Teacher: Today kids, we are going to start the month-long process of reading Hamlet...
Student: Couldn't we just watch the movie in two hours instead?
Techer: No!
Very, very, good point, just not the best example since that would be a good use of technology. Hamlet is a play after all and was originally meant to be seen not read. To merely read Hamlet without seeing it performed either on stage or as a movie would be to miss the point. Of course the student should also read and analyse the play as well since they are students not theater goers, but I don't think you can do a good job of teaching Shakespeare if you are operating as if it is a novel when it is in fact a play. Students should watch a good production of any shakespeare play prior to reading it to help them understand the text or afterwards to help them appreciate what they learned, or both. Watching the plays has value even if they aren't read so watching several productions while reading and studying only one or two in particular wouldn't be a bad use of time either.
Watching the movie version of a novel on the other hand would be a total waste of time. It's fine as entertainment and interesting after reading the book but not a good use of classroom time.
Sort of related rant: There is one movie that it irks me I didn't see (or was even mentioned) in the classroom. In high school we read and discussed extensivelly Arthur Miller's The Crucible it is educational malpractice to do that without watching, or at least mentioning, Elia Kazan's On the Waterfront.
The most disturbing suspension of civil liberties is the power the Bush administration has given itself to try uspected terrorists in secret military tribunals - all non-US citizens, even long time residents of the United States, can be tried and sentenced in secret military courts
Despite the opinion often voiced on this board that there is aboslutely *no* relationship between the restrictions of civil liberties and increased security there is in some situations exactly such a relationship and our contitution and laws reflect that reality. To be fair I will note that if such measures are taken to lengths not justified by the degree of threat or are taken to extremes even if there is a high level of threat they become subject to a law of diminishing returns and can even become counterproductive. Unfortunately since our enemy in this war is secretive and shadowy it is very hard even for our government to assess the real level of continuing threat. But the attacks on Septemeber 11th suggest that it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the threat.
As for the constitutionality and legality of the tribunals there is a fair amount of ambiguity since al Queada is not a state and we are acting under a legally vague "use of force resolution" rather than a legally clarifying declaration of war. Neither of these ambiguities are insurmountable though. The US went to war with the barbary pirates even though they were not independant nations (they really were but legally they were theoretically part of the Ottoman Empire). Al Queada is certainly more than a mere criminal enterprise but a substantial paramilitary organisation with over ten thousand troops in Afghansitan and many thousands of agents in cells around the world. As for our not declaring war - international law states that the laws of war are binding on a belligerent even if the other party to the conflict does not recognise a state of war. Al Queada declared war on us when bin Laden issued his "fatwa." Attacking the WTC is a war crime in every respect. Attacking the Pentagon is not a war crime in and of itself but operating behind enemy lines disguised as civilians and using a civillian airliner as a method of attack are.
So treating al Queada commanders and their agents who have infiltrated our country as war criminals is legally justifiable - so who has jurisdiction and what prodedures do they have the option to use? The constitution specifically gives the congress the authority to punish "Offences against the Law of Nations" which would include the "law of war." Congress has used that authority to write the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" which puts war crimes under the jurisdiction of optionally either a General Court Martial (Art. 18 of the UCMJ) or of Military Commissions (UCMJ, Art. 21) for "offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by military commissions..." There is no statute and no specific treaty or convention defining what exactly those offenses are so GWB (and Lincoln and FDR) is relying on the common law "law of war" which is rather vague though the UCMJ itself gives a little additional insight since in the articles defining crimes and punishments it again specifically mentions military commissions (in addition to courts martial) as having jurisdiction for both the crimes of "aiding the enemy" and "spying" (articles 104 and 106) the common law "law of war" is further clarified by precedents during the revolutionary war, civil war and world war II and by the unanimous supreme court decision in Ex Parte Quirine.
As I said before there are some ambiguities but overall the legal and constitutional validity of these military tribunals seems pretty sound.
The vast majority of US BW research was defense related, even befor the above policy.
Research is fine (except that subset which would be only useful for offense), we may not use biological weapons but we have enemies that can and would. What was horrible is that at one time we anticipated using such weapons, and had stockpiles of them for that anticipated use. This is even more abhorant than nuclear weapons precisely because of the reasons you point out - it is only appropriate for genocide and invariably backfires not only on you but on everyone else in the world.
Unless you are one of those people that gets their understanding of the US government from watching the X-Files and going to militia meetings that just isn't true. While I'm sure there are plenty of specifics that are still classified we know pretty well what went on in general and what defensive research is going on now.
You can thank the US government for its biological warfare research in the early 50's to late 60's for giving terrorists so many good ideas...
While there was no excuse for us to ever be even researching the use of biological weapons (except defensive research) at least we thought better of it and stopped by the late 60's. The Soviets on the other hand never stopped and I'm sure their research was sufficient to give any potential bio-terrorists those ideas. And now their underpaid disgruntled former researchers are the main reason this is such an uncomfortably credible threat.
A suicide terrorist could EAT the virus, and go on vacation in the US, visiting as many places as possible, breathing on as many people as possible.
This is exactly why I always thought the Anthrax attack is not by al Queada. They like alot of impact against high level targets and they are willing to commit suicide to do it. Anthrax is not detected by things like metal detectors or x-ray machines, it is a powder that could be easily hidden or even appear innocent to a physical search (before everyone got justifiably paranoid about it) A simple visit to the public gallery of the US house of representatives a day or two prior to a Presidential address could have left enough innocent looking but lethal dust floating about in the air to decimate our top political leadership. Of course the person willing to go spread the dust around would infect himself but that seems just the kind of thing that would appeal to these guys. Sending letters with threatening messages (fairly screaming out:"test me for anthrax while it is still treatable") and are going to be opened by junior staffers in any event is for people who aren't willing to die for their cause and aren't even serious about killing their targets.
No, actually the Pilgrams carved out a place where they could run a theocracy that was harsher than anything in England but happened to agree with their religion.
The principles of free speech come not from the Bible, but instead from the European Enlightenment - John ocke, et la. Note they are largely upheld in India and Japan, two other non-Christian nations.
The Pilgrims did no such thing - I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the Puritans who came along later. And as for the Puritans, sitting here in the former colony of Rhode Island I find your statments about the European Enlightenment inventing the concept of free speech and freedom of religion out of whole cloth with no reliance on their christian heritage a little incredible. The colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations was the very first government anywhere in the world without a state religion and with an understanding of freedom of religion that we would recognise as such today. It was founded by a Puritan (and later Baptist) preacher on a christian doctrine of "soul liberty" that he at least apparently managed to extrapolate from the teachings of the Bible and his Puritan theology when Locke was but 4 years old. Despite modern efforts to turn Williams into a proto-enlightenment, proto-modernist thinker his theology was rooted in Puritan thought and would probably find it's closest kinship today in double-seperatist babtists, the very definition of fundamentalism. (When Williams was the pastor of the church in Salem he excommunicated the entire colony of Massachusetts because it didn't live up to his standards, by the end of his life he would only take communion with his wife and he wasn't to sure about her either)
Not so. How is it possible to find "prior art" which is not patented? Are all such examples produced by starving idealists? I think not. Educators, hobbyists, and business people have innovated/invented from before the time you were born and will do so long after
There will of course be many innovations whose creators will not patent because they do not consider the protection worth the trouble usually because the innovation is incidental to their business plan (if they are a businessman) or their livelyhood (as is the case of educators and hobbyists). But if they are inventing something that they intend to sell they either keep their innovations a secret, patent them, or fail.
