July 09, 2004

• Can't you guys hurry up and have your civil war already?
• Looks like the government is going to have to mail postage-free ballots to every household so we don't have to risk going outside.
• I used up my one posting a day, but I thought that this was kind of funny. Seems Bush can still get the frat boy vote. Brodsky himself, despite a demonstrated commitment to the Republican Party through his work for a Republican state senator in Pittsburgh, does not intend to vote for Bush -- even though Bush is the only candidate to whom he'd offer a bid to join Pi Kappa Alpha. "Nader wouldn't have a chance," Brodsky explained. "Kerry is cool because he has morals, something G.W. and Nader do not, but George Bush is the only one that I can see playing Beirut [aka Beer Pong] while shot-gunning a Natty Ice. So I guess I'd have to pick Bush."
• Ridge and Ashcroft make such announcments in a continuing effort to convince the public that they are doing their jobs. Who is convinced? People are becoming numb to warnings of dangers that never materialize and probably never existed.
• They might do it to convince the herd to elect Bush again, since people are loathe to change leaders in the middle of a "crisis".
• Looks like they are covering all the bases. From this report in The New Republic: "This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan... This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November."
• Osama wants you to vote Kerry!
• It's an unenviable position. On the one hand, if they make announcements like this, no one believes them, and some people believe they're intentionally 'scaring' people. On the other, if they say nothing and something happens... Me, I'm not worried about the T-threat. I'm still looking for all those rights that Bush has stomped all over.
• Meanwhile, Bin Laden's face, like a demon, stares out of CNN.com.
• homunculus, that was beautiful!
• Maybe if the threat level gets colorful enough we just all ought to simply stay at home safe and snug and not worry our little heads about the voting thing. After all, Big Brother does know best.
• I agree with f8xmulder -- all the bleating about how our rights have been trampled, but as hard as I look, I just can't seem to find any tangible proof. On the other hand, there have *definitely* been terrorist plots against the U.S. that have been foiled by DHS, DoD, etc. Priorities, people.
• Rights have been trampled - ask the people in Florida who were denied the right to vote because they happened to share similar name and race with a felon (but were sometimes a different gender or age). Ask the about 2000 Iranian-Americans, some citizens, held in California without charges after Sept. 11 (even though there are no connections betwenn Iran and Al Quaeda, because they are competing and mutaually hating sects of Islam). I don't care what you all do in your crazy country , and I'm not looking forward to a geometric increase in US-filter threads as the election approaches, but sheer ignorance of what has been happening in your own country is not something to be proud of. You have a dirty house - and the rest of the world has been trying to let you know nicely. We like Americans - we would like for Americans to have a country with civil rights they can count on. Just simple things, like fair elections and habeus corpus. We thought you would like that too.
• sorry for all the spelling mistakes above - was more worried about wording than typing.
• On the other hand, there have *definitely* been terrorist plots against the U.S. that have been foiled by DHS, DoD, etc And I dare say none of this has anything to do with the public statements of Ridge or Ashcroft but perhaps in spite of them. The credit belongs to the agents in the field.
• jb, I appreciate and understand your position, and while those things you mention are to be excoriated and rightly so, they are anomalous. Government - Republican and Democrat alike - naturally seek to limit the rights of the citizenry. ALL government tends toward tyranny, for it is natural for those with power to seek more power; luckily, out Constitution is written well and with a definitive mind toward checking that impulse. We know all too well what is happening here in the US; but we also know that the tendency is toward civil liberty. America has suffered through times far worse than these, but in the end we have always traded security for liberty over time, and I fully expect this to be the case now. It is happening even as we speak! The arguably rightish Supreme Court (the same one that always is chastised for fixing the aforementioned 2000 election) recently ruled that Guantanamo detainees may challenge their incarceration; the Abu Ghraib torturers are coming to trial; Hussein is in an Iraqi dock, facing Iraqi judges. I could go on, but the trend, I think, is clear: things are returning to normalcy. Perhaps the corners of our house, as you say, are a bit dirty - but they have always been, because a free country is by it's nature a disorganized one; a country where nearly any viewpoint is entertained is sure to see some demogogues and brigands; and their will always be people who do wrong. We're not psychics, we can't read their minds Minority Report style and stop them before they do wrong; we can only rememdy things as best we can after. So I guess, in the end jb, I would ask that you remember that America (a) is a big, disorganized place, and even in the best of times, which these are not, we have our idiot moments, BUT (b) America is made up of Americans, we have never known true tyranny (and whatever the Bush administration might be, real dyed in the wool tyrants they are not), and we will always, in time, trade security back for freedom. As for the rest of the world letting us know nicely, well, the world's niceness could be a little nicer some days :) And more than occasionally I am reminded of Matthew 7:3 "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother
• Well said, Fes.
