Slashdot Mirror
UK anti-ID card campaign Gains Momentum
Jack writes "The British No2ID campaign, which opposes the creation of a National Identity Database to hold biometric data on all UK citizens, has created an online pledge as part of an effort to publicise their cause. The three-day old pledge has recently gained the attention of the blogging community, with bloggers bringing a thousand new signatories to the pledge today alone. Readers in the UK are invited to look at the No2ID FAQ on the plans for mandatory ID cards - some of it makes for scary reading." Update: 06/14 17:13 GMT by T : Side note: Tom Steinberg, director of MySociety.org (organizers of this petition) writes "The ID pledge is cool in that it is so big and successful, but it is a very small insight into what pledgebank.com can do." It's actually a much more general organizing tool.
So those who do NOT want a national ID are going to register their ID's in a centralized database...
hmmm...
Seriously, go get 'em guys.
I think its pathetic that the intelligence community which failed abysmally to thwart 9/11 and then come up with crap schemes like this to trace and identify possible terrorists. I'm sorry but they should be looking at schemes to find terrorists that don't involve abusing a cictizen's right to privacy.
I equate my right to privacy with my right to personal freedom so eat that you "freedom"-loving police-state-loving psychos.
There is a lot to be said against ID cards, but let's be honest. When I stayed in the UK I went to vote TWICE for a european election, just to show I could get away with it. When I opened a bank account, they asked me to bring a letter adressed to myself as proof of ID. If you know a mans mothers maiden name, it is as good as the PIN code to his credit card. There are a lot of good uses for near-unbreakable ID. The question is not the cards, the question is the database: who will keep it, and who will be allowed to read it. Please note you can also keep a database without issuing the cards...
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
BUT... I do not see why I should have to pay something like £90 when (as a studnet) the governments olny gives me £3000 to live off for a whole year!
Perhaps it's because you're a bad studnet? Perhaps if you're a better studnet you get more money?
If this is the case I might try cutting an artery and running around the hospital foyer spraying projectile blood and taunting the doctors because they can't treat me, as I won't have registered for an ID card.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
Sweden has had a system like this since 1960 or so. Whenever I do anything I give them my social security number (equivalent) and that's all I need. You cannot do anything in Sweden without one, unless you're all cash.
If I pay with a credit card I have to show ID. Identity theft is extremly rare here, I never even consider it. Very little personal business involving identity is done without showing for instance a drivers license (which also contains the Personal Identity Number).
The UK system of showing a gas bill or alike is just weird for someone like me.
For years the media were just talking about the ID cards, and never mentioned the database. Either because they wanted to distract from this fact (conspiracy theory... ?) or they were just too stupid to see the actual problem (Journalists, eh..). In my eyes the database is the actual problem! This is why you are not required to carry your card with you: The police can x-check you against the database at any time anyway and this way can always find out who you are, even if you don't have your card on you! The UK government keeps saying 'Other countries had this for years', and THEY HAVE NOT! They had cards, but NO CENTRAL DATABASE!!
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
I don't live in the U.K., but this makes sense to me.
I don't care if the government or whoever knows who I am and where I live. They already know that, because I pay taxes. So now because of opposition to this national ID thing, my name's in a database somewhere. Well, God forbid anyone would put me in a database besides the oh-so-trustworthy twenty to a hundred direct marketing firms who are sending me catalogs all the time.
But: The fact that my name is in the hands of this random anti-ID petition site whereever does not put me at risk that in a year, I'll go to sign up for a Barnes and Noble discount card or something, and they'll demand to see a copy of my signature on this anti-ID petition before they will give it to me. Or that someone-- maybe the clerk at Barnes and Noble-- will get hold of the SQL ID for my signature on the anti-ID petition website, and use that, since it is valid proof of my identity, to go sign up for two or three credit cards in my name.
A national I.D. card of the sort that's being proposed here, however, does neatly create these problems and a number more like them. The problem here isn't the mere act of being identified, it's everything that happens after that. So I don't really see being identified by some random website somewhere in order to prevent or just protest a problematic ID card program as being a problem.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The biometric aspect can (and should be) discussed, but I still don't see why the paper ID card is worse than a passport or a driver license regarding privacy ?
#include "coucou.h"
I'm quite impressed at how the anglosaxon world reacts to ID cards. They are present in most countries, and are a far cry from a fascist tool.
As far as my experience goes, in Italy you can get fined for loitering if you are found without "papers" and you are over 18. Yet nobody ever asked me papers without a good reason (airport, electoral office, and such things). Never seen an evil use of that, and can hardly conceive one.