As a small example, if you work, do you make a living at your job? Have you ever done anything you consider original and not obvious? Did you patent all such things?
Well I am a designer and an illustrator, my living is entirely dependent on intellectual property in the form of copyright laws. If I did not own the rights to my work I would not be able to sell those rights to my clients and I would have no recourse against anyone using my works after their initial publication. - Open source software as we know it would also be killed by the eradication of intellectual property rights since the creator of the software would have no way of putting those open source conditions on the use of their code.
History is very clear on this point - prior to the development and refinement of intellectual property laws many innovators were undercut and made destitute by competitors that freely copied their innovations but were not saddled with the development costs
When did this stop happening?
Um I thought we covered this - when intellectual property laws were developed. When it does happen the inventor now has legal recourse and a right to be compensated by those using his invention.
How big was Einstein's patent portfolio? Are we marginalizing anyone that does not patent what they do?
Perhaps I misspoke - I should have said technilogical progress rather than scientific progress. Einstein was of course not primarly an inventor but a scientist and a researcher (and patent clerk). Scientists discover natural principles about the universe, inventors apply those principles to some practical purpose. E=mc2 is not patentable but the methods and techniques of applying that physical principle to actually create a nuclear bomb or power plant would be.
As for Einsteins patent portfolio I don't know how extensive it was but at a minimum there are the 45 patents he filed jointly with Leo Szilard, interestingly some of which were for a refrigerator without moving parts.
Sheesh! There's no more of a biological terror threat than there was 15 years ago. People are so paranoid.
I know at least a few postal workers that would disagree with you.
There is in fact a much greater threat for three reasons:
1) Technological progress. Technology makes everything cheaper and easier, not just the good things but bad things as well. This includes the development and deployment of chemical or biological agents. As technology makes things cheaper and easier they are attainable by smaller groups with less accountability. Weapons that once required the resources of a nation-state to develop will more and more be within the grasp of smaller and smaller organisations. A state will act with some discretion because they are big fixed targets and would face assured destruction (nothing mutual about it unless it's Russia) if they could be connected to such an attack. A smaller more shadowy entity like al Queada can hope to make such a massive attack and yet survive by just disapearing.
2) The fall of the Soviet Union. While the fall of the USSR has decreased the risk of a total nuclear (and chemical and biological) armaggedon it has dramatically increased the threat of biological terror. The Soviet Union/Russia was the number one center of knowledge about and researcher and developer of biological weapons. It has been in a state of profound social and economic upheaval which has led to a loss of accountability and control over that knowledge, research and probably it's products.
3) The end of the Cold War (Obviously related to reason number 2) The cold war was a bad thing but it had some advantages in terms of political and world stability - it tended to polarise the world into two camps and the the leadership of those two camps tended even while they worked against each other to also keep their proxies in line for fear of escallating the conflict out of control. The terrorists of Sept. 11 at that time would have been under the influence if not control of one of the two superpowers, neither of which would have allowed such a massive attack directly on their opponents homeland. The waters are a great deal muddier now, there is less accountability and more divergent and conflicting interests being more aggresively pursued.
I hate to disagree with old Ben Franklin but I have to agree with the other founders who won the debate at the constitutional convention. An inventor can only make a living by his invention if by some mechanism he retains exclusive use of it. If he does not his invention will be emulated by others without any compensation to himself for developing it. If the process of invention is at all costly he will benefit even less than his emulators since they don't have those costs. So an inventor WILL secure exclusive use of his invention, if the state does not secure it for him by law he will secure it for himself by secrecy. Ironically the alternative to intellectual property upheld by the state is not more openness but significantly LESS.
History is very clear on this point - prior to the development and refinement of intellectual property laws many innovators were undercut and made destitute by competitors that freely copied their innovations but were not saddled with the development costs. Trade guilds and master craftsmen went to extravagent lengths to keep their techniques secret so that they could secure a living by them, indeed that was the whole point of guilds. And they kept these secrets not for a "limited time" but passed them down exclusively to their sons and apprentices for generations.
Had the US not provided protections to inventors we would not have been marked by the unprecedented degree of scientific and technical advances that we have in fact enjoyed but by a medieval rate of scientific progress. At best we would have been a nation of emulators profitting from but not adding to the scientific advances from Europe.
Why should any company have the law enforcement backed authority to shakedown individuals for cash for any concept or idea? Don't tell me the founding fathers of the US thought it was a good idea. All of them did not.
Um... Yes I will tell you the founding fathers thought it was a good idea. In their own words:
"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" - U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
I don't know which founding fathers you may think were opposed to the concept of intellectual property but it's pretty obvious that if there were any they lost that debate. There are good arguments for reforming intellectual property laws so that they are fairer and less liable to be abused. I'm much more sceptical about arguments for scrapping the concept altogether. One thing thatis certain the founding fathers supported the idea of intellectual property, and it's enforcment by the state, as a way to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by making sure authors, innovators and inventors were fairly compensated for the use of their inventions.
Uhhh, not in the USA. You, me, and most small towns don't have the money to defend themselves in court for the years it takes to resolve an IP dispute with a large company like IBM.
Too true, but it is not really an argument against intellectual property as such but for a fairer, less complex and more transparent legal system. And surprisingly big companies like IBM would support reform of the court system because while it would lessen their ability to use their deep pockets to unfairly bully small fries with valid patents they would also be free from nuisance suits seeking to raid those deep pockets from small fries with invalid patents (and a host of other legal strategies to raid those deep pockets). Unfortunately the trial lawyers that are the only party that benefit from a complex and unpredictable legal system generate more than enough money from that system to protect it from any threat of reform.
Alpha compositing is dead obvious to even the most naive thinker
This argument is raised every time there is a patent dispute discussed on slashdot yet I'm always a little uncomfortable with it. We say something is "obvious" but we say so many years after it was invented (perhaps) and patented; years during which we have used it and become familiar with the concept. Was it really obvious when it was developed and patented or has it only become "obvious" because of it's subsequent widespread use and our consequent familialarity with the concepts involved?
In this particular case I suspect that the concept was indeed obvious by 1992 when the patent was issued - that seems pretty late in the game for such a basic concept in computer graphics. If it was obvious it won't be hard to find prior art. But in general we should recognise that concepts that are obvious to us now after long use were often breakthrough innovations obvious to no one when they were first developed.
Er, what about the Atari 800, the Vic 20, the C64, the TI 99/4A...
Er, I could be wrong but I think the timeline is something like this:
Various hobbyist kit computers such as the MITS Altair (1975) and the Apple I (1976) Apple II - 1977 First factory mass-produced PC
Atari 400/800 and TI 99/4 - 1979
Vic-20 - 1980 (also Apple II achieves 50% PC marketshare)
IBM PC - 1981
C64 - 1982
Apple Macintosh - 1984
Microsoft windows 1.0 - 1985
Actually i think it not *becoming* the MacOS that killed BeOS. BeOS was killed by NeXT long before OSX came out. If Gil Amelio had known how long that would be and who would be doing it BeOS would be alive today as MacOSB or some such.
