrinking group of Americans
committed to the president's agenda.
2.Failed to convince an increasing group of Americans who aren't
buying into the president's agenda.
3. Made it easy to lump groups who are more radical than we'd like
but could still do business with (Hammas & Hezbolla) with
crazies (Al Queada & the Taliban) thus reducing strategic
political manueverability.
4. Made it difficult to parse out the actions that would bring us
success from our current course of action thus reducing tactical
military possibilities.
thoreau|9.12.06 @ 8:45AM|#
In recent years, I have encountered criticism for being
wishy-washy, with some bloggers parodying my columns as perpetual
on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand vacillation.
On the one hand, it's cool that she's reading our comments and
incorporating feedback into her columns.
On the other hand, it makes me realize that I should probably be
nicer in the comments.
:)
Jennifer|9.12.06 @ 9:10AM|#
I'm just glad the maudlin 9/11 anniversary is over. If we had
some victories to celebrate, maybe we wouldn't need to harp so much
on our defeats. Anyway, I look forward to reading justifications of
the new TSA policies that will be implemented throughout the
country after a lone female terrorist is caught trying to board a
plane with feminine-hygiene products made of absorbent but highly
explosive nitrocellulose. (There is NO Constitutional right for a
woman to even own these products, after all, let alone carry them
on a plane. So it's perfectly acceptable to ban them, in some
people's eyes.)
Anyway, here's my analogy: the Nazis and Communists were like a
giant pack of vicious Rottweilers, whereas al-Qaeda is a lone,
rabid, suicidal Chihuahua that can easily hide from us.
|9.12.06 @ 9:12AM|#
"In recent years, I have encountered criticism for being
wishy-washy, with some bloggers parodying my columns as perpetual
on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand vacillation."
I appreciate Cathy's attempt at balance. As an engineer, I'll say
that there rarely is a single "best solution" and it's a happy day
when there is. Usually, there is the cheapest solution, the easiest
solution, the highest quality solution, the lowest long-term
maintenance solution and at least 3 viable hybrids of the above.
They key is to pick the most optimal of those solutions based on
your project goals. So while I do think that civil liberties and a
free market are usually the most optimal solutions for my value
preferences, they are only sometimes the free and clear "best"
answer. Since I consume primarily libertarian media, it's nice to
be reminded that there are some legitimate differences of
values/opinion out there (in addition to the army of village
idiots.)
|9.12.06 @ 9:21AM|#
Does it really matter what we call them?
I think it does. Not that I am advocating this, but if we had
referred to them as "vandals" from the beginning, as inaccurate as
that label is, I think we would have made better decisions the past
5 years.
Labels frame one's thoughts. President Bush's biggest mistake was
his first: casting 9/11 as an act of "war". The war model of
anti-terrorism efforts has led us to the current mess. The "war" on
terrorism is no more a war than the "war" on drugs; both analogies
have led us down the wrong path.
First of all, hardly anyone on what Young would call the "far
left" said the attacks were justified.
So you would agree that only a handful--at best--on the far left
felt the attacks were justified? Isn't that what Young said? One of
my lefty friends (I realize you don't know this person)--a person
who steeps herself in left-wing ideology--said something
particularly sinister after the attacks, along the lines of, "Well,
the dead were just banking and finance workers who were probably
doing more harm to the world than the terrorists could ever dream
of." That view is out there among the lefties.
Jennifer|9.12.06 @ 9:25AM|#
To be truly fair and even-handed in regards to both sides of the issue, don't forget the righties who justified 9/11 as God's punishment for our sinful tolerance of gays and feminists and secular humanists! If our country's morals were more in line with al-Qaeda's, the World Trade Center would be standing today.
|9.12.06 @ 9:30AM|#
"Well, the dead were just banking and finance workers who
were probably doing more harm to the world than the terrorists
could ever dream of." That view is out there among the
lefties.
Your friend sounds like a complete tool.
|9.12.06 @ 9:39AM|#
I, too, am tired of the rhetoric (�evildoers�, �fascism�, etc),
but I think it�s merely for mass-consumption, like McDonalds�
hamburgers. Idiots gobble it up without thinking twice, and we
snobs turn up our noses.
And I take issue with those who think that all we�re dealing with
are a �handful of thugs�. I think they are mistaking a symptom for
a much, much bigger malady.
No, we�re not fighting �terrorism�. Terrorism is merely a tactic.
You can�t fight a tactic (an abstraction) any more than idiots who
think they can fight �gun violence�.
Jennifer|9.12.06 @ 9:47AM|#
You can�t fight a tactic (an abstraction) any more than
idiots who think they can fight �gun violence�.
But, as with gun violence, you can give your civil liberties to the
government in exchange for them making pointless laws that are
supposedly going to protect us, but won't.
|9.12.06 @ 10:18AM|#
Jennifer,
The only "righties" I know who said 9-11 was God's punishment were
Pat Robertson (the original ideotarian) and Pat Buchanan (the
denizen of the paleo-right). The truth, take out the religious
element and you would probably agree with nearly everything the
Buchanan has to say about foreign policy and certainly with regard
to the events since 9-11. The point is that when you get to the
extremes it is hard to tell right from left anymore. Especially
with anti-Semite like Buchanan.
