U.S. Shuts Down Somalia Internet Access

BrianGa writes: "This article reports that Somalia's only internet company and a key telecom company have been forced to close because the United States suspects them of terrorist links."

Comments

Suspects??

[RedOregon]

Suspects? No proof... we just _think_ this is the case? This bothers me...

Re:Suspects??

[kfg]

The US state dept.,( as reported by CNN), has now admited that they bombed the Red Cross center in Afghanistan, multiple times, * knowing that it wasn't a military target* because Taliban members and troops were *suspected* of pilfering some amount of food from it.

At the same time, of course, the US was randomly dropping food supplies all over the place, for anyone to pick up, including Taliban troops.

This bothers me a good deal more. It is not only the targeting of a known civilian humanitarian aid station, but smacks more than just a bit of hypocrisy.

The shutting down of an ISP hardly compares to killing civilian aid workers on *suspicion* that the opposition might be able to snag some Hershey bars from them.

The arrogance is the same in both cases though, although, of course, as everyone knows, the Internet "belongs" to the US, so I guess they can just do what they please with it.

KFG

Re:Suspects??

[Anonymous DWord]

The US state dept.,( as reported by CNN), has now admited that they bombed the Red Cross center in Afghanistan, multiple times...

They killed four American Red Cross workers in the first couple of days of bombing. I haven't seen that mentioned on any major network though. Granted, I don't watch a lot of TV.

At the same time, of course, the US was randomly dropping food supplies all over the place...

Including into known minefields. "Here's some food, just watch your step! You can thank us later... if you have any limbs left." It doesn't seem to matter much though, as long as CNN spins it right.

Re:Suspects??

[strAtEdgE]

It's the american way! Mom, apple pie, and killing anyone who stands in the way of 'furthering the cause'.

Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

It's funny how americans block out the bigger picture, thinking somehow that when they commit terrorist acts, they aren't terrorists.

Re:Suspects??

[bleah]

They killed four American Red Cross workers in the first couple of days of bombing. I haven't seen that mentioned on any major network though. Granted, I don't watch a lot of TV.

I think you mean four Afghan employees of a UN mine removal program were killed early in the bombing. The building they were in, which was very close to a target, was hit. They had been asked to move to safety, but chose to stay where they were.

Re:Suspects??

[Performer Guy]

We've all seen the interview where bin Laden called for the murder of all Americans reguardless of whether they were in the armed forces. We've SEEN this, and the US should have acted before we had 5000 dead as a pretext to defend itself. Too bad for you that bin Laden as good as admitted his guilt since the attacks in his video to his followers. All you idiots now have to go find another anti-American cause.

I want to make this point clear, it is idiots like you who contributed to the attack on Sept 11th. Your moral ambivilence is abhorrant. The USA should have acted more forcefully before the 11th to get bin Laden but couldn't because you the willfull confusion and deliberate obfuscation of the facts by fools like you. Now even after that attack you don't crawl back under your rock, instead you're out in full force accusing the USA of the very thing that has been inflicted upon it. The case has never been clearer, there is more than enough evidence to go after bin Laden and his supporters (and there was even before Sept 11th), and the Taliban had their chance to turn them over and didn't. Of course they were never going to because they are complicit in his irrational Islamicist expansionist designs.

Re:Suspects??

[Watts Martin]

His "warped position" is that terrorism can be defined as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." Personally, I'd simplify the definition to: "committing an act of war against non-combatants."

Tell me how the hell the legitimacy of self defense has anything to do with that definition.

Bluntly, what you're offended by isn't the definition, but by the unpleasant truth that an objective reading of what terrorism is sometimes condemns the good guys, too. You don't want to hear it.

The war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda is probably the closest to a "just war" that we've fought, at least since World War II. Get over the idea that we're spotless and wonderful, though. Yes, Americans are blocking out bigger pictures. We condemn the idea of killing innocent civilians for political ends, but we go on the record as saying that thousands of Iraqi children dying a month from sanctions is an acceptable tactic to try to overthrow Hussein (not that it's doing any good). This goes back to our actions in World War II as well as the enemy's: by all reasonable definitions, killing tens of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrorism. Don't kid yourself into thinking anything else. The entire point was to send the message, "If you don't surrender, we will kill not your soldiers but your families, your wives and your children, with weapons more terrifying than you can possibly imagine."