Gasse left Apple knowing that Apples next major OS project had what he described to his successor as "cancer" and would be a spectacular failure. Low and behold he goes out and starts a little company to make a great PowerPC (the chip used by Apple) based multi-media (Apple's core market) OS (Apple's soon-to-be desparate need) that even had "classic" MacOS compatiblity. I think it's pretty obvious what the business plan was - wait for Apple to fall flat on it's face and then sell BeOS to them for a pile of money made enormous by sick desperation. And it was a good plan and should have worked. But Gasse thought he had the ONLY potential successor to MacOS and he didn't count on the infamous Jobs Personal Reality Distortion Field(TM) Gasse was blindsided and botched the next meeting with a suddenly less desperate Apple. the result was Apple bought NeXT instead of Be and hired Jobs instead of Gasse. Really the end of the story with a long decline as they thrashed about spiralling down through different business plans to their eventual cratering at the feet of Palm.
Sometimes I don't know why we support a system to make a few select people filthy rich just because they have the most aggressive business plan.
What system would you suggest as an alternative? Our system is based on individual choice - You and I choose to use non Microsoft products for our own reasons. Many more people choose Microsoft for their own reasons. Their reasons may be foolish and based on ignorance and manipulation by Microsoft - but in our system they have the freedom to choose unwisely and by doing so enrich Bill Gates. But I like the system that gives me the freedom to choose unwisely (by someone elses opinoin) and even gives Bill Gates the freedom to sell or not sell his product under the conditions he and his customers agree to.
Do you honestly think that bombing Afghanistan will do jack shit to prevent future terrorist actions against the US?
Yes,
Four months ago your enemies were Sudan, China, North Korea and so on.
These are represive regimes that are commiting horrible atrocities against their own populations and threatening their neighbors, they are regimes that we don't want to see succeed in their policies - in that sense they were before the 11th and remain now if not our enemies, at least our rivals. Despite their atrocities and their hostility these regimes did not commit any act of war against us and so are not in the narrowest sense our enemies as al Queada is. They are not sheltering our active enemies nor have they rejected an ultimatum to cease sheltering those enemies so they have not become our enemies in the way the Taliban has.
Bin Laden might be in Mongolia right now! He's not stupid.
That is doubtful since he is more vulnerable when on the move - but you are right: attacking him as we have in Afghanistan is a good way to get him running. If he is in Mongolia he is now in a nation whose police will cooperate with us in arresting him, and the war is succeeding in it's objectives.
...He was trained by the US intelligence, so he knows how they work.
More is made of this than is there - the CIA worked through the Pakistani ISA and mostly targetted their training and aid to Afghani nationals not to Arabs who were largely self-funded. I'm sure bin Laden and his group was the recipient of some CIA funds and perhaps even training on the margins of the program but he was not a creation of the CIA nor was he so intimate with them as to "know how they work"
(I'll skip by the bit where you reveal that your understanding of government comes from watching the X-Files & Oliver Stone movies)...and to replace one bad government in Afghanistan with another.
I hope now that we are paying attention we can help in crafting something a little better. Still, you may be right, but you forgot to add "replace on bad government (which supports & shelters our avowed enemies) with another (that does not)" The United Front may be a bunch of warlords but they are a bunch of warlords who hate al Queada and who are only interested in their own petty conflicts not with spreading a violent, repressive, imperialist religious fundamentalism.
Dropping food supplies is pathetic.
Agreed, Swiftly taking Mazar-i-Sharif and other northern border towns is much more important for feeding the starving population of Afghanistan.
The USA could have achieved more by not dropping so many bombs and giving the money saved to some international organization.
That depends on what you are trying to achieve - I don't see how feeding the Afghani's stops Al Queada. It certainly didn't stop them before - the United States government has fed more starving Afghani's than any other organisation. Some may argue we didn't give enough (and I would agree) but then why didn't any other nation or muslim charity shame us by giving more? In the long run stepping up our policy of international charity may win us more good will around the world but we have enemies that are actively seeking to kill us RIGHT NOW. Let me rephrase that so you will understand - they want and a planning to kill YOU, we can leave them alone or we can try to stop them.
Given that neither reaction nor inaction will prevent further attacks,
I don't think you can take that as a given.
but consider these points.
Which course (action or inaction) will encourage contempt and future aggression? (Clue: Neville Chamberlain, Bin Ladens comments after we retreated from Somolia)
Which course makes killing Americans a risk free and easy way to advance your political cause (whatever it might be)
Which course leaves our avowed enemies (which you concede WILL attack us) free to stage those future attacks without interference.
As for responding to your points: Which course will polarise world opinion, leading previously moderate people to support radical organisations? (Clue: look at Pakistan.)
Answer: Inaction - Yes, lets look at Pakistan for a clue. A nation that supported the Taliban and even Al Queada and a regime that has a lot of sympathy to both. Yet they actively support us - why? I think the answer is our likely "action" if they had continued support for radical organisations. As for the Pakistani "street" where there is unrest (though not really very much by Pakistani standards) as long as individual support for radical organisations is going to organisations that are harrassed by every government, without a safe haven and ineffectual - who cares.
Which course will kill innocent people abroad, in addition to those who have already died in the US? (Clue: look at Afghanistan.)
Answer: Inaction - Al Queada as a particular organisation has as a STATED OBJECTIVE the acquisition AND USE of Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons to pursue a holy war against all infidels on formerly Muslim lands (According to bin Laden this includes Spain by the way) - given time and the safety of Afghanistan they will succeed in this objective. Even in Afghanistan direct civillian casualites from US attacks pale in comparison to past attrocities by all other parties to the conflict - Casualties from famine is the real threat and is a powerful argument for a MORE aggresive attack that will put a larger portion of the population behind UF lines where aid can more readily reach them. The increased attention the war is generating is probably a boon to the millions of Afghan refugees *with were already* in Pakistan and Iran.
Which course will perpetuate a cycle of violence and be used to justify further attacks? (Clue: look at the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine.)
Inaction: All of the "clues" you provide are instances of people with different ethnic groups occupying the same ground where no lasting "victory" is possible - that is not the case with the US and any muslim land unless you think we are planning to colonise Afghanistan. Why not other "clues" of the inevitable "cycle of violence" war must always create? Look at the "cycle of violence" between the US and it's past enemies: England, Canada (at the time part of the British Empire) Mexico, Spain, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Vichy France, Korea (& China), Russia (a cold war but "enemies" none the less) even Vietnam which we completely botched but I still wouldn't characterise American and Vietnamese relations as a "cycle of violence" like the other "clues" you mentioned. In some of these cases our relationships are actually better for having had a war - can you imagine that we would be as friendly as we are with Germany, Italy and Japan if we had not gone to war against them? And there was a *massively* greater number of civilian casualties, displacement, ethnic expulsions, genocide & atrocities to feed a cycle of violence in those cases.
The people that we are directing this action against are simply giving up and siding with the Northern Alliance. All that are doing is 1) changing their affiliation from "Taliban" to "Nothern Alliance"
I wish that was true because if it was it would be an UNQUALIFIED SUCCESS. These "same people" whan they are called "Taliban" won't hand over Al Queada militants in their midst when they are called "Northern Alliance" they will. Since desstroying Al Queada is THE WHOLE POINT that would be a great victory, a stunning success and well worth the cost.