As far as what the "left" had to say about 9-11, it was really more
the European left that had the nasty things to say. The American
left, sans a few asshole academics, didn't say too much about
American getting what it deserved. The European left was
insufferable from day 1. Anne Applebaum today in the Guardian puts
to myth the whole "America had all this goodwill after 9-11"
myth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/09/12/do1202.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/09/12/ixopinion.html
|9.12.06 @ 10:21AM|#
Of course it matters what we call them. If we call them fathers and children we won't be able to take over their countries. If we call them nazis and fascists, we can invade their terrain and install violent anarchy, er, democracy in their midst. Americans don't have time to "process" information. We need it prepackaged with positive and negative connotations built right in.
Jennifer|9.12.06 @ 10:35AM|#
Honestly, John, at this point I don't much give a damn what
people said or didn't say about us five years ago. I'm more
concerned with the fact that we're deliberately and willingly
turning ourselves into one of those pathetic third-world hellholes
that makes a fetish out of every defeat we've ever suffered, in
order to remind ourselves why we need to cower in the corner, curl
up into a tight little ball and whimper "Oh, Big Daddy Government,
I'm so scared! Protect me! Take away the freedoms of my
compatriots so I don't have to tolerate the stench of my own
chickenshit!"
I remember long ago making a bitter observation on some thread
here: the next time we learn of a terrorist plot, will the
government admit that it may as well give us our rights back, or
will it say "We need to take more rights away?" As we have seen,
the answer is "take more rights away."
|9.12.06 @ 10:41AM|#
If we really need a good historical analogy/precedent, I like
the Economist's choice.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4292760
|9.12.06 @ 11:03AM|#
"We need to take more rights away?"
Jennifer name 10 rights you had in 2000 that you don't have now. I
will give you a head start and give you one; you don't have the
right to buy campaign add that mentions a congressional candidate
by name within 60 days of an election. That thanks to McCain
Feingold. Please feel free to fill in the other nine. I am really
curious.
|9.12.06 @ 11:09AM|#
Daze
Interesting article. The problem is that radical Islam is a lot
more appealing that anarchy. Islam offers people answers and gives
them direction. Converting to Islam is also a great way for the
disaffected and anti-social to give the finger to polite society.
The prisons in Europe are prime recruiting grounds for radical
Imams. Pedila was just a criminal gang banger. Islam is much more
developed at appealing to and converting people than anarchy ever
was. For that reason, I think radical Islam is unlikely to whither
like the anarchist movement did. That said, the threat of radical
Islam as it is currently constituted is in many ways similar to the
anarchist movement.
|9.12.06 @ 11:09AM|#
I agree John - people always banging on about our personal
liberties being eroded.
I went out last night, got drunk, offended some women, publicly
urinated on a lampost, ate a kebab made out of what I am guessing
was dogmeat and then came home and tuned into some pretty decent
pornography.
And yet, according to certain newspapers, I'm apprently living in a
police state? Give me a break....
|9.12.06 @ 11:17AM|#
MarkVIII
Knowing that people can go out and have a night like yours in
peace, makes me love American that much more.
|9.12.06 @ 11:17AM|#
Mark VIII,
Pissing on your own pantleg is hardly dangerous to the political
establishment.
Jennifer|9.12.06 @ 11:29AM|#
Jennifer name 10 rights you had in 2000 that you don't have
now.
The right to take drinking water on a plane. (That's okay, though;
as a woman with bad kidneys I should be happy to allow myself to
suffer dehydration and the resulting hospital stay in the name of
patriotism. I'll rename my kidney stones "freedom beads.")
The right to board a plane without removing a metal barrette from
my hair. (God knows what weapons may have been stashed in the
1/64th of an inch of space between said barrette and my
scalp.)
The right to make phone calls secure in the knowledge that, since
I'm not breaking laws or harming people, no government agents will
listen in.
The right to board a New York subway, or any trains leading into or
out of the city, without being subject to a warrantless search of
my purse and/or backpack.
The certainty that I cannot be arrested and locked away for years
without a trial where I can actually see the evidence against me,
hire a lawyer and other such niceties.
Need I go on? Don't worry, John. Big Daddy Government is keeping
you safe from my scary bottle of carry-on drinking water and
terrifying butterfly-shaped barrette. And Cathy Young is safe from
the threat my water and hair jewelry pose, too.
|9.12.06 @ 11:32AM|#
In 2000, Jennifer could take out books from the library without
the feds being able to demand her reading list..
In 2000, Jennifer could sell her house and put the equity payment
in the bank without the bank reporting it to the FBI.
In 2000, Jennifer had a right to trial with a lawyer and all of the
rules of evidence if she was picked up by the govenrment, no matter
what designation the government put on her.
Jennifer|9.12.06 @ 11:35AM|#
Jennifer name 10 rights you had in 2000 that you don't have
now.
The right to take drinking water on a plane. (That's okay, though;
as a woman with bad kidneys I should be happy to allow myself to
suffer dehydration and the resulting hospital stay in the name of
patriotism. I'll rename my kidney stones "freedom beads.")
The right to board a plane without removing a metal barrette from
my hair. (God knows what weapons may have been stashed in the
1/64th of an inch of space between said barrette and my
scalp.)