In Norway, in order to do many things you have to be registered at the Forlkeregister. For instance, to open a bank account, have a job and the such. Banks and employers must in turn report on your savings and earnings to the tax office, so that your tax papers come into your mailbox already filled in, and you have to worry only about minor adjustments. If anyone accesses these data on a non-routine basis, you are automatically sent a letter notifying you of who asked (usually they need your permission).
Finally, it baffles me how people are so nervous about a stupid piece of paper or plastic. On the No2ID site I read taurinities like it would cause racial discrimination, fingerprint people like criminals (I have been taken fingerprints only once in my life, at the military draft visit), and will be useless against crime. Never mind there are heaps of experience in continental Europe of criminals caught because they provided a not-good-enough fake ID (one I remember was mafia boss Madonia). The claim that identity theft would not be affected is simply ludicrous: the very term "identity theft" is exclusive to the anglosaxon world, as identity theft is impossible with an ID-card system; in continental Europe, we don't even talk of it.
And last but not least, how can be that people are worried about ID cards when living in countries where the government has been given insane powers to detain people without trial and rights, like in Guantanamo?
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
I find it amazing that a Labour government is the one proposing such a scheme, had this been proposed under the conservatives it would have died on it's feet.
I think the reason they are proposing it is firstly so they can pretend they are taking serious steps to address terrorism, illegal immigration and benefit fraud and secondly because all the companies who may well be involved in providing an ID card system are telling them what a great idea it is.
Worryingly a lot of random people I talk to about this are in favour of a scheme which does all the things the ID cards will supposedly accomplish and so are broadly in favour of the scheme in general. However as soon as they think about the actual practicalities of the scheme, especially the bit where they end up having to pay for it, they begin to change there minds.
The trouble is that this ID card scheme is badly thought out with very few clear achievable goals and hugely expensive, the bottom line is that the money could be spent on more effective and more practical measures which do not end up in a giant IT fiasco and attempts to create all knowning databases on all of us.
See the difference?
It's funny how the UK government changed the main incentive for the cards when the original reason, "to stop terrorism" (when the only people who wouldn't have cards would be terrorists) did not gain support.
They are now apparently to stop identity fraud, and terrorism is just a plus to that. I'm not liking it one bit, I'll have my civil rights back, please.
Business Voyeur
Theres a drama called Last Rights on Ch4 at the moment set in 2009 after a low election turnout brings a new radical party to power. They enforce curfews and shut down ISPs. All the police were carrying little PDAs with cameras and would go up to kids and point it in their eye to scan them and see if they should have been indoors, I thought that gadget was absolutely spot on - if we start having databases like this there won't be any need to carry an ID card - you'll have this crap pointed in your face for just about everything you do and if you're iris isn't on the database you're gonna be treated like the worst of the worst.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
All the Madrid bombers had valid ID also.
Saudi Arabia was far more involved than Afghanistan could ever be.
Each invasion was a message to the Suadi's, each invasion led the US closer to Saudi and the Mujahadean.
So why not introduce what other countries had for years: A difficult to forge ID card with NO CENTRAL DATABASE.
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
This is one, of the many, factors that has led to my decision to leave the UK.
I've had enough of the UK following the US into wars, the new laws that have nothing to do with terrorism and more to do with monitoring citizens - and stupid expensive schemes like the ID cards. These are a couple of the tin foil reasons, a lot more is about the way the society in the UK is going; I don't want my daughter brought up here.
I've got my visa from my country of choice, I just need to sell up and move now.
BTW I've written to my MP, my MEP, about this issue and IP laws - have you other UK slashdotters?
The grand-parent clearly just threw out his/her post to get some reactions and some karma.
We are against the idea of being forced to identify ourselves, being forced to carry id cards, and more commonly against the idea of spending vast amounts of public money for a system that clearly won't live up to expectations.
We are against a system that will be fragile and prone to abuse by having a single point of failure, and we are against the fact that it will not solve *ANY* of the problems that the Labour government claim it will:
* Fighting terrorism. Oh dear, it's the 'T' word. Compulsory id cards in Spain didn't stop the Madrid massacre. Those flying the planes on September the 11th entered the US with valid documents. It won't stop any sufficiently determined terrorist attack here either.
* Cracking down on illegal immigrants. Since most illegal immigrants tend to find work at the very edge of the law to begin with, ID cards won't make any difference. In fact, what happens if you suddenly deny everything to those who are already in the country? They'll probably turn to crime to survive.
