Now With Even More PATRIOTism!

Working behind closed doors, a Senate panel has apparently decided to expand the PATRIOT Act, granting further administrative subpoena powers to law enforcement. The ACLU is calling the decision a "failure for the Fourth Amendment" and a "move antithetical to our Constitution."

Comments

[sage]

Prepare, folks. The revolution cometh.

[speedwell]

These are the actions of scared powermongers who frankly confess that they are the enemies of the ordinary citizen.

Well, politicos, you know how our mommies used to tell us "be a friend if you want to have friends?"

Guess what you're doing now.

[rst]

Fuckin Wahhabist bastards, hit the wrong buildings.

[Number 6]

Again, fucking typical. I quit; it's hopeless.

[Adam]

Expand??? I thought the choices were "reign in" or "reauthorize as-is." "Expand" never crossed my mind. The bastards.

[Jeff Walenta]

wow

[BattleAx]

This is so laughable. .. what happened to freedom, what happened to our representative respresenting their constituents ??

America, we throw billions at trying to mitigate the symptoms instead of curring the root cause of our problems...

RST: No shit, If Usama bin Laden had hit the IRS building and the UN Building, he would be in the White House by now...

[joe]

So, who will be the first politician to answer the question "Why shouldn't the FBI just get a warrent from a judge if they suspect somebody?" with a quip about elitist, liberal, unamerican judges?

[SPD]

So the government needs to trample on our liberties to protect our freedom? Gee, where's the disconnect? Makes perfect sense to me.

rst: Be careful what you write; Gonzales is watching you...

[Brian]

Just a temporary measure to see us through the current emergency.

Was Bin Laden savvy enough to anticipate that if he did a spectacular terrorist attack, it would send us down the road to the end of our constitutional republic? Or is that just a happy unintended consequence?

[SPD]

Brian,

I've often wondered that myself. If so, then does that mean the terrorists are winning?

[Brian]

He should have known, looking at the course of history that his attacks would have catalyzed this "liberating" of the middle east and the disenfranchisement of the US

[BattleAx]

The previous comment was "for Brian" not "from Brian" -- my bad, quick fingers

BattleAx

[Josh]

Not to interrupt the hysteria or anything, but don't forget that this would have to go through Specter and Leahy's Judiciary Committee first.

Anyone have a link that's not to news.com, which is a bit like Slashdot with spellcheck?

[Julian Sanchez]

Is Reuters good enough?
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=8725308

[Lowdog]

I would imagine that OBL had an idea that it might happen.

If you have your tinfoil hat on, you might even think that there may be some folks in our own government that maybe encouraged him to do it, in hopes that it would go down like this. New World Order, Masons, or something.

But with my tinfoil hat off, I just think it's fucked up.

[Doc]

The quote will be something like:

The "war on terrorism" is different than others and that's why we must destroy constitutional rights so we can be sloppy as we want to be.

And empty promises that it will only be applied to 'terrorists'. 🙁

[Josh]

Is Reuters good enough?

Much better, thanks.

I think your summary's a bit misleading and makes the expansion seem like a done deal, which, if it has to go through the Judiciary Committee still I think it probably isn't. The "I quit!" comments in the thread so far seem to attest to that as well.

[Jennifer]

I still harbor a vague hope that once the Bush administration goes away our liberties will be restored and this will all seem like a bad fever dream, but I don't think it will happen. I think "the land of the free" and the idea of a constitutional republic in this country are both dying.

I'm so depressed I can't even think of a snarky sarcastic comment to make.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"The subpoenas are only supposed to be used for terrorism or clandestine intelligence cases."

So there. You all are just a bunch of whiney little girls. Our federal masters are only interested in going after foreign terrorists who hide in our population.

Except for citizens who might be supporting those terrorists..

That includes drug dealers. Because the illegal drug trade supports terrorism...

oh yeah, and also users of illegal drugs. Because they support the drug dealers who support terrorism..

So we're only talking about a few million people who are affected here. Tops. You all need to calm down.

[SR]

"Was Bin Laden savvy enough to anticipate that if he did a spectacular terrorist attack, it would send us down the road to the end of our constitutional republic?"

Actually, he was. On October 21, 2001 (yes, four days **before** the PATRIOT Act was passed), bin Laden did an interview in Afghanistan with al-Jazeera and said the following:

"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed," bin Laden said as the U.S. war on terrorism raged in Afghanistan. "The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/gen.binladen.interview/

This has to be one of the least reported news items from the "War on Terror".