The right to make phone calls secure in the knowledge that, since
I'm not breaking laws or harming people, no government agents will
listen in.
The right to board a New York subway, or any trains leading into or
out of the city, without being subject to a warrantless search of
my purse and/or backpack.
The certainty that I cannot be arrested and locked away for years
without a trial where I can actually see the evidence against me,
hire a lawyer and other such niceties.
Need I go on? Don't worry, John. Big Daddy Government is keeping
you safe from my scary bottle of carry-on drinking water and
terrifying butterfly-shaped barrette. And Cathy Young is safe from
the threat my water and hair jewelry pose, too.
dhex|9.12.06 @ 11:35AM|#
""Well, the dead were just banking and finance workers who were
probably doing more harm to the world than the terrorists could
ever dream of." That view is out there among the lefties."
yeah, this was pretty common in nyc. add in "white" as an adjective
and you have a fairly large segment of the response.
john: seriously, is there anything a republican can do that won't
make you clap like a seal? i'm just curious.
|9.12.06 @ 11:37AM|#
Pissing on your own pantleg is hardly dangerous to the
political establishment.
True.
But all things aside, the amount Libertarians screech about the
loss of civil liberties, they do start to sound a little like the
Fox News war on terror evangelicals. Hyperbole is the common
currency.
|9.12.06 @ 11:45AM|#
Hopefully with all the curbs on flying, technology will catch up
and Jennifer will be able to drink her water, have her hairclip and
enjoy the flight.
That's a complete guess but in ten years time I reckon we'll just
walk through some snazzy gate with bleepers and lights without
another individual going anywhere near us - and we'll be able to
take anything, save a shotgun, on board.
|9.12.06 @ 11:48AM|#
Jennifer name 10 rights you had in 2000 that you don't have
now.
What a disingenuous comment....
Here's a start.....
The right to face your accusers and see the evidence against
you.
The right to a speedy trial.
The right to not have your home or property searched without a
warrant or probably cause.
The right to peacefully assemble and protest (I don't recally
seeing the "only in government sanctioned free speech zones" clause
of the 1st amendment)
The right to have an attorney present when being questioned by
authorities.
The right to defend myself against armed intruders who mistakenly
knock down my door in a botched paramilitary style police raid when
they have the wrong house.
The right to not be tortured or sent to secret prisons.
Is that a good enough start for you?
When I see idiots like John Yoo (who sadly gets used by the
government to justify this kind of crap) say things like "We
are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws,
the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In
wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch." it
becomes increasingly clear that it's the people like you John, who
believe that the those of us who are alarmed by the reduction of
civil liberties are just being overly alarmist, are the absurd
ones.
When highly regarded Appeals Court Judge Richard Posner expresses
sentiments like:
The Constitution is nothing but "an 18th Century document," and
"the notion that [the Founders] had the answers to 20th Cenutry
problems . . . is, I think, wrong and dangerous." and the belief
that it is proper and acceptable to alter our fundamental rights
and our system of government by simply by having judges "interpret"
the Constitution differently in light of their view of political
events and the terrorist threat. Or the blief that Constitutional
protections guaranteed to American citizens by the Bill of Rights
are not to be discerned from that document, but instead, by one's
abstract understanding "of the world in which we live."
We should all be worried...and those of us who dismiss those
worries as trivial are part of the problem.
|9.12.06 @ 11:49AM|#
And yet, according to certain newspapers, I'm apprently
living in a police state? Give me a break....
Yep, since you are personally unaffected, what's the
problem? Now, if you happen to have a name similar to that of a
terrorist, you might just be wrongfully
imprisoned without trial and tortured or maybe sent to Syria to be
tortured (before Syria became our mortal enemy, that is). But
those guys really should stop their whining, 'cause I'm sure they
can still piss on streetlights whenever they want to.
Jennifer|9.12.06 @ 11:52AM|#
Hopefully with all the curbs on flying, technology will
catch up and Jennifer will be able to drink her water, have her
hairclip and enjoy the flight.
But until that happy day, you and John can airily dismiss any
concerns over the loss of civil liberties. Meanwhile, I'm supposed
to be grateful to and respectful of a government that can't tell
the difference between a bomb and a hairclip the size of a quarter
and shaped like a butterfly with tiny colored-glass jewels embedded
in its wings.
Here's another right I lost: the right to open a bank account
without first acquiring and showing two forms of ID: driver's
license, passport or credit card. However, I suppose this can be
justified by pointing out that there's no Constitutional right to
keep your money in the bank.
|9.12.06 @ 11:56AM|#
Mark VIII,
You're correct about some of the more impractical stances of
libertarians. My point was that your night of vice is a beautiful
thing, but the true danger is that our political liberties
will be proscribed. The right to petition for redress of grievances
is more important than the right to pet and undress your
penises.
|9.12.06 @ 12:00PM|#
We should all be worried...and those of us who dismiss those
worries as trivial are part of the problem.
Perhaps,
But I happen to think that people who exagerrate and throw all
their toys out the cot are just as culpable. For example, I simply
don't see the point of getting angry about curbs screening people
when they board planes - it's the sort of strict rationalising that
might make you a cracking lawyer but, in the grand scheme of
things, clouds the really big points that are clearly
bullsh1t.