2) killing innocent civilians which just makes everyone mad,
Well if that is "all we are doing" we are failing because we have missed some of the civillians we were apparently trying to kill (if I understand you right) and actually killed a very large number of Taliban and Arab militants. That might "make everyone mad" if you define "everyone" as other muslim militants, those easily swayed by propoganda and maybe a few "useful idiots" in the west.
3) wasting money with an average cost of $300k for each bomb dropped.
Seems like a bargain to me. The one that killed 22 militant leaders at a meeting was a certainly a bargain and the one that killed another 85 militants was a HUGE bargain.
I heard the other day that Michigan is having trouble meeting the $1800/day cost to keep the National Guard at the US/Canada border in Detroit. Absolutely hogwash. Cancel one of those bombs and keep them here forever.
Closing the borders is perhaps a good defensive strategy but the cliche is true that "the best defense is a good offense" if we allow our enemies a haven where they can train, plan & organise no amount of defensive strategy will help us.
What about that guy who walked onto a plane last week with a bag full of KNIVES AND TEAR GAS?
Actually despite the unforgivable security failure that let him pass a security check point he was searched and stopped before boarding a plane. There was a security failure in one component and a success in a back-up component (which it should never have come to) but he was caught.
...Who cares, we're bombing Afghanistan and that will sove the problem?
It will not solve the security problems but then again unless we succumb to a complete police state there will always be poor security *somewhere* that is vulnerable to attack - a defensive strategy of merely "increased security" is guaranteed to fail and will sacrifice our civil liberties to boot. The war in Afghanistan WILL solve the problems that allowed Sept 11th to happen. Or more accurately is a NECESSARY component among others that will solve the problem. There will always be terrorists but there doesn't have to be such well organized and effective terrorists. To be so effective they need a haven in which to gather recruits, organise, train and plan free from molestation. Without such havens terrorist organisations tend to be amateurish bunglers more likely to get caught or blow themselves up than seriously damage anyone else. The war in Afghanistan is killing a lot of al Queada members and denying the organisation a haven in which it is free to organise and train. The organisation that exists outside of Afghanistan (but was forged INSIDE Afghanistan) still exists but without a haven it will slowly (or quickly if the other components of the strategy are successful) degrade in organisation and effectiveness until it ceases to be a significant threat or ceases to exist.
Why do so many people seem to think that not attacking Afghanistan means "doing nothing"?
Because anything that does not involve engaging the enemy where he is amounts exactly to "doing nothing." But I suppose as an alternative we can talk it over with Osama - he seems a reasonable guy - we may even "bring peace with honour" and "peace for our time."
we have alot of options besides engaging in inapropriate military action.
For instance? My answer is to engage in *apropriate* military action - which fortunately is the option that is being taken.
Why inapropriate? Donald Rumsfeld said that we're unlikely to catch Bin Laden...
That's O.K. I don't think the plan is to *catch* him. I think the emphasis in "dead or alive" was "dead." Besides even if we don't killing a large number of people in his organisation & it's allies and subsidiaries is MUCH more important than simply killing him. We are already having success in this regard: Harkat Jihad-i-Islami acknowledged that 85 members have been killed in air raids around Mazar-i-Sharif and Harakat-ul-Mojahedin acknowledged the deaths of 22 members mostly middle tier leaders when we bombed a "civillian" house in a residential neighborhood where they were attending a meeting (apparently the quality of information from our spies has gotten better) The Taliban no doubt took al Jazeera & CNN cameras to that house to decry the death of "innocent civillians". Al Queada and the Taliban are not as forthcoming about their own casualties but the reports are that leadership in both groups have suffered at least some (possibly significant) casualties.
Many members of the Taliban are no longer in the Taliban...
Gee I wonder why?
...and will never be caught.
Yes, many will never be caught (or better yet killed) but many others will be. The a war is not only (or even mainly) about catching and/or punishing our enemies but about destroying their organisation and capabilities.
Besides all of these people already invaded Afghanistan. Neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban are Afgha ni
You are right on al Queada and half right on the Taliban which is Pashtuns (Pashtunistan straddles the border of Afghanistan & Pakistan) trained in Saudi funded schools. So what is your point? That this is also a war of liberation for Afghanistan? Is that a bad thing?
We are bombing innocent civilians who happened to have the misfortune of being invaded by people who attacked the US as well.
So you contend that the US is targetting civilian Afghani's? What is your source for this accusation? The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan? Admittedly innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire but that is very different from being targets which is the implication of your post. We have no real statistics but I would wager tha t Taliban and Arab forces in Afghanistan are sufferring far greater casualties than the civilian population.
Or is your argument that the civilians casualties are NOT inflicted purposefully (despite the implied accusation of your wording) but ARE inevitable accidents of war. The modern American military is capable of, and apparantly is, waging war with remarkably fewer civillian casualties than any wars in the past. You may argue that such accidental deaths are intolerable and so we must never resort to war. Of course the alternative to war may often involve MORE civillian deaths, especially when one of the combatants (in the now one-sided war) DOES purposefully target civilians (in as large a number as he can) a
And yet if your solution to potential abuses of power is to deny that power to the authorities there would be no law enforcement powers at all. Honestly can you name me EVEN ONE police power that is NOT open to simlar abuse. They have the power in special circumstances (just as this one applies to special circumstance) to not just invade your privacy but abduct you (called an arrest), lock you in a cage (called a jail or prison), enslave you (work detail), and even kill you (this is why police have guns you know). Listening to your conversations is the least of your problems if the authorities are in the conspiracy you envision to abuse your rights. Heck they already have the power to monitor prisoners phone conversations except when it is to their lawyer, if they were engaged in the conspiracy you believe them to be engaged in they would not have had to bother mentioning this.
A very good reason to actually declare war on Al Queada as an organisation and the Taliban regime. Lately we don't declare wars because there are dipolomatic and sometimes legal advantages to the ambiguity of not declaring war. But that ambiguity is exactly what makes these legal contortions (which to be fair may indeed be necessary to meet the threat) an enduring threat to everyone elses civil liberties.
If we declared war though these guys would be in the worst of all possible worlds before the law. They are out of uniform behind our lines so they would NOT be POW's with the protections of the geneva convention and international law. But they would not be mere criminals either but enemy agents with far fewer legal protections. They get the worst of both worlds and possibly the threat of the death penalty to boot even if the crimes are seemingly trivial - enemy spies during war time are not treated very well by the law. If they are naturalised citizens they would still have the legal protections afforded criminalsm, but they would not be merely guilty of whatever petty crimes they may have commited to aid the actual attack. They would not even be *merely* guilty of conspiracy to commit murder - they WOULD be guilty of treason, which carries the death penalty. And is probably easier to prove in court than conspiracy to commit murder given the compartmentalised nature of the cells. Some little drone who only knows he was to provide money and a fake drivers licence to someone else didn't know he was part of a conspiracy to murder thousands of people. But he DID know he was "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy which is the constitutional definition of treason. Actually since al Quaeda declared war on us when they issued their Fatwa before the law a US citizen IS probably guilty of treason even without a declaration of war from congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Teacher: Today kids, we are going to start the month-long process of reading Hamlet...
Student: Couldn't we just watch the movie in two hours instead?
Techer: No!