• let's see... what else is happening in the news? kerry announces his running mate... hmm... and meanwhile, there's a brewing scandal over cheney's doctor... hmmm... shall we... DISTRACT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WITH A VERRRRY SCARRRRY TERRORIST THREAT ANNOUNCEMENT?????? i'm just sayin'...
• There's truth to that, SideDish. But those very scary (in a Count Floyd sort of way) announcements have long started to sound like wolf-crying, and I don't know anyone who has given this particular one a lot of shrift, other than the usual hystericist suspects. And distracting the American public with spectacle is not exactly the exclusive purview of the current administration. Seems I remember a certain administration that missiled a Sudanese aspirin factory on the day a zaftig dalliance returned to grand jury testimony during an impeachment hearing...? I'm not trying to compare and contrast here, just pointing out that the things that happen today often seem unique and overly important because they're fresh in our minds, but that even a single decade of historical perspective lends a bit of tempering to the affairs of the day. There really is nothing new under the sun, after all.
• Last night on the Daily Show they had a very funny bit about this. "Well, surely they are going to raise the terror alert level!" "We are not going to raise the terror alert level at this time." "But they must have some concrete information, right?" "We have no concrete information at this time." "Well it's starting to sound like they aren't doing their job." "We are doing our job and working very hard to prevent terrorist attacks." While the bit was certainly done for commedic effect, it is sad to see how scripted and formulaic the announcements of public figures have become.
• yup, fes, i agree that this is becoming more commonplace. i guess it's the political version of, "oh, look at that shiny object over there!" heh.
• Can't you guys hurry up and have your civil war already? HA! That depends on what happens in four months.
• WOLF! WOLF! WOLF!
• Good post, Fes, but isn't it kinda saying, "Well, we've had our rights trampled on in the past, so it's alright to trample on 'em now"?
• Fes: I did think before I refered to dirty houses, and I realise that the words are strong. But we do worry for you. From the perspective of the outside, these do not appear to anomalous incidents. There were very serious incidents of systematic disenfranchisement of people in the last election (largely based on race, since Florida chose to disenfranchise those who shared a name and race with felons, and never thought to do something as simple as double check even the gender - I read an interview with an older woman who had been told she was the same person as a young man - the only joint characteristic was a similar name and the fact that they were both black). Of course, this had nothing to do with terrorism; America had civil rights issues before terrorism became an issue, and there is no evidence that any steps have been taken to prevent it happenning again four years later. Simply the fact that elections are not run by a neutral third party should worry all Americans who cherish their civil rights. Canada has been cited by some as lacking free spech because we will prosecute those who advocate violence against others (which is the definition of hate speech), but the current Office of the President controls who can even come within sight of the President to only those who wish to make favourable statements. Non-citizens have no rights in the United States (this is true anywhere), but illegal detentions have included citizens. I live in the United States, and yes, the people are committed to civil rights. But how many have the chance to know what it is like in other developed democracies? (Which are, of course, the appropriate comparisons for the United States - comparing the US to, let's say, China, would be a straw man or, rather, a Red Herring). The love of personal liberty in the US is no greater than that in Canada or the UK, both places in which I have lived. Habeus corpus was after all, created by the English, or rather, their French overlords. However, Americans do appear to be less accepting of criticism of the government than those in other western democracies. As noted in the previous thread on the President's Irish intervew, British and Irish reporters are trained to grill politicians, and in Canada, cruel political satire is a national artform from which no office is safe, not even the Queen. Having lived there, America seems like a place in which authority, in the form of the government and the police, and general support of law and order over civil rights, holds a stronger sway than other places where I have lived. No democracy on the planet is without civil rights problems. In fact, Canada has suspended civil rights in response to terrorism - notably when Trudeau used the War Measures act to suspend civil rights in Quebec in the early 1970s. It did him no good, and did the country a great deal of harm. It was a dark period in our history - and I do not want to repeat it anymore here than I want it repeated in the United States.