I think the massive one is the right to peacefully assemble and
protest. That's the sort of thing that is worrying. Not whether you
get to take your favourite Pokemon toy on a plane.
|9.12.06 @ 12:13PM|#
For example, I simply don't see the point of getting angry
about curbs screening people when they board planes - it's the sort
of strict rationalising that might make you a cracking lawyer but,
in the grand scheme of things, clouds the really big points that
are clearly bullsh1t.
So when everyone has to submit to strip searches or cavity seraches
because something could be snuck on board in their anus....you
won't see a problem with that either.
Liberties aren't taken away in one fell swoop....its a process that
happens incrementally over time. A minor thing here, a little thing
there...and eventually, everyone has to submit to random searches
and drug tests in the name of security. If you don't stand up for
the minor things early on, it makes it that much harder to stop the
bigger things later on.
|9.12.06 @ 12:28PM|#
Related to Jennifer's post about water, barrettes, and explosive feminine hygiene products, "http://www.feministing.com/" >we can now be safe from prosthetic breasts.
|9.12.06 @ 12:58PM|#
"The right to petition for redress of grievances is more
important than the right to pet and undress your penises."
Did you just make that up, Mark VIII?
That's both witty and blue, and that's a rare combination.
|9.12.06 @ 1:01PM|#
Lets go back and look at what a libertarian wonderland things
were under Clinton. Clearly, you had a right to privacy especially
in things like your FBI background checks. Well, not exactly, if
you were a Republican staffer who had your files leaked and read by
the adolescent twits in the Whitehouse and certainly not if you
were Linda Tripp who had your DUI conviction leaked in clear
criminal violation of the privacy act by a DOD staffer.
Search and seizure, what about that right? Well, not if you are a
Branch Davidian who had the ATF kick down your door guns blazing on
dubious probable cause or Randy Weaver who had the ATF and FBI
entrap over the course of a year to sell them an illegal shotgun,
which of course gave them the right to surround his house and
murder his son.
Last the time I saw the government murdering Americans instead of
terrorist it was the Clinton Administration doing it. I am sure
Chicago Tom and Jennifer were so worried about their rights. Yeah
right.
Give me one shred of evidence that anyone on this thread has ever
actually had their phone tapped or thier library records looked at.
There isn't any because it hasn't happened. Americans who were
guilty of no more than being crackpots died because of Bill
Clinton's and Janet Reno's abuses of power. Not that one abuse
justifies the other. It is just that when you have nothing to say
about one abuse, you have no standing to complain about the
other.
Really, the best you can come up with is that you have a paranoid
fear of your phone being tapped and you can't wear an under wire
bra. Cry me a river. When a George Bush burns a few dozen Americans
to death on national TV, I will start to worry. And when you people
acknowledge the sorry record the Clinton Administration had
regarding civil rights, I will start to take your criticisms of
Bush seriously.
|9.12.06 @ 1:16PM|#
The point is that the real threats to our civil liberties, the
drug war, out of control bureaucracies at Justice the federal law
enforcement agencies, criminal use of swat teams in no knock raids,
the constant assault on people's right to bear arms and defend
themselves, the complete reading of political speech out of the 1st
Amendment in the name of "fair elections" and others were there
long before Bush got into office. They are no worse or no better
today than then. They may be better in that the FBI hasn't murdered
any Americans this century, that we know of, but that is not saying
much.
Instead of worrying about the real issues that effect everyone, all
you people can do is bitch about the NSA listening to Bin Laden's
phone calls. Given a choice I would rather have the government
monitoring every international call I ever make, but not have a
right to kick down my door without identifying themselves or
arbitrarily take away my right to own a gun or pull me over in some
Nazi style "papers please" DUI crackdown. Those abuses are
bi-partisan. Since the point of most Reason posters these days is
about scoring points against Bush, they don't get much play. So, we
get ridiculous statements like "we have lost so many rights since
9-11". Bullshit. We were loosing rights like crazy long before Bush
and long before 9-11. The ones we have lost since then, such as
they are, are child's play to what we lost in the 30 years before
that.
|9.12.06 @ 1:16PM|#
The islamic murderers have made it very clear that they are
still targeting commerical air travel, due to that recent activity
in Britain.
Ergo, there should be some tough measures to meet this threat, as
inconvenient as they may be.
My daughter recently flew and had to give up her toothpaste, since
she had to convert to carry-on on the spot. It was extremely
irritating, and one has the impulse to lay into the hapless TSA
agent. But I think that is rather short-sighted.
The real, underlying cause of all this are people who, by the
dictate of their ideology, are compelled to murder random strangers
for the glory of their god. And I don't think yelling at a baggage
checker will change any of that.
|9.12.06 @ 1:20PM|#
"When a George Bush burns a few dozen Americans to death on
national TV,"
I was with you until you went over the top. Perhaps you forgot that
your holy warrior George W. Bush invaded Iraq without any real
justification and killed close to 3,000 Americans. Surely this is
more egregious than a mass suicide by a bunch of cult freaks? I
also don't have as much blind faith as you do in trusting an
adminstration that has consistently put forth spin in place of
fact.