Very, very, good point, just not the best example since that would be a good use of technology. Hamlet is a play after all and was originally meant to be seen not read. To merely read Hamlet without seeing it performed either on stage or as a movie would be to miss the point. Of course the student should also read and analyse the play as well since they are students not theater goers, but I don't think you can do a good job of teaching Shakespeare if you are operating as if it is a novel when it is in fact a play. Students should watch a good production of any shakespeare play prior to reading it to help them understand the text or afterwards to help them appreciate what they learned, or both. Watching the plays has value even if they aren't read so watching several productions while reading and studying only one or two in particular wouldn't be a bad use of time either.
Watching the movie version of a novel on the other hand would be a total waste of time. It's fine as entertainment and interesting after reading the book but not a good use of classroom time.
Sort of related rant: There is one movie that it irks me I didn't see (or was even mentioned) in the classroom. In high school we read and discussed extensivelly Arthur Miller's The Crucible it is educational malpractice to do that without watching, or at least mentioning, Elia Kazan's On the Waterfront.
The most disturbing suspension of civil liberties is the power the Bush administration has given itself to try uspected terrorists in secret military tribunals - all non-US citizens, even long time residents of the United States, can be tried and sentenced in secret military courts
Despite the opinion often voiced on this board that there is aboslutely *no* relationship between the restrictions of civil liberties and increased security there is in some situations exactly such a relationship and our contitution and laws reflect that reality. To be fair I will note that if such measures are taken to lengths not justified by the degree of threat or are taken to extremes even if there is a high level of threat they become subject to a law of diminishing returns and can even become counterproductive. Unfortunately since our enemy in this war is secretive and shadowy it is very hard even for our government to assess the real level of continuing threat. But the attacks on Septemeber 11th suggest that it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the threat.
As for the constitutionality and legality of the tribunals there is a fair amount of ambiguity since al Queada is not a state and we are acting under a legally vague "use of force resolution" rather than a legally clarifying declaration of war. Neither of these ambiguities are insurmountable though. The US went to war with the barbary pirates even though they were not independant nations (they really were but legally they were theoretically part of the Ottoman Empire). Al Queada is certainly more than a mere criminal enterprise but a substantial paramilitary organisation with over ten thousand troops in Afghansitan and many thousands of agents in cells around the world. As for our not declaring war - international law states that the laws of war are binding on a belligerent even if the other party to the conflict does not recognise a state of war. Al Queada declared war on us when bin Laden issued his "fatwa." Attacking the WTC is a war crime in every respect. Attacking the Pentagon is not a war crime in and of itself but operating behind enemy lines disguised as civilians and using a civillian airliner as a method of attack are.
So treating al Queada commanders and their agents who have infiltrated our country as war criminals is legally justifiable - so who has jurisdiction and what prodedures do they have the option to use? The constitution specifically gives the congress the authority to punish "Offences against the Law of Nations" which would include the "law of war." Congress has used that authority to write the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" which puts war crimes under the jurisdiction of optionally either a General Court Martial (Art. 18 of the UCMJ) or of Military Commissions (UCMJ, Art. 21) for "offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by military commissions..." There is no statute and no specific treaty or convention defining what exactly those offenses are so GWB (and Lincoln and FDR) is relying on the common law "law of war" which is rather vague though the UCMJ itself gives a little additional insight since in the articles defining crimes and punishments it again specifically mentions military commissions (in addition to courts martial) as having jurisdiction for both the crimes of "aiding the enemy" and "spying" (articles 104 and 106) the common law "law of war" is further clarified by precedents during the revolutionary war, civil war and world war II and by the unanimous supreme court decision in Ex Parte Quirine.
As I said before there are some ambiguities but overall the legal and constitutional validity of these military tribunals seems pretty sound.
The vast majority of US BW research was defense related, even befor the above policy.
Research is fine (except that subset which would be only useful for offense), we may not use biological weapons but we have enemies that can and would. What was horrible is that at one time we anticipated using such weapons, and had stockpiles of them for that anticipated use. This is even more abhorant than nuclear weapons precisely because of the reasons you point out - it is only appropriate for genocide and invariably backfires not only on you but on everyone else in the world.
Unless you are one of those people that gets their understanding of the US government from watching the X-Files and going to militia meetings that just isn't true. While I'm sure there are plenty of specifics that are still classified we know pretty well what went on in general and what defensive research is going on now.
You can thank the US government for its biological warfare research in the early 50's to late 60's for giving terrorists so many good ideas...
While there was no excuse for us to ever be even researching the use of biological weapons (except defensive research) at least we thought better of it and stopped by the late 60's. The Soviets on the other hand never stopped and I'm sure their research was sufficient to give any potential bio-terrorists those ideas. And now their underpaid disgruntled former researchers are the main reason this is such an uncomfortably credible threat.
A suicide terrorist could EAT the virus, and go on vacation in the US, visiting as many places as possible, breathing on as many people as possible.
This is exactly why I always thought the Anthrax attack is not by al Queada. They like alot of impact against high level targets and they are willing to commit suicide to do it. Anthrax is not detected by things like metal detectors or x-ray machines, it is a powder that could be easily hidden or even appear innocent to a physical search (before everyone got justifiably paranoid about it) A simple visit to the public gallery of the US house of representatives a day or two prior to a Presidential address could have left enough innocent looking but lethal dust floating about in the air to decimate our top political leadership. Of course the person willing to go spread the dust around would infect himself but that seems just the kind of thing that would appeal to these guys. Sending letters with threatening messages (fairly screaming out:"test me for anthrax while it is still treatable") and are going to be opened by junior staffers in any event is for people who aren't willing to die for their cause and aren't even serious about killing their targets.
No, actually the Pilgrams carved out a place where they could run a theocracy that was harsher than anything in England but happened to agree with their religion.
The principles of free speech come not from the Bible, but instead from the European Enlightenment - John ocke, et la. Note they are largely upheld in India and Japan, two other non-Christian nations.
The Pilgrims did no such thing - I'm pretty sure you're thinking of the Puritans who came along later. And as for the Puritans, sitting here in the former colony of Rhode Island I find your statments about the European Enlightenment inventing the concept of free speech and freedom of religion out of whole cloth with no reliance on their christian heritage a little incredible. The colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations was the very first government anywhere in the world without a state religion and with an understanding of freedom of religion that we would recognise as such today. It was founded by a Puritan (and later Baptist) preacher on a christian doctrine of "soul liberty" that he at least apparently managed to extrapolate from the teachings of the Bible and his Puritan theology when Locke was but 4 years old. Despite modern efforts to turn Williams into a proto-enlightenment, proto-modernist thinker his theology was rooted in Puritan thought and would probably find it's closest kinship today in double-seperatist babtists, the very definition of fundamentalism. (When Williams was the pastor of the church in Salem he excommunicated the entire colony of Massachusetts because it didn't live up to his standards, by the end of his life he would only take communion with his wife and he wasn't to sure about her either)
Not so. How is it possible to find "prior art" which is not patented? Are all such examples produced by starving idealists? I think not. Educators, hobbyists, and business people have innovated/invented from before the time you were born and will do so long after
There will of course be many innovations whose creators will not patent because they do not consider the protection worth the trouble usually because the innovation is incidental to their business plan (if they are a businessman) or their livelyhood (as is the case of educators and hobbyists). But if they are inventing something that they intend to sell they either keep their innovations a secret, patent them, or fail.