[Brian]

SR - wow, good find. I don't think I've ever seen that.

I'm sure he hoped we'd do something like invade Iraq, but I wasn't sure domestic american politics was even on his radar.

[Franklin Harris]

If the terrorists hate us for our freedom, then the terrorists have won.

[R C Dean]

Not to interrupt the hysteria or anything, but don't forget that this would have to go through Specter and Leahy's Judiciary Committee first.

Yeah, those pillars of political strength are sure weigh in on the side of the angels.

I think "the land of the free" and the idea of a constitutional republic in this country are both dying.

Dead and buried Jennifer. The Raich opinion is the autopsy report.

I wouldn't blame the Bushies and the WOT so much as New Deal and the Drug War. Those are what truly killed the idea of limited government in this country. The PATRIOT Act is nothing more than a warmed-over drug war wish list, after all. Yeah, the Bush administration deserves every kick in the teeth anyone cares to dish out for the crappy way it has handled the domestic side of the war with the Islamists, but nothing you complain of would have happened if the ground hadn't been thoroughly prepared for decades.

[phocion]

I don't know if I'd go so far as calling this development "an unbearable hell and a choking life", but it sucks.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Joking aside, I refuse to believe all of this was contrived by a group of sub-human filth living in a cave. I remember reading an interview with OBL where he expressed delighted surprise that the towers went down. All they wanted to do was attack the buildings. The fact that there was extreme carnage and destruction was frosting on their cake.

Also, total oppression from the top down is all these people understand. I doubt the eroding of our core constitutional principals is something they even understand, much less intended.

[Jennifer]

I suppose you're right, RC. The seeds mean nothing if the soil's no good.

Jesus, I seriously can't shake this blue funk I'm in.

[BattleAx]

Mr. Nice Guy ---
Alas, the eroding of our liberties is what has happened. Who is more of a threat to freedom, Osama bin Laden, or the U.S. Government? We know the answer, but know one has the balls to say it.

[SR]

"Also, total oppression from the top down is all these people understand. I doubt the eroding of our core constitutional principals is something they even understand, much less intended."

You forget that bin Laden lived in the West for a number of years and is fluent in English (as are several other top al-Qaeda members). The fact that he didn't think the WTC would actually collapse is not evidence that he didn't understand the likely socio-political effect of the attack. (And again, it's worth pointing out that his quote about freedom being doomed pre-dates the PATRIOT Act, so he wasn't merely keying off public reaction to its passage.)

[Mike_twincities]

This is it.

It's now to the point where I'm getting afraid to even discuss terrorism in public. Who knows who's listening?

Our rights are done-for. Mr. Washington, sir, we're sorry, but your 200 year experiment has failed.

Live free, fight or fall.

[phocion]

Jennifer,

You have to see the unrestrained growth of government power as the normal, expected chain of events in an old republic. It's not even a Bush thing, a Republican thing, a two-party thing, or an American thing. Just expect it and don't let it ruin your whole attitude. Any little detour away from that is an unexpected, anomalous joy. Moving a notch forward on that path to tyranny is just par for the course, no reason to slit wrists. And like RC has said, I don't get the impression that the Patriot Act is a whole new paradigm. In fact, it evolves in a rather straightforward way from the government powers that have been granted before it.

If you look at the sum of human history thus far, or even just look around the world, living in America 2005 ain't very bad at all. In fact, up until now, I struggle to think of a time and place I'd rather live in. And you and I will probably be dead and buried before things start to get really oppressive around here. The FBI can get a peek at some records now. We'll live. It sucks, but we'll live.

And there is a ray of hope. For every piece of freedom and choice the government takes away, technology has a way of granting us one more. The power of the government is growing, but the power of the individual is growing too. I'm not positive we're losing the race. Don't forget it.

[Chris]

I think OBL probably predicted SOME civil liberties would be lost. But I still wonder why Al Qaeda hasn't hit again within the US? It's been years and within has done nothing (that might directly spook Joe Americans in the homeland). We know they are here. Even some small bombs, randomly distributed, would be enough to maintain the big hysteria.

[Lowdog]

RC is absolutely right about the PATRIOT Act just being an expansion of drug war wishes for the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies.