* Identity theft. Won't be stopped by this scheme, for sure - anyone sufficiently determined will be able to get around this. Biometrics is not a mature technology, and has never been implemented on this kind of scale. Besides, most 'identity theft' is just credit card fraud anyway, which is a whole different matter.
* If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear. Well yes, we've heard this one before, and we know why it's a terrible argument. The best way to enslave the people is to do it slowly, etc.
"the government already knows who you are. you pay taxes dont you ? if you pay taxes the government knows who you are, how much you money you make, how much you spend, if you leave the country they know, when you return the customs records your entry in the country... "
As far as the tax authorities are concerned, someone calling themselves "titzandkunt"(!) earns so much money, and consequntly pays a certain rate of tax. Unless thay suspect that I'm under-declaring my income, that's the end of their involvment. They have no idea how much I spend - why should they?
"an ID card can be very usefull. we have them in brasil since... well, my grandmother still had hers RG (Registro Geral = general registry) from 1946..."
Useful for what? BTW, were ID cards introduced in Brasil during a democratic period, or during one of the dictatorships (1930-34, 1937-45, 1964-85).
"when someone have an accident here, the first thing paramedics do is check if the person is carying an RG card to know who he/she is, makes identification in case of death easier, proves that you are who you say you are when using a credit card or check."
I hope to God that this is hyperbole! If a patient is in a condition that they can't clearly state their identity, the paramedics ought to be checking the ABC's (airways, breathing, circulation) first.
When I'm presenting a credit card or cheque, I don't need further ID - both have got my name on them.
"a government issued ID only adds to convenience, IMHO"
Yet again, you don't say how.
The real problem that informed critics have with the proposed uk ID scheme is not the card per se, but with the database backing the card. Do you know what information the government proposes to hold on this database? Here we go:
- Name
- Other previous names or aliases;
- Date and place of birth and, if the person has died, the date of death;
- Address
- Previous addresses in the United Kingdom and elsewhere;
- Times of residency at different places in the United Kingdom or elsewhere;
- Current residential status;
- Residential statuses previously held;
- Information about numbers allocated to the applicant for identification purposes and about the documents to which they relate;
- Information about occasions on which recorded information in the Register has been provided to any person;
- Information recorded in the Register on request.
- Photograph
- Fingerprints
- "Other" biometrics (iris recognition);
- Signature
- Nationality;
- Entitlement to remain in the United Kingdom; and
- Where entitlement derives from a grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, the terms and conditions of that leave.
- National Identity Registration Number;
- The number of any ID card that has been issued;
- National Insurance number;
- The number of any relevant immigration document;
- The number of any United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)) that has been issued;
- The number of any passport issued by or on behalf of the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or by or on behalf of an international organisation;
- The number of any document that can be used (in some or all circumstances) instead of a passport;
- The number of any identity card issued by the authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
- Any reference number allocated by the Secretary of State in connection with an application made for permission to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom;
- The number of any work permit (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971);
- Any driver number connected to a driving licence;
- The number of any designated document which is held by the ap
Political language
Ive not read the No2ID article ( yet ) but heres a point of view from my Neighbour.
.. but its interesting how the security groups and organisations in this country are very much in favour of something that in reality gives no added benefit to their ability to stop crime.
My Neighbour, Detective Constable, is very much in favour of ID cards. On explanation though the reason is this:-
If youve nothing to fear then why worry. If your not commiting crime then why are you worried about what peple know about you. He goes on to point out that many people in the UK have given up privacy with Store Cards, Credit Cards, Switch Cards, Loyalty Cards, Fast pay cards and not to mention Driver Licenses, Passports, National Insurance etc etc etc.
What he has not convinced me of though is that in having a national ID that it will in any way reduce crime or stop terrorism or halt fraud.
Indeed he made it quite clear that criminals do not carry id or generally assist in identification if they can avoid it.
It seems to me that a criminal is already beyond caring about legality and its very unlikely that they will carry any legitimate identifaction.
Ive heard it expressed quite well by a comedian who posed the question "What freedoms am i restricting other people to have by owning a ID card"
As I pointed out to my neighbour the money spent on this scheme and the on going resources and expense in deliveriing it might be better spent in equipping him and other support organisations ( Hospitals or Fire ) with more people and better training.
In the town where I live the paper seems to be reporting every week about a violent attack or robbery on local citizens by various "youths" will these attackers be showing their ID cards before robbing their victims ?