As a small example, if you work, do you make a living at your job? Have you ever done anything you consider original and not obvious? Did you patent all such things?
Well I am a designer and an illustrator, my living is entirely dependent on intellectual property in the form of copyright laws. If I did not own the rights to my work I would not be able to sell those rights to my clients and I would have no recourse against anyone using my works after their initial publication. - Open source software as we know it would also be killed by the eradication of intellectual property rights since the creator of the software would have no way of putting those open source conditions on the use of their code.
History is very clear on this point - prior to the development and refinement of intellectual property laws many innovators were undercut and made destitute by competitors that freely copied their innovations but were not saddled with the development costs
When did this stop happening?
Um I thought we covered this - when intellectual property laws were developed. When it does happen the inventor now has legal recourse and a right to be compensated by those using his invention.
How big was Einstein's patent portfolio? Are we marginalizing anyone that does not patent what they do?
Perhaps I misspoke - I should have said technilogical progress rather than scientific progress. Einstein was of course not primarly an inventor but a scientist and a researcher (and patent clerk). Scientists discover natural principles about the universe, inventors apply those principles to some practical purpose. E=mc2 is not patentable but the methods and techniques of applying that physical principle to actually create a nuclear bomb or power plant would be.
As for Einsteins patent portfolio I don't know how extensive it was but at a minimum there are the 45 patents he filed jointly with Leo Szilard, interestingly some of which were for a refrigerator without moving parts.
Sheesh! There's no more of a biological terror threat than there was 15 years ago. People are so paranoid.
I know at least a few postal workers that would disagree with you.
There is in fact a much greater threat for three reasons:
1) Technological progress. Technology makes everything cheaper and easier, not just the good things but bad things as well. This includes the development and deployment of chemical or biological agents. As technology makes things cheaper and easier they are attainable by smaller groups with less accountability. Weapons that once required the resources of a nation-state to develop will more and more be within the grasp of smaller and smaller organisations. A state will act with some discretion because they are big fixed targets and would face assured destruction (nothing mutual about it unless it's Russia) if they could be connected to such an attack. A smaller more shadowy entity like al Queada can hope to make such a massive attack and yet survive by just disapearing.
2) The fall of the Soviet Union. While the fall of the USSR has decreased the risk of a total nuclear (and chemical and biological) armaggedon it has dramatically increased the threat of biological terror. The Soviet Union/Russia was the number one center of knowledge about and researcher and developer of biological weapons. It has been in a state of profound social and economic upheaval which has led to a loss of accountability and control over that knowledge, research and probably it's products.
3) The end of the Cold War (Obviously related to reason number 2) The cold war was a bad thing but it had some advantages in terms of political and world stability - it tended to polarise the world into two camps and the the leadership of those two camps tended even while they worked against each other to also keep their proxies in line for fear of escallating the conflict out of control. The terrorists of Sept. 11 at that time would have been under the influence if not control of one of the two superpowers, neither of which would have allowed such a massive attack directly on their opponents homeland. The waters are a great deal muddier now, there is less accountability and more divergent and conflicting interests being more aggresively pursued.
I hate to disagree with old Ben Franklin but I have to agree with the other founders who won the debate at the constitutional convention. An inventor can only make a living by his invention if by some mechanism he retains exclusive use of it. If he does not his invention will be emulated by others without any compensation to himself for developing it. If the process of invention is at all costly he will benefit even less than his emulators since they don't have those costs. So an inventor WILL secure exclusive use of his invention, if the state does not secure it for him by law he will secure it for himself by secrecy. Ironically the alternative to intellectual property upheld by the state is not more openness but significantly LESS.
History is very clear on this point - prior to the development and refinement of intellectual property laws many innovators were undercut and made destitute by competitors that freely copied their innovations but were not saddled with the development costs. Trade guilds and master craftsmen went to extravagent lengths to keep their techniques secret so that they could secure a living by them, indeed that was the whole point of guilds. And they kept these secrets not for a "limited time" but passed them down exclusively to their sons and apprentices for generations.
Had the US not provided protections to inventors we would not have been marked by the unprecedented degree of scientific and technical advances that we have in fact enjoyed but by a medieval rate of scientific progress. At best we would have been a nation of emulators profitting from but not adding to the scientific advances from Europe.
Why should any company have the law enforcement backed authority to shakedown individuals for cash for any concept or idea? Don't tell me the founding fathers of the US thought it was a good idea. All of them did not.
Um... Yes I will tell you the founding fathers thought it was a good idea. In their own words:
"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" - U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
I don't know which founding fathers you may think were opposed to the concept of intellectual property but it's pretty obvious that if there were any they lost that debate. There are good arguments for reforming intellectual property laws so that they are fairer and less liable to be abused. I'm much more sceptical about arguments for scrapping the concept altogether. One thing thatis certain the founding fathers supported the idea of intellectual property, and it's enforcment by the state, as a way to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by making sure authors, innovators and inventors were fairly compensated for the use of their inventions.
Uhhh, not in the USA. You, me, and most small towns don't have the money to defend themselves in court for the years it takes to resolve an IP dispute with a large company like IBM.
Too true, but it is not really an argument against intellectual property as such but for a fairer, less complex and more transparent legal system. And surprisingly big companies like IBM would support reform of the court system because while it would lessen their ability to use their deep pockets to unfairly bully small fries with valid patents they would also be free from nuisance suits seeking to raid those deep pockets from small fries with invalid patents (and a host of other legal strategies to raid those deep pockets). Unfortunately the trial lawyers that are the only party that benefit from a complex and unpredictable legal system generate more than enough money from that system to protect it from any threat of reform.
Alpha compositing is dead obvious to even the most naive thinker
This argument is raised every time there is a patent dispute discussed on slashdot yet I'm always a little uncomfortable with it. We say something is "obvious" but we say so many years after it was invented (perhaps) and patented; years during which we have used it and become familiar with the concept. Was it really obvious when it was developed and patented or has it only become "obvious" because of it's subsequent widespread use and our consequent familialarity with the concepts involved?
In this particular case I suspect that the concept was indeed obvious by 1992 when the patent was issued - that seems pretty late in the game for such a basic concept in computer graphics. If it was obvious it won't be hard to find prior art. But in general we should recognise that concepts that are obvious to us now after long use were often breakthrough innovations obvious to no one when they were first developed.
Er, what about the Atari 800, the Vic 20, the C64, the TI 99/4A...
Er, I could be wrong but I think the timeline is something like this:
Various hobbyist kit computers such as the MITS Altair (1975) and the Apple I (1976)
Apple II - 1977 First factory mass-produced PC
Atari 400/800 and TI 99/4 - 1979
Vic-20 - 1980 (also Apple II achieves 50% PC marketshare)
IBM PC - 1981
C64 - 1982
Apple Macintosh - 1984
Microsoft windows 1.0 - 1985
You must be young and have no sense of history.
I could be wrong but the earliest BeBox I remember had dual PowerPC 603 processors in it.
Actually i think it not *becoming* the MacOS that killed BeOS. BeOS was killed by NeXT long before OSX came out. If Gil Amelio had known how long that would be and who would be doing it BeOS would be alive today as MacOSB or some such.