• f8x, davidmsc, please read the Patriot Act. Specifically, please read Section 215 of the Patriot Act. When a legal challenge filed in court must be filed under seal to avoid violating the law, *how* does it not violate the first amendment? To not be able to stand on the steps of the courthouse and say "I challenge this law, in court, on these legal grounds"- that's a trampling of our rights. And for all the terrorist plots that may or may not have been foiled, they still haven't arrested anyone for sending Anthrax through the mail back in 2001.
• Fes, your reply seems both heartfelt and thought-out. While I agree with you that Bush is not Vlad-the-Impaler, I worry that what Bush (and co.) hath wraught, Kerry (or anyone else) can not so easily undo. Leaving aside permanent ecological damage and ostrich-like behaviour on HIV, among other concerns, is the fact that the civil liberties so easily given up under the Patriot Act and FEMA represent long and hard faught battles. It may take further decades before they again resemble the rights that Americans were justifiably proud of. Also, on non-Americans commenting on America: while as individuals US citizens are not at fault, the undeniable fact is that US foreign AND domestic policy has a manifest effect on governments and citizens around the world. That gives these outsiders come claim to comment on US behaviour, I think, especially if the US is going to cat-call about their behaviour (France, Germany, Canada, Spain, among others no doubt, have been targeted as not being suitably friendly towards the US in the last 3 years).
• Simply the fact that elections are not run by a neutral third party should worry all Americans who cherish their civil rights. Here's the oddity that is America: technically, the people run the elections. I mean, everyone who administers the voting process also has a right to vote. So you've either got a case of the inmates running the asylum or you've got a flawed but effective system by which a nation is able to self-determine its own leaders, who are (maybe) supposed to be citizens first and leaders second. It sounds like you view America as the former. No comment on Canada. I live in the United States, and yes, the people are committed to civil rights. But how many have the chance to know what it is like in other developed democracies? Is it now a requirement to live and vote in other developed democracies to understand how badly or poorly America is operating as a democracy? The love of personal liberty in the US is no greater than that in Canada or the UK, both places in which I have lived. That's kind of what the Constitution says: EVERY man has the right to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. America affirms what you're saying, so there's no argument here. However, Americans do appear to be less accepting of criticism of the government than those in other western democracies. I dunno about that. We have people publishing books that talk about assassinating the President. We have filmmakers who are virulently anti-administration, if not anti-big government, out with the largest grossing documentary, on tv shows and on the streets hawking their views. We have a free press which constantly criticizes the government. Americans are free to listen or not, to like the criticism or not, but there's certainly no reign on the ability to air it. By forcing me to accept your criticism you curtail my rights. It was a dark period in our history - and I do not want to repeat it anymore here than I want it repeated in the United States. A valid concern. I think as long as there are people out there like you, we will constantly be vigilant against this sort of thing from happening.
• ambrosia, I could be wrong, but doesn't the FBI still need approval from a federal court to execute any of the provisions of 215? And in defense of sealed legal challenges, given the nature of the documents used in the filing that the ACLU was gagged in, I'm not surprised the judged issued the gag order. However, it's my understanding that not every case brought to file under 215 is executed in this manner. However, I may be wrong.
• f8x, Section 215 is not the only Section that allows the FBI to gather information about citizens. One of the articles linked above refers to National Security Letters, ("NSLs") which are provided for under Section 505. The FBI needs no court authorization to issue an NSL. (from the article linked to above:) The issue of the NSL must only allege that the information being sought is related to ongoing "terrorism" investigations. It does not require any probable cause or individualized suspicion about persons or their activities. It need not show that the person is involved in terrorism in any way. The recipient of the NSL must comply without even contacting an attorney or corporate counsel. (Prior to the Patriot Act, such information could only be gotten pursuant to an NSL letter when the purpose was to engage in counterintelligence measures against non-citizens who were associated with a "foreign power.") Recipients of NSLs are under a blanket gag order never to talk about receiving the NSLs and, of course, they must never disclose to clients or patients that their email, medical records, or retail records have been handed over to the FBI. This gag order is not time-limited--supposedly it continues in perpetuity. The law places no restrictions on how the government uses the information and records obtained. In theory, the NSL must seek information in the context of fighting terrorism. But ,b>once the information is procured, it can be used for any purpose, including prosecution for other crimes, for data-mining (for a description of what "data mining" is, see Anita Ramasastry's earlier article for this site), for creating profiles of "suspicious" persons, and more. (emphasis mine) So f8x, the answer is, the FBI doesn't have to get a court order to collect information about US citizens, and the people who get a National Security Letter from the FBI are not even allowed to discuss it with an attorney. More information on National Security Letters here, here and here.
• Yes the entire point of the patriot act is so that there doesn't need to be a reason or permission from a judge to do things and then you aren't even allowed to tell anyone that you've been contacted about it either. When I tell people who don't know about the patriot act that that is what it allows the government to do, inevitably they don't beleive it and I eventually have to tell them to go look it up themselves before they will believe it. Then of course there is the response, "If you don't have anything to hide then why do you care?" Which was why it was really great to see all the outraged reactions a couple weeks ago when there was that art exibit of celebrity's trash...
• That's kind of what the Constitution says: EVERY man has the right to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. America affirms what you're saying, so there's no argument here. You of course mean the Declaration of Independence.
• Boy is my face red. Of course.
• Larry D. Thompson, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institutition, and former Deputy Atourney General of the United States speaking to Rep. Timothy J. Roemer (D-IN) during one of the 9-11 Commision hearings. But I think it's important to point this out is that under the guidelines that we develop for FBI agents in this area, it's very important to note that these kinds of investigations and these kinds of inquiries that you're talking about with respect to the national security letters cannot be undertaken except for a legitimate counterterrorism investigation for the purpose of detecting terrorist activity. Now, can an FBI agent or can an office short-circuit that? Human nature says that sometimes rules are going to be broken. But if they are broken, there are severe professional consequences for that kind of thing. So we have guidelines and we have to rely on the professionalism of the overwhelming majority of our law enforcement officials, and they do not undertake these kinds of inquiries lightly and they do not undertake them to get information about activity that's otherwise protected by the Constitution or by other laws. for what its worth... repeating... Why is it that every Democrat assumes Kerry would actually 'repeal' the Patriot Act?
• Why is it that every Democrat assumes Kerry would actually 'repeal' the Patriot Act? painting with an awfully broad brush there, blogRot. The FBI has such a long history of respecting our privacy, after all.
• Repeal it? No, here's what he wants to do:

  MORE OVERSIGHT OF

• I think this is where middleclasstool got the info above. Click on the plus symbols to expand the articles.
• wow, they have "guidelines." That makes me feel so much better. If they didn't have so much power in the first place they wouldn't need "guidelines." Call me crazy but I would rather depend on laws than guidelines to protect my liberty. Repealing the Patriot Act or allowing it to expire has little to do with Democrat or Republican because as I've said before, I have little faith in the candidates of either major party. Making it easier for the governement to watch us is not the answer to the problems of terrorism.
• While I am not a fan of the patriot act, your statement begs a question jccalhoun; what in your opinion is the answer to the problems of terrorism? I for one think that we should pull out of Iraq ASAP, stop supporting despots out of political expediency, stop turning a blind eye to assholes like the Saudis, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, etc... but at the same time I'm not sure that stopping the government from all domestic covert intelligence gathering is the answer either. Given that we have had homegrown terrorists like Tim McVeigh, a carefully controlled, well supervised FBI ain't such a bad thing. But now that I think about it, who is going to be doing the supervision?
• Well as I understand it, the governement knew about all of the 9/11 terrorists before the attacks. If that is indeed the case then the issue is not that the government needs more power, but that they need to be more efficient, which the creation of the department of homeland defence was supposed to initiate. As far as my own personal ideas, well first, let's stop pissing people off. Certainly, that is a vast oversimplification and in many ways unworkable, but if we do many of the things you suggest it would help (unfortunately, I don't think pulling out of Iraq will help. We made the current situation, we need to stabilize it. I mean, there are still something like 40,000 US troops in South Korea for crying out loud, so I don't think the US is going to be out of Iraq anytime soon). Certainly, had we not went into Iraq in the manner we did, I think we would be a lot safer because few could blame the US for what we did in Afghanistan, but I think Iraq has pissed off a lot of people. I personally am for a combination of libertarian and green party ideals. Free the people and shackel the corporations. And things like the patriot act and the DMCA (which was enacted under Clinton) are just signs of a larger problem with American politics. I mean how sad is it when Saddam Hussein is being arrained in Iraq when Jose Padilla the "Dirty Bomber," who is an American citizen hasn't even been charged yet? The guy is probably guilty as sin and if he is lock him up and throw away the key, but being guilty doesn't mean that you don't have the right to see a lawyer. But that is a big derailment. Anyway it comes down to the fact that I don't trust the government to not use any power that it has at its disposal to the fullest extent possible.
• Mo turrism.
• squid is right... let's start with the local terrorists organizations and the states that harbor them... the KKK, various "right to life groups", the cincinnati police department, etc., have been responsible for fire-bombing clinics, lynchings, and violent attacks against unarmed citizens; and then rogue states like alabama, georgia, mississippi, etc. hell, george w bush possesses weapons of mass destruction, has gassed his own people (including the mentally retarded), invaded soverign countries, and rose to power unelected via 2000's bizarre coup d'tat. first they came for the monkeys...
• Yeah, squid, that was it. Don't know why I didn't just post the damn link -- would have been easier. It was the end of the day for me, and I was more than a bit muddled.
• U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack
• Hey kimdog, here's your July surprise: Pakistan captures high-level al Qaeda operative. Kind of disappointing actually, but at least they got the timing just right.
• Here's the TNR article without a subscription.
• America won't turn against its President this November, not as long as al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden stay on the front pages
• Care to check that last link? Leads to this thread.
• U.S. Says Man Had Ties to Plot to Disrupt Vote
• WTF? It wasn't me, it was the terrorsits! Here's the correct link. That'll show 'em.
• terrorsits! terrorists! They did it again!
• terrorzits? yikes.
• E! Rotor tits!
• Al Qaeda's Pre-Election Plot
• Pre-Election plot story: from Newsweek, and spends considerable word space talking to/about Fran Townsend, homeland security advisor to the President. No matter your partisan stance, that's a Serious Job, and the issue of a potential terrorist attack that would make Sept.11 pale in comparison is a Serious Issue. Tell me how it was in ANY WAY RELEVENT to drop in that she "wears Jimmy Choo spike heels (which typically go for about $450 a pair) and a bejeweled ring shaped like an American flag"? Exactly what point are you trying to make? I can only conclude, Messers Dan & Evan, that (a) you are sexist idiots who believe there to be some correlation between the cost of this woman's footwear and her ability to do her job OR (b) that Jimmy Choo paid you for a little blatant product placement. Either way, you suck. [my ire may be misplaced if this kind of side-of-your-mouth comment is actually more common than I thought.]
• Oh, and they also, helpfully, mention at the end of the article that Fran Townsend has 2 young children (9 and 2.5) but work keeps her away from home alot - in service to the American people though, so its ok that she's a bad mommy. argh. why is that RELEVANT? [yeah, spelled it wrong before. I can't spell when I'm annoyed.]
• [my ire may be misplaced if this kind of side-of-your-mouth comment is actually more common than I thought.] It is sadly common, and your ire is well placed.
• I just thought about it again, and lo! it pissed me off again. The commonness aggravates the ire, rather than mitigates it.
• October/November Surprise?