<p>Kluge, do you still need more time for those questions? That’s OK, Senator Feinstein has already tried to get answers to one of them and failed, but perhaps if you keep trying you will come up with something. This sure is a slippery slope that we we’re treading here isn’t it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, since many actions taken under the Patriot Act can remain secret indefinitely, this is not conclusive either. The potential for abuse of the Patriot Act without anyone ever knowing–or anyone opposed to the action ever knowing–is very high.</p>
<p>
Unfortunately the potential for terrorist acts and the ramifications there of is even greater.</p>
<p>There are many who use the threats of terrorist acts as an excuse for a police state. We did not win the Cold War just so that we could become the XSSR. Terrorism is a threat. You fight it. You also don’t burn down the house to roast a pig. And given this administration’s cynical pattern of using terrorism threats to justify everything from the war in Iraq to the heartbreak of psoriasis, I don’t trust the government…<em>this</em> government at any rate, not to abuse power. </p>
<p>If Dick Cheney told me that the sun was rising in the east, I would take compass readings to confirm it.</p>
<p>I was badly burned by the adminstration’s load of crap justifying the invasion of Iraq and have been atoning for it ever since. Never again.</p>
<p>fundingfather:
You want to know what makes us unsafe? It has NOTHING to do with security and EVERYTHING to do with our foreign policy. Read this article in the NY Times:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/international/asia/08karachi.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/international/asia/08karachi.html</a></p>
<p>Colonel Sanders Under Fiery Siege in Pakistan
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
Published: June 8, 2005</p>
<p>KARACHI, Pakistan, June 3 - Four times since Pakistan allied itself with the United States campaign against terrorism, a KFC outlet here has been attacked. Each time, the owner, Rafiq Rangoonwala, dutifully cleaned up and reopened for business. This time, with six of his employees dead, he’s not so sure.</p>
<p>Last week, as evening prayers began at a Shiite mosque down the street, a suicide bomber believed to belong to a Sunni extremist group linked to Al Qaeda blew himself up inside the mosque compound, splattering his remains across the high courtyard wall.</p>
<p>Minutes later, a mob, believed to be led by outraged Shiites, stormed Mr. Rangoonwala’s KFC outlet, dousing its floors with gasoline, setting it ablaze and then blocking the entry of rescue workers. Six hours later, the six bodies were hauled out. Four had been burned. Two had frozen to death in the walk-in freezer; their bodies were found only after a mobile phone belonging to one of the men rang. The dead had all worked at the KFC, and they were all local men in their mid-20’s.</p>
<p>Now the restaurant is a gutted, blackened hulk, with the familiar profile of Colonel Sanders still visible and a billboard, now sooty and macabre, looming above. “Come have a chicky meal,” it reads, “cuz you are going to love this deal.”</p>
<p>It is no secret that symbols of American commercial might are lightning rods for anti-American sentiment. But the deadly strike on this fast-food restaurant, on a hot summer night in Pakistan’s most populous city, revealed something much more potent: It showed how existing strains - in this case a deep sectarian divide that is roiling this city - can tap a well of anti-American fury to create an explosion of violence.</p>
<p>On one occasion before, the spark was anger over the war in Afghanistan. On another, it was anger over the war in Iraq. In Karachi, it seems, an angry mob and an American symbol can be a very bad mix.</p>
<p>“It’s something you have to live with in this part of the world, if you’re going to do business here,” Mr. Rangoonwala said gamely. Another of his 32 KFC outlets in Pakistan was set afire after the war in Afghanistan began. But no one had ever been killed before.</p>
<p>Each time, Mr. Rangoonwala had sought to convince the public that the restaurant was a Pakistani establishment, not an American one. He took out advertisements in the local newspapers. He produced decorative plates proclaiming: “Pakistani owner” and “Pakistani Management.”</p>
<p>Christophe LeCureuil, a spokesman for Yum Restaurants International, the parent company of KFC, said the franchise had been struck because people were angry after the attack on the mosque. “I really don’t think we were a target,” he said.</p>
<p>But the sort of sectarian violence that led to the grisly attack on this KFC has been rising steadily in recent years in this country, with Sunni extremist groups, some connected to Al Qaeda, attacking Shiites, whom they consider infidels. Shiites make up roughly 20 percent of the majority Muslim population of Pakistan.</p>
<p>Government officials place blame for the mosque attack on Lashkar-e-Janghvi, which has been linked to Al Qaeda.</p>
<p>These days, Shiite leaders say their cadres did not carry out the fatal KFC rampage. But it is an American symbol, they readily say, and they do not shy away from pointing the finger at the United States. That is the one thing, it seems, Shiite hard-liners have in common with their Sunni extremist rivals.</p>
<p>“It’s not important who owns it,” Munawer Abbas, 29, an Urdu literature teacher active with a Shiite political organization, said flatly, as he escorted a journalist to the Madina-tul-Ilam Mosque. “This is just because of American policies. People hate America.”</p>
<p>Mr. Abbas, imperturbable in a plaid shirt, said the attack on his mosque must have been the handiwork of criminals hired by “the great Satan,” the United States, to undermine this Muslim nuclear state.</p>
<p>The spokesman for a Sunni political party, Jamaat-e-Islami, echoed those sentiments. “All these terrorist activities are being carried out at the behest of the United States,” Qazi Hussain Ahmad said.
Next to the entrance of the Madina-tul-Ilam Mosque hung a banner, a macabre riposte to KFC’s “chicky meal” ad. “We want to warn America: Martyrdom is our heritage,” it read. “We will protect Islam until the last drop of blood.”</p>
<p>The bomb attack, which could have been far worse had the bomber not been stopped in the courtyard of the mosque, killed a muezzin, a security guard and a police officer, as well as the bomber. A suspected accomplice was arrested after being shot and wounded; another was killed.</p>
<p>A senior government official in Karachi said a preliminary investigation had suggested that several other suicide bombers were in circulation in the city.</p>
<p>That danger still lurked came as no surprise to Shagufta Mobin, an employee of another KFC outlet owned by Mr. Rangoonwala in Karachi. “It’ll happen again,” Ms. Mobin, 24, flatly declared, as she rang up lunchtime orders for crispy chicken chunks and corn on the cob. If she were afraid all the time, she added, she would simply languish at home. As it was, a KFC job had allowed her to work her way through college.</p>
<p>Nausheen Hammat, 27, who described herself as a brand manager for a Persian Gulf-based company, took a more existential approach to the perils of life in the city. “It kind of prevails always, an unforeseen casualty, a sudden accident,” she said. “Karachiites are so used to it.”</p>
<p>In a small house built higgledy-piggledy against the railroad tracks, the relatives of Muhammad Saleem, 27, who was killed in the KFC rampage, said they too had thought nothing of the routine attacks on the restaurant.</p>
<p>Mr. Saleem had worked there since shortly before its opening in 1997, usually seven days a week, often until late in the night, earning a little over $100 a month. Only once, his father said, had he urged him to quit. But his son had shrugged him off. “The earlier incidents were just minor, like broken windows” said a cousin, Sardar Aslam. “That can happen anywhere.”</p>
<p>Only four days before his death, after seven years of service, Mr. Saleem had made it to the status of a permanent employee, eligible for pension benefits. He planned to marry later this year.</p>
<p><strong><em>Ya’ know what? WHEN PEOPLE HATE US THAT MUCH WE AREN’T SAFE ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. Destroying everything our country stands for just won’t do the job.</em></strong></p>
<p>This a common belief - that somehow it is our own fault for the terrorist attacks. If that were true, we would be the only targets of terrorists. This is proven to be false by the terrorist attacks against countries around the world - even those like France which has a foreign policy towards Muslim states very much different and more “friendly” than ours. Sure the terrorists hate us and they probably hate us more than any other country in the world. But you must ask, why do they hate us and all other Western countries? Is it that we all have foreign policies that they don’t like? Or is it that anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their radical view of Islam offends them? Evidence would suggest the latter - note that they have also attacked other Muslim countries whose view on Islam isn’t as radical as theirs. The reason that we are the primary target is that as the leading power in the world, we are the biggest target.</p>
<p>Plus, what exactly have we done that offended the terrorists and when did it start? To which point in history do we have to retreat to keep the terrorists happy? </p>
<p>Here is an interesting point of view from the leading anti-terrorist judge in France. He is talking to the BBC and relates (a) that terrorism is a worldwide problem and (b) that France is better off in dealing with it than the UK because they have laws that help them monitor the movement of all people:</p>
<p>
I don’t agree with a lot of what France is doing, but at least they have the right idea about combating terrorism.</p>
<p>BTW, who is advocating “Destroying everything our country stands for”? Don’t you think that is a bit of hyperbole given the circumstances? Unless you want to take a crack at the questions that I posed to Kluge?</p>
<p>More on the global nature of terrorism. Here is an interesting read to show that contrary to our American-centric view of the world, we are not the only target for terrorism:
<a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-485511,00.html[/url]”>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-485511,00.html</a></p>
<p>Weenie: as you can see, all countries view themselves as targets.
kluge: this is a bit more involved and threatening than a couple of rednecks with a truckload of fertilizer.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, comparing lincoln and bush jr. is laughable. As much as right wingers would love to make the connection, fighting to save the union and free slaves cannot be spoken in the same breath as the invation of Iraq. And using Lincoln’s constitutional misuses to justify Bush’s is far to anachronistic. These were different times, and what would fly back then certainly would not right now. If we were all to take that revisionist viewpoint then we would have no one left to idolize. Jefferson owned slaves, other politicos activley stifled the rights of woman and other minorities. And I don’t think we need to mention what happened to native americans.</p>
<p>
That’s funny, I thought we had the same constitution back then as we do now. I’m not demonizing Lincoln, nor am I equating him with Bush. I’m showing how tame the Patriot Act is relative to what Lincoln did … or Roosevelt. But, you must think otherwise, so I will give you the same questions that I gave to kluge.</p>
<p>fundingfather:
I assume you are a conservative Republican. Can you tell me how you justify the party’s verbal committment to “smaller government” with the Patriot Act? Again, assuming you are a conservative Republican who agrees with their most fundamental belief of “smaller government” (how small they never say, but that’s another issue…), how do you reconcile that the Patriot Act clearly increases the power of the federal government over your life? Why is “domestic terrorism” included in it? Do you believe for a minute that the government would hesitate to use powers in the Patriot Act to infiltrate and/or implicate American citizens participating in anti-war, environmental, or other politically activist organizations?</p>
<p>I firmly believe that our freedom can’t ever be exchanged for security. And, I think I know the real reason Republicans are so lined up in favor of the Patriot Act. They are simply drunk on power. There is no end to the control they would like to exert over American citizens.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, bad argument. Are you saying that we can justify anything we want by saying, “well, look at what ______ did, so we can do anything we want.”? And as you know there were two Roosevelts, so which one are you refering to? I’ll assume that being a member of the grand old party you are suggesting that FDR did something wrong. Please explain the connection. As far as you question, if you repeat it I will try to answer it, but I don’t feel like going back through your old posts trying to find it.</p>
<p>weenie, my views are not dictated by any party or ideological platform per se; I would imagine that this is the case for most Republicans and I would also hope for most Democrats. I subscribe to individual circumstances as they make most sense. But, if you want to talk in stereotypes, I think that you would find that when conservatives talk in terms of small government, they are talking in terms of economic impact as opposed to issues of national security. As a matter of fact, most conservatives probably believe that the primary function of the federal government is that of national security. But, I don’t know for sure since we don’t get together and decide which views that we must adhere to; or if we do, I missed the meeting notice.</p>
<p>As far as the “drunk on power” issue and need to exert control over American citizens, I think these are issues of illogical stereotyping that you will have to deal with. Talking like Howard Dean does not help the discourse. It helps to start with an open mind that perhaps Republicans as well as many Democrats just may have the best interests of the country in mind.</p>
<p>G&S: check out the control FDR put in place on the press and soldiers during WWII, also the minor issue of putting thousands of US citizens in camps. While the camps thing was almost certainly overboard, I’m not being critical of FDR at all. I think he and Lincoln did what was right. What the Patriot act does is insignificant in comparison. Yet the ramifications of allowing al Qaeda or other terrorists to do what they have vowed to do and have attempted to do makes the US death toll of the civil war and WW II combined look small in comparison. Hopefully they don’t have the technology in hand yet to do this, but the days are numbered until this will be a very viable, almost likely attack against us.</p>
<p>In light of this, if you and weenie can explain the logic of exempting terrorists from the same surveilance procedures that have been in place for other criminal activity without incident for many years and also explain why the Republicans, who are “drunk with power”, have not abused these powers in almost 4 years, your ability to credibly argue this point would be greatly enhanced. Until then, it sounds like both of you have been imbibing the alarmist kool-aid of the radical left and/or the hate-Bush-and-everything-he-does gang.</p>
<p>First, I don’t hate bush. I think he’s an aweful president, but that we eventually be decided by history. My problem with this administration is there unwillingness to compromise. I don’t believe that the patriot act is as horrible as others have made it out to be, but it does set precedent that for the “greater good” of the country anything goes. Like it or not, perceived innocence is one of the founding tenets of this country, and by spying on or holding captive a person or a group of people without the benefit of a fair trail, we are dipping into the ugly teritory of the very people that we are supposedly fighting against. If anyone is being alarmist it is the right wing. I believe it was you (correct me if I’m wrong) that said you and your loved ones have a higher chance of being killed by terrorists than you do of having your property searched by the patriot act. That’s nonsense. Out of the what, 300 million people that live in this county, how many have been killed by terrorists? 3,000-4,000? Maybe more, and I am not in any way taking away from the horror of those acts, but that breaks down to something like a .000001 percent chance. </p>
<pre><code> As the right-wing think tank Cato institute said:
</code></pre>
<p>"One’s chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is many times less than one’s chance of drowning in a bathtub or being killed by a fall from scaffolding or a ladder. We would not adopt the “if it saves one life’’ theory to justify a ban on bathtubs, even though hundreds of lives would be saved each year.” </p>
<p>And also:</p>
<p>“Everything that terrorists do is already illegal. Current laws already provide ample authority for investigations of potential terrorists, including persons who have done nothing more than talk big. The Oklahoma City and World Trade Center bombings were both solved under existing laws”</p>
<p>Americans should be very careful how they react to outside forces. Attacking the foundations of a society, although difficult and slow, could be more effective than a direct assault. </p>
<p>Likewise, Americans should be careful how we handle other societies. Attacking another society’s foundations could bring strenthening of their beliefs and weakening of ours. </p>
<p>To be more to the point to the O-Q. I am not sure if the my generation really understood why we were in Vietnam. I think, now, we realize that attacking returning Vietnam vets, is not the venue that promotes patriotism. Vets were only doing their patriotic duty, hence we now do not see a reaction against our soldiers, today. </p>
<p>Maybe we should examine why America got involved in Vietnam; Then maybe we can explain why we are involved in the Middle East.</p>
<p>Heard on NPR, that the House of Representatives, voted today to cut funding to Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I’m going to miss the McCloughlin Report. {although, this thread could be a fairly good replacement}</p>
<p>
If the same surveillance procedures have been in place for other criminal activities for many years, why did we need the Patriot Act? Also, four years is not long enough to judge whether the power will be abused. Those laws are going to be on the books for a looooooong time and they’ve yet to be read in full by any of the chief powers that be. Are you telling us you have faith that no future Federal government will abuse this yet-to-be realized authority? Remember McCarthy? Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge? Did you believe what the government told you about Vietnam and, if so, do you not feel the slightest bit sheepish about it now? Do you really believe what they’re telling us about Iraq? Will you continue to believe them if we invade Syria or Iran? I dunno … My great grandfathers were officers in the Wehrmact and one went to his grave believing they had been right …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Vietnam War was sold to the American Public with the Domino Theory, which was wrong. Americans were told that if we didn’t protect South Vietnam all of Asia would become communist and that eventually the entire South Pacific including Australia would be under attack. The War in Iraq was also sold to Americans as a battle to protect ourselves against a foreign threat (ie. Weapons of Mass Destruction) that was not real. Time has revealed that during the deliberations leading up to both events Politicians and some military leaders gleaned intelligence reports for support of their positions, while dismissing data and opinions that were contrary to their plans. </p>
<p>I believe the war in Iraq was set to occur the minute the Supreme Court appointed Bush. Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, has been a family and an oil industry vendetta not a patriotic reaction to the 9-11 attack.</p>
<p>The Patriot Act is a wonderful example of doublespeak. Our country was founded on the premise that human beings are endowed by their creator with basic rights. Those Patriots did not believe a person should be arrested and held without due process or without representation. Patriots can not be proud of secret court hearings where defendents are not informed of the charges or allowed to speak to legal counsel. Patriots are appalled by the concept of secret police investigations. Gitmo has hurt America’s prestige in the world. Who believes someone accidentally urinated on the Quran, as reported by the Pentagon?</p>
<p>Past Presidents have made mistakes, the Japanese internment is one example; but past judgement failures should not be a justification for additional mistakes.</p>
<p>Bully’s wrapping themselves in the flag, misleading the American public, and the denial of basic rights are not Patriotic Acts.</p>
<p>
The whole point of the Patriot Act is to PREVENT not solve terrorist acts. This is the fundamental difference that seems to divide this country. Some view the terrorist acts as a criminal activity, others view it as an act of war. One view is backward looking - try to solve the crime after it happens; the other view is forward looking - prevent the next attack. </p>
<p>That is the same problem with your statistics - they are based on past events and do not consider the threats as they apply to the future. This is the same mentality that allowed 9/11 to happen. No one was thinking big enough about the threat of terrorist attacks of that magnitude. If someone were doing a risk analysis as you suggest based on historical data on 9/10/2001 their calculated probablity of death by terrorist would have be significantly smaller. </p>
<p>I think that after years of threats and years of carried out threats that we need to start taking the terrorists at their word - they mean to kill as many of us as they possibly can. They will continue to pursue weapons and means, including black-market nukes, to carry out that threat. With North Korea, a known marketeer of weapons for cash already having 2 to 8 nukes and with Iran, a major terrorist state, about to get them, this scenario is far more likely than some would think. You my take solice in the fact that in the past we have been able to determine who committed a terrorist act, but that is of little use to you if you or a loved one happens to live in Los Angeles or New York or wherever a nuclear attack may occur. </p>
<p>You may call this view alarmist; I guess it depends on what your definition of alarmist is. Is it a sure thing? Of course not. Is there better than a one out 100 chance of it happening? I would say almost certainly. Are you willing to risk millions of lives with those kind of odds against you? (Plug those numbers into your risk analysis calculation and see what it gives you.) I certainly would not - not at the cost to society of doing nothing more than extend to terrorists the same kind of laws that protect us from organized crime. I personally don’t feel all that threatened by organized crime, so, if it makes you feel better, I say lets roll back the laws that combat organized crime and instead apply them to terrorists.</p>
<p>
Because the laws were explicitly for use against organized crime and other form of defined criminal behavior; they did not apply to terrorist activity. </p>
<p>
No, any law can be overturned by a succeeding law. How do you know that they have yet to be read in full? This sounds like a Moore-ism to me.</p>
<p>Fundingfather: I’m interested in your take on Jose Padilla.</p>
<p>“This is the same mentality that allowed 9/11 to happen. No one was thinking big enough about the threat of terrorist attacks of that magnitude.”</p>
<p>I thought the mentality that allowed this to happen was an administration failing to read its own memos while the President was on vacation. The concept of flying planes into buildings had been around…it was what the Columbine high school students suggested to be their final act, to fly a plane into a building in NY.</p>
<p>Yeah, but the right wing nutjob’s plan was to fly one into the Pentagon. New York? Pentagon? Aren’t they in different places? Whoa. No wonder Bush was too confused to pay attention…</p>