That's why when they say it'll only be used for terrorists, I have to laugh. If you look at how long they've been pining for the sneak-and-peak shit, making financial institutions spy on us, etc, you wouldn't be surprised either.

[phocion]

Chris,

Clearly, it's because of the PATRIOT Act.

(Don't flame me, it was a joke!)

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Chris:

I wonder the same thing. (Duck under desk) even though I think our aggression overseas has knocked these douchebags off-balance, it really wouldn't take much for one of these animals to set off a bomb at a shopping mall, or even go on a spree with a rifle.. and then we would all collapse again wetting our panties and crying for big daddy to protect us.

Is the secret police really doing that great of a job?

[Stevo Darkly]

I may have to take up posting this same damn quote every month. It's just too appropriate:

"Don't destroy our town to save it. Remember how the West saw off the Stalinists and the Islamists. The fun-loving, freedom-loving decadent West undermined and subverted its enemies by making them be like itself, not by becoming grim and hard and serious like them. Those who had the most laughs had the last laugh."

-- from The Star Fraction, a science fiction novel by Ken MacLeod, looking back to our present

[rafuzo]

The government's been steadily, significantly eroding the civil liberties of people trying to make a living for themselves for years. But it's not until they expand police powers for the actual police types (FBI, ATF, INS) that people REALLY get uppity.

And conversely, where the fuck was the ACLU when people started getting extorted by the IRS?

[Evan Williams]

"Bush urged lawmakers to disregard what he called "unfair criticisms of this important good law." He said the Patriot Act has been used to bring charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half have been convicted. He also said it has been used to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia and Florida.

"For the state of our national security, Congress must not rebuild a wall between law enforcement and intelligence," he said to an audience that included roughly 100 uniformed state troopers at the Ohio Patrol Training Academy.

That's rich. So, his "logic" go a li'l sumfin like dis: The Patriot Act has been in place for a few years. We've prosecuted 200+ so-called terrorists since it's been in place. Therefore, the Patriot Act is responsible for stopping 200+ terrorists. Dang, you don't even need a 1000-level language & logic course to know that that's a blatant fallacy. I'd love to slap his smarmy ass in the face for every little smug idiot comment he makes that is obviously bullshit.

And what's more, he claims that allowing the constitution to reign in the overreaching powers of the state, and letting certain clauses sunset (like they were specifically designed to do, to prevent permanent abatement of civil liberties), is tantamount to "building a wall between law enforcement and intelligence"? Oh, come the fuck ON! Since when did "letting law enforcement & intelligence communicate" mean "wiping their collective dirty asses with the constitution"?

This is our president, folks...step right up! Marvel at his complete and utter delusion! Witness his extraordinary lack of logical reasoning! Watch as he spouts all sorts of nonsense to further the neos' agenda!

[quasibill]

"The fact that he didn't think the WTC would actually collapse is not evidence that he didn't understand the likely socio-political effect of the attack."

As a partial aside to the discussion about OBL and his expectations, there's an interesting story on LRC about the "tough questions" not being asked about how the towers fell. In short, the engineering explanation currently accepted doesn't fit the facts very well, and requires a total re-working of engineering fundamentals. Occam's razor makes one doubt the veracity of the current theory. In other words, OBL couldn't have expected the actual result (the collapses), because no solid engineering principles can explain it now, much less could have predicted it then.

I tend not to believe the conspiracy aspect of the story, but the fact that these questions are being virtually ignored does give me pause to ponder, WTF?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

quasibill:

I think the whole WTC deal is pretty similar to the Titanic. Even though engineers built those structures with particular events in mind, improbable circumstances and simple human error still brought them down.

Keep in mind that those scum also crashed a plane into the Pentagon, and it didn't do dick (relatively).

[joe]

quasibill,

The blast tore the insulation off the steel beams, and the fire heated them until they became brittle and unable to support the structure's weight.

What is it about that explanation that smells funny to you?

[gaius marius]

You have to see the unrestrained growth of government power as the normal, expected chain of events in an old republic. It's not even a Bush thing, a Republican thing, a two-party thing, or an American thing. Just expect it and don't let it ruin your whole attitude.

agreed, mr phocion -- populist democracy is rather a late-phase development of republics, and usually shortly precedes their collapse into tyranny. but i think it's a bit larger than that.

i don't think it coincidental that britain and australia are having similar (if a bit more quiescent) episodes of authoritarianism emergent from their lower houses and executives. the rule of law is declining in western civilization more broadly, under the force of abstract ideas (such as Popular Democracy).

germany was rather a leader in this process; now enough time has passed for the more institutional and empirical nations of the west to have eroded sufficiently to allow law to be commonly circumvented 'in the name of the people', for the 'safety' of an alternately scared and apathetic proletariat.