Also, if nobody is getting their phones tapped, then there's no
need to have a program, now is there? Here's your challenge: show
me one credible terrorist threat that was broken up with Bush's
wire tapping plan.
|9.12.06 @ 1:28PM|#
The point is Lamar that you do have to respond to threats. If
Bush is using the wiretap program to listen to ordinary Americans
or his politcal enemies, then hang him. If he is using it to
actually go after terrorists, I have no problem with it. Even
someone like Richard Posner, hardly a Bush righty, admits that we
have to make some compromises and dealing with this threat.
Regardless, there are billions of phone calls. The chances of this
ever effecting you or me is non-existent. The chances of the police
kicking down your door, shooting your pets and maybe you on a bogus
tip from some scumbag drug dealer or because some flatfoot fucked
an address is real. The risk of the gun control lobby registering
and then seizing everyone's guns is real. The risk of the U.S.
turning into Europe where there is virtually no right to self
defense is real and would happen if it were left up to some people
in this country. The risk of the IRS or the Justice Department
launching malicious prosecution of you because some jerk bureaucrat
has a grudge against you is very real. The risk of you having your
4th Amendment rights violated in a traffic stop done without
probable cause is damn near certain. Those are the real threats to
our rights, not the NSA. But you can't score many points whining
about Bush talking about those threats.
|9.12.06 @ 1:28PM|#
John, I remember libertarians protesting vehemently about the
abuses of the Clinton Admin that you're pointing to. Tim Lynch of
the Cato Institute called Clinton's civil liberties record
"unmatched in its awfulness," or some such words.
But really, we hadn't seen anything yet. American law operates on
precedent. The Bush Admin wants legal precedent that an American
citizen can be seized on the streets of this country, held
incommunicado, and tortured, with no recourse or process
whatsoever, if the president points in his direction and says the
words "enemy combatant." Nothing from the Clinton Admin approaches
that. And if they get such precedent, our lovely 200-year
experiment with liberty is over.
|9.12.06 @ 1:28PM|#
The question before us is not the loss of liberties. That has
been very limited up to this point. ChicagoTom has a nice list but
most of his list applies to forgieners not American citizens, and
the ones he points to that does affect American citizens were
eroded prior to 9/11 but maybe not to the current extent. I'm not
excusing anything. I do recognize the threat of losing 1st, 4th and
5th amendment protections is real.
But the real question is how far should the government go to
examine and catalog every aspect of a citizens life. Our rights
need not be diminished for the government to do this.
We still have the right to peacefully assembly, that has not
changed, what has changed is the governments ability to watch,
catalog, and track every move you make during that assembly.
How free is a society when the government is interested in total
citizen surveillence from the cradle to the grave?
Any law can be undone with another law, technology is not going
away.
If we are not careful, future indictments will be a result of
patterns discovered in a massive database, not good ole police work
as we know it.
|9.12.06 @ 1:41PM|#
"If we are not careful, future indictments will be a result of
patterns discovered in a massive database, not good ole police work
as we know it."
Very true. The other issue of course is corporations tracking our
every move. That has already happened. It doesn't make much
difference whether it is the police tracking you or some ad agency
who bought your information without your consent, it sucks either
way.
|9.12.06 @ 2:00PM|#
It is interesting how a fundamental and important right like gun rights get so little play on Reason. My guess is that it is because the writers are east coast yuppies who think guns are icky. I would be curious to see who on the staff actually own a gun or would but are prevented from doing so because of Washington DC's insane gun laws.
|9.12.06 @ 2:22PM|#
John,
I own guns, used to shoot with the Single Action Shooting Society,
live in New York.
|9.12.06 @ 2:36PM|#
Good for you Lamar. I honestly have no use for most law enforcement agencies and the Justice Department in particular, regardless of who is in charge. I just get pissed off over different things than many of the people on here and am of course seen as an agent of fascist repression for it.
|9.12.06 @ 2:36PM|#
"If Bush is using the wiretap program to listen to ordinary
Americans or his politcal enemies, then hang him. If he is using it
to actually go after terrorists, I have no problem with it."
Ditto. But in this country, we don't just trust the honesty and
judgement of whomever is elected to office to make sure that those
entrusted with such invasive powers don't abuse them. Instead, we
require them to seek authorization from the judiciary, so that a
neutral party, one who isn't subjec to the same chain of command
that wants to do the spying in the first place, can make sure that
there aren't actually any violations of people's rights going
on.
|9.12.06 @ 2:44PM|#
John,
Let's say we acquiesce in giving Dick Cheney the right to spy on
Americans. What happens when Lyndon LaRouche gets elected? I'm sure
you'll dodge the query by saying LaRouche will never get elected.
Humor me, what happens if we give the president all this unchecked
power, and a complete hack gets elected?
|9.12.06 @ 2:49PM|#
It doesn't make much difference whether it is the police
tracking you or some ad agency who bought your information without
your consent, it sucks either way.
I would't be so sure of that, John. If an ad agency knew that I
bought cold medicine, antifreeze, lighter fluid, and matches,
they'd send coupons for Sudafed, and Pep Boys. Give that same list
of items to the police, and they'll send in a SWAT unit.
|9.12.06 @ 3:12PM|#
Lamar,
I think it comes down to how LaRouche or anyone uses the program.
You have to have oversight and make sure that people who do
authorize wiretapping are accountable.
What I am more worried about is sensible measures authorized to
stop terrorism are going to be used to prosecute ordinary crimes.
We have already seen portions of the Patriot Act used against
organized crime. Any additional measures taken under the guise of
combating terrorism, ought to have the caveat that any evidence
seized using those measures can only be used in a prosecution for
engaging in or conspiring to commit terrorism. No using of NSA
wiretaps to be child pornographers or drug dealers.
|9.12.06 @ 3:15PM|#
"Very true. The other issue of course is corporations tracking
our every move. That has already happened. It doesn't make much
difference whether it is the police tracking you or some ad agency
who bought your information without your consent, it sucks either
way. "
John, good you brought up the corporation issue it is a problem
too. But there is a BIG difference between corporations and law
enforcement. A corporation can't hassle you like the man can. David
makes somewhat of a point but I don't think it's in a corporations
interest to hassle you, except to try to sell you something. The
cops can give you real grief that no corporation ever could. Ask
Richard Jewel.
I do agree it sucks either way.
Lamar brings up the point that partisans forget. They should ask
themselves, what if Clinton had this power?
Soon enough, Clinton, might, albeit Mrs. not Mr.
|9.12.06 @ 3:31PM|#
"" And when you people acknowledge the sorry record the Clinton
Administration had regarding civil rights, I will start to take
your criticisms of Bush seriously."""
John, What knock Clinton now? That's old news. Hey I've never liked
the Clinton. I'm from Little Rock, moved to NYC in 1990. He was my
Governor for three terms. I was happy to get away from them.
Imagine my dismay when he was elected President. Then they move to
NY, and Hillary becomes my Senator! AAARRRRRRRGGGGGGG
Damn it!!! Stop following me!!!!!
I've always taken him to task on civil rights and Daddy big
government.
Will you now take my citicisms of Bush more seriously?
|9.12.06 @ 3:50PM|#
"Will you now take my citicisms of Bush more seriously?"
I think the Justice Department and the FBI suck, but they have
sucked for years under both Republican and Democratic
administrations.
First, the NSA "wiretapping" program is nothing of the sort. It is
a computer algorythm that runs through the calls to figure out
which ones might be of interest. There is no person listening to
the calls. I am frankly not that worried about it. It only applies
to calls going overseas. It seems a bit crazy that I can be Al
Quada operative and the NSA can listen to my phone with impunity,
until I come into the U.S., in which case they can't. Moreover,
there is a distinction bewtween substance and procedure. Substance
is the actual laws we have. Procedure is how they enforce those
laws. While procedure is important, substance is more important. It
may be an irritant and a violation of your rights if the government
listens to your phone calls, but that is nothing compared to the
government making something you actually do illegal.
I see liberals wanting to take away my guns, my right to pay for a
doctor if I choose, my right to choose what I can and cannot eat,
where I can smoke, what I can say to whom and when; basically
changing the substance of the laws to make me a criminal. I see
Republicans wanting to listen into terrorist's phone calls. I
understand the concern about the second, but I am much more worried
about the first concern.
|9.12.06 @ 4:06PM|#
John,
You don't have a philosophical foundation, you just don't care
about the freedoms republicans want to take away more than you care
about the freedoms targeted by democrats. Notice how when the
GOPers take away a freedom it is "listening to terrorist
phonecalls" (and not spying on political enemies, spying on the NY
Times, etc.), yet when the Democrats do it, you call it "coming to
take away YOUR guns" (instead of taking away the guns of
criminals). Your ideas have so many contradictions, that going back
and checking your premises will be futile. Your language betrays a
bit of a partisan slant.
|9.12.06 @ 4:33PM|#
hey, TrickyVic: my hostility to the Clintons goes back to when
he was Gov in Ark. It was because we were pretty sure (ca 86-87 or
so) he had let Arkansas become a arms transhipment point for the
contras, in exchange for cash. the Mena and.... name escapes, that
other airstrip.
You seem like an observant chap, were you aware of any of that,
either then or later? I always wanted to see the swine behind
bars......
|9.12.06 @ 4:36PM|#
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think a Nixonian attempt to snuff out political opposition using covert surveillance is wholly unacceptable. You, on the other hand, choose to characterize this threat as something that does not affect you, and therefore, unworthy of attention. To me, they are all similar encroachments on liberty, and they are all pursued with the best of intentions. In my book, best intentions doesn't make spying on Americans OK.
|9.12.06 @ 4:39PM|#
"I think a Nixonian attempt to snuff out political opposition
using covert surveillance is wholly unacceptable"
So do I and if it turns out that Bush is doing that, then I will be
the first one to want to whack him. I don't see that happeneing
though. Where is the evidence that Bush is listening in on his
opponents' conversation or using the NSA to snuff out political
opposition? Surely you don't consider Edger Padila and his ilk
political opposition?
|9.12.06 @ 4:56PM|#
John,
I'm glad you trust Bush so much. He's been so open and forthcoming.
He would never spin facts to make a case for something he believes
in. And Nixon DID have a plan to spy on his enemies. Do you have
any support for your position that the Democratic Party wishes to
take your guns away? There is precedent for my fears, there is no
precedent for yours.
|9.12.06 @ 5:06PM|#
John is right.