People seem to be under the apprehension that those of us pointing out that America sometimes does Bad Things are excusing having Bad Things done to us. We're not. We're saying that two wrongs don't make a right. And we're saying that if we're going to set a moral example for the rest of the world--and it's not American arrogance to say that given our position as the only superpower, we damn well better be willing to set that example--we've got to be moral. We can't be doing this "situational ethics" shit anymore, can't act like "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does us (or anyone else) any good, can't loudly praise democracy while quietly supporting fascist dictators who are open to foreign investment--and even helping them overthrow democratically-elected governments that seemed a little too socialist.

Maybe in your eyes it's "warped" to talk about America's foreign policy failures. If so, what you want isn't patriotism--it's jingoism. I hope for our country's sake that enough people understand the difference. True patriotism isn't "my country, right or wrong." It's helping your country do what's right, and trying to prevent it from doing what's wrong.

Evidence?

[czth]

A little evidence would be nice before one goes and cuts off a whole country from the 'net. The fact that they denied it is irrelevant; anyone would deny it, especially knowing that the US is on the warpath. But it's pretty hard to see the US having an ulterior motive for shutting them down; Somalia isn't exactly a force to be reckoned with. Unless the motive is to use Somalia as a "test case" to see how the world reacts to US/Europe flexing its muscles a little....

OTOH, this doesn't affect me personally at all... no servers I use are in Somalia, I don't even know any sites there.

But it's a disturbing precedent.

Re:Evidence?

[Joe Decker]

Oh? Is that actually true?

Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[Joey7F]

The US and the UK gave them access. They (we) can take it away.

--Joey

My thoughts...

[eadyb]

I think Somalia has more presseing problems to worry about than worring about the few hundred lucky Somalians who have internet access.

IMHO feeding starving people is more important than checking email, reading /. etc...

IMHO

Sad, sad situation

[Rogerborg]

So it's come to this again. Because we need or want to get rid of some controlling individuals, but won't go in and do it directly, we apply larger scale sanctions that mostly hurt the people that rely on them. Although this is really small scale stuff compared to Iraq and, what's that other place... oh yeah, Cuba.

I know, I know, it's up to the the locals to clean their own house, but I have to question our record on applying and lifting sanctions. Here we are cosying up with communist China, and one faction in Afghanistan, and yet we still sanction communist Cuba and Iraq and are bombing the crap out of our ex best buddies in Afghanistan, racking up civilian casualties among the populations we profess to want to liberate, while not being willing to take the media hit of spending the life of one US serviceman (volunteers all) to get the guy we originally went in after.

It would be nice if just for once, we could say "Here is a list of the bad guys. We are going to get them, but we will go after them, and only them, and will lose US servicemen in preference to killing civilians and discounting their lives as 'collateral damage'" Then without any ceremony or fanfare or spin doctoring, we sit and wait for six weeks until they've got complacent and cocky, then quietly blow the fuckers' brains out in dark alleyways.

This is tough on Somalia, but Somalians can at least count themselves lucky that they're not Iraqis or Cubas. God damn, I hate the hypocrisy of politicians.

One of the Companies IS involved

[zulux]

Al-barakatt is the Somali version of Western Union - they take money and 'wire' it over to Somalia for delivery. Unfortunatly, the terrorists are taking a cut of all transfers:

US Government View

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/01110 71 1.htm

Al-barakatt is an ISP, kind of like how the mafia is a security firm.

I imagine the "Blame America First" crowd it running around gleeful: Look America is crushing open communication in Somalia.

"Why do they hate us?"

[melquiades]

I saw a long article on the cover of one of the news rags (Time or Newsweek; can't remember) asking "Why do they hate us?" They had a long, fairly historically informed argument about the breakup of the Ottoman empire, the controversy of the Israeli state, and the rise of fundamentalism. It was a pretty good analysis, but its basic undertone was "the Muslim world is angry and backward".

There's a shorter answer to "Why do they hate us?" in this article about Somalia. I don't care how much our intelligence services swear that the ISP was run by terrorists -- it's just impossible not to read this as, "You primitive black people don't need the internet, and now we're smacking you down to size." When the US has "severely restricted international telephone lines and shut down vitally needed money transfer facilities", that sure sounds like an act of economic terrorism to me -- justified or not.

Remember that when the US bombed that "nerve gas factory" in Somalia, we were never able to present any hard post-hoc evidence that it was not, as the Somalis claim, a medicine factory. Eventually, the Pentagon mostly kind of sort of admitted it was full of shit. "Oops, sorry! We'll be more careful next time!"