Gasse left Apple knowing that Apples next major OS project had what he described to his successor as "cancer" and would be a spectacular failure. Low and behold he goes out and starts a little company to make a great PowerPC (the chip used by Apple) based multi-media (Apple's core market) OS (Apple's soon-to-be desparate need) that even had "classic" MacOS compatiblity. I think it's pretty obvious what the business plan was - wait for Apple to fall flat on it's face and then sell BeOS to them for a pile of money made enormous by sick desperation. And it was a good plan and should have worked. But Gasse thought he had the ONLY potential successor to MacOS and he didn't count on the infamous Jobs Personal Reality Distortion Field(TM) Gasse was blindsided and botched the next meeting with a suddenly less desperate Apple. the result was Apple bought NeXT instead of Be and hired Jobs instead of Gasse. Really the end of the story with a long decline as they thrashed about spiralling down through different business plans to their eventual cratering at the feet of Palm.
Sometimes I don't know why we support a system to make a few select people filthy rich just because they have the most aggressive business plan.
What system would you suggest as an alternative? Our system is based on individual choice - You and I choose to use non Microsoft products for our own reasons. Many more people choose Microsoft for their own reasons. Their reasons may be foolish and based on ignorance and manipulation by Microsoft - but in our system they have the freedom to choose unwisely and by doing so enrich Bill Gates. But I like the system that gives me the freedom to choose unwisely (by someone elses opinoin) and even gives Bill Gates the freedom to sell or not sell his product under the conditions he and his customers agree to.
Do you honestly think that bombing Afghanistan will do jack shit to prevent future terrorist actions against the US?
...He was trained by the US intelligence, so he knows how they work.
...and to replace one bad government in Afghanistan with another.
Yes,
Four months ago your enemies were Sudan, China, North Korea and so on.
These are represive regimes that are commiting horrible atrocities against their own populations and threatening their neighbors, they are regimes that we don't want to see succeed in their policies - in that sense they were before the 11th and remain now if not our enemies, at least our rivals. Despite their atrocities and their hostility these regimes did not commit any act of war against us and so are not in the narrowest sense our enemies as al Queada is. They are not sheltering our active enemies nor have they rejected an ultimatum to cease sheltering those enemies so they have not become our enemies in the way the Taliban has.
Bin Laden might be in Mongolia right now! He's not stupid.
That is doubtful since he is more vulnerable when on the move - but you are right: attacking him as we have in Afghanistan is a good way to get him running. If he is in Mongolia he is now in a nation whose police will cooperate with us in arresting him, and the war is succeeding in it's objectives.
More is made of this than is there - the CIA worked through the Pakistani ISA and mostly targetted their training and aid to Afghani nationals not to Arabs who were largely self-funded. I'm sure bin Laden and his group was the recipient of some CIA funds and perhaps even training on the margins of the program but he was not a creation of the CIA nor was he so intimate with them as to "know how they work"
(I'll skip by the bit where you reveal that your understanding of government comes from watching the X-Files & Oliver Stone movies)
I hope now that we are paying attention we can help in crafting something a little better. Still, you may be right, but you forgot to add "replace on bad government (which supports & shelters our avowed enemies) with another (that does not)" The United Front may be a bunch of warlords but they are a bunch of warlords who hate al Queada and who are only interested in their own petty conflicts not with spreading a violent, repressive, imperialist religious fundamentalism.
Dropping food supplies is pathetic.
Agreed, Swiftly taking Mazar-i-Sharif and other northern border towns is much more important for feeding the starving population of Afghanistan.
The USA could have achieved more by not dropping so many bombs and giving the money saved to some international organization.
That depends on what you are trying to achieve - I don't see how feeding the Afghani's stops Al Queada. It certainly didn't stop them before - the United States government has fed more starving Afghani's than any other organisation. Some may argue we didn't give enough (and I would agree) but then why didn't any other nation or muslim charity shame us by giving more? In the long run stepping up our policy of international charity may win us more good will around the world but we have enemies that are actively seeking to kill us RIGHT NOW. Let me rephrase that so you will understand - they want and a planning to kill YOU, we can leave them alone or we can try to stop them.
that's like saying cars are illegal because people use them as getaway vehicles in bank robberies.
Well, if that happened to be the ONLY reason people used cars...
Given that neither reaction nor inaction will prevent further attacks,
I don't think you can take that as a given.
but consider these points.
Which course (action or inaction) will encourage contempt and future aggression? (Clue: Neville Chamberlain, Bin Ladens comments after we retreated from Somolia)
Which course makes killing Americans a risk free and easy way to advance your political cause (whatever it might be)
Which course leaves our avowed enemies (which you concede WILL attack us) free to stage those future attacks without interference.
As for responding to your points:
Which course will polarise world opinion, leading previously moderate people to support radical organisations? (Clue: look at Pakistan.)
Answer: Inaction - Yes, lets look at Pakistan for a clue. A nation that supported the Taliban and even Al Queada and a regime that has a lot of sympathy to both. Yet they actively support us - why? I think the answer is our likely "action" if they had continued support for radical organisations. As for the Pakistani "street" where there is unrest (though not really very much by Pakistani standards) as long as individual support for radical organisations is going to organisations that are harrassed by every government, without a safe haven and ineffectual - who cares.
Which course will kill innocent people abroad, in addition to those who have already died in the US? (Clue: look at Afghanistan.)
Answer: Inaction - Al Queada as a particular organisation has as a STATED OBJECTIVE the acquisition AND USE of Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons to pursue a holy war against all infidels on formerly Muslim lands (According to bin Laden this includes Spain by the way) - given time and the safety of Afghanistan they will succeed in this objective. Even in Afghanistan direct civillian casualites from US attacks pale in comparison to past attrocities by all other parties to the conflict - Casualties from famine is the real threat and is a powerful argument for a MORE aggresive attack that will put a larger portion of the population behind UF lines where aid can more readily reach them. The increased attention the war is generating is probably a boon to the millions of Afghan refugees *with were already* in Pakistan and Iran.
Which course will perpetuate a cycle of violence and be used to justify further attacks? (Clue: look at the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine.)
Inaction: All of the "clues" you provide are instances of people with different ethnic groups occupying the same ground where no lasting "victory" is possible - that is not the case with the US and any muslim land unless you think we are planning to colonise Afghanistan. Why not other "clues" of the inevitable "cycle of violence" war must always create? Look at the "cycle of violence" between the US and it's past enemies: England, Canada (at the time part of the British Empire) Mexico, Spain, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Vichy France, Korea (& China), Russia (a cold war but "enemies" none the less) even Vietnam which we completely botched but I still wouldn't characterise American and Vietnamese relations as a "cycle of violence" like the other "clues" you mentioned. In some of these cases our relationships are actually better for having had a war - can you imagine that we would be as friendly as we are with Germany, Italy and Japan if we had not gone to war against them? And there was a *massively* greater number of civilian casualties, displacement, ethnic expulsions, genocide & atrocities to feed a cycle of violence in those cases.
The people that we are directing this action against are simply giving up and siding with the Northern Alliance. All that are doing is 1) changing their affiliation from "Taliban" to "Nothern Alliance"
...Who cares, we're bombing Afghanistan and that will sove the problem?