[gaius marius]

requires a total re-working of engineering fundamentals.

um, no. 🙂

[wellfellow]

I'm with Jennifer. Totally depressed. And Gaius, you're not helping.

[gaius marius]

The fun-loving, freedom-loving decadent West undermined and subverted its enemies by making them be like itself, not by becoming grim and hard and serious like them.

that's a brilliant quip of fiction, mr darkly -- but i submit that things will probably go the other way round. this isn't the first time a decadent civilization has succumbed to overstretch less by the expansion of its territory than the contraction of the attractive force of its philosophy and creativity. the west is decadent -- and its obvious to those on the periphery. it doesn't anymore produce a steady flow of great art or great philosophy or great leadership or great enterprises. it is selfish, self-obsessed, amoral and without direction -- and, worse, afraid.

that fear is driving us to collect by coercive force those resources which we once volunteered us by persuasion and charisma. we're creating toynbee's universal state.

[gaius marius]

you're not helping.

oop -- sorry. i'm looking for an url link to a picture of butterflies or something shiny... 😉

[R C Dean]

But I still wonder why Al Qaeda hasn't hit again within the US?

I suspect its mostly because they have been fighting for their lives, and losing, back in the Mideast. Rather than nipping the shoots off the branches of the AQ terror network here in the West, we are hacking at its roots and trunk back where they live. That has always been the only possible winning strategy, IMO, if we can manage to pair it with some halfway successful reform in the Mideast.

[Jennifer]

I think Al-Qaeda hasn't attacked again because they don't NEED to. Look what has happened after their first attack! Our military's bogged down to the point where it would be all but useless if a real threat against us appeared; we've lost serious respect in the community of nations, and as another Mike has pointed out, it looks like our grand experiment in democracy and limited government is dying if not already dead. Yes, we still have the trappings of a big, rich, strong nation, but it's like the oak tree that looks strong and healthy from the outside but is completely rotted from within; it's just a matter of time before its weakness becomes impossible to ignore.

So why SHOULD Al-Qaeda attack us again? What possible remaining goals could they have that an attack might meet?

[Unclaimed Mysteries]

I am not a Revolutionary, but as The Official Bookie of the Revolution(SM), I try to incorporate these kinds of developments into my knowledge product solutions. Lately, I just can't keep up with the breathtaking, spiraling descent into post-Constitutionalism. As a result, the CRISWELL MACHINE will be offline for several days as I give it much-needed hardware and software upgrades. In the meantime, I PREDICT:

1) Kent State-like tragedy, but deadlier: 2009. No one will sing about it except Toby Keith who will have a Number One pop/C&W hit with a song celebrating the demise of the "traitors within."

2) "Freedom Card" National ID: pushed back to 2008, allowing Congresspeople another year to get richer from competing contractors such as I.G.Far-ERRR-I mean Oracle.

3) Over/under for the revolution remains November 2016.

DISCLAIMER: These dire predictions are for entertainment purposes only.

[RandyAyn]

To all the people dismayed by the concentration of power in Washington and the erosion of our civil liberties it's time for a really stinging bitch-slap:

You know there is only one way to reverse these ominous trends and restore constitutional discipline to our government, and that is to elect representatives who respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those people are called Libertarians, and they desperately need your support.

Let me ask you:

Are you giving all the money you can afford to local, state, and national Libertarian candidates?

Are you as vocal as you could be in support of these candidates (and I don't mean here at Hit & Run, I mean somewhere where it counts like in letters to the editor, or small freelance pieces in the local newspaper)?

Are you as vocal as you could be in opposing encroachments to our liberty and expansion of state power? (Again not here, I mean someplace like the Topeka Capitol Journal or the Des Moines Register or any of a number of local newspapers, where there are people reading who have never even heard of these concerns)?

Have you considered running for office as a Libertarian?

Finally, the most important question: Are you still voting Demopublican or Republicrat? If so, why? Both of these parties just fucking love the Drug War. They both voice overwhelming support for the Patriot Act. At the core, they are finger-wagging, rights-snatching statist elites who are so out of touch with reality that they think it's ok to make Angel Raich live the rest of her (what will no doubt be a much shorter) life in agonizing and excruciating pain so they don't have to admit that their precious War on Drugs has abysmally failed.