"Why do they hate us?" Because we're a bunch of self-righteous bastards who think we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world.

When we cut off the Somalis' access to medicine, phones, internet, and money transfer because of suspected terrorism, we have a responsibility to step in and make sure that those services get provided somehow -- otherwise we are not punishing terrorists, but creating them.

Shame on the U.S. Government

[Cally]

With the over-reliance on technological solutions pedalled by pork-barrel defence contractors over good-old-fashioned human intelligence already acknowledged as a factor contributing to 9/11, and the long-awaited acceptance that the "terrorist facility" in Somalia that was attacked with cruise missiles in 1996 was a perfectly legal pharmaceutical factory making (mainly) antibiotics - one of the few in the country, or indeed region - they carry on making the same mistakes. This will just alienate even more people who were previously neutral in "The War Against Terrorism". As the BBC correspondent says: very, very depressing, and hif (he) had a stronger word he could use, he'd use it.

Please don't mod this as a troll; I really do think this is a straightforward tactical mistake.

Off-topic: there seem to be very few posts today, anything to do with Quest's DSL network going down? in the same week as BT's national network went down? I don't believe in coincidences like this. Someone has a zero--day sploit against the network hardware - something from Cisco is my bet...

Those who forget history. . . , etc

[kfg]

Historically it has only rarely been proven wise to simply trust the intelligence community. I'll bet on the swift and strong, thank you.

I might also add that it is the first responsibility of every US citizen, indeed the *primary* responsibility, to trust nothing.

Only the cynic is the "true" American and patriot. It is a structure of political *equals.* Indeed, in many repects the simple citizen is politically superior to the president himself. It is the citizens who chose him and the citizens who may dismiss him.

He will be president for a maximum of 8 years. A citizen is a citizen for life. He must then protect his political interests for *life,* and the life of his decendents, not meerly a few years.

The intelligence community is the place where the greatest *ememies* of the state reside.

KFG

KFG

Minor Correction

[Carnage4Life]

Remember that when the US bombed that "nerve gas factory" in Somalia, we were never able to present any hard post-hoc evidence that it was not, as the Somalis claim, a medicine factory. Eventually, the Pentagon mostly kind of sort of admitted it was full of shit. "Oops, sorry! We'll be more careful next time!"

Actually it was a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan not Somalia. Interestingly enough the fact that the US bombed a factory that was producing medicine for in a poor country that is torn apart by famine, disease and strife is one of the rallying cries that Bin Laden used to recruit and swell the ranks of Al-Qaeda.

Money Transfers and terrorist links

[No-op]

Just recently several money transfer services in my hometown of Minneapolis were shut down. these were services used by our large Somali population to wire money back home to family members- they are a form of money tranfer based on trust called "hawalla". rather than paperwork etc it all is based on money transfers happening because people can be held to their word.

these organisations (that were shut down) were purportedly having money skimmed off the top of each transfer by members of the Al-Qu'eda network. whether or not this was happening, and whether or not the proprietors were aware of it, it has had a large negative impact on the US Somali community.

The Somali companies shut down that this article references were conduits for these money transfers, and I personally expect to see dire consequences come from this. as it states, 80% of the money coming in to somalia is from foreign workers sending money home. Do the math on that, and you come up with a large number of hardworking US residents having no way to support starving family members back home! this isn't a good thing.

I fully support shutting down organizations and companies that are funding terrorist activities- but how hard would it be for Bush to help out these hawallas and open up alternate methods of transfer? I'm sure that some of them would be willing to some oversight into their financial transactions as well, vs. being put out of business permanently.

I'd like to see a little more of that "compassionate conservatism" and a little less of Bush's ethnocentric reactionism. let's pray that he comes to his senses and stops harming innocent civilians in this crisis.

Re:Money Transfers and terrorist links

[istartedi]

In the short run the Somali immigrants will be hurt, but in the long run they are better off getting rid of Hawallas and getting a real banking system. If this encourages them to do that, it will, in the long run, be seen as one of the best things we could do for them. Why? Because the Hawalla charges ridiculous cuts just for transferring the money. It's somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to as much as 15% according to an article I read in the Washington Post.

This is really ironic when you consider that they are always getting on the case of the "Jewish conspirators" for charging "usery".

These hawallas are "check cashing" fronts that bilk their own people, and they get what they deserve.