So now im off to rtfa
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
It was front page news on the BBC website, shortly after the general election:
m m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4554827.st
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4551121.st
I think the common people in the UK do know about it, but perhaps not about all the consequences that we worry so much about here on slashdot.
I'm British - and while I agree with all the statements, I am dissuaded from signing the petition because they won't let me sign without also signing up for a newsletter.
I DO NOT WANT YOUR NEWSLETTER! DO NOT SPAM ME! I BELIEVE IN THE PETITION BUT I DON'T WANT JUNK POST OR JUNK EMAIL. I AM "SIGNING" A WEB FORM I CAN LOOK AT YOUR WEBSITE IF I WANT MORE INFORMATION!!!
Until recently I've been undecided about the whole identity card debate. I can see that it would be extremely useful to make something equivalent to the British Passport compulsory for British citizens - though I never fail to be amazed at the gross incompetence surrounding even that system. I was always deeply sceptical that the government could successfully pull off a project on the scale of national IDS - their track record is abysmal. Recently my opinions have crystallised by the most recent decision to track every motorist by satellite and charge by the mile - this proposal is, in my opinion clear evidence of dishonesty, cretinism - or possibly both. Given that the UK public transport system is, in all practical senses, unusable this proposal would give unprecedented levels of information on the movements of almost every member of society. While I once saw the purpose of being able to definitively identify those born in Britain I can only find underhand motives for these policies.
I'm yet to vote (having chosen to abstain in 3 general elections) - I would now seriously consider voting for a candidate who demonstrably opposes these malicious proposals.
The flights hijacked were domestic flights, so no passport was needed.
College Humor at it's best
You're missing the point. It's not just about the ID card. It's about the database(s).
...you are not allowed to drive, because a recent police cross-check on databases, revealed that you have been driving for the last 10 weekends following a certain pattern. You were always driving about 2 hours after your visit to a pub, where you had a few drinks each time. Although you had always 2 drinks and you were below the limit, statistics showed that 56% of the people who follow the certain pattern and have the health problem you have, have increased risk of causing an accident. No action is required by you, your ID card has been updated. Have a nice day.
...you are required to attend to your local police station for an interview. You have been considered as a posible threat to national security. Although we hold no evidence against you, our database cross-checks have revealed that you belong to a high risk category. You have borrowed 4 books from your local library over the last 2 weeks; 1 on politics, 1 on communism, 1 on freedom and 1 on computer networks. You are a member of Greenpeace and an activist for a group against recent goverment actions like our recent war. You are also classified as a person who has objections with authority as your school records show, an incident at your previous employment, as well as a conversation you had with a police officer last year. You associate with a person who has broken the law once (your neighboor) and he has a friend where he broke the law twice this year. None of these facts about you is explicitly unlawful, however the combination of these facts classifies you as having a 12% chance of commiting an act which would be detrimental to our national security, within the next 6 months. USA security agencies comfirm this as well. Due to our proactive policy we would like an interview with you. The outcome of our interview will determine whether you will be sent to camp delta for reeducation or not. If you do not attend your local police station within 24 hours you will be arrested. Your ID card service capabilities have been suspended until then. Have a nice day.
You'd be required to use the ID for public services, health services, to get a job, to travel, to use private sector services, like buying a book, a dvd, a newspaper, etc etc.
Now, each goverment agency will have its own database collecting relevant information about you. Private companies will also keep their own databases collecting information about you. Ok, you're gonna say, nothing new here. I already use a card for my bank, another one to drive, another one for my local library, another one for my local supermarket etc. So what's the difference?
The difference is that you'll only use *one* card. That is *one* database *key* able to be used to run queries across any databases that keep information about you. These queries can return results in seconds with almost no effort. While nowdays, to get a profile on a person you'd need too much resources and time. So they only do it for criminals and not for your average citizen. Things will change though. Combine this with statistics, a proactive policy and the export of ID data to the US and things get scary pretty quickly. Think of the unlimited possibilities for the goverment or corporations; they could built complete profiles on you. Something that is impossible today because even though you exist on many databases, they are not integrated.
For example, you receive a letter saying...
You think this is fiction? Yes, but for how long?
VStrider.
As a US citizen, I find a complaint about "only 3000 a year" to be damn ridiculous. As another reply hinted at, get a job. Guess how much the gov't gives me. 2000? 1000? Try zero. And on top of that, I pay income tax, pay into a social security program that most likely won't be there when I retire, and pay for a myriad state run programs such as Workman's Comp, Unemployment Insurance, Paid Family leave, etc. So while you are sitting there with your 3000 handout from the government, I'm going to continue to pull 19 and 20 hour days trying to cram in work, school and studying. I think any US citizen that's put themselves through college can relate to this.