If you vote either R or D from now on, you are part of the problem, and you have no right to bitch.

While we still have something left to fight for, get off your asses and vote Libertarian, run for office and speak out to people who don't already agree with you.

[End of Bitch Slap, Continue to Commiserate]

[gaius marius]

they haven't attacked because they haven't. when they try, they will fail, probably most of the time. but they will be undeterred and ultimately successful in some proportion of attempts. just wait. over our lifetimes, we will witness several iterations of this process, i suspect.

as for roots and trunk, i'd suggest that we're doing nothing of the kind. there are no roots and trunk. we like to think we are -- sleep better at night, maybe, some of us -- but i doubt we've even significantly impacted AQ.

[thoreau]

I realize that a lot of damage has been done to Al Qaeda in overseas operations, but I am truly surprised that they haven't even been able to get a couple guys to set off some small bombs in suburban malls. I realize that such an operation wouldn't be nearly as devastating as a massive 9/11 operation, but it would be just as effective at sowing fear in the population.

If they only make big strikes on big targets, then your typical American can tell himself that he's safe as long as he stays away from airports and downtown areas of big cities, and various other big symbolic targets. Just enjoy life in suburbia and you'll be fine.

But if they set off a few simultaneous bombs at suburban strip malls in the Midwest on a Saturday around noon, they would send a message that nobody is safe no matter where they are. It would be just as devastating to our national morale as a 9/11 attack, and it would probably foster even more acceptance for a police state.

I can't see such an operation being all that difficult compared with 9/11. However much disruption they might be facing overseas, I'm still shocked that they haven't mustered the meager resources needed to bomb some strip malls.

Since I'm skeptical that they lack the resources for it (I mean, look at the relatively low cost of McVeigh's attack), I suspect that the biggest factor holding them back is grandiose ambitions. They want to do something big and bold rather than something small but effective. Maybe Al Qaeda strategy meetings are a little bit like that scene from Austin Powers where Scott Evil just wants to shoot Austin, but Dr. Evil insists on putting him in an elaborate and easily escapable situation.

[dhex]

"that fear is driving us to collect by coercive force those resources which we once volunteered us by persuasion and charisma."

i must ask about this persuasion and charisma part.

[saw-whet]

"requires a total re-working of engineering fundamentals." Yeah that Isaac Newton guy was a real bonehead.

[jbk]

I suspect the reason there has been no AQ attack is that they are playing to the home audience, not us. They don't care what happens here; they are trying to take power in their homeland. The way to do that is to win in Iraq; turning the US into police state has no benefit to them.

They attacked us due to our foreign policy; they aren't even slightly interested in our domestic governing system.

[kmw]

But I still wonder why Al Qaeda hasn't hit again within the US? It's been years and within has done nothing (that might directly spook Joe Americans in the homeland).

Well, one has to wonder exactly what was behind John Mohammad's D.C. shooting attacks. It may not have been directly authorized by AQ, but who's to say Mohammad wasn't part of a sleeper cell?

At any rate, people were terrorized by it.

[gaius marius]

i mean, mr dhex, that once people found being a subordinate part of civilization the right thing to do. the people within mostly found their society admirable and righteous, the people without found it worth imitating. this was largely due to the compelling attractiveness of western creative culture.

that period of creativity and dynamism is fairly over -- and it shows in the increasingly cynical and dismissive views of western society by both the internal and external populations. of course, i'm not saying anything new.

[Mike_twincities]

I am but one person in a sea of democrats and some republicans (More so democrats, I live in Minneapolis, they call themselves 'DFLrs' up here.)

These people have no concept of freedom and limited government. In fact, I will go so far as to say that they fear true freedom and limited government. These people embrace, absolutely embrace, the nanny state.

What would happen if we tried to take all that away? Really, think logically, what would really happen?

It's called a civil war.

I am a libertarian, more closely a market-anarchist, and I strongly beleive in Hayek and Rothbard, et al. But, ask yourself, what is the real outcome going to be if we elect a libertarian president?

The problem is people, too, not just the gubmint. If we want to win, we need to start small, one mind at a time and then work our way up.

Forgive the soapbox, I'm sure it will be flaming soon.

Live free, fight or fall.