Re:Keep in mind, this is not a somalia company

[Anonymous DWord]

The US also provides worldwide GPS access, which they can take away at any time. That doesn't make it right. God forbid you're trying to do a job in any region even remotely close to terrorism. Basically what US foreign policy is saying is:

• Don't be a terrorist
• Don't harbour terrorists
• Don't live in a country that harbours terrorists
• Don't live NEAR a country that harbours terrorists
• Don't try and contact anybody who lives in a country that harbours terrorists

This is getting silly. The US harboured terrorists for 4 years before said terrorists blew up the WTC. What now, tanks in the streets?

Re:Wrong

[Carnage4Life]

We're not a bunch of self righteous bastards who whink we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world, we're a bunch of self righteous bastards who KNOW DAMN WELL we can do whatever we want to the rest of the world.

Yet people like you wonder why people are willing to die to give Americans a taste of what they live with daily due to the self righteous, do what we DAMN WELL like foreign policy decisions of the American government.

WHO THE HELL CARES what they think of us? You can't fight the actual individuals who are working towards the kind of attacks that we have been the successful and unsuccessful targets of. You can't threaten to bomb them -- they expect to die. All you can do is start making life as difficult as possible to live (or impossible to live in the case of those who end up under one of our bombs) for those guilty-by-association (and unfortunately those innocent people who have chosen to stand by and allow the guilty to operate). We can't stop terrorists directly with threats or direct actions, but if the threat of suffering and death makes the people around them take action and prevent their actions, then so be it. Good for us for having the ability to do that.

All this does is make more people mad enough at America that they are willing to die for revenge. What you suggest is a self perpetuating cycle of violence that will most likely turn the US into a totalitarian police state in efforts to prevent terrorism while alienating most of the world because of the US's seemingly imperialist policies.

As for expecting poor, starving civilians to change the policies of armed governments or pseudo-militia that is as ridiculous as Bin Laden thinking that terrorist attacks against the US would turn the American populace against the US government and make them change their foreign policy instead of uniting them in hatred against a common enemy (kinda like how the Iraqi sanction situation has ended up).

Internet Access

[CleverNickName]

If I can't access the internet while I'm in Somalia, then the terrorists have won.

...oh.

And direct action we shall indeed take

[FreeUser]

Al Barakaat's founder, Shaykh Ahme Nur Jimale, is closely linked to Usama bin Laden.

If we believe this, we're right to take action. But direct action.

Which we undoubtably will. But lets finish with Afghanistan first. Folks, get over yourself. America is at war, really at war, not just scratching an itch. For the first time since 1945. Bitch and moan all you like, but places like Afghanistan and Somalia, which btw is also know for having numerous Al Qaida camps, will be taken down and the terrorists killed. Wail and moan all you like, it will change nothing. We're through kowtowing to every wannabe critic for being the sole superpower and not magically creating the perfect world according to 6 billion different definitions of the above. We were attacked, and we will exterminate our attackers, wherever they hide, wherever they are given sanctuary. And if you are giving them sanctuary, then you too shall suffer. Get over it, and be glad that, for now, all we've stopped are wire transfers.

And I say this as a liberal, generally very harsh critic of our government. Imagine how the moderates and the conservatives feel, right now. We are relentless, and when angered we are ruthless in ferretting out and killing the enemy. Since the events on 9/11 we are very, very angry, and countries like Somalia and Afghanistan, that harbor terrorists, are going down. One after another, like dominos, until we have accomplished our task.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled, anti-American bashing, bitching, and moaning, brought to you by the First Amendment coupled with a large dose of absolute cluelessness and knee-jerk "I'm politically informed yes I am" wannabe parrots.

Re:And direct action we shall indeed take

[mickwd]

"...countries like Somalia and Afghanistan, that harbor terrorists, and going down. One after another, like dominos, until we have accomplished our task"

I shouldn't really rise to this, but here goes....

Taking down whole countries now are we ? How many innocent people will this kill ? How many people will become sworn enemies of the USA as a result ? How many of these will want to take direct action to avenge the deaths of their innocent loved ones ? How many more innocent Americans will die as a result ?

Just getting angry and shouting your mouth off might make you feel good, but it isn't going to help anyone.

Yes, the US should go after Bin Laden and co (if they're sure they were responsible for Sept11), but going after people who just happen to live in the same country as terrorists is not sensible.

After all, you might be living in the same country as someone who's causing terrorism with Anthrax.

I do hope this doesn't appear "clueless" or "knee-jerk" in response to your reasoned post.

Here's the article...

[kypper]

here.

Agreed. Fully.

