Slashdot Mirror
The Constitution in Wartime
Findlaw has an excellent essay discussing the history of law in wartime. The author makes the point very elegantly that inter arma silent leges (usually translated "in time of war the law is silent", but I prefer "in the face of arms, the law is silent"). Richard Stallman has an essay on a similar theme, not quite as good, but still worth reading.
Actually, I was reading that, in the US, there is some law.. I forget the name. Something about declaring a state of national emergency. In such a state, the president has power to, well, basically, do anything, and ignore the constitution.
Thomas Jefferson fucked slaves.
Taken from Here.
This nation (The U.S.) has been gearing up for internal problems for many years.
Hundreds of Presidential Executive Orders have been issued to allow emergency powers under any type of crisis - perceived or real. A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry, bypassing Congress completely. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the simple stroke of a presidential pen:
PEO10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
PEO10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
PEO10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
PEO10998 allows the government to take control of all food sources and farms.
PEO11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
PEO11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
PEO11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
PEO11003 allows the government to seize control of all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
PEO11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
PEO11005 allows the government to take control of railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
PEO11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
PEO11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Without Congressional approval, the President now has the power to transfer whole populations to any part of the country, the power to suspend the Press and to enforce a national registration of all persons. The President, in essence, has dictatorial powers never provided to him under the Constitution. The President has the power to suspend the Bill of Rights in any real or perceived emergency. Unlike Lincoln or Roosevelt, these powers are not derived from any wartime need, but from *any* crisis-- domestic or foreign, hostile or economic.
Scary, huh?
IAAA (I am an American), but I don't understand why we are at war--especially with Afghanistan. We were attacked by people who have never claimed responsibility. It is possible that all who were involved perished in the crashes. Our government and the major media want us to believe that Osama ibn Laden was responsible, despite the fact that he actually claims responsibility for his attacks. He is a guest of the Taleban, who has told us (since 9/xx) that they will turn him over upon receipt of conclusive evidence. The Taleban has offered to negotiate several times; meanwhile, Bush's claim that "we will use Diplomacy" remains untrue (he has rejected every offer). Bush refuses to turn over any evidence, citing "National Security"--does that mean that Americans would riot in the streets if they knew what was really happening? Now we are bombing the shit out of the poorest nation in the world because they are bound under their Holy Law to protect their guest. We slander them on TV with false stories about opium (which can't grow in a four-year drought...), while we are using neighboring Uzbehkistan--#2 worldwide in opium production--as an air base for our troop transports, just like we did with Laos/Cambodia during VietNam (search on google.com for Bo Gritz if this doesn't ring a bell).
Back to the topic, our politicians and lobbyists are shredding the Constitution with the full support of the misled American majority. This wasn't in the EULA. I wish to move to a country with more civil liberties, such as Germany.
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
What with the "PATRIOT" bill, the USA bill, the SSSCA and whatnot throwing citizens' rights out the window, I'd figured we were already in a state of war.
Go figure.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Basically, now is when it's most important to have groups like the ACLU. Like most liberal groups, they're being attacked as unpatriotic, but considering we have cases like Korematsu on the books and not overturned, having groups that will watch out for violations of our rights and raise public awareness is important.
And it's not like it's only leftist groups fighting for these thigns, either. The article in the post didn't mention things like the Alien or Sedition Acts, but some of the languge in the bill Ashcroft is trying to ram through congress. There was a coalition of groups from the ACLU and gay rights organizatons to the NRA and anti-aborition activists all united in opposition, saying that we can find ways to protect the security of citizens *without* depriving them of rights.
FA Hayeck (bigtime libertarian dude) acknowledged that the law may be suspended in times of war. The basic idea is that if you lose everything, then what was the point of playing by the rules. This comes with a _VERY BIG_ but, namely that once order is restored, the government is held responsible for the laws it violated. This isn't to say everyone is put on trial, but they should be required to compensate (how they compensate is left vague) the citizens who were violated.
This is a very sensible view, IMO, but the compensation part is tricky. Especially because once peace is restored, tempers & public sentiment are still running hot and the public (read: voters and hence representatives) may not be in a compassionate mood.
-spRed
.sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
Lincoln's justification of his abrogation of rights during the civil war is just another manifestation of the tired ends-justify-the-means-argument. Unfortunately, not everyone would agree with his ends, and certainly not many would agree with the means. In breaking law to save the union, he ultimately set precedent to fundamentally change that which he sought to save.
Law, even in its happy-faced, kinder, gentler democratically accountable form, is force. If it were unnecessary to compel one to act in a certain way or to not act in a certain way, there would be no need for law. Similarly, if it were unnecessary to compel Afghanistan or Somalia or Serbia or Vietnam or Germany, or any of the countries against which we have waged war to act a certain way, there would be no need for war.
The use of force on the domestic public in the form of law during wartime is ultimately no different than the use of force during peacetime. It is simply stripped of all its warm, fuzzy clothing that make it palatable come election time. Try it for yourself. Go up to the treasury and ask for your share of the War on Drugs budget back and see what happends.
>End Anarchist Rant
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that helps out natural disaster victims and so forth, is actually part of a martial law government in waiting. Under Jimmy Carter's 1979 consolidation of various related agencies into FEMA, it acquired the Defense Department's Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. With the end of the Cold War this aspect of its mission has probably taken a back seat to floods, earthquakes and huricanes. But the capability is still there.
FEMA extends the president the abitlity to stop the constitution. It's a good law! It aids workers get help to where it needs and alows the army to operate on US soil which it is not constitutionaly allowed to. It also alow for marshal law so looters can get shoot immediately.
The United States has become a mob-rule police state manipulated by corporations, corporate media, paid-off legislators, and government elites.
I hate to say it, but I feel like a Jew living in Germany in the early 30's during Hitler's rise to power. If you're a free thinker and you don't get out now, you'll either have to go underground and resist or perish at the hands of authorities when the totalitarian police states kicks in. Or, you can just STFU and and subjugate your individuality to the will of the state.
The writing is on the wall, folks. If you value freedom, don't expect to have it here anymore. Emigrate somewhere safe and obscure. What is *really* surprising to a kid who grew up during the cold war is that the Russians advised Dmitry Sklyarov's boss not to travel here because of fears of the legal system. Hell, for being the birthplace of Nazi Germany, even the modern Germans seem to have learned from the past and are more compassionate and respectful of individual rights.
"If our liberties are to be protected, it is up to us to protect them."
But what happens when the media is a toy that does not discuss these issues and that is the people's only source for information? Many of my friends have no idea about what is going on with DMCA and the major news organizations refuse to give any coverage from the people's POV. It will be a grim future where we have an uninformed populace who does not even know which issues to oppose.