[RandyAyn]

Mike_twincities,
I get your point, and yes I agree that it would be disastrous to elect a Lib president prior to building up the support for that by electing members of Congress.

But that's not the way to do it. What we need to do is actively support state and local candidates with an eye towards grooming one or more of them to run for the House.

All it will take is for one Libertarian to make it, and then one of the major stumbling blocks (unelectability) will be removed from our path. Of course other, self-imposed stumbling blocks (like presidential candidates who, even jokingly, mention blowing up the UN) will still remain.

The only clear path out of this morass is replacing the Patriot Act lovers with Patriots. And to do that we cannot vote R or D, we cannot just sit here in Church and preach to the choir, and we must get off our butts and do the hard work that it will take to build this party up to the point where we can shoot this shit down when it comes up for a vote, and not rely on the Supremes to save us.

[A. Gonzales]

Oh look, you guys are all on my list! Well it saves me the time of adding you to it.

Don't worry, we'll get to each of you in time... Just keep on arguing amongst yourselves until then.

[crimethink]

Are you giving all the money you can afford to local, state, and national Libertarian candidates?

I've given some serious money to the LP in the past, but I now consider it all wasted. The LP rivals the political arm of the pro-life movement for sheer ineptitude.

Of course, the difference is that we pro-lifers have been duped by the Republicans, whereas the LP has duped itself. With the nomination of Badnarik, they confirmed their intent to forever be a joke, and I don't pay for that kind of comedy.

[crimethink]

The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, said he supported the measure, even though he criticized the new subpoena power as overly broad.

"The use of this new subpoena power should be the exception, not the rule. Regrettably, the bill places no such restriction on the issuance of administrative subpoenas," Rockefeller said in a statement.

Then why the hell did you vote for it?!

[quasibill]

from LRC:

" First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia?s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC"

in other words, (and explained in more detail in the story) - the story about extreme heat causing the structural deformation doesn't conform to what is currently known about large steel structures. The theory is one that is arrived at by starting with the assumption that only the attack caused the collapse.

This article makes sense to me because a local university, which is world renowned for its structural steel engineering expertise, has a few professors which I am (remotely) acquainted with. Immediately after 9/11 they wanted to know, fervently, what caused the collapse in such a quick, neat fashion - they'd been trying to improve demolition techniques for a while and felt that somehow this crash held some answers for a radical new understanding. Haven't seen them in a while, so don't know what they're doing now, and in fact, I had forgotten all about it until I read the article this morning.

Again, I don't buy into the conspiracy aspects, but science is about questioning assumptions, and at this point there seem to be ALOT of assumptions in this study.

[quasibill]

AQ hasn't attacked US (note that they have attacked other western countries) because they are methodical and go for big hits. Even then, they fail more often than not - the neos like to paint them as some highly sophisticated espionage outfit. The truth is far more mundane. Watch the HBO special about the first WTC bombing in 93. You'll come away understanding that the only entity that is probably more inept than the terrorists is our federal government.

Iraq has nothing to do with it - the ones with an international focus are ignoring, except as a good recruiting ground for the suicide fodder. Other than that, it's just the local schmucks who are mucking things up in Iraq - they wouldn't have made the effort to attack us abroad, but as long as we're making our guys attractive local targets, they'll take their shots...

[quasibill]

just a little more:

"The 1991 Meridian Plaza fire burned for 19 hours and the fire was so extreme that flames came from dozens of windows on many floors. It did not collapse."

" Second, severe structural damage to the WTC towers would have required fires that were not only large but growing throughout the buildings and burning for a considerable period of time. None of these conditions was present. "The lack of flames is an indication that the fires were small, and the dark smoke is an indication that the fires were suffocating," points out Hufschmid (p. 35). Eyewitnesses in the towers, as well as police and firefighters, reported (pp. 199?200) the same thing."

Finally -

"Perhaps acknowledging the lack of direct evidence for its conjectures, the NIST admits that "a full collapse of the WTC floor system would not occur even with a number of failed trusses or connections" and it "recognizes inherent uncertainties" (pp. 110 and 112)."

In other words, even if you believe that the impact debris took off the fireproofing (which I can buy) - the fires were not hot enough, nor did they burn long enough to cause the damage that was caused in the Meridian fire, which did not cause any collapse, let alone the free-fall collapse (in place!) that the WTC suffered. And even if they had, and coupled with the damage caused by the crash, the redundant load bearing capacity should have been enough.

