Security versus freedom in a time of terrorism

[Biochemist]

starting a side-thread from liberalism-conservatism:

...the term "times of war" is now changing rapidly (or already has changed). Recently, "war" has become a more shadow-y, less cut and dry term. We've been in perpetual "war" for the last 10-15 years, since the first World Trade Center bombing, if you define it like the current administration has. Given the definition they use when implimenting and discussing the Patriot Act (something like "somebody, somewhere, doesn't like us and may do something about it sometime, somewhere"), those powers granted by the Act have the potential to be used ALL the time- appropritate times and non-appropriate times.

True. But the facts are that 1) we were attacked 2) we were threatened to be attacked again, and by the same organization, 3) there are a number of loosely orgznized entities that have made plans (and continue to make plans) to do the US harm.

 

Should at least SOME of the powers that we typically reserve for a time of war be permitted?

[Fishteacher73]

You must realized that most of these "entities" (or at least a lot of the founding members of) were trained and armed by the US to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, the simply dropped with a decimated country and told to have a nice day. Than in 1990 durring the Gulf War the US went to the Middle East to "defend" an invaded country (It was coincidence that they had lots of oil, really. Not to speak of the pleasant legal system in Kuwait....). At this point the US occupied the most holy of areas to Muslims. This was not taken well by many arabs already feeling a bit put out by the US...

 

Now on to the terrorist actions. How did the US gain independence from England? Oh, though guerillia tactics and essentially terrorist activity. Tarring and lynching loyalists. This falls pretty much in line with terrorist philosophy. (Not that I condone these actions, but in essence it is great military strategy. This allows the smaller under armed forces to be a real threat to the occupying force. Possibly to the extent of withdrawal).

[Fishteacher73]

If the job is done correctly, the blade should stay in the scabbard. The military is becomeing a smaller better trained force to deal with specific threats and foes. We have the surgical ability to strike. The problem is bad intelligence. This stems from a disjointed intelligence apparatus and the fact thet the US operates quite heavy handedly in terms of its short term interests. The leadership is not looking at the big picture. It likes to burn bridges and not act in a global manner. This pisses off people. The US a "Let them eat cake" attitude and you can see the mob starting to form and sharpen the guillotine.

[Biochemist]

...How did the US gain independence from England? Oh, though guerillia tactics and essentially terrorist activity. Tarring and lynching loyalists. This falls pretty much in line with terrorist philosophy. (Not that I condone these actions, but in essence it is great military strategy. This allows the smaller under armed forces to be a real threat to the occupying force. Possibly to the extent of withdrawal).

It is a bit of a stretch to assign guerilla tactics to the terrorism camp. I don't want to defend the actions of the American revolutionaries too much, but they were living in a police state without representation, and elected to use guerilla tactics against political targets (generally). This is a far cry from targeting civilians that are definitively noncombatants.

[Fishteacher73]

They did target loyalists though. And comparitively the military "etiquiette" of the time hiding behind things and ambushing was about as acceptable as any terrorist tactic now being implemented.

[Biochemist]

If the job is done correctly, the blade should stay in the scabbard.

Agreed. But this means you have to take it out once in a while or it loses its deterrence.

The military is becomeing a smaller better trained force to deal with specific threats and foes. We have the surgical ability to strike. The problem is bad intelligence. This stems from a disjointed intelligence apparatus and the fact thet the US operates quite heavy handedly in terms of its short term interests.

Maybe. But it is probably a cleaner argument that we lost all respect from the Arab world by putting up with foreign powers (e.g., Iraq) thumbing their noses at United Nations resolutions for 15 years.

The leadership is not looking at the big picture. It likes to burn bridges and not act in a global manner. This pisses off people. The US a "Let them eat cake" attitude and you can see the mob starting to form and sharpen the guillotine.

It would also be easy to argue that the Bush administration is better at looking at the big picture than not. The dissagreements with the Bush administration are usually related more to interpretation of the big picture than to being too short-term focused. The Clinton adminsitration is the one that, accodoring to most, seemed reasonably short sighted. At the time, most analysts did not think that being short-term focused was a problem.

[Biochemist]

They did target loyalists though.

True. but loyalists were not usually non-combatants. They turned in revolutionaries to the authorities.

And comparitively the military "etiquiette" of the time hiding behind things and ambushing was about as acceptable as any terrorist tactic now being implemented.

Maybe. But it is valuable to separate terrorism from guerilla warfare. They are not the same thing.

[Fishteacher73]

Agreed. But this means you have to take it out once in a while or it loses its deterrence.Maybe. But it is probably a cleaner argument that we lost all respect from the Arab world by putting up with foreign powers (e.g., Iraq) thumbing their noses at United Nations resolutions for 15 years.

 

So to show how well the democratic process works, the US unilaterally decide to ignore the UN and "create" a threat in Iraq, when real threats are brewing in Korea and Iran... (John Stewart once said maybe it was just a typo and Bush really was after Iran, as he said, "It is only one letter, they do have direct ties with al Queda and a nuclear program...I could see the confusion.")

 

 

It would also be easy to argue that the Bush administration is better at looking at the big picture than not. The dissagreements with the Bush administration are usually related more to interpretation of the big picture than to being too short-term focused. The Clinton adminsitration is the one that, accodoring to most, seemed reasonably short sighted. At the time, most analysts did not think that being short-term focused was a problem.

 

This stems all the way back to Bush I (and even concievably to Regan and Carter). Once the "Red mennace" was taken care of, we had no real plan for the power vacuum. Even prior to that the Mid East was starting to realize its power in terms of the world's petroleum addiction. The local populaces revolted against the puppet gov'ts of the west and saw America as the source of thier problems.

[Buffy]

...I don't want to defend the actions of the American revolutionaries too much, but they were living in a police state without representation, and elected to use guerilla tactics against political targets (generally). This is a far cry from targeting civilians that are definitively noncompatants.

There are two key questions here:

 

1) When do the ends justify the means? Thoughout American history, the populace has come down on the side of "better to let 10 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent." Your argument here (and that of many others, although I'd argue a minority) is that basically there because of the threat is so evil, that all means may be permitted. Under Patriot, there are no limitations on searches, indeterminant incarceration, and because almost everything can be a state secret, the reasons can be witheld. There are nominal limitations that require some okay by the courts, but the government has been quite successful in fishing for the right judge to okay incarceration not just of "foreign enemy combatants" at Gitmo, but Americans on US soil. Judicial review has been heavily dialed back, and we're just supposed to "trust" the law enforcement authorities: you made the argument earlier that although the act permits invasions of privacy, that there were no instances of it. I'd only add the word "yet." I can tell you that Ashcroft and others have said that they need the Patriot act not just for terrorists, but also for child murderers, rapists, dope dealers, etc. etc. I'd agree that the tactics of the terrorists are more like these criminal acts, albeit combined with organized crime techniques, as opposed to being "freedom fighers", but that's actually my point: its no more right with the war on terror to justify tactics to catch terrorists, than it has *ever* been to abridge the rights of the Gacys, Son of Sams, or Capones. They do kill a lot of people, but there's a strong argument that this is *not* a war, its simply criminal activity.

 

2) At what point does exercising those means result in decreasing marginal returns? I hold the argument, broached in many Islamic-terrorist screeds, that by forcing us to give up our freedoms, they win. Moreover, we have become an international pariah for doing to others exactly what they do to us. Although we have a different view, Al Jazeera and other outlets fully equate the kidnappings in Iraq with what we've done with the Gitmo internees. If you sink to the level of your opponent, you cannot gain the moral high ground and get others to assist you in your goals. The same thing has happened in Israel: while the anger that causes it is perfectly understandable, the government policies such as bulldozing the houses of *relatives* of terrorists is hard for *anyone* to justify.

 

You can argue that we haven't gone that far, but that's an opionion that many out there disagree with. Putting people like John Bolton in the UN is a great example of why the general view of the US these days is that we're going to do whatever we want to do, and if others don't like it, well, we can tell them where to put it. That makes us no better than Osama.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

So...the US unilaterally decide to ignore the UN and "create" a threat in Iraq, when real threats are brewing in Korea and Iran...

I thought that Iraq was actually a threat. I agree that Bush II did a poor job of articulating the threat in the public arena. The original justification for war included about a half dozen other elements (besides WMD). At the time I thought WMD was the second most important. I have always thought that having an island of quasi-stability in an inherently unstable region was a worthwhile goal. I also thought it would be a decade-long effort. Bush's original public discourse essentially said that. He dropped back to discussing "finding WMDs" when the dogs started barking. He can really be incredibly inarticulate.

The local populaces revolted against the puppet gov'ts of the west and saw America as the source of thier problems.

This has generally been true only when the US supported the quasi-totalitarian regimes. The Saudi and Egyptian citizens don't like the US, because we support their goverments. The Iranians like us for the opposite reason. Turkey is intermediate, although it has gotten worse recently.

 

It is probably not fair to call these governments puppets of the West. But I do think our unflagging support for them has been a little short sighted.

[Fishteacher73]

.This has generally bene true only when the US supported the quasi-totalitarian regimes.

 

The US supported Saddam.... Ashcroft was the first US dignitary to meet w/ Saddam and offered him a pair of golden spurs from Reagan.. :)

[Biochemist]

The US supported Saddam.... Ashcroft was the first US dignitary to meet w/ Saddam and offered him a pair of golden spurs from Reagan.. :)

Bush II has fundamentally changed this policy of supporting unpleasant regimes in the old-school realpolitic model. If you disapprove of the old-school approach, you should like Bush II, including his tendency to use a relatively small number of European allies when they don't agree with us. They are heavily entrenched in the old-school realipolitic.

 

By the way, I don't mean to characterize "old-school" as incorrect, merely the previous policy framework.

[Buffy]

Bush II has fundamentally changed this policy of supporting unpleasant regimes in the old-school realpolitic model.

Ah, yup. We're really putting the hammer to China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia... :)

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Biochemist]

There are two key questions here:

 

1) When do the ends justify the means?...

2) At what point does exercising those means result in decreasing marginal returns?...

This is a really good post, Buff. I will be out for a couple hours, but I am looking forwarsd to giving this the thought it deserves.

[C1ay]

starting a side-thread from liberalism-conservatism:True. But the facts are that 1) we were attacked 2) we were threatened to be attacked again, and by the same organization, 3) there are a number of loosely orgznized entities that have made plans (and continue to make plans) to do the US harm.

 

Should at least SOME of the powers that we typically reserve for a time of war be permitted?

Not at the expense of my liberty. Consider this. On 9/11/2001 some thugs hijacked some planes and rammed them into the World Trade Center. Since that time it has not been thugs that have paid the price with their time and privacy at our airports, it has been millions of innocent americans. It has been airlines that have gone out of business, hotels that have lost travelers and the cabs that transport them. Restaurants and amusements that have suffered. At all levels we are punishing ourselves for the acts of a few thugs. Not only that but we think we have to be politically correct about it. Over 30+ years young muslim male activists have created terror throughout the world and we are worried about old ladies whose hip replacement set of the metal detector instead of focusing on those that fit the profile. If we're going to punish some majority for the actions of the few couldn't we at least restrict it to those that fit the description.

[bumab]

Finally back- this thread is hoppin'!

 

It would also be easy to argue that the Bush administration is better at looking at the big picture than not. The dissagreements with the Bush administration are usually related more to interpretation of the big picture than to being too short-term focused.

 

My bolding.

 

I agree with this (and I disagree with Bush's big picture). Bush does seem to have long term plans in mind, this comes up time and again in both his foreign and domestic policy agendas. Overseas, he pushes for regime changes to things he likes, and domestically, he changes the laws to thing that will benefit him (and his causes) in the long term.

 

The trick here is something that benefits the incumbent president and party is wartime- and Bush II has created a perpetual state of war. The war on terror has been created as such an abstraction that it cannot and will not be won, hence, the President and his men are always riding the crest of patriotism.

 

The idea here is to change the conditions of the game. Republicans do better when things are unsettled- they boast big defense initiatives, they are big on security, they want people to own guns. Democrats do better when times are settled- they work to make everybody a little better off with social programs. When there's a war on, most people want an agressive, security minded president. Hence, usually a Republican. Bush has now changed the rules- he's made a state of perpetual war against an idea, not a real foe. If they catch Osama, and we all hope they do, that still won't be the end. I can't see Bush saying "the war on terror is over," but I can easily imagine him coming out with the "next big threat" from radical Islam, or communist N. Korea, or who knows what.

[Biochemist]

Ah, yup. We're really putting the hammer to China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia...

Buff- I'm a little confused by your position on this. If you want a tough stance to these kind of folks, you would tend to like folks like John Bolton. If you like to be conciliatory to these countries and go along with whatever the consensus of Europe prefers, you will tend not to. There is little doubt that this Bush administration has been less appeasement-oriented than either Clinton or Bush I. Are you saying he needs to me more so or less so?