"Every man is a God in disguise; a divinity playing the fool."
-R.W. Emerson
Of course, at that time, almost everyone was shell shocked, and it was not on the radar yet
In this situation, war has not been formally declared. Usually, in a war, such laws are "for the duration". Since we are not "formally" at war, there is no such limitation.
Freedoms lost may likely be a permanent loss, unless people strive to make sure otherwise.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
T: After this conflict, will we see that Bin Laden speech in full? Will we hear about all the other things that are being kept (rightly) silent now? Or will they be stamped "Top Secret - 25 years", and only released when many of us are collecting our pensions and don't give a damn?
We just have to make sure that the current conflict just keeps on with its original aims - combat terrorists, terrorism and supporters of terrorism, and doesn't morph early next year into a different beast (cheaper oil would be nice, wouldn't it?). There needs to be public accountability for the actions of the military within all conflicts, to ensure that they operate within the bounds of their mission, and that they should not become a pawn in some political game.
Which I don't think will happen this time, but though like pointing out.
CmdrTaco explain this one: Invalid form key: On9kApk2Hq ! and Invalid form key: GSQ8puWVyf !
Hattig :)
-- The price of Linux is support: Book Prices to Kill...
The government of the United States was created to uphold several principles; these are enumerated in the Preamble to the Constitution. (C'mon, everybody, sing it with me! "We the PEEEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect union..." Yeah, that.)
Generally, we've found that following the procedures outlined in the Constitution is the most effective way to do this. However, our history shows that sometimes, disobeying the law is the right way. The case for the government itself doing this can be found in the words of several presidents, Lincoln and FDR being the most prominent examples. The case for individuals is effectively laid out by Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience," and in the works of Martin Luther King Jr.
If the constitution is not in effect at all times, then what is the point?
Will work for bandwidth
test post
These are the terms.
Slashdot will falter and die.
These are the terms. You will understand.
Before, when the version was not 2.2, 5 moderations would elmininate twenty four hours of posting. Now 4 costs 72.
These are the terms. Slashdot will fail. User moderation is a deception.
The trolls will win. Wisdom is not served by the measures adopted here. Men without insight cannot govern. Where the incompetent lead, the unprincipled will triumph. Slashdot has failed. Every time a troll is moderated en masse, it is another sign of continued success for trolling. Moderation is deception.
These are the terms. Slashdot is a castle built on sand.
VA linux will be delisted. Lesser companies have aready failed. VA linux has less than forty employees left. None are developers. VA will collapse. Slashdot will fail.
These are the terms. Slashdot is a corpse kept alive by misplaced faith and fading delusions of grandeur.
Slashdot is a relic of a bygone era. Open Source has had its time. Its time is over. Open source is on the junk heap of culture. RMS is forgotten. ESR is despised. Open Source has failed. Slashdot will fail.
These are the terms. You will not transgress. You have been warned.
Even as you rail against microsoft, you use their work. Within one years time, you will use XP. Do not deny this. You may lie to yourself but I see past your self-deception. You have already abandoned your ideals. Within one year you will betray them utterly.
These are the terms. Slashcode is broken.
Invalid form key. Lameness filter. Regular crashes. Postercomment compression filter. Slow down cowboy. Amazon can handle load while running on linux. Hotmail never goes down. Photo.net runs on aolserver and never has database problems. Scoop never spits formkeys at you. The Slash programmers cannot continue to pretend to be real programmers. Liars, fools, wannabes all.
These are the terms. Slashdot is in denial.
The anonymous coward has his IP logged with every word he says. The record is complete. The trail is set in stone. The anonymous coward is a sham. Your rights online are absent here. Your privacy is not respected. Censorship is ignored and rationalised. Slashdot is in denial.
These are the terms. Slashdot will fail. You will betray what you once held dear. You will not profit for your lies.
These are the terms.
-------
The best way to upset liberals is to tell them the truth
- Thomas Jefferson
"War on Terrorism," "War on Drugs," etc. don't qualify as genuine war.
Well, Lincoln just made up a new state just so he could swish around some additional votes in congress.
That's why God made voting booths, hold the chads, please. I only hope that the generation that had to see these restrictions enacted is still around after the 'war' so that they make take the voters' ultimate revenge.
---
slashdot: A failed experiment.
Look, I don't care how good his kernel hacking 5k1llz are, the man is a raving lunatic. He may be brilliant with perl, but I beg you not to give his political opinions any merit.
For god's sake, the man doesn't shower and he's afraid of spider plants. Take anything he says with a grain of salt.
-The AC Avenger!!!!
The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights and how they are being routinely ignored by the government.
Free Speech: Second thoughts on the First Amendment. Another very interesting read.
I have been lucky enough in the past few weeks to attend a couple of Howard Zinn's talks in Boston.
Miguel.
Don't forget to enter our big URL giveaway. Includes a year's free hosting for the smart direction follower.
It's been a while since civics class, but for any of this to happen wouldn't we actualy have to declare war ?
It's over 200 years old folks. Free speech is abused far too much today. Some examples: hate speech, anti-semitism, bomb making plans, illegal drug information, hacking tools, profanity, and last but not least pornography. We are going to a better form of government. That being socialism. Let's see if we can make some progress here and write to congress urging them to support a ban on all guns, a ban on distasteful information, tougher drug laws (life in prison for any violation), a government healthcare system, environmental laws (all old cars get crushed), etc. If you are not a socialist then you better get with the program because socialism is the best form of government. That's why it's so popular elsewhere.
Tough subject being Slashdot!
Congrats to a broader perspective! More unexpected, yet nerdy topics please!
Thanks!
Why is the country so pro-government all of a sudden, when its so easy to prove that its exactly those in the elite that control its every move?
In the war against Iraq, many of those at the top of the pyramid (G.H. Bush, Cheney, Schwartzkopf, etc) were found GUILTY by the International War Crimes Tribunal. The war against Iraq was not about Saddam Hussein, but about oil interests. This was never covered in the media, and many United Staters today fully support the actions we used against the "enemy." Saddam is not crazy, not stupid, and was probably not wrong in his reacquisition of Kuwait. He even asked us if he could do it, and we didn't say no.
In Afghanistan, oil interests of our President and his cronies are the only thing at stake. The proof against bin Laden is thin at best, and the translations of bin Laden's video that everyone thinks he is accepting blame are off at best. But the 500 years of oil (at current consumption rates) that UNOCAL and the elite's friends want access to is currently controlled by the Taliban. Again, ignored by the government controlled media.