Just how in the hell do "1,000-pound precision-guided bombs "inadvertently [strike] one or more warehouses used by the International Committee of the Red Cross."" One or more?? How can you 'inadvertantly' strike 2+ Red Cross stations?

This newspeak is killing me.

Re:Here's the article...

[Joe Decker]

No, that is not the article. I'm beginning to doubt there was one.

The article the previous poster claimed that the US bombed those targets knowing that it wasn't a military target and that the US State Dept. admitted such.

Whether the US did bomb those intentionally or did not, the article includes no such admission by the State department, and in fact specifically states that the buildings targeted were believed to house Taliban military equipment.

I quote: Although details are still being investigated, the ICRC warehouses were among a series of warehouses targeted by U.S. forces because the Taliban used them for storage of military equipment. Military vehicles had been seen in the vicinity of these warehouses. U.S. forces did not know that ICRC was using one or more of the warehouses.

Read the articles being referred to before accusing someone of newspeak.

The bombings of the Red Cross centers was tragic. The loss of telephone access (even more than net access) in Somalia is tragic. But that's no excuse for misreading "mistakenly" as "intentional".

Re:Here's the article...

[statusbar]

Anyone who does not believe that this is true is naive. It happens, I've seen it.

Within a week after Sep 11, there was an interesting interview the CNN's Wolf Blitzer had with a former CIA director. He said that people are overlooking the possible involvement of Saddam Hussein in the terrorist attacks.

Within 3 hours, the article was deleted. But the link on cnn.com's front page wasn't. It was a broken link. Even today, the article is nowhere to be found on the site.

Read cnn.com regularly. Read between the lines. Learn about what they are not saying and what they delete.

--jeff

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

UN Authorization Exists

[rm3friskerFTN]

The UN Security Council Resolution 1373 appears to authorize cutting Somailia off from the net.

Some key paragraphs from the UN Security Council Resolution:

all States shall: ... suppress the financing of terrorist acts;

all States shall: Prohibit ... making any funds, financial assets or economic resources or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;

Decides also that all States shall: Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;

other paragraphs here

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[cuyler]

> We didn't try Hitler, nor would we have even considered it if we captured him.

I believe many people in his party had some troubles with some "Crimes against humanity" charges at a wee event called the Nuremberg Trials. These were crimes committed during a war yet they were still charge.

Of course they would have tried Hitler, it was a big show to prove the war was justified. It was a huge disappointment (with respect to the trial) that Hitler went out and shot himself.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[imrdkl]

This ain't a war, friend. At best a manhunt, or perhaps a "menhunt". Congress has not declared war, and therefore it is not a war.

None of the words or meaning in the Constitution has changed, either. It still guarantees Justice to All. This includes a fair trial, just as much as it includes the lethal injection as punishment.

Hold onto that. Treasure it, and dont let it go, no matter the pain you feel. Patriotism sometimes hurts. But our country, and what it has Always stood for, is more important, even than our pain and loss. Patriots all down through our history have understood this, and it has not changed one bit with the location of the attack.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[krazy_kc]

I'm sick of seeing all this anti-american activity in the US government.

In the past 2 months we've seen

• Mass round-ups by federal agents, hidden in secrecy and unwilling to tell even how many have been nabbed.
  
• The Congress of the United States cowed into passing a resolution that allows the president to wage war without any more congressional oversite.
  
• The CIA bragging about anti-terrorist activities in Albania where they were only party to torturing 1 wrong person out of 6 people nabbed.
  
• Federal agents given power to enter your home without ever letting you know.
  
• A military campaign where we are proud of the fact that we are supported by China, Pakistan, and an alliance of warlords in Afghanistan.
  
• Implementing racial profiling as anti-terrorist mechanism while the US justice department admits that they believe the most recent terrorist attacks (antrhax in the mail) are from home grown terrorists.
  

I don't care if you have a flag decal on your car, if you believe that the United States stands for censorship, bullying, military tribunals, and people being dragged away secretly because of their religious beliefs, you are no patriot, you are a traitor.

Rights vs privileges

[totenkopf]

I think more than a few people here are having trouble distinguishing between "rights" and "privileges".

Somalia does NOT have a "right" to a damn thing outside what they are capable of generating for themselves (which, aside from kat and drive by shootings from "technicals", isn't much of anything).

The fact that they were given access to the international communications infrastructure by the United States is a privilege.