Thank you, that is all.
College Humor at it's best
I can't blame the Police for wanting this so badly. It must seem to the uninformed, or technically optomistic as some sort of panacea.
This would be greate if biometric evidence couldn't be planted or national databases couldn't be hacked.
It would also be good if they could come up with a card that can 100% identify you as who you say you are. Douglas Adams had great fun with this concept in Mostly Harmless. I'm sure organized crime will have even more fun. If it is statically stored on a chip it can be read, unencrypted and faked. The more faith that is put in a system like this, the more it can and will be abused.
I just can't see any way that this can help the British public. I work for one of the large computer projects that they are citing as a failure in the article. The problem here is that we take our job, keeping private information private, very seriously. This means that what could normally be a very simple application is often a megalythic nightmare. This results in slow development time and high costs, and perceived inefficiency. This is all well and good if application is essential to reducing our already expensive beurocracy, I can't imagine what would happen when they're creating a system to actively increase the it.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
Just to clarify: since in fact no Afghan soldiers were involved, no "act of war" was in fact committed. The taliban "government" came to power with aid of the US and were later removed by US force. A souvereign state with innocent civilians was raped over an issue that is primarily US internal.
Surely, Afghan training camps weren't there out of American pattriotism. But neither were the Saudi families on US soil that paid for the camps. They were NOT hunted, caught, killed, or tortured without trial in Guantanamo. Far from that. They were put on planes and allowed to escape to Saudi Arabia even when the post-9/11 no-fly measure was still in effect.
Fingers could equally point at agencies, airport security, North-American, European and Asian countries. That's what I mean by Afghanistan being related only peripherally and Iraq not begin related at all.
OK. I'm ranting, so I'll stop.
--
Ps. Thanks for spelling corrections, but please have another go
No-one will want it, people will campaign against it , newspapers will argue against it and the government will stick their fingers in their ears, say "la la la I can't hear you" and implement it anyway.
Not that it means we shouldn't try and get Labour to see some sense, but given that they've been deeply unpopular for several years but still got voted in for another four years (on the basis that they might be bad, but the competition is even worse), they realise that they can get away with doing almost what they want with little recourse.
As such, I'm not holding out much of a hope on this one.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
The lack of ID cards is not the main cause of the administration inefficiency.
Countries with National ID cards have censuses, too.
That kind of information flow can be done with your tax ID.
Credit card fraud can easily be done in countries that have ID cards.
I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
Then you are white and middle classed. I spent many years living and working in Paris and was appalled to see blacks and arabs routinely pulled over for questioning and production of papers. Being white I was never asked once.
Friends of mine of Cambodian origin were unable to leave their home without ensuring they were carrying their papers, since they were routinely stopped.
If you choose not to make a fuss about such a situation that is your choice. I for one refuse to submit to such a situation.
And if you believe that identity theft can be prevented by simply presenting an ID card, then I hope for all our sakes that you are neither a policeman or banker.
Sorry, guys, but I want smartcard identification and biometric identifiers. I find it ridiculous that if my driver's license or credit card gets stolen, someone can trivially impersonate me, wreck my credit rating, and do other things to ruin me. Given the widespread availability of high quality scanners and printers, paper and plastic just won't do anymore.
Of course, we shouldn't kid ourselves: smartcards and biometric identifiers are not sufficient for improving security, and they will do little to stop terrorism. But, while not sufficient, they are a necessary component of any future system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4590817.s tm
And none of the reasons the government has given for introducing them have stood up to any sort of scrutiny.
http://mrprecision.blogspot.com/2005/05/lets-sta rt-with-id-cards.html
A driving licence is a licence to drive a car. A passport is a document to allow you to go to another country. An ID card is a document to allow you to live. I already have that right thank you very much and I don't need the government to give me permission.
There are extremely good passport and driving license forgeries BTW.
Deleted
ID CARDS: The War on Error
As British MPs wake up to the likelihood that ID cards may be a multibillion pound failure thanks to poor biometric trial results and big predicted increases in costs, warnings from the United States don't bode well either.
When the White House office of management and budget investigated 33 homeland security initiatives involving many firms that are potential ID card contractors, it found that only four of the projects had been effective.