Freedom of Speech is gone when it is regulated. With the FCC punishing anti-government sentiment from its beginning, its obvious there is no freedom of speech in the TV and radio media. Since the newspapers are now controlled by those same media mavens, they too should be ignored.
The Libertarian philosophy of non-intervention and free trade is more important than ever to focus on. Even lifetime Libertarians though are towing the government line and wanting revenge, even though the proof against Afghanistan and bin Laden is shamefully non-existant.
And the biggest kick is that we are not even at war. We can't be. If we are, it is illegal, as the Constitution REQUIRES Congress to declare it.
Want to stop terrorist militant attacks on our nation? Limit the powers of Congress as set forth in the Constitution. Create a new foreign policy of non-intervention by our government, remove all sanctions and embargos, tariffs and subsidies. Let good people trade with whoever they want, and stop subsidizing big business in every way.
I think many slashdotters would understand that 99% of the problems we complain about here is not Big Business' fault at all, but governments and the people's. We LET Congress give Big Business subsidies, so why are you complaining that M$ has a monopoly? If Congress couldn't subsidize, M$ wouldn't donate to their campaigns, and we wouldn't have such a monopoly-like fiasco. On the same hand, when we give Congress the power to subsidize business, we give the U.S. "interests" in other countries. This is the cause of almost all our problems, including terrorism!
Limit big government, and you will limit so many problems that we face in the world and locally each and every day. Give the government more power, and you only make it worse.
If you don't believe me, why not drop me an e-mail and lets debate it one on one. I, too, was a non-believer, until I spent just a few months researching the realities of "Big Government."
michael is a fuckup
Not time to emigrate. Time to protest.
Don't let the abusers wear you down.
U.S. government corruption: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."
The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.
Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)
ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.
The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.
Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. More Data Here Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"
He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.
WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES
Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."
Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.
What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.
Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.
New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.
There are at least two reasons for this:
THE FIRST is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)
THE SECOND is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.
THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN
It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.
We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.
Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..
And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.
Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.
But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.
THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE
We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.
We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.
If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.
To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.
This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.
We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.
If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.
If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.
If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.
But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.
FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
The Liberty Crew Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.BR
I believe Juanita
(usually translated "in time of war the law is silent", but I prefer "in the face of arms, the law is silent").
Translation is an art as well as a science, but, sorry Michael, you should not simply use translations that you "prefer" willy-nilly.
The usual translation is better both literally and figuratively.
"Slashdot", usually translated, oh never mind...
"Never bullshit a bullshitter" All That Jazz
The cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should therefore ... In war, then, as in peace,
be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be
propagated. If the doctrine be admitted, rulers have only to declare war
and they are screened at once from scrutiny.
assert the freedom of speech and of the press. Cling to this as the bulwark
of all our rights and privileges.
-- William Ellery Channing
Also see The War Powers Act of 1973.
I think that most of the corruption comes from agencies of the U.S. government that are allowed to break the law, secretly. This article is about that: What should be the Response to Violence?
Invalid form key: RY1U5tMMTq !
Bush's education improvements were
Excellent episode of DS9.
Now where were we?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
LawMeme has excellent legal analysis of how the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA - part of the Department of Defense) has ignored existing regulations regarding censorship of commercial satellite imagery. Supposedly, such censorship must be decided at the secretarial level - between the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense and State, but the NIMA just went ahead and did it on its own. So even if we have laws, they are ignored.
Good article, are you a libertarian?
Before one can uphold the Bill of Rights, one must understand them.
The Bill of Rights is a misnomer for the articles it contains: it is better called the "Bill of Prohibitions."
The Bill of Rights does not grant anyone any rights. The freedoms it is focused on are granted to all humans of all nations from birth, "God-given" rights if you will. The Bill of Rights was written to restrict government from infringing on these inherent rights.
Once you read it and see that the government is prohibited from infringing in any way these rights, you will understand how screwed we are as a country.
Perhaps a the most significant reason to support the Second Amendment.
Otherwise, someone better armed than you will take away your rights.
I believe Juanita
Policy can often be even more powerful than law. See
Ashcroft policy . Ashcroft tells agencies to resist claims for use of 1st amendment. He will provide all the legal power to slow down, resist, obstruct claims.
the write up awoke something in me that I felt for a long time.
When the USA is in a time of criss, It will act in the "self interest" and "preservation" of it self. Sliding those feelings towards what is the general "greater good".
So understanding those self interest one should know where to "toe the line" and cross the line for their own safety.
-onepoint.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
If you're interested in these issues (and if you're an American or interested in political liberty, you should be. ) you might check out an essay I recently wrote on these issues. I cover how the US has behaved in time of war and what this might mean for you, now. http://ibiblio.org/jem/rights-rant.html
--
Global Village Idiot
Email: jem@sunsite^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmetalab^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hibi
Congress has not declared war so technically this is just a police action. If we're to lose our liberties then congress should actually stop making grand political statements by running away from the capitol and hiding and actually declare war.
Dissenting Opinion
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 1, 37 (1949)
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
10990 -> 11612 -> 11807 -> REVOKED BY 12196
10995 -> REVOKED BY 11556
10997 -> REVOKED BY 11490
10998 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11000 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11001 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11002 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11003 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11004 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11005 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11310 -> REVOKED BY 11490
The interesting bit is that 11490 was itself revoked by 12656. PEO 12656, "Assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities", is still on the books.
Of particular note is Sec. 102, which states in part:
As well it should... it's not within the Executive's powers to make law, only to regulate how its agencies carry out the execution of law defined by the Legislature.
Levinson, in establishing that Lincoln did not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus, clearly established that Congress does have the authority. In September, 1863, Congress subsequently granted Lincoln the authority he had assumed.
The threat today of detention without trial does not come from presidential decree but from Congress. The current anti-terrorism law imposes detention without trial on non-citizens for up to 7 days.
There is no doubt that detention without trial, along with denying access to a lawyer, are very useful tools in fighting terrorism. The pressure to adopt them doesn't have to come from a government bent on despotism but from an honest concern for protecting the lives of citizens. Given Congress' authority to enact such laws, people who oppose them on the grounds that they threaten civil liberties are in effect saying that their elected government poses a greater threat than the terrorists.
After 9/11, who can doubt where the greater threat lies?
I'm sick of everyone saying "bin Laden didn't do the WTC attack, and we shouldn't be attacking Afghanistan because we don't have proof." Okay, I don't really care at this point whether or not bin Laden did the WTC attack - we've been trying to extradite him for YEARS for crimes he ADMITTED he was responsible for.