The freedoms that the liberals have already instigated the
government to restrict and the one's they would like to have a far
more real world impact on most people's lives that the alleged
"privacy rights" violations they are ranting about.
The many thousands of dollars in taxes that some people are forced
to pay for social welfare schemes prevent them from spending that
money on themselves for things they want and/or saving and
investing it for a more comfortable or earlier retirement. That's a
hell of a lot greater impact on someone's freedom than the
possibilty that the govt MIGHT be listening in on their phone call
IF they happen to make an international call.
|9.12.06 @ 5:07PM|#
Yes, Nixon did have a plan to spy on his enemies. So what? Show
me Bush's and I will be right with you. As far as the Democrats and
gun control. Where even to begin. Certainly spurious lawsuits
against gun manufacturers to run them out of business is a start.
The "assault weapons ban". Look no further than Washington DC,
where it is pretty much illegal a handgun, to see what liberals
have in mind. Also, look at Austrailia and the U.K. where they
disarmed the populace.
Please show me facts of where Bush is spying on his political
enemies or abusing FBI files and the IRS the way Clinton and Nixon
did. I have yet to see anything beyond paroid speculation on this
thread.
Basically when it comes to Bush there is no reasoning with people.
Asking for facts makes me a "bootlicker". Whatever. I criticize
Bush on about a million things, (the budget, no child left behind,
the drug giveaway, his obscene choices of AGs just to name a few)
but I am not a paranoid crackpot convinced the NSA is listening to
my phone calls either.
|9.12.06 @ 5:10PM|#
. ChicagoTom has a nice list but most of his list applies to
forgieners not American citizens, and the ones he points to that
does affect American citizens were eroded prior to 9/11 but maybe
not to the current exte
TrickyVic -- pardon me, but all of my examples have applied to
american citizens -- would you mind pointing to the ones that you
believe have only been applied to foreigners??
Furthermore, last I checked, the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights applies to all the people in the US -- not just American
Citizens.
|9.12.06 @ 5:19PM|#
Hey John, was that a yes??
"First, the NSA "wiretapping" program is nothing of the
sort""
No one on this board and very few in the country knows enough about
the NSA program to make a judgement to what it really is. Certainly
and respectfully, not you, nor I.
""I see liberals wanting to take away my guns""
Don't vote for Rudy!!
John, you and I have much of the same concerns, If the NSA program
is applied to real terrorist investigations, I don't have a problem
with that. But, whe MUST acknowledge that government has never been
honest with respects to domestic surveillence. What would John
Lennon and Dr. King have to say about it.
I don't care if a algorhythm is running on my phone calls if it
applies only to finding real terrorist. But again, government has
PROVEN it can not be trusted.
I do think you know this because you have spoken of oversight, but
the administration doesn't want oversight, they are trying to
exclude oversight for these programs, and they have ignored current
oversight requirements by picking and choosing who in a committee
to brief in lieu of the whole committee.
the government will expand it's power in realms other than terror.
We were told that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act was for terrorist only. We
passed it. Next thing you know, the Justice department is having
seminars on how to apply the act to criminal law. Did they lie to
us or are we too naive?
Not to mention do you trust the liberals enought to responsibly use
these powers? If one side gets it, the other side does to. For
anyone to make this a partisan issue is foolish.
Plain and simiple, I don't trust that the government is of enough
quality character to handle the responsiblity of such power. The
founding fathers would be proud of me for that.
I doubt, correct me if I'm wrong, that you trust the government
with such powers.
Mutt,
Here is what I can tell you about that era. The story I heard is
that cocaine was flown into the Mena airport in exchange for cash
by the CIA. The drugs were sold on the market. The money was used
to buy weapons for Central America.
I do know for a fact that during that time cocaine was everywhere,
large amounts of it. Some of my friends got involved and eventually
busted except for the dealer's dealer. At one point you couldn't
find pot, only coke, which I didn't like. That's how plentiful it
was.
The dealer's dealer escaping prosecution was surprising. The cops
knew exactly who he was but didn't arrest him. When my friend was
taken in, he said all he had to do was answer yes. The cops knew
everything and just had him confirm things. My friend also told me
a story about going to his dealer (the dealer's dealer) when he
wasn't suppose to, and the dealer's dealer's dealer was there, my
friend said he recoginzed him as a State Trooper.
Sure, that's a lot of hearsay. But I can speak first hand on the
vast amount of cocaine available at the time and the downfall of
some friends. It was assumed Clinton had full knowledge. They never
could pin any of it on him.
The best part of that story, drink when you read dealer
|9.12.06 @ 5:31PM|#
John,
If I can't use Nixon as precedent, then you can't use the assault
weapons ban as a precedent. I say we use both as precedent, which
seems only right. Of course, President Bush said that he would sign
the assault weapons ban extension. Thank God he didn't get the
opportunity.
|9.12.06 @ 5:34PM|#
Sure Tom,
""The right to face your accusers and see the evidence against
you.""
Who, Padilla? he never went to trial so it would not apply to him.
Who else?
""The right to a speedy trial.""
The problem here has always be the definiton of speedy. But I will
give you this one using the above example.
""The right to not have your home or property searched without a
warrant or probably cause.""
I would be foolish to argure you on this one, it was bastardized
long ago.
""The right to peacefully assemble and protest (I don't recally
seeing the "only in government sanctioned free speech zones" clause
of the 1st amendment)"""
The Consitution does not forbid (appearently) permits on rights. I
disagree with that but SCOTUS disagrees with me. This was done
before 9/11 anyway.
""The right to have an attorney present when being questioned by
authorities.""
Which American?
"""The right to defend myself against armed intruders who
mistakenly knock down my door in a botched paramilitary style
police raid when they have the wrong house.""
Not a actual right.
"""The right to not be tortured or sent to secret prisons."""
Which American did this apply to?
|9.12.06 @ 5:52PM|#
I basically agree with John's position on this. We already live
in a "surveillance society." The NSA 'wiretap' thingy is smalltime
compared to the banking notification regulations that affect nearly
every American. Federal and state governments already have way too
much information about me--and you.
And then to get into the myriad ways in which the mommy state has
eroded our liberties in just the last 20 years. That's many books
right there.
But what scares me is that people get all worked up about
relatively inconsequential shit like the NSA wiretaps and don't
seem to notice or care about the daily loss of liberty they endure
from the nanny state. The libertarian movement is in disarray
because of this. Most people seem just fine with being told what to
do and not do by a bunch of bureaucratic putzes. That's yer problem
right there, much more than a bunch of Muslim nutjobs.
|9.12.06 @ 7:23PM|#
John himself admits, "You have to have oversight and make sure
that people who do authorize wiretapping are accountable,"
and yet the very thing he is defending is the failure to obtain a
court order for the wiretaps, the means of oversight provided by
the Constitution and by federal law.
What does oversight mean? Rumsfeld runs it by Bush? The G-7
technician runs it by his G-9 shift supervisor, both of whom can be
fired by Rusmfeld?
|9.12.06 @ 7:49PM|#
"Here is what I can tell you about that era. The story I heard
is that cocaine was flown into the Mena airport in exchange for
cash by the CIA. The drugs were sold on the market. The money was
used to buy weapons for Central America.
I do know for a fact that during that time cocaine was everywhere,
large amounts of it. Some of my friends got involved and eventually
busted except for the dealer's dealer. At one point you couldn't
find pot, only coke, which I didn't like. That's how plentiful it
was. " ......Sayeth razorback Tricky Vic.
Our understanding was a bit different. Several facilities were
rented to assemble firearms from components, AK's mostly. And such
items as toe popper mines (a big piece of Hassenfuss's cargo) of
Italian origin, ammo, & the like. This was flown to Ilopongo,
under the watchful
gaze of a long time CIA thug currently in the news, & from
thier dropped to Contra units or trucked to the contra base camps
in what only could be called Occupied Southern Honduras. You, the
taxpayer, paid for the munitions & transport It was only later
the idea came along to send cargo BACK on the USAF supply planes,
with coke being offloaded not only at Mena but at a secure hangar
at Homestead AFB, in Fla, as revealed by both DA, cops & the
Miami Herald, back then. That money went into the pockets of
Bermudez & his creatures, & ended up- with millions of tax
$, in the brothels & luxury markets of Tegucigalpa &
Miami.
And, yup: coke got no only cheap, but of increasing purity. Even
way the hell up in Varmint.
Sorta like heroin when the US was blowing shit up in SE Asia.
A rather facinating acct of that heroin trade, & the direct
role of the "democratic" Saigon quisling gvt, can be found in
McCoys "Politics of Heroin in SE Asia".
But Im a mind numbed robot of Norman Rockwell's, so what do I
know??
|9.12.06 @ 7:58PM|#
MUTT, TickyVic
http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia/
Here is a site with all the details.
|9.13.06 @ 1:23AM|#
thoreau,
On the other hand, it makes me realize that I should probably
be nicer in the comments.
What the hell have you been eating lately? You're turning into Mr
Nice Guy.
You probably don't worry about your complexion so I'll warn you
instead: being nice is not good for your objectivity.
On thread --
The danger with Cathy's approach is that, if it's going to work,
then you (the writer) absolutely have to nail what's essential and
-- there has to be something valid on both sides of the proverbial
fence.
Otherwise you come across as an (eventually annoying) agnostic.
Agnostics not only do nothing to help me make up my mind, the good
ones are dedicated to making it impossible for me to ever
make up my mind.
Looking around the whole barn yard before you make up your mind is
a really good thing to do. Then, making up your mind is also a
really good thing to do. Unless you want to spend your whole life
in contemplation (which I believe is what monestaries are
for).
I've had some friends who were Muslims and I liked them fine. But I
see little to admire in Islam itself, as an ideology/faith/culture,
which a) has yet to crawl out of the Middle Ages, and b) is a child
of war in a way that Christianity can never be. If that makes me
"biased" or "bigoted" then so be it. But I see no validity to the
"other hand" of this particular issue.
As an atheist by conscious and deliberate choice I hold no
admiration for Christianity either, but Islam is a definite rung or
two down the ladder.
You're really, really good at looking under all the rocks and
behind all the bushes, Cathy. You probably catch things a lot of
others miss. But what is the purpose of gathering all that
information? The End Zone is in the conclusions you draw.
Think a little more about the End Zone. The info gathering is just
the prelim to the action that ultimately matters.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245