Remember what happened when the United States went in to feed the Somalis? It ended with 17 dead Rangers and Delta team members, after we went after Adid. And to short circuit the leftist Chomsky idiots, we went after Adid because his forces massacred 24 Pakistani peacekeepers.

The fact that Somalis were starving because of a 4% growth rate and systemic civil warfare does not give them the "right" to U.S. food aid, especially when they turn around and start shoot the people giving out the food.

In places like this and Afghanistan, a shallow grave is the place where leftist idealism meets the real world. For you American leftists, you need to get a grip and realize that your ideas are killing people every day. Your intentions may be pure, but your effects are disasterous.

Give me greedy ambition, evil intentions, and a good result any day over the gift you guys have given the world during the 20th century, and continuing on today.

Re:All of this anti-Americanism

[kindbud]

I'm sick of hearing all of this anti-Americanism on Slashdot.

Then stop reading it.

Every post I read seems to be something along the lines of "Where's the proof?" or "What's next, America shutting down dissident sites?"

Well, where IS the proof? It was promised before the campaign started, then the promise was withdrawn. And, what IS next? These are legitimate questions.

Well, I'll have you know, we're in a war here.

So I'm told.

The rules have been changed.

That much is obvious. There are questions as to whether it is justified, and even as to whether it is legal.

It's like those people who shout "We must bring Usama back and try him in our courts!" That's absolutely ridiculous. We didn't try Hitler, nor would we have even considered it if we captured him.

How do you know that? Hitler shot himself. The Nazis that managed to be captured were tried. What makes you think Hitler wouldn't have been tried as well?

It's wartime, the rules are changed.

You said that before. Funny thing about propaganda is that the people who spread it don't think of it in that way.

Somalia is just as bad, if not WORSE than Iraq in its harboring and promotion of international terrorists.

How do you know this? Do you believe it because important men on TV say it is so? Can you point to Somalia on a map? Who are the principal political forces within Somalia, and which ones should we hold responsible for harboring or supporting terrorists?

Remember, this is a war. Your peacetime rules don't apply, so don't pretend to think that they do.

You continue to repeat yourself over and over, but that does not change the fact that Congress has not declared war on any nation, nor is there much provision in the Constitution for declaring war on a person, or on a group of persons, or on an organization, or on an ideology. This "war" on terrorism is a war in name only, like the "war" on drugs, the "war" on poverty, the "war" on cancer, and so on.

Let me ask you something: In light of the Bush administration repeatedly stressing to the public that the "war" on terrorism will never come to a decisive conclusion, that it will take a concerted effort for an indefinite period of time; given that the new laws authorizing drastic curtailment of due process, habeas corpus and other legal protections, co-mingling of domestic law enforcement and overseas intelligence operations and other unprecedented actions that were not even considered in the wake of Pearl Harbor, were passed with no meaningful debate, with few if any dissenting votes, at a time when public feedback was hampered by the extraordinary anthrax infestations; given that, in this country and others going back to antiquity, the overwhelming tendency of those in power is to accumulate more and not relinquish it easily, and that even a cursory examination of the history of the world validates this conclusion with example after example; in light of all these things, do you really expect me to accept that it is unreasonable to even raise a question about what the hell is going on?

quid pro quo?

[Tom]

if al qaida shut down all US international internet connections, most telephone lines and destroyed the main money transfer institutes - how long would it take until bush is on the air talking about a terrorist attack?

Why stop at the Internet?

[interstellar_donkey]

I read that the terrorsts sometime use cars to drive to their meetings. We should stop all oil shipments to the country.

One could presume that terrorists get sick. Stop any medical shipments, less we want to allow those terrorists to remain healthy.

And, when you think about it, those terrorists are crafty devils. They breathe oxygen, a gas created often by plants, just like us. Plants can't grow without sunlight, so lets block all the sunshine allowed into the country.

These may seem harsh to you, but think for a moment, who's side are you on?

utterly wrong

[samantha]

If we are ever to spread democracy and more opportunity and well-being throughout the world modern communications is utterly essential. If we can't talk to them, they can't learn of anything from outside and they can't even talk to one another in any modern way, then there is no way their situation can ever improve. Cutting off money coming in is also especially damaging.

In the rush to "do something" about terrorism we are stomping on a lot of rights and a lot of peoples lives. It is not money that makes terror. It is oppression, hatred, hoplessness, and rage. If we really want to cut "funding" to terror we must clean up its true funds by doing what we can to end oppression and to give hope.

We are headed in precisely the wrong direction.