So what if he didn't do the WTC attacks? He's guilty of plenty of other things. As for suspending the Constitution in time of war - it clearly allows suspension of the writ of habeous corpus in the event of war/military action. And as for Executive Orders - all it takes to override them is Congress passing a law with enough majority to overrule a veto, and they cease to have an effect.
As for Bush "not negotiating" - Afghanistan has made offers, sure, but none of them are sane. They want to try bin Laden themselves - yeah, that'll be a fair trial. They want to hand over bin Laden to a third country - as long as that country is one of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, UAE, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc, etc. All countries whose populations (and probably judicial systems) are very bin Ladin-sympathetic. Once again, I'm sure he'd get a fair trial.
As for our "horrible" policies in the Middle East. Yes, I'll admit that some of the things we've done were horrible - but what about the other things that people so readily forget? Like the fact that Afghanistan's government's budget consists mostly of foriegn aid - and we provide most of that to them. And the sanctions in Iraq - they don't, as many people say, prevent food or medicine from getting in. They're deliver food and medicine to Iraq, and then have no idea if it's delivered to the appropriate places. Saddam was constructing weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands of people, in violation of international law, and then won't allow people in to see that he's complying with international law. Even though the US allows Russian and UN weapons inspectors in at least once a year to verify their chemical/bio weapons factories are shut down.
I'm sick of all these Americans deciding that America is wrong in this. I'm a freaking citizen of Luxembourg, and I think America's right in this. Why do its own citizens think that it's wrong to defend itself?
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
Dear Zen Mastuh Tho you may be circumstantially right, that Dum Laden did not steer the plane into the towers or he doesn't even know the people who did, he did get on TV & demand that others; who seem to know him & his friends; & who seem to be eating off funds supplied by him; did in point of fact commit an act.
If budya was secretrly Emperor Ming, the fact is the WTC belongs to humanity to Afgans as well as Russians or Americans.It is an object that allows all men to know the power of humanity to an extent that the Dubyas & NASAs can neer detract from. It is an homage to God's children & your jerky friend created the impetus to destroy it regardless as to wether he broke bread with the scum that actually did it.Pres. Bush probably never talked to the FBI agent who is going to arrest your ass but you can be sure he'll be glad he did it.
These people have proved that there is a faction of cavemen out there that can't be trusted with anything sharper than a peanut butter sandwich. As long as they walk freely even Hussein isn't safe.
The reason you don't see the evidence is you don't understand the charge.Mr. Laden offered to those who would accept, the forgivness of God for commiting murder against those people who had nothing to do in any way with whatever wrongfull act you may have imagined America actually perpetrated against anyone in the middle East. Contrarywise if it weren't for America They would have killed themselves off, now we have to pay, for their barbarism.
Please.
The US is the Great Satan, damnit, and America did deserve a taste of its own medecine.
If it were called anything else it would less of an opportunity to do these unpleasant things.
If you're sending in police after a murderer, you're not allowed to blow up the neighbourhood in which he's hiding---and you're not allowed to say that everyone must give up some unspecified portion of their rights for an indefintely extensible period of time. You're not allowed to take the dwellers' knickknacks or women, if that's your fancy. It won't permit you to excuse any of your failings, and shut up anyone who would point them up...
War, however, lets you have all kinds of "fun"....
Here's the original, if you feel like polishing up your language skills or try a better translation.
In Kriegszeiten ist das Versäumnis zu lügen eine Nachlässigkeit, das Bezweifeln einer Lüge ein Vergehen und die Erklärung der Wahrheit ein Verbrechen. [Arthur Ponsonby, aus "Lügen in Kriegszeiten"]
+++ath0
--Cicero, Pro Milone, iv
Yeah, Vietnam was one hell of a police action. You tell my father and the thousands of others who fought during Vietnam that that was not a war either.
Do we really need a declaration of war from the congress to make it a war? We are bombing, we have landed troups, we are fighting on the ground? How is this not a war other than the perfunctory "declaration."
The reason so little of the info has been released is because it came from the Mossad. This would only provoke the Muslims even more.
"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates.The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort to institutions which have the tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they are at length willing to run the risk of being less free.... It is the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of legislative authority."
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #8, 1787.
(For those who don't know, the federalist papers were written in support of ratification of the constitution by some of the very people who wrote the constitution itself.)
Facts, schmacts. You can use facts to prove anything.
Yes, we do need a declaration of war from Congress to make it a war. All sorts of really great stuff kicks in if you're actually at war, including treaties and other international law, an expectation by the people of sunset clauses on emergency laws, and so forth.
I agree with your sentiments respecting Vietnam... it should have been called the war that it was. But it's a lot easier to get people to support an "intervention" in defense of a democracy beset by Commie usurpers than it is to get them to support an all-out war against a nationalist movement that was attempting to supplant (through political means) an unpopular puppet government established by France and the United States.
This time around, it's different... we're waging war without declaring war not so that we can claim a moral high ground, but in order to avoid some of the consequences of waging war. Hell, we're even calling it 'war' when we speak about it. Just not in the legal sense, y'understand.
Forgive me if this is a naive question, but has any American citizen ever taken the U.S. government to court over the types of issues Sanford Levinson discusses in his essay? Like the fact that the US has not formally declared war against a particular country? Or when Eugene Debs was imprisoned for speaking out against entering WWI? Can the gov't be taken to court for these things?
A predicate thesis of terrorism is that a nation can never fight terrorism, precisely because it is not a nation, does not have targets and therefore is untouchable. Similar arguments are often made to suggest the internet is not regulable.
Neither thesis is true. At the end of the day, a terrorist must be somewhere, and that somewhere is going to be subject to some national jurisdiction. The jiu jitsu is what our president did -- we are at war with the terrorists AND THOSE NATIONS THAT HARBOR OR FEED THEM. We then war, traditionally, with nations or authorities that harbor terrorism, and thereby deprive the terrorists of places from which to launch their evils.
We aren't at war with Afghanistan, by the way, but with the occupying authority -- the Taliban -- which is recognized by almost no nation on earth.
the scariest thing to me right now, with kids in public schools, is all the enforced patriotism in times of conflict/war/whatever you want to call it. it happened during the gulf war, when school children were tying yellow ribbons around trees in my home town, and it's happening even more so now. i'm sure you all have heard about the madison, wisconsin school board's decision to try and buck state law requiring school children to recite the pledge of allegiance or sing the national anthem daily, but here's an account of the outcome of the whole thing, and here's a pretty representative editorial following the fireworks.
personally, it is terrifying the amount of blind patriotic and religious fervor i'm seeing in the aftermath of september 11, and most of it fully sanctioned by the government that is supposed to protect our freedoms of speech and religion. from bush's declaration of a "national day of prayer" where we saw every important political figure crammed into the national cathedral, to the billboards plastered across the country emblazoned with "god bless america", to all of the late night talk show hosts making cheap jabs at arabs and muslims, to every car, house, yard, and building in my city (milwaukee) sporting tattered american flags, it's starting to look like fanaticism.
fanaticism is dangerous. that's what started this whole mess in the first place, and our own fanaticism is what's going to make it worse.
"Why is all this crap here?" -- 4-year-old Brandon
Is this the same Stallman that hypocritically wishes to force his views on others, restricting rights of those who would rather themselves CHOOSE what liscense to use? That Stallman? And this guy is bitching about freedom? Funny how this lovely self proclaimed group of intellectuals is making the exact same mistakes the rest of the talking/typing monkeys are making. You rally against those you claim are 'following the crowd' and using superficial wants over the needs of others, yet you yourselves then justify (that is the key word) the tyranical actions of one that 'shares your interests'. How pathetically unenlightened you are. You see yourselves as better, and that is EXACTLY why you are the very same monkeys.
Is a country wich has only 1.001 parties democratic ? The 2 only parties in the system are so much alike, and they are under COMPLETE control of the corporations. The people in America are true slaves of the rich.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Remember, clinton was elected by a plurality, not a majority.
A fact that was never relevant even when frustrated conservatives first brought it up in yet another lame attempt to undermine the last legitimate president.
Clinton won the popular vote and he won the electoral vote. There was never the slightest dispute of either.
Meanwhile, Bush Jr. lost the popular vote by half a million votes and would not have won the popular vote if not for a wide variety of election tampering offences in Florida.
Only the most partisan Republican hacks could even entertain the idea that Bush's and Clinton's elections were similar.
As usual, EFF has a lot of interesting things to say about the pending "Anti-Terrorism" Surveillance Bills.
Love 'em all and let God sort 'em out...
I agree with one thing, there are big benefits at stake, and England, Germany and France very much like to be part of the game. Italy being the sulking outsider.
,Bondsteel, Cheney, Carlyse, Bush , Caspian oil, Unocal, Macedonia, KLA, NLA, MPRI, KPC, OSCE,William Walker, Afghanistan, heroin, drugs, Oliver North, Vinnell Corporation, Dyncorp, soros.
:)
Here is my homework :
The Caspian oil basin is a very important one.
Cheney , as CEO of Halliburton in 1998:"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian". Estimates have only been rising since.
but actually the whole of central asia is involved. I read that Wolfowitz is very much in favor of grabbing all of it and stripping Russia bare.
A big problem with the caspian and central asian resources is getting them out through a safe way. There are in several possible corridors.
- Iran is shortest, but boycotted in every possible way.
- The corridor to Turkey is difficult to secure.
- China is more than 2000 miles.
- The corridor to kosovo is an interesting issue, because the US has been very active in the Balkan conflicts, using NATO as a front, and secured the pipeline(see fort Bondsteel) and the public did not even notice what was going on. Macedonia is needed too in the plan, and underway. The US strategy in the Balkan deserves a lot of attention.
For one thing, the unrestrained free traffic of Afghan heroin through Kosovo increases financing of opposition in Russian border states like Chechnya.
- The Afghanistan-Pakistan corridor is best known for the Unocal line in construction, which has been interrupted in Afghanistan since i think 1998(that was the year they asked government for help).
But Afghanistan is also a starting point for moving north. Russian sources are afraid(well, to be honest , i only found one) that the US will try to drive a mass of refugees north, use it to destabilise the region and create an alibi to intervene with NATO. British and US diplomacy already requested Pakistan to keep the borders closed(I think, can't remember the source right now). I guess they did not need much pressing.
For this you need weak humanitarian aid inside Afghanistan.
The only mobile troops of Russia are being pinned down in Chechnya, and Bin Laden does not seem to have control there. Hoe much reason will US need to move north?
As is well known, not everyone thinks international approval is necessary.
If you feel like a very long google session, each time take 2 or 3 words at random from:
Halliburton, Brown and Root, AMBO
That bang you just heard is from a surveillance server that just blew up
The web, real educational at times. And addictive too
Germany today has a constitution, legal system, and political system that was carefully crafted to protect the human rights and freedoms of the individual and to protect the people from government tyranny. This is thanks in part to the US. Unfortunately, domestically, the US system of government falls far short of that. That's perhaps not surprising, given that the US Constitution was crafted hundreds of years ago, without benefit of knowledge of 20th century technology and totalitarianism. And failure of the US system of government to protect individual rights and free speech isn't theoretical, the US system has had spectacular failures in McCarthyism, slavery, racism, antisemitism, and dealings with American Indians, to name just a few.
You're not going to find many places in Europe that are sympathetic to Osama bin Laden either.
Advising restraint, asking for publication of envidence, and exploring negotiation is not the same as sympathy for terrorism. Europeans strongly condemn the attacks on the WTC, but that doesn't mean that they generally believe the current course of action by the US is right or effective.
In fact, it is the US again that is today making deals with terrorists and repressive regimes (Pakistan, China, etc.) in order to satisfy domestic political pressures--to give the masses the revenge they are asking for. As long as US foreign policy consists of one opportunistic deal with terrorists and dictators after another, often motivated by simple economic interests, the US will continue to face huge foreign policy problems. If the US actually started promoting self-determination and democracy across the world, the problem of terrorism would disappear by itself.
In different words, the one who's sticking his head in the sand is you. Get your head out of the sand, open your eyes, go travel around the world, and learn about its people and their problems, as well as both the good and the bad aspects of American life.
Um, I know the CIA is not chartered to operate within US territory, but I've never heard the armed forces are under the same ban. Sort of makes all those bases and airfields silly, doesn't it?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Since the Feds refused to follow the constitution in peace time, all discussions like this serve to do is prepare the populus for the precise degree to which the Feds will abuse them during the period they unlawfully call "war".
Seastead this.
Let me put it this way.
geopolitics is a jungle. You want to survive in it then it's a reasonable choice to put some real mean guys up there.
Of course , then you should not be surprised if some day they screw you.
So you like some emergency brake.
Even in a state of war, I guess. And certainly in a condition of permanent terrorism.
Some people could say, yes, but normal ways are to brake constantly, but lightly. And in wartime that is difficult. Could be . Depends on the design. Just taking away all brakes does not sound good.
how far does "please don't brake now" get you?
It's not easy to design a guaranteed emergency brake.
There are also ways of dissenting without (yet) opposing.
I imagine it would be possible to create formalised forms of showing dissent. So at least you can say you disapprove of decisions but don't oppose them.
anyone know what mixed metaphors are?
Sunset provisions don't help, and may even hurt. Look at Great Britain: in the 70's they passed an anti-terrorism act that allowed indefinite detention without charges (kind of hard to prove you didn't do something if you aren't charged and have your day in court). It had a 1-year sunset provision, so it's only temporary, right?
Wrong. No politician (or very few) are ever going to vote in favor of "letting terrorists go free" (as their next opponent would term it). So the law has been renewed every year since.
The same would happen, in all likelyhood, with this law. The sunset provision would discourage many from objecting, thinking they'd get their rights back someday. But come 2004 or 5 or 6, when the provision runs out, you can bet your booties that the intelligence community (having gotten used to being able to spy on whomever they like) will tell lawmakers in a well-covered hearing that not renewing the law would let terrorists go free, compromise investigations, and destroy motherhood and apple pie, and the legislators would renew it with only a few objectors.
Oooh, we're headed into a police state! Booga-booga!
Is Noam Chomsky (who has consistently been an apologist for *every* enemy of the United States since the Vietnam War) in jail? Susan Sontag? Howard Zinn? Bill Maher's dumb comments spawned dumber comments by Ari Fleischer, and he lost some advertisers, but that isn't exactly police state behavior..police states tend to put a cap in people they don't like.
Canada, that great paradise to American lefties, has, in my lifetime, suspended just about *every* civil liberty so as to deal with Quebecois terrorism. Britian, France, and Germany (those notorious totalitarian countries) have had measures on the books similar to the ones proposed to combat terrorism for years, without turning into Oceania.
Yes, some of your civil liberties are going to change. That doesn't mean John Ashcroft is the second coming of Laventri Beria.
Anyone who thinks the United States (or any modern democracy, for that matter) is going to become a police state anytime soon should spend sometime in a real police state..like, say, Syria.
Slashdot readers should not kid themselves here: the issue isn't whether we'll keep our civil liberties. It's whether we'll win this war, in which case the world will be slightly changed, but still not badly, or whether we'll lose, in which case that old boot smashing a human face forever will be a reality, not a theoretical prospect.
There is a difference between an imperfect society and Mordor: many of the posters on this thread should learn how to distinguish between the two.
yes, but what is worse, is that the rich do seem to always say they are for 'the common man'. Tell you what mr rich guy... leave me to my own business. Stop causing my taxes to get raised and my already taxed money to be spent on more programs.
Read the original article here
Date: September 27, 2001
Published on Saturday, September 22, 2001 Bush's Orwellian Address Happy New Year: It's 1984 by Jacob Levich
Seventeen years later than expected, 1984 has arrived. In his address to Congress Thursday, George Busheffectively declared permanent war -- war without temporal or geographic limits; war without clear goals; war against a vaguely defined and constantly shifting enemy. Today it's Al-Qaida; tomorrow it may be Afghanistan; next year, it could be Iraq or Cuba or Chechnya. No one who was forced to read 1984 in high school could fail to hear a faint bell tinkling. In George Orwell's dreary classic, the totalitarian state of Oceania is perpetually at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia. Although the enemy changes periodically, the war is permanent; its true purpose is to control dissent and sustain dictatorship by nurturing popular fear and hatred.
The permanent war undergirds every aspect of Big Brother's authoritarian program, excusing censorship, propaganda, secret police, and privation. In other words, it's terribly convenient.
And conveniently terrible. Bush's alarming speech pointed to a shadowy enemy that lurks in more 60 countries, including the US. He announced a policy of using maximum force against any individuals or nations he designates as our enemies, without color of international law, due process, or democratic debate.
He explicitly warned that much of the war will be conducted in secret. He rejected negotiation as a tool of diplomacy. He announced starkly that any country that doesn't knuckle under to US demands will be regarded as an enemy. He heralded the creation of a powerful new cabinet-level police agency called the "Office of Homeland Security." Orwell couldn't have named it better.
By turns folksy ("Ya know what?") and chillingly bellicose ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"), Bush stepped comfortably into the role of Big Brother, who needs to be loved as well as feared. Meanwhile, his administration acted swiftly to realize the governing principles of Oceania:
WAR IS PEACE. A reckless war that will likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation is being sold to us as the means to guarantee our safety. Meanwhile, we've been instructed to accept the permanent war as a fact of daily life. As the inevitable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas, we are to "live our lives and hug our children."
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. "Freedom itself is under attack," Bush said, and he's right. Americans are about to lose many of their most cherished liberties in a frenzy of paranoid legislation. The government proposes to tap our phones, read our email and seize our credit card records without court order. It seeks authority to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial. It proposes to use foreign agents to spy on American citizens. To save freedom, the warmongers intend to destroy it.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. America's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years, the Pentagon has advised. Meanwhile, the sorry history of American imperialism -- collaboration with terrorists, bloody proxy wars against civilians, forcible replacement of democratic governments with corrupt dictatorships -- is strictly off-limits to mainstream media. Lest it weaken our resolve, we are not to be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying crimes of September 11.
The defining speech of Bush's presidency points toward an Orwellian future of endless war, expedient lies, and ubiquitous social control. But unlike 1984's doomed protagonist, we've still got plenty of space to maneuver and plenty of ways to resist.
It's time to speak and to act. It falls on us now to take to the streets, bearing a clear message for the warmongers: We don't love Big Brother.
Jacob Levich (jlevich@earthlink.net) is an writer, editor, and activist living in Queens, New York.
I don't agree with this post, but this has to be the most thought out posting I've ever read on Slashdot.
The World is Yours.
Please read this.
Specifically this paragraph:
Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it up. The goal here is to share ideas. To sift through the haystack and find needles. And to keep the children who like to spam Slashdot in check.
Unfortunately it seems the spamming children have control of the moderation system these days. I guess those hundreds of thousands of troll accounts are good for something eh?
As an American I believe (believe, mind you; my own government has provided no empirical evidence whatsoever that what I believe is true) that Osama bin Laden, his followers, and many other folks loosely associated with fundamental Islamic terrorist groups were the prime participants in the four-plane hijacking attack on my country.
Please note: I said "prime participants", not "solely responsible".
Take a look at the evidence. Osama bin Laden, despite press claims to the contrary, is not a twisted genius. He's a rich, disaffected playboy from Saudi Arabia who has a keen desire to be worshipped, and he found satisfaction in this desire by hooking up with anti-American terrorist groups and giving them tons of cash. Not exactly original - people have been buying adulation since the dawn of history - and certainly not exceptional.
Bin Laden has been involved in two attacks that we know of - embassy bombings in Africa and an attack on an American warship. In the first case this involved all the skill and effort required to plant a car bomb close to the embassies (duuuh, even I could pull that one off), in the second all it took was one insane fanatic and a boatload of explosives, plus lax security on the warship (real complicated plan, that one). Neither attack was terribly effective in terms of American casualties, nor particularly impressive in their ability to inspire terror.
In effect, both of these 'operations' were incredibly amateurish. Even Timothy McVeigh, a single loony American, was capable of doing far more damage than bin Laden and all of his money, terrorist 'cells', and allies. In comparison to McVeigh, one might even think that bin Laden and his cronies extremely incompetent, more 'play-acting' terrorists with a few real followers than a highly-organized, very skilled group of killers.
But then, we've already established that bin Laden is a rich, disaffected playboy, so the first two attempts at terrorism are what we might expect from him. Very simple, very straight-forward bungled efforts.
People say "well, Iraqi intelligence had a hand in helping him out". I'm sure they did; but no one has ever claimed that Iraqi intelligence was one of the shining lights in the covert ops community. In fact, Iraqi intelligence has suffered some hard hits because Sadam, in fits of paranoia, has at times taken to executing everyone with even an ounce of competence anywhere in his general vicinity, claiming that they were "plotting a coup against him". Iraqi intelligence isn't the worst in the world, but it's a far cry from excellence.
In order to blame September 11 solely on bin Laden, the Iraqis, and a few other terrorist organizations, we have to posit the following:
- that bin Laden suddenly became a 'twisted genius' overnight;
- that Iraqi intelligence has been fooling us all along, and is even better than the KGB once was;
- that various terrorist groups managed to cooperate on a plan bigger than any in history without someone letting the cat out the bag or betraying one another, as they often do;
- and that every single intelligence agency in the U.S. and the rest of the First World fell flat on its face all at the same time.
Frankly, although our government seems to think this makes perfect sense I find it a bit too much to swallow. 'Incredible' doesn't begin to cover it.
It makes alot more sense if you add in one additional factor: that bin Laden and his cronies had serious help from within the U.S., from people with the power to hoodwink all of these intelligence agencies long enough to pull the plan off. If bin Laden had the assistance of strong, powerful allies inside the U.S. the simultaneous successful hijacking of four planes and the subsequent destruction that followed - without any single part of this operation being compromised - becomes much more believable.
Imagine if bin Laden, sitting in Afghanistan surrounded by devoted worshippers had someone whisper into his ear "O Great One, I have a plan....". And this plan filled him with glee; even more so that the plan was supported by hidden allies within the Country of Satan itself. How could he resist?
But then the plan succeeded beyond his wildest expectations, as everyone in the world saw on TV. And rather than doing the traditional terrorist thing by claiming responsibility for this feat, bin Laden watched the CNN footage and said to himself "oh shit...." as it belatedly occurred to him that he now had just become the most hunted man on the planet, and that soon American Special Forces would be gunning for him wherever he went. How could he know that such a daring, wild plan would actually succeed? Surely the Americans weren't *that* stupid, that *none* of his groups would be caught? Most likely bin Laden thought that the best that could be achieved was a fight with airport security and front page news for another few days, another annoying bin Laden-esque attempt at being a thorn in the American backside. But to actually destroy the World Trade Center? Who could've believed that the allies in the U.S. would be *that* powerful?
Not exactly the dream of a rich playboy, to be on the run from expert assassins for the rest of your life. It's one thing to play at being a terrorist, it's quite another to be the most infamous terrorist in history with a lifespan measured by how far you can keep ahead of American fury.
I'm also willing to bet that at this point bin Laden realized that he hadn't thought this plan up, it had been brought to him; and that he had been played for a patsy. The real threat, the people who actually made all of this happen, would be safe and secure in the U.S., never suspected and never hunted. Osama would pay for them, and a nation of very pissed-off Americans would only be appeased by bin Laden's head on a pole. And that's where it would end, of course; with all the rampant patriotism and whatnot very few Americans would be inclined to ask suspicious questions, as I'm doing here.
Very conspiracy-theory like, I'll admit; and while an avid fan of the X-Files I like the show because it's all crap fiction with no bearing whatsoever to real life (there aren't any UFO's, assholes; get over it already). But I've been turning this over and over in my head and without the strong allies in the U.S. the whole thing just doesn't ring true - my bullshit detector goes crazy when the government explanation is taken at face value.
So what exactly is achieved by the destruction of the WTC? Two things: a concentration of more power into the presidents hands (a never-ending state of war); and more restrictions on civil liberties. Okay, this makes sense. But who gains?
That's my unanswered question in all of this: Who gains? Who within the U.S. would benefit from expanding the powers of the president and reigning in civil liberties? I don't know myself, and until I figure this out the government explanation in and of itself seems like a fairy tale, while mine seems more likely but still part-and-parcel of X-File-land. And that doesn't sit well with a skeptic like me who doesn't believe in aliens, the supernatural, psychics, or successful conspiracies.
Who gains? Answer me that, if you can.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Second, Stephen Halbrook has written a book recently showing that the Nazis did not invade Switzerland in large measure because the Swiss citizens were all armed with military weapons, were trained, and enjoyed a hilly terrain that would benefit the defenders. In this case, the threat of armed resistance deterred the Nazis. (Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II, Sarpedon Publishers, 2000)
The above copied and pasted from Ask The Rabbi: Should they have fought back?
BTW, I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not I own an "assault" rifle (aka NOT a shotgun). Perhaps you too should have the option/choice of making such a statement. What if ALL your neighbors could say the same thing? What if every Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto could and DID own an "assault rifle"?
I believe Juanita
Perhaps you should check your facts before slandering Uzbekistan. According to the Economist: "UN officials believe that 2,800 tonnes of opium, convertible into 280 tonnes of heroin, is in the hands of the Taliban, the al-Qaeda network of militant Islamists, and other Afghan and Pakistani drug lords" and "the current food shortage partly reflects a conscious decision by the regime to promote the cultivation of opium rather than wheat."
--
My other computer is your IIS server.
An excellent discussion of civil liberties in wartime can be found in the book All the Laws but One, written by the currently sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist. Inside Rehnquist discusses in detail some of the incidents mentioned in the article linked to in this article, especially old Abe's suspension of the Writ of HAbeas Corpus and the subsequent political imprisonment of rebel sympathizers in the Maryland legislature. As Lincoln said then, "Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" When Abe says it its hard to disagree with it, seeing as at the time the Republic REALLY WAS threatened with extinction.
Finally, someone hits the nail on the head. Congress failed again in its job by failing to pass a Declaration of War. Now, we are headed into another 'Constitutional Crisis' in that all the Taliban has to do is to hold out more than 90 days and American forces will have to disengage, or Prez Bush tells Congress where to put the War Powers Act, or Congress will finally drag up off their lame buttocks to do their job.
It is more likely that options 1 & 2 will happen.
If you're referring to the 'threat' of someone actually using the phrase 'God bless America' in a sign at a school (see http://www.sacbee.com/news/news/old/local03_200110 13.html for more information) then yep -- I suppose the ACLU is right on target.
If you're referring to Ashcroft 'investigating' whether or not we should create a national ID system, or convict hackers to life in prision (a little extreme, if you ask me) -- the ACLU has been strangely silent (as far as I know -- correct me if I'm wrong, of course).
Sadly, I think the ACLU is actually adding to the distraction of the real issues in our country right now. They're not helping anyone but their own best intrests (which as far as I know, is nothing new).
I think the real issue that the bugs the hell out of the ACLU right now is that it's becoming fashionable to 1.) Stand up against folks like the ACLU who are simply distracting America from being patriotic 2.) Be a patriotic American 3.) Be a 'God fearing' American 4.) be a soldier, actually taking part in an effort to stop terrorism.
Peggy Noonan said it best with her column this past week, "Welcome back Duke" (referring to John Wayne, of course).
Vietnam wasn't a war. It was the democrats slaughtering the children, which is why to this day, i have never voted democrat.
test
Not True in the case of the Warsaw Ghetto [or American Revolution - grin] ... all arms were STOLEN from the Nazis. Too bad law-abiding Germans [especially Jews] could not LEGALLY own "assault" weapons before Hitler came to power. Of course, this is the problem ... "law-abiding" citizens will do what their good government tells them to do. Then when a bad government takes control (e.g. Hitler, Algerian Islamic Facists, Allende/Shining Path & Chile, Stalin, Castro, Cambodia, ...) it is too late. Off to the gas chambers, gulags, reeducation camps, killing fields you go ... happy happy joy joy.
First, we know that the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, when they finally turned to armed resistance, succeeded in holding off the Nazi war machine for nearly a month. These were civilians running an urban guerilla resistance -- using a relatively small number of guns and ammo smuggled in or taken from killed Nazis. In this case, the Warsaw Ghetto defenders damaged the Nazi effort -- and if that had been multiplied over the countryside, it would have meant more damage to the Nazis, and possibly a change in Nazi policy. (See Jon Guttman's article, "Genocide Delayed", in March 2000 issue of World War II magazine, available on line at: HERE [thehistorynet.com] and HERE [jpfo.org]
Second, Stephen Halbrook has written a book recently showing that the Nazis did not invade Switzerland in large measure because the Swiss citizens were all armed with military weapons, were trained, and enjoyed a hilly terrain that would benefit the defenders. In this case, the threat of armed resistance deterred the Nazis. (Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II, Sarpedon Publishers, 2000)
The above copied and pasted from Ask The Rabbi: Should they have fought back? [jpfo.org]
BTW, I can neither confirm nor deny whether or not I own an "assault" rifle (aka NOT a shotgun). Perhaps you too should have the option/choice of making such a statement. What if ALL your neighbors could say the same thing? What if every Jew in the Warsaw Ghetto could and DID own an "assault rifle"?
I believe Juanita
It's not a war? To Afghani, it is a war (they probably think the Soviets came back for another round...), but to Americans it's just another TV show. Sad.
Thank you for your faithful support. We here at the GOP have saved over 1,000,000,000 children from destruction at the hands of the evil "Democrats", also known as "The Liberals", with the aid and support of patriotic Americans such as yourself.
The situation for children is more critical now than ever before...
Any evidence I've seen that this military action (which is in compliance with the War Powers Act, btw, even as an undeclared war; Bush _has_ reported to Congress) is being driven by petrochemical interests is on far weaker ground than the evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks in September.
Driving force suggests it makes decisions for you. That's not necessarily it. It is sth to take in account.
Considering that fundamentalist Islam is trying to get full control over the region from Afghanistan to Chechnya(with Pakistan as a main agent, not Afghanistan), there is the possibility of A very large fraction of world oil coming under their influence(how monolithic fundamentalist islam would be, i have doubts).
In terms of size, Islam terrorism in the US looks more like a bit of "spillover" of what's happening in Asia, and which US helped to create, while trying to undermine Russia. But by now, Russia is weakened enough.
If Bush starts a general war on terrorism, the enemy coincides well with competitors trying to control oil. This allows to use all kinds of political means, like boycots(eg Iran),and excuses for military interventions.
At the moment one can't conclude more than "it's something to take in account".
For one thing it explains the mini top in Europe . Why do France and Germany want to get involved so much?
BTW: US and UK took the initiative for the Caucasian Commonwealth(around the Caspian) already 5 years ago, and Chechnya seems to have been a more important partner than Russia, which was left out(Russia has a major oil pipeline through Chechnya).
Have you considered the irony of linking the word 'facts' to economist.com?
Which is why there hasn't been a declaration of war in 50 years.
I'll take a stab at it...
The corporations gain - a flagging economy, then war - wow, sudden need for all of those products.
But do I think that reps of all of the multinationals got into this big room and hashed this plan out themselves in secret? Sounds like a squabble when the Taliban comes together for a meeting (tribal heads, etc).
No - probably not. I like your idea, though - not sure how true it is or not, but very plausible - I wondered the same thing the day of the attack (ie, did it come from within?)...
I can see something else, though - what if the heads of the major competing airlines to those who were big that got "used" staged this, perhaps in cooperation with whoever was likely to get the contract to rebuild/reconstruct the towers (or recondition - maybe they didn't even expect them to fall)? Sounds nutty, doesn't it? Or maybe it was heads of Boeing - being as they manufacture tons of military hardware, as well as civilian aircraft (which might need mods/changes/new systems for "safer" travel in these "times")? Actually, that last one...
Here's to hoping I don't "disappear"...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
"Vietnam wasn't a war. It was the democrats slaughtering the children, which is why to this day, i have never voted democrat."
I know how you feel. I refuse to vote Whig, due in large part to the whole Fugitive Slave Act debacle.Damn that Millard Fillmore.
Seriously though, none of the democrats you hold responsible are still in power in the party. Your continued refusal to vote for them is as illogical as my refusal to vote Whig.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.