"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" is a cliche in American politics. It refers to economic well-being, but what if it refers to security?
-Is the U.S. safer?
-Are Americans safer?
-What are the threats to safety?
-What are some solutions?
What do you think? And why?
UK and Spain are responsable for their internal security, Martino, and Yes Bush and Rumsfeld did a very poor job planning things in Iraq. In the attacks I mentioned, Americans were the targets in all of them. I stand by my statment that 9/11 was Clinton's legacy. when John Clark, then of ABC news interviewd Osma Bin Laden, Bin Laden stated that when Clinton pulled a cut and run in Somlia after the ambush and defilement of troops,he "knew America was weak".
Bush went in and killed 100,000 trained terrorist that Clinton ignored and permitted to be created... we still have no idea who was really behind 911, and I'm sure we won't know (for sure) who will be behind the next one either! So now all enemies see a great opportunity to conduct covert attacks made to look like middle eastern terrorsts so we respond by attacking the wrong people! And now congress has given the executive branch a free wheel! Good job congress! And where the hell is the Supreme Court! Allowing congress to give the executive these powers to violate of the constitution! www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Nixon sold out our economy and jobs to Communist China and slave labor... Congress hands out our wealth in the name of foreign aid to our enemies in exchange for campaign contributions... and finally we allowed foreign interests to buy and control our property and our stock market... can our leaders be any more stupid! Forget the open borders, you never go to war before you secure the borders and ports? www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
the comments posted seem to ramble on...pointing fingers and irrationally rationalizing and I've yet to see a problem solver among anyone of them (maybe a vale attempt)...they leave it to the elected and appointed leaders to do the job with no substanial in-put from the people who are so quick to criticize...rather than build or generate a better way of conduct...or propose a better planning strategy...this is about a organizing a construction crew to build a Unity'08 not devising a destruction crew...
It is impossible to answer this question of safety because there are no objective metrics for measuring safety.
Our domestic violence rates fluctuate but we don't know why. There hasn't been another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11, but there were no terrorist attacks on US soil between 1993 and 2024 - 8 years, so the clock is still ticking.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
When we vote out of fear then the terrorists have won.
Martino, when you say the clock is ticking, I couldn't agree with you more. The USA is still and will be a target for some time to come.
The 9/11 commission said that the threat of nuclear terrorism is the number 1 terrorism threat. They just rescored the government on their recommendations. Response has been poor. Why is it that there are still unsecured nuclear materials that could easily be stolen? Our officials may talk about it but do not do enough to correct the problem.
REPSONSE TO:
9/11 commission and nuclear terrorism
Kathy on June 25, 2024 - 3:47pm
Because like most of the government that you put into office over the years, its corrupt and incompetent.
In our own case here in Boston, the head of the local homeland security took the money and bought a 60in. HD flat screen tv just the weekend before super bowl last year. After hearings, they made him give it back, but he still has his job and pension.
I cannot answer is we are safer because this president and vice president and others have lied to the American people about 9/11. Their gain was to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, which was already planned way before 9/11. See www.fromthewilderness.com, and read the book "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. And this isn't about Republican/Democrat - it crosses both parties. The answer is to elect someone with enough balls to go against the "powers that be" and do the right thing for the American people. Last time a president tried it, he got assassinated.
You got all kinds of partisan crap, mudslinging, blaming of each other, and other stuff in this thread and not doing anything about it. No one here knows the internal makings of why we went into Iraq except what we were told. Now you have a choice to believe it or not, but I thought people were here to not be a part of the partisanship and bickering.
The thing I will say about being safer is that the Islamic Fundamentalists want to kill us. They don't care what party you belong to, what color you are, what nationality you are, what income bracket you're in, etcetera, etcetera, and etcetera. I don't know about anybody else but I don't want to sit back and wait for them to attack us. From what I've seen, you can't bargain with them. And if bargaining with them is giving them money, then let's talk about showing weakness. These are ruthless people. If you've never been in a street fight then you don't understand. It's flat out dirty and nasty. If you think you can appeal to their senses, you're living in a dreamland. They have a totally different culture and how they value life. This isn't theory people, this is real world stuff. You have to look beyond your cozy house in that cul de sac. Living your comfy little middle class life. Flower power, beads, and "Can't we just all get along" won't work.
So I guess what you have to decide is whether we sit back and hope we stop them before they get here, or we get them where they are.
DWB... Comments on Fundamentalists are very well said! IF we could get strong concurrence on that we could then have a basis for what it will take to make us safer in the future.
First you say: "but I thought people were here to not be a part of the partisanship and bickering."
And then you do it yourself: You have to look beyond your cozy house in that cul de sac. Living your comfy little middle class life. Flower power, beads, and "Can't we just all get along" won't work.
What you don't seem to understand is many liberals and centrists (the majority of Americans) who oppose the war in Iraq do so because of the way it has been justified AND the way it has been prosecuted.
Let that sink in: The way it has been prosecuted.
Of course we are not going to stand around and let our nation be overran and to suggest that is ignorance bordering on idiocy. I'm a veteran of the US military and I have travelled extensively and I know what a great nation we have. I will lay my life down for this nation as fast, if not faster, than you.
So fit that into your rants: Liberals are not pansies, even though it makes you feel superior and tough to think so. We expect competent leadership for our men and women in uniform, leadership that has been sorely lacking in Iraq.
Now, tell me why you don't want competent leadership for our troops.
That is real world.
DWB...
In case you are stunned and amazed at some reactions:
No you did not argue against competent leadership for our troops in your post.
Yes your post was focused on clearly identifying a major security threat to the US and some of the implications.
No couldn't find the "liberals are pansies comment" you are accused of. Though you were quite clear what you thought of folks who do not recognize the seriousness of the threat... the big geo-threat.
This veteran supports your position!
vry,
RET
Where is my partisanship in what I said? I merely stated my opinion. You can choose to think I am following a particular party line, but that is your choice. I am not. The only party line I follow is the DWB party line. It may coincide with a Rep/Dem view but you can say that about any position you take on an issue.
I am stating my opinion on what I know.
And where is my bickering? Once again I am giving my opinion.
You read an awful lot into my post. Take it at face value. I never said anything about liberals being pansies. You think because I said cul de sac and middle class that I think they're liberals?
I never said anything about the war specifically. Whether it was justified or how it's being prosecuted.
Do you want my opinion on that?
DWB: From another vet, I think you are right on. An interesting poll result in today's newspapers regarding Iraq- Men are 50-50 and Women are 2-1 against. I feel a little safer today since 9/11 but we will never be completely safe.
To the naysayers please list one LIE (intential misrepresentation Of the facts) President Bush has made .
I appreciate your agreement but I think what we don't want to get into here, I don't especially, at U08, is the war debate. Everyone has their opinions and beliefs.
I would hope we could all agree on this:
1) We're there
2) We need to succeed
3) MOST IMPORTRANT - We must support all our brothers and sisters that are there
1) We're there
No, most are at home in the USA.
2) We need to succeed
Define success.
3) MOST IMPORTRANT - We must support all our brothers and sisters that are there
Through thick and thin, even Article 32 and Court-Martial.
At least DWB's heart was in the right place on this.
Again, let's get back on track with some discussion on terrorism.
Over the past five years, this issue seems to be at the forefront of concern. So....
-Is the U.S. safer?
-Are Americans safer?
-Is the world safer?
-What are the threats to safety?
-What are some solutions?
What do you think? And why?
How about you not allow anonymous, drive-by, negative postings? Or is that the kind of campaigning you want? Is that the kind of dialogue you want? Just let me know so I know where you stand. Then I can make my choice.
We moderate as many inappropriate, inflammatory comments from anonymous posters as we do from registered users. Our posting guidelines can be viewed here.
If you're interested in being a part of the discussions here on the site, it's up to you as a user (registered or anonymous) to keep it civil. We believe that those that do not wish to register often have valid, helpful points to contribute, and at this time we are not restricting such posts.
We'd be a lot safer if the formely reputable New York Times weren't giving aid and comfort to the terrorists with their biased reporting and shameless disclosure of vital national secrets.
Ok. Where are the helpful points in this post?:
1) We're there
No, most are at home in the USA.
2) We need to succeed
Define success.
3) MOST IMPORTRANT - We must support all our brothers and sisters that are there
Through thick and thin, even Article 32 and Court-Martial
Is this Unity08 or Sarcasm08?
I guess what you're looking for here is the same old pro-Bush/anti-Bush BS.
I guess you're not really tired of the partisan bickering huh?
DEAFENING SILENCE ... in response to the partisan bickering question? Hmmmm almost as the deafening silence on Uo8 governance.. transparency of finances, election of governing board by vote of members as opposed to dictatorship of the founders...
I started this thread because I didn't believe anybody would think we were safer now than before 9/11.
I feel much less secure now having seen the level of discourse ...
Of course I never felt terribly safe. We have our own nutjobs here in America. There are Timothy McVeighs and Ted Bundy's in the underbrush. Columbine is just around the corner in most of our suburban schools. You can still buy a big bag of ammonium nitrate in a lot of retail outlets. And that doesn't count the drunk drivers that could cross the centerline at any time of the day or night.
The airline security is a joke. I do feel safer in the air, but only because I know that nobody is going to take over any aircraft that I'm on ... and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only American who feels that way. And, of course, the real targets are now the security lines, not the airplanes.
But where I was always aware that we weren't really secure before 9/11, what I'm scared of now is the US government. Call me paranoid if you want, but with the "anything for safety" attitude going around, I'm thinking bin Laden won and he's laughing his butt off in his apartment in Riyaad.
1. We've invested billions to make people think they're safe when they aren't really any safer. Money we sorely needed to spend in other places -- like Mississippi and Louisiana.
2. The people who are sworn to uphold the laws appear to be the ones breaking them. We can't find out because the people who are supposed to be taking care of the oversight have been blocked from doing their part of the job by the people we think are breaking the laws.
3. The USA PATRIOT Act declares that by questioning the government, I can be declared an enemy combatant and locked up without due process.
4. The government has all but suspended the Geneva Conventions, placing all our troups at risk whereever they are in the world.
And that's just the beginning.
Terrorism seeks to change the way people live in order to make a political statement and I never thought I'd see the day it would be working in America, but it most assuredly is.
1. Is the US safer?
- no but the biggest threats are internal
2. Are Americans safer?
- no. we are targets where-ever we are.
3. Is the world safer?
- no. the degree to which we have been willing to set the example for violating Geneva Convention, for acting unilaterally, and for "pre-emptive defense" sets the stage for every tinpot dictator in the world to follow our example and we have NO grounds to oppose them any more. And in the process we've turned Iraq into a breeding ground for martyrs.
4. What are the threats to safety?
- i gave my opinion on this above
5. What are some solutions?
- Repeal USA PATRIOT in its entirety. It puts Americans at too great a risk for the security it allegedly provides.
- Find a solution to Iraq. We tried to "cheap out" and you can't win a war on the cheap. We either have to cut our losses and pull out or we need to find the wherewithal to put enough troups and equipment into the effort. Personally, I think we're screwed here because we just don't have the reserves any more and we're going to wind up pulling out with egg on our faces and blood on our hands.
- Stop sabre rattling in Iran. Now.
- Restore Congressional oversight. The Supreme Court has always been at risk for being stacked one way or another and there's not much we can do about that, but there are three branches of government for a reason. The reign of King George was supposed to have ended in the 1700s. We need to address that issue again, it seems.
You say the biggest threats are internal but you give no solutions for dealing with this internal threat.
I don't know all the details about the Patriot Act but I believe, in this day and age, the government has to be given some latitude.
"You say the biggest threats are internal but you give no solutions for dealing with this internal threat."
Actually, I did. Since I believe the biggest threats to our liberty are from the government that's supposed to be protecting us, the logical response is to return real oversight to the people who are responsible for it. That includes repealing USA PATRIOT and opening the records so that effective Congressional oversight can occur.
"I don't know all the details about the Patriot Act but I believe, in this day and age, the government has to be given some latitude."
The USA PATRIOT Act is one of the problems. The changes it makes to Title 18 are anathama. It suspends habeus corpus, subjects American citizens to rules of unreasonable search and seizure, and makes a mockery of the liberties that so many have paid for in blood.
There's latitude and there's accountability. I'm more than willing to grant latitude, but with that latitude comes responsibility that can only be assured through adequate oversight and accountability. The accountability part is what's missing.
- There is NO justification for throwing people in jail without due process.
- There is NO justification for suspending constitutional protections on free speech.
- There is NO justification for suspending constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
- There is NO justification for prohibiting requisite Congressional oversight of the Executive branch.
In my opinion these are much more dangerous than hypothetical, imported threats to life and property because they threaten every citizen every day. Worse, they undermine the credibility of the government at a time when America needs every advantage.
I also realize that this is just my opinion. A lot of people seem to think that what's going on is ok. My feeling is that the concept of "America - land of the free and home of the brave" has been destroyed, not by any terrorist, but by the people we've entrusted to protect it.
You have your opinion and that's fine, I don't agree but that's not my point with this post. I don't think you can lump terrorism with Ted Bundy, Columbine, and drunk drivers.
So you started this thread with the assumption everyone would agree with you.. so what was the point asking a loaded question that would have different meaning to many readers?
Biased polling is a problem in our country glad to know you are part of it..
You didn't ask a loaded question. And it's not biased polling.
You did state in your post, July 2, that you didn't think anybody thought we were safer.
I don't think anybody knows if we are safer. We haven't been attacked again like 9/11 but that doesn't mean anything. Everyone aware knows the Islamic Fundamentalists will take their time. They'll wait for us to become complacent, have a sense of security, because nothing has hapened in a while. All the more reason to keep up the pressure.
I didn't know it was a poll )and virtually all poling is biased.)
I don't think it is negativity to answer No, No, No... I don't think it negativity that my reasons are not the same as nlowell's.
I am negative when I see that some give opinions but don't say why. I am going to follow suit because I already know they are basically my opinions and that they would be wasted on a frequent poster and unlikely to sway anyone elses opinion.
So to nlowell, martiniano, Kevin and Kathy thank you for your input.
DWB,
My point is that I think we're doing a terrible job of assessing risks. My point was that in spite of the terrorists, serial killers, kids with guns, and drunk drivers, I never lived in fear -- even after 9/11. They are the risks one takes by living in a free society. We have mechanisms in place to address law enforcement and security -- not perfect but balanced. There were safeguards to protect our basic rights and freedoms while permitting law enforcement and military latitude to pursue their roles.
But since the airborne attacks, those safeguards have been systematically dismantled -- largely by the USA PATRIOT Act and the implications of that legislation. The fundamental risks of being an American in a dangerous world have been made greater because now, in addition to all the other threats, we have to fear our own government. Now, I *do* live in fear but it has nothing to do with al-Quaeda.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking that I do not take the threat of terrorism seriously. Deliberate responses to deliberate acts are certainly desireable. We should not take more risks than are reasonable. But as more and more documentation comes to light, it seems we had all the information we needed to find and stop the 9/11 bombers and we got it thru the means that existed on 9/10. We've sacrificed our freedoms -- our very national identify -- for no good reason whatsoever and that scares me. What else are we willing to give up for an illusion of security?
It's only one man's opinion and maybe it's an unreasonable one, but if we're going to discuss terrorism, we also need to discuss what we're willing to sacrifice in order to fight it.
if you want to end a bad behavior you need the source to look as corrupt as todays politicians and that will end most of them
Dear N.Lowell: Have you read the 9/11 report in its entirety? If not I strongly recommend it. If Asst attorney general Jamie Gorelick had not issued a memorandum forbidding different parts of the FBI and the CIA to communicate with each other 9/11 may have been averted. The Patriot Act was written to correct that deficiency. I believe the authorities need a search warrant to search someone's home. I believe most of the Patriot Act was already part of the RICO provisions to fight organized crime and drug dealers. Now that we are targeting Islamic Jihadists you are upset. I was around during the Second World War, you would have loved the evening curfews and POW camps and party line phones and eavesdropping switchboard operators we had then. Somehow the USA survived that constitutional crisis and we will survive this imagined one also.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that, Al. You're not going to convince me that I'm safer having Mike Hayden watching my phone records and I'm not going to convince you that the Nation is at risk.
The question is, "Where's the middle ground here?"
I am very afraid of the way the government is running roughshod over the world - not just us. I feel very strongly that we are not made secure by having the State observing our lives in detail and without due process. I do not believe that being the "Biggest Bully" is a role that's suitable for the US. We are particularly not safe when the rules are not open and the checks and balances are neither.
So? What's our approach? Where do we meet in the middle?
- I'm ok with requiring the government to follow rules of due process. I want them to get warrants and sub poenas. I want a judge involved. FISA is fine.
- I want the notion of "enemy combatant" removed. This legal fiction opens the door to abuse. We have processes in place for dealing with POWs and spies in a rational and meaningful way. If the rules for those are somehow flawed, I'd be happy to follow up and see about where/how/where they need to be fixed.
- I want the government to be bound by the laws that they are sworn to uphold.
- I want the people who are supposed to be making sure that's happening to be able to fulfill that role.
- I want the practice of "rendition" to stop. If we're dealing with foreign criminals, then get them arrested and extradited. If we can't do that, then we shouldn't be kidnapping them and taking them to a jurisdiction that's outside the US.
- I want the International Red Cross to have access to any prisoner held in any jail run by any branch of the State from city lockups to military prisons. If the Red Cross calls, we should be willing to answer. And we darn well better have nothing to hide. If we do, then I darn well want to know what, why, and who and I want to know now.
- I want the US to stop putzing about and start treating the UN like a serious commitment, not just some figurehead organization that's a jewel on the eastside without any real role in the world. It's not perfect but neither are we and I think that if we're as great as we think we are, then we ought to be setting a better example.
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Where is *your* "middle ground" Al?
I'm curious nlowell. Are you saying that you wake up and what's on your mind is your fear of your own government? You go about your daily routines and you're thinking about your fear of your own government? What has happened to you because of these sacrificed rights? I haven't noticed a thing. If the government wants to listen to what time my tee time is, then I'd be mad that they're wastng their time, not that they're listening (which I don't think they are).
I agree we need to be on guard against the government taking advantage, but I think the media, which most despise this administration, would have it pasted all over the front page if someone like you had their rights infringed upon.
Actually, yes, there is a certain relief when I get up in the morning and there are not black Suburbans outside, DWB.
As I go thru my day, I'm always aware that everything I say, everything I do, and everything I write is subject to the un-supervised scrutiny of the government. My credit card purchases, my phone records, the movies I rent, the websites I visit, the forums I read, and the blogs I write ... all subject to governmental review. I'm always in fear that the next blog post might be the one that torques some right-wing nutjob with a Federal ID to the point where he feels I'm an enemy combatant and the black Suburbans cruise my neighborhood in the predawn hours.
I'll be the first to admit, it's unlikely that they'll come for ME because there are much bigger targets, but so long as dissent is outlawed, we all take the chance that we could be taken as traitors for questioning the government.
It goes beyond that. We used to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. Now, they're not even getting warrants before grabbing business records. If the charges that the NSA is and has been scooping up phone records are true, that's been illegal since 1936! It could very well have been going on for years and, if it has, then we've got even bigger problems than I think.
I don't expect to convince anybody that we have an expectation of privacy. I'm not so naive.
What I am concerned about is that the government in power has overstepped its bounds, that we are destroying our principles in order to "protect" them, and that our knee-jerk response is playing into the hands of our terrorist enemies.
You can poo-poo me all you like, but I have a very real fear that the government is out of control and that the people who are supposed to be upholding the laws of the land are the ones who are subverting it.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT all after you.
Now, I laid out what *I* think is reasonable middle ground for Chicago Al a couple posts ago, DWB. If you're quite done laughing at my paranoia, perhaps you'd like to respond in kind by addressing some of the issues? What do *you* see as middle ground on this?
I don't know all the details of the patriot act. I watch news programs and such and hear what both sides say about it.
Here's my view. I want my government protecting me, my family, and my country. If they think someone's on the phone talking about doing something to any of that, I want them listening. I want them profiling anyone who fits the profile. I want then to get the enemy and do whatever it takes to get information out of them.
As far as I'm concerned, this principle thing is overused as an excuse. America has been the big bear getting poked with a stick for way too long. Time to bite back.
Lowell, tell us what are you doing that would prompt the black suburbans to show up at your door? Of the 300+ million Americans plus the rest of the world that George and Dick are staying up late and reading the email/ listening to your calls pray tell what makes you interesting? If there is something then you are precisely the type of person I want the FBI, etc to be keeping a short leash on, heck just maybe a quick wet op would be more cost effective.
That used to be enough to raise your points on an FBI profile. That was before.
Been to the bank recently and been asked for ID when you have had an account with them for years and they call you by name and ask about the family? I know the RealID Act keeps us all safe but how hard is it to get a driver's license issued? Almost any form of ID can get a Mexican illegal immigrant a license.
Another Anonymous cracked about "George and Dick are staying up late and reading the email" but it is too bad they didn't stay up late reading the Hart-Rudman Report on Terrorism before 9/11.
I hope all those that don't see or don't care about the erosion of our rights are subject of a strip search before they can get on a plane. I know I'll feel safer if they are.
I hope they're strip searching everyone named Anonymous.
Please try not to let your animosity show. Usually when people feel safe they are more tolerant.
There is no correlation between safety and tolerance in my world.
I am not a "People Person". Which makes me very intolerable with people.
So many people in this administration are up to the task of interpreting what our founding fathers meant but don't listen to the actual words they said:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Dear NLowell: I apologize for making it personal, but I can't stop laughing about Anonymous' Wet Op line. I honestly think you watch too much TV and Movies that portray black Suburbans. Seriously there is no middle ground for us; I want the government to protect my family. I do not think George W is Evil Incarnate and means to harm me and my family. Dick, I am not sure about, if he were President I might share some of your concerns. The International Red Cross and United Nations are corrupt anti-American institutions. They are useless except for spending US money for disaster relief. The UN is controlled by 50 or more African nations. As far as my phone records- I am more concerned about spyware on my harddrive. I borrow a lot of spy novels from my local library, but I don't fear the ghost of J. Edgar coming to get me.
I'm sure Franklin was saying that as he watched planes fly into buildings, people strap bombs to their bodies and walk into a busy marketplace where innocent people are shopping, and watching a video of someone getting their head cut off.
So DWB, are you saying people killed by violence in the 1700's were less dead than those killed by modern violence?
At what point were you willing to give up your civil liberties? And what is your limit? Are you willing to give up the second amendment? (Since you are advocating giving up the fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth...) I know from your other posts that you don't believe the government is capable of self control (and I agree somewhat) so why would it be any different in the area of civil liberties?
Additionally, many of the arguments the Administration is using to justify their actions are absurd. Like tapping international calls without warrants due to expediency. FISA states that you don't even need to obtain that warrant for 3 days AFTER the wiretap has taken place. Since the basic principle of obtaining a warrant is to prevent unreasonable search and seizure I would argue that FISA itself isn't really for giving warrants but to give OVERSIGHT to prevent abuse of power.
For all my hyperbole, I don't REALLY think that the government will target me for my criticism of their policies. What I'm concerned about is that the government is willing to break the law -- a law which is already under fire for providing unprecedented search and seizure access to American citizens without the obligation of proving "probable cause" and for creating an environment of secrecy to prevent the citizenry from knowing the degree to which they are under surveillance. If they're willing to break that law, then what *other* laws are they willing to break in order to keep us "safe."
I don't read spy novels, but J. Edgar is a good point. The ghosts of Hoover and McCarthy haunt us still. The witchhunts and flagrant violations of the HUAC are eerily reminiscent of what's going on today. The difference is that we have no Edward R. Murrow in the Fourth Estate to shine daylight on the abuses.
The recent Supreme Court decision that Bush overstepped his bounds in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld brings to light exactly what many Americans have been afraid of - a vigilante administration.
The government is welcome to listen to my phone calls, see what movies I rent, see how I use my credit card and even follow me through my day as long as they do so within the law.
Within the law.
I don't want any president deciding which laws to uphold and which to break. I don't want Bush making that decision, I don't want Hillary or McCain making that decision either. Professor Yoo is a war criminal in my books.
Do what must be done, do it within the law. If the law is not fast enough or nimble enough then do all you can to change the law. But if you do the crime, you have to do the time.