More questions, please. Scientists and engineers should always ask more questions. Especially about implicit assumptions.

[Not David]

Echoing crimethink. The LP candidates for office around my parts have been laughers. Anyone who is a serious candidate for office, who wants to do what it takes to provide meaningful public service, sees that the LP is not going to get anybody elected anytime soon, and so they either go to a major party or they don't bother at all. And so it's a vicious cycle. No third party has risen up in this country to become one of the two major parties since the 1850s, and in a winner-take-all electoral system I see no hope for a stable system of more than two parties. The only possibilities for real change I see are (1) a realignment of the major parties or (2) an issue arising as divisive as slavery was in 1854 that would propel a third party to prominence. Either way, all we can do is keep spreading the word and fighting with the pen and hope the moment arives sooner rather than later. And that it doesn't lead to the sort of bloodshed the last realignment did.

[Randolph Carter]

Disenfranchisement and cynicism are running high among a lot of college students blah blah blah... I actually think we may be entering a strange new world in the next three decades. I forget who first posited the idea, but it goes like this: There are types of people, neophiliacs and neophobes. Eventually there will be some sort of civil war between the neophobes (clinging violently to the past) and the neophiliacs (looking forward to the future). This isn't some sort of Neitzchean ubermensch thing, but more of a struggle between those who can't or don't want to change and those who do. The scared, childish people who cling to the gov't as is will probably win (they will have the full force of the government behind them), but the whole thing can be avoided if the neophiliacs get outta dodge. I remember a RAW novel where they all went to the moon or something. Anyways, barring the colonization of wild new planets, I'd say there's a large-scale conflict looming in the near future.

[Rick Barton]

Jeeze you guys, don't despair. Fight back! Each of us should contact our representative and senators and tell them that not only should they not expand the Patriot Act, they should let the sections that are set to expire, do so. If we won't fight to restrict our over-reaching government, who will? Please take the time. Our liberty and that of our children may depend on our taking action now.

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

ACLU Patriot Act site:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207

[gaius marius]

science is about questioning assumptions

which is fair, mr quasibill. and not everything is known about the material properties of all steel everywhere. but the conspiracy theories assume that this couldn't have happened knowing what we know. i assure you, it can and did.

there's a great deal of naivite in the general public about strucutral engineering. most people seem to think that large structures are monolithic and indestructible in accordance to their size. not so. buildings are fragile, and struggle even to maintain their own weight and profile against gravity and wind.

removing only a few key components of virtually any structure can violate structural redundancy and cause it to collapse -- if they're all removed at the same time. steel of course loses strength with higher temperatures, and high enough temperatures in enough places at once eventually caused the load to overwhelm the materials in the remaining structure.

The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

if the planes had hit some floors higher, the structure may not have failed at all, because the load above the weakened structural points would have been less.

so the situation was unprecedented in this sense, but not revising what is known about materials. nor was it universally surprising. this quote from dr thomas eager says it all, imo:

The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.

[sshields]

Also, total oppression from the top down is all these people understand. I doubt the eroding of our core constitutional principals is something they even understand, much less intended.

I think the thinking is more along the lines of: you export oppression long enough, eventually you want to use some of it domestically.

The fact is that the White House has more discretionary direct power abroad than it does at home, and has been exercising that power continuously since shortly after World War II.

When you have a group of people who want to change the world, small surprise that they'd want to bring the effective bits home, no?

[Stevo Darkly]

Stevo said (actually, quoted from the novel The Star Fraction):
---
"Don't destroy our town to save it. Remember how the West saw off the Stalinists and the Islamists. The fun-loving, freedom-loving decadent West undermined and subverted its enemies by making them be like itself, not by becoming grim and hard and serious like them. Those who had the most laughs had the last laugh."

Mr. Gaius Marius said:

"that's a brilliant quip of fiction, mr darkly -- but i submit that things will probably go the other way round. this isn't the first time a decadent civilization has succumbed to overstretch less by the expansion of its territory than the contraction of the attractive force of its philosophy and creativity. "

Fortunately, it's not just a fictional quote, but a reference to real history. The West did see off the Stalinists, when the Russians decided they were really tired of waiting hours in line to buy toilet paper and rotten cabbage, and wanted Levi's instead.

[joe]

quasibill,

First, none of those other fires included dumping (almost) the entire fuel load of a passenger jet into the structure.