Of the ineffective ones, a scheme called US-Visit is particularly relevant to the ID card debate here in Britain. The 10-year, $10bn contract for a computer network to screen foreigners visiting or leaving the US, recording their details and checking them against terrorist suspect databases, was won by Accenture. It promised a futuristic system with "biometrc" face and fingerprint recognition, but as the US general accounting office (GAO) found, costs would be well above the $7.2bn estimate and this "very risky endeavor" would probably cost "in the tens of billions".
Even less encouraging was its conclusion that "it is uncertain that US-Visit will be able to measurably and appreciably achieve the Department of Homeland Security's stated goals for the program".
Guess what! Accenture is a likely bidder for ID card work in Britain; and Ian Watmore, head of "E Government" here, is a former Accenture chief executive and ID card enthusiast. When he was appointed last year he suggested he would lead the project. So that's all right, then.
ok your opinion but how? Hint: it won't as we (civil servants) already have government ID cards and someone else being able to prove who they are quickly will save all of 1 minute in the course of things
You can for once prove you are who you are in the UK
I can now with drivers license, bank cards, pay slip, utility bill, national insurance card ETC (ironically my government ID is not acceptable/recognized).
For the normal law-abiding citizen it will actually be easier to acquire a new driving license or passport should you have lsot the old one.
not difficult anyway might save a minute or 2 in the scheme of things
Improved information flow through the public sectors, e.g. if you become unemployed and go to the job centre or such like, your tax code can be updated right there instead by changing your status.
There is no reason this can't be done now so it is unlikely to change with ID cards.
Credit card scams are ripe in the UK with people stealing identities and having to provide an absolute minimum of ID to empty your account
No more ripe than any other country many of whom have ID cards.
Just because it wasn't part of the empire doesn't mean you can't use it!
Grow up you pathetic child! By using that as one of your arguments you show you have no real arguments in favour and that you allow prejudice to cloud your judgment "some old colonial types oppose ID cards then I must be for them" well I have news for you a lot of old colonial types favour ID cards probably more than oppose them, not that there are many old colonial types left.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
And I really want to know:what did we do to deserve this. Don't answer that if you're a terrorist - I'm talking to the law abiding non terrorist element on slashdot, plus MP3 downloaders. What did we do deserve the governemnt we supposedly elect treating all of us like criminals? Is there some subtle trend to socail masochism? Are we experimenting with a form of cultural S&M?
So why do we put up with it? There is no such thing as absolute security. We could turn the entire planet into a giant prison and take turns beating confessions out of one another, and we'd still not have absolute security - its always going to be a tradeoff agains liberty.
So maybe its time we thought a bit more about where we want to draw that line. How much liberty can you sacrifice before the security isn't worth having? How much before lack of domestic liberty becomes its own source of terrorism?
Anyone else find all this reminiscent of Nietzsche ? "He who battles monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Just to clarify: since in fact no Afghan soldiers were involved, no "act of war" was in fact committed
Here's an idea: How about America privatize its army. Just spin it off into its own independent corporation.
After that, oh, what? It's invading other countries purely at random? Well, what they choose to do in their own time is their own business.
Pentagon Inc troops are marching on France? Paris in ruins, the government overthrown? The U.N. a little upset about this act of war? Oh now hold on a fucking second there. I'll not hear you slandering the U.S. like that. Since no American soldiers were involved, no "act of war" was in fact committed.
---
Every single goddamn thing in your post after the sentence I quoted above has not one thing whatsoever to do with the Afghanistan invasion. They are entirely, entirely separate issues.
The problem with the Bush administration is that they abandoned the "war on terror" after a few weeks blowing random things up in Afghanistan, ignored crucial issues with Pakistan, ignored crucial issues with Saudi Arabia, ignored root causes and in fact exacerbated root causes. The problem is not that in their brief, feeble attempts at combatting terrorism instead of just using Terrorism as an excuse for other things they want, they started with going after the groups in Afghanistan. The fact the Reagan clan helped the Taliban to power is extremely important, and the persons responsible (such as, for example, much of the current Bush Administration...) need to be held accountable, but this does not rob America of the right or need to react when groups which are literally a guest of the Taliban are launching attacks on the U.S.. And those of you who just plain denounce things the Republicans did because the Republicans did them are making things very difficult for those of us who are trying to get America to denounce the Republicans have been doing because they are wrong.
In the meantime, if you seriously think that substate entities can't commit acts of war, then you are in for some rude awakenings. States are effectively no longer able to wage war, at least not against the U.S.. Iraq proved that. This means that states are no longer going to try. That does not mean no one will. It just means it's nothing but privatized armies from here on out.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts