Why hasn't there been another 9/11?

<p>

</p>

<p>No - I will feel good that the privacy rights of the citizens of this country were protected. I’m surprised that people seem to think that these types of laws actually will prevent terrorism.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>haha honestly, I’m a bit offended here - being called a liberal. Psh, please. I’m about as conservative as they come on most issues. I’m all about small government, low taxes, blah blah…
So its kinda interesting that you think opposing the Patriot Act is a liberal position, considering that the liberal position has almost consistently been about bigger government, etc. which is exactly what the Patriot Act creates (a more powerful Big Brother)</p>

<p>As someone noted early on, it’s impossible to establish causality between policies enacted since 9/11 and the lack of a terrorist attack on American soil. But even if we grant that there is SOME causal relationship–which certainly seems reasonableto me–those who use the lack of an attack to defend the current administration (or, even less soundly, to suggest that the Republicans are the best party to fight the war on terror) run into another logical problem: the fact that any administration would have reacted to the attack, most likely in ways that mimic much of what has already been implemented. After all, nobody said we shouldn’t do anything in the wake of 9/11, and many of the steps we’ve taken have been freely endorsed by people on both sides of the aisle. I hate to sound like a school-marm, but the lines of any discussion like this have to be very closely drawn, focused narrowly on those policies that we can agree are unique to this administration (Iraq? warrantless wiretapping?). To extrapolate beyond this narrow focus–to see THESE policies and THIS administration as representative of anything more or anybody else–is a fool’s game (logically speaking, at least), no matter which side you think the analysis would benefit. I happen to think that Iraq has been a serious misstep in the war on terror, but this doesn’t mean that Republicans are somehow inferior when it comes to dealing with terrorism. Just THESE Republicans.</p>

<p>There are tons of conservatives who had qualms about the Patriot Act: <a href=“Conservative Voices Against the USA PATRIOT Act | American Civil Liberties Union”>Conservative Voices Against the USA PATRIOT Act | American Civil Liberties Union;

<p>William Safire is not exactly known for his liberal views, here’s what he had to say on the subject: <a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1114-08.htm[/url]”>http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1114-08.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>cangel:</p>

<p>Richard Suskind’s book, The One-Percent Solution, provides a pretty compelling look into the successes post 9/11. Bill Clinton also talked about the same issues at some length in his Larry King interview this week.</p>

<p>Good old-fashioned police work by the FBI and similar agencies around the world is where the big wins have come. Specifically, the FBI did a superb job “following the money” and untangling many of the connections. It started the day after 9/11 when the world’s largest credit card transaction clearing house offered to help. The basic technique was to take every transaction from every known terrorist and trace it, starting with the 9/11 hijackers. Then, trace the transactions from the people those traces led to. And the traces from those people to the next level. They basically started building a big spider web and eventually patterns emerged with multiple legs pointed to the same places revealing seemingly unrelated connections, both at the sleeper cell level downstream and the whole “Islamic charity” funding sources upstream.</p>

<p>This was expanded to include phone and e-mail transactions: the NSA installed data mining computers at the major internet/phone switching centers both in Europe and here. They weren’t so much interested in the content of the communications as in trying to pinpoint who was talking to whom. Each time they nabbed a terrorist, they seized computers which generated more e-mail contact points to feed into the transaction spider web.</p>

<p>It even included CIA agents taking over one or more key Western Union offices in the Middle East that were identified as money transfer points and running sting operations, presumably recruiting some moles.</p>

<p>In many cases, the FBI intentionally left terrorists on the street, continuing to make transactions, so they could develop more legs in the financial web. In fact, the guy who masterminded the London bombings tried to board a flight to the US. The FBI considered allowing him to come and putting a massive tail on him, but ultimately decided it was too risky and put him on the no-fly list. The day he was turned away from his flight at Heathrow was the first moment he had any idea he had raised suspicions. He had been ID’d exclusively from the financial transaction spider web.</p>

<p>There are some serious constitutional issues related to this work – this is really at the heart of the whole FISA court illegal survellance issues. However, the work identified a lot of cells and put an real damper on the ability of terror networks to operate. </p>

<p>After a couple of years of excellent results, the transaction networks started to go dark. The terrorists began to put 2 and 2 together and figure out that wire transfers or credit card purchases were too often being followed by arrests. Now, they are pretty much limited to human couriers, which is why terrorism attacks have mostly come from independent homegrown franchise operations.</p>

<p>There were some lucky breaks. Sheik Kalid Mohammed arranged for an Al Jazeera reporter to visit him for a propoganda interview in Pakistan, setting up an elaborate blindfold circuitous route for the interview. But, the reporter was able to figure out what general part of what city he visited. He reported it to the head of Al Jezerra, who reported it to his cousin the Emir of Qatar, who passed the information along to the United States. The CIA was able to set up a massive electronic eavesdropping net in the neighborhood and nab KSM after a gun battle in a safe house. KSM’s computer was a gold mine as was the mid-level Al Qaeda “travel agent” they nabbed from a tip. They tortured the hell out of the guy and got a bunch of jibberish. The real find was his computer e-mail file…he had been arranging travel to and from Pakistan for Al Qaeda families, so his data helped build the spider web.</p>

<p>I ask again…link me to the unconstitutional parts of the PATRIOT ACT. You seem so adament to call it this so it shouldn’t be very hard to find one.</p>

<p>I seem to remember someone saying that no federal judge has ever ruled parts of the patriot act unconstitutional…</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/patriot.act.ap/&lt;/a&gt;
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I have more reasons, but don’t have time right this minute to type them up.</p>

<p>I wouldn’t take too serious what a renegade judge did. There are wacky judges on the bench anywhere.</p>

<p>Do you expect business as usual following 9/11?</p>

<p><a href=“FBI abused Patriot Act powers, audit finds | World news | The Guardian”>FBI abused Patriot Act powers, audit finds | World news | The Guardian;

<p>Yeah I kinda did expect business to get back to usual - it seems like that would be the biggest slap in the face to the terrorists. I personally think that we should rebuild the towers, bigger than ever preferably. Mount some SAM sites on their roofs as a big “screw you” to anyone who would do anything about it. Maybe paint “MOLON LABE” on the side :)</p>

<p>It seems that 9/11 was our Dunblane.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yeah, especially when they disagree with you, huh?</p>

<p>I’m curious if any of those of you who defend the patriot act would continue to do so if your house was “searched” under the provisions for “sneak and peak” searches, which allows the FBI to conduct clandestine searches without notifying the owner of the property of any warrant, etc. Yet hundreds of years of precident have shown that this is exactly what the Fourth Amendment protects. This is why, when a search warrant is executed, the police must come during daylight hours, knock and announce their presence, and show the owner the warrant, etc. </p>

<p>Or what about if your internet records were confiscated, or a wiretap was placed on your phones…</p>

<p>Would you roll over and say “well, if its going to help us kill the terrorists…” or would you be a bit annoyed that your privacy was invaded like that?</p>

<p>The whole idea of terrorism is to incite terror. By surrendering your civil liberties, allowing warrant less wiretaps, and so forth, you’re not helping to beat the terrorists, you’re capitulating to them by doing exactly what they want you to - creating terror where there is none.</p>

<p>

</a></p>

<p>You do realize that this isn’t the patriot act which is currently under law don’t you? Like I said, link me to the parts of the patriot act which are unconstitutional. </p>

<p>BTW, In times of war presidents have often taken extraordinary measures. If you think the patriot act was bad you should look into what Lincoln did during the civil war.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I take it you also oppose DUI checkpoints? They are in violation of the 4th ammendment as well…</p>

<p>double post :(</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ummmm I wouldn’t care? I don’t have anything to hide…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yep…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Funny how you cut off the part about your house being broken into and searched in your absense. Does your statement apply to that scenario as well?</p>

<p>However, you are still missing the point entirely :frowning: But lets play with your argument a bit. Since you say that you have nothing to hide and therefore do not mind illegal searches, I suppose it would be perfectly ok to force you (and only you) to submit to a metal detector and terry frisk every time you set foot onto your kid’s school… or maybe every time you leave your house. I mean, you have nothing to hide…</p>

<p>

That’s an easy one. The terrorists don’t need one. Why go to all that trouble if you don’t have to? Why bother?</p>

<p>Think about it.</p>

<p>If all they have to do is put a mid-level lieutenant on tv and say they are ‘planning something’, and people all over America scurry around stocking up on bottled water and duct tape and stashing krugerrands in their bomb shelter – they don’t have to do any more than sit back laughing and watch the fun on Al Jazeera.</p>

<p>Look, say you are shot and you survive. Won’t you forever after (or at least for a long time) jump when you hear a loud bang? It’s the same principle. Al Qaeda has the guns and they are shooting the ground to watch Americans dance. That’s really fun for them.</p>

<p>Every once in a while they get some poor slob to blow up a market somewhere to show what they can do. But they don’t have to do it in America – because we are already terrorized! No need to do more.</p>

<p>Not sure they really want Americans out of the Middle East, like people believe. I mean, if by some miracle we pulled out of the ME entirely, well, Al Qaeda would find some other reason to say they are against us. That’s not even hard for them.</p>

<p>Oh, and here’s Osama bin Laden again! Wow, with a makeover! Holy Toledo, they must have good hair colorists in his resort in the mountain enclave. So glad our C in C was quick with the sabre-rattling, that came as a surprise (j/k).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And searches at the airport? Those are pretty unconstitutional…Speaking of, don’t I have the right to bring my gun on the plane? Fact of the matter is the federal courts interpret the const because it isn’t a strict and rigid document. Fed courts have yet to interpret the current patriot act as unconstitutional…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>knock urself out…like I said, I have nothing to hide?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>is this unconstitutional?</p>

<p>Amendment IV</p>

<p>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</p>

<p>“Why hasn’t there been another 9/11?”</p>

<p>There have been just not in the US. War is politics by other means. It is an attempt to impose your will on another political community (not necessarily a nation state). This is an assymetrical war in which the military, politcal, and economic resources of the two opposing sides vary dramatically.</p>

<p>Al Qada’s stated aim is to free the middle east from western influence, topple the corrupt governments of the region, re-establish the caiphate and extend dar al islam to the entire world. It is such a fantastically ambitious goal that most in the western world don’t really believe it when Al Qada and their leaders say it and that is one of Al Qada’s strengths in this war.</p>

<p>If the political leadership in the west really believed that the goal of Al Qada was to convert them to Islam or reduce them to dhimmitude in a theocratic state the reponse of the western world would be much different. Since it is such an ambitious goal Al Qada knows it cannot be done in one step and the first goals are to get the west out of the Arabian peninsula and topple the House of Saud which currently controls the Islamic holy places. For the moment the best way to force a retreat of America in the region is to force a retreat/defeat of US forces in Iraq and the best prospect for doing that is to ensure a Democratic victory in the next presidential elections. An attack within the US right now would be counter productive so whatever the Homeland Security folks say don’t expect to see one between now and the elections unless it s launched by some splinter group not under Al Qada’s drect control.</p>

<p>Why weren’t there more attacks earlier in the immediate aftermath of 9/11? I believe the answer to that is because Al Qda lacked the capacity and were seriously disrupted by the speed and ferocity of the response from the US. They were able to launch attacks in Europe and other parts of the world. The attacks in Spain managed to knock Spain out of the war by tipping the elections there. The attacks in Bali hardened the resolve in Australia and the attacks in the UK have had mixed results but seem to be succeeding. Britain will likely remain the target of attacks at least until it withdraws from Afgahnistan (they are already withdrawing from Iraq).</p>

<p>The world is heading towards increasing instability until the west comes to terms with the reality of what Al Qada is after and a doctrine for fighting assymetric wars is established. You cannot fight a war on terror. Terror is a means not an opponent and you cannot destroy the enemy unless you can define him. We are locked in to the mindset that only nation states can wage war and that every square inch of the earth essentially falls under the exclusive control of some nation state. When the reality dawns on the masses of people in the west that a political community, in this case Dar al Islam can wage war without actually having exclusive control of any particular terrtory then we will be able define the rules of engagement and begin the real prosecution of this war.</p>