I wish that was true because if it was it would be an UNQUALIFIED SUCCESS. These "same people" whan they are called "Taliban" won't hand over Al Queada militants in their midst when they are called "Northern Alliance" they will. Since desstroying Al Queada is THE WHOLE POINT that would be a great victory, a stunning success and well worth the cost.
2) killing innocent civilians which just makes everyone mad,
Well if that is "all we are doing" we are failing because we have missed some of the civillians we were apparently trying to kill (if I understand you right) and actually killed a very large number of Taliban and Arab militants. That might "make everyone mad" if you define "everyone" as other muslim militants, those easily swayed by propoganda and maybe a few "useful idiots" in the west.
3) wasting money with an average cost of $300k for each bomb dropped.
Seems like a bargain to me. The one that killed 22 militant leaders at a meeting was a certainly a bargain and the one that killed another 85 militants was a HUGE bargain.
I heard the other day that Michigan is having trouble meeting the $1800/day cost to keep the National Guard at the US/Canada border in Detroit. Absolutely hogwash. Cancel one of those bombs and keep them here forever.
Closing the borders is perhaps a good defensive strategy but the cliche is true that "the best defense is a good offense" if we allow our enemies a haven where they can train, plan & organise no amount of defensive strategy will help us.
What about that guy who walked onto a plane last week with a bag full of KNIVES AND TEAR GAS?
Actually despite the unforgivable security failure that let him pass a security check point he was searched and stopped before boarding a plane. There was a security failure in one component and a success in a back-up component (which it should never have come to) but he was caught.
It will not solve the security problems but then again unless we succumb to a complete police state there will always be poor security *somewhere* that is vulnerable to attack - a defensive strategy of merely "increased security" is guaranteed to fail and will sacrifice our civil liberties to boot. The war in Afghanistan WILL solve the problems that allowed Sept 11th to happen. Or more accurately is a NECESSARY component among others that will solve the problem. There will always be terrorists but there doesn't have to be such well organized and effective terrorists. To be so effective they need a haven in which to gather recruits, organise, train and plan free from molestation. Without such havens terrorist organisations tend to be amateurish bunglers more likely to get caught or blow themselves up than seriously damage anyone else. The war in Afghanistan is killing a lot of al Queada members and denying the organisation a haven in which it is free to organise and train. The organisation that exists outside of Afghanistan (but was forged INSIDE Afghanistan) still exists but without a haven it will slowly (or quickly if the other components of the strategy are successful) degrade in organisation and effectiveness until it ceases to be a significant threat or ceases to exist.
Why do so many people seem to think that not attacking Afghanistan means "doing nothing"?
...and will never be caught.
Because anything that does not involve engaging the enemy where he is amounts exactly to "doing nothing." But I suppose as an alternative we can talk it over with Osama - he seems a reasonable guy - we may even "bring peace with honour" and "peace for our time."
we have alot of options besides engaging in inapropriate military action.
For instance? My answer is to engage in *apropriate* military action - which fortunately is the option that is being taken.
Why inapropriate? Donald Rumsfeld said that we're unlikely to catch Bin Laden...
That's O.K. I don't think the plan is to *catch* him. I think the emphasis in "dead or alive" was "dead." Besides even if we don't killing a large number of people in his organisation & it's allies and subsidiaries is MUCH more important than simply killing him. We are already having success in this regard: Harkat Jihad-i-Islami acknowledged that 85 members have been killed in air raids around Mazar-i-Sharif and Harakat-ul-Mojahedin acknowledged the deaths of 22 members mostly middle tier leaders when we bombed a "civillian" house in a residential neighborhood where they were attending a meeting (apparently the quality of information from our spies has gotten better) The Taliban no doubt took al Jazeera & CNN cameras to that house to decry the death of "innocent civillians". Al Queada and the Taliban are not as forthcoming about their own casualties but the reports are that leadership in both groups have suffered at least some (possibly significant) casualties.
Many members of the Taliban are no longer in the Taliban...
Gee I wonder why?
Yes, many will never be caught (or better yet killed) but many others will be. The a war is not only (or even mainly) about catching and/or punishing our enemies but about destroying their organisation and capabilities.
Besides all of these people already invaded Afghanistan. Neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban are Afgha ni
You are right on al Queada and half right on the Taliban which is Pashtuns (Pashtunistan straddles the border of Afghanistan & Pakistan) trained in Saudi funded schools. So what is your point? That this is also a war of liberation for Afghanistan? Is that a bad thing?
We are bombing innocent civilians who happened to have the misfortune of being invaded by people who attacked the US as well.
So you contend that the US is targetting civilian Afghani's? What is your source for this accusation? The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan? Admittedly innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire but that is very different from being targets which is the implication of your post. We have no real statistics but I would wager tha t Taliban and Arab forces in Afghanistan are sufferring far greater casualties than the civilian population.
Or is your argument that the civilians casualties are NOT inflicted purposefully (despite the implied accusation of your wording) but ARE inevitable accidents of war. The modern American military is capable of, and apparantly is, waging war with remarkably fewer civillian casualties than any wars in the past. You may argue that such accidental deaths are intolerable and so we must never resort to war. Of course the alternative to war may often involve MORE civillian deaths, especially when one of the combatants (in the now one-sided war) DOES purposefully target civilians (in as large a number as he can) a
And yet if your solution to potential abuses of power is to deny that power to the authorities there would be no law enforcement powers at all. Honestly can you name me EVEN ONE police power that is NOT open to simlar abuse. They have the power in special circumstances (just as this one applies to special circumstance) to not just invade your privacy but abduct you (called an arrest), lock you in a cage (called a jail or prison), enslave you (work detail), and even kill you (this is why police have guns you know). Listening to your conversations is the least of your problems if the authorities are in the conspiracy you envision to abuse your rights. Heck they already have the power to monitor prisoners phone conversations except when it is to their lawyer, if they were engaged in the conspiracy you believe them to be engaged in they would not have had to bother mentioning this.
A very good reason to actually declare war on Al Queada as an organisation and the Taliban regime. Lately we don't declare wars because there are dipolomatic and sometimes legal advantages to the ambiguity of not declaring war. But that ambiguity is exactly what makes these legal contortions (which to be fair may indeed be necessary to meet the threat) an enduring threat to everyone elses civil liberties.
If we declared war though these guys would be in the worst of all possible worlds before the law. They are out of uniform behind our lines so they would NOT be POW's with the protections of the geneva convention and international law. But they would not be mere criminals either but enemy agents with far fewer legal protections. They get the worst of both worlds and possibly the threat of the death penalty to boot even if the crimes are seemingly trivial - enemy spies during war time are not treated very well by the law. If they are naturalised citizens they would still have the legal protections afforded criminalsm, but they would not be merely guilty of whatever petty crimes they may have commited to aid the actual attack. They would not even be *merely* guilty of conspiracy to commit murder - they WOULD be guilty of treason, which carries the death penalty. And is probably easier to prove in court than conspiracy to commit murder given the compartmentalised nature of the cells. Some little drone who only knows he was to provide money and a fake drivers licence to someone else didn't know he was part of a conspiracy to murder thousands of people. But he DID know he was "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy which is the constitutional definition of treason. Actually since al Quaeda declared war on us when they issued their Fatwa before the law a US citizen IS probably guilty of treason even without a declaration of war from congress.