“A Morocco-born computer virus that crashed the Department of Homeland Security’s US-VISIT border screening system last year first passed though the backbone network of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement bureau, according to newly released documents on the incident,” Kevin Poulsen reports for Wired News.
Poulsen reports, “The documents were released by court order, following a yearlong battle by Wired News to obtain the pages under the Freedom of Information Act. They provide the first official acknowledgement that DHS erred by deliberately leaving more than 1,300 sensitive US-VISIT workstations vulnerable to attack, even as it mounted an all-out effort to patch routine desktop computers against the virulent Zotob worm.”
MacDailyNews Note: “Zotob is a worm that targets Windows 2000–based computers and takes advantage of a security issue that was addressed by Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-039. This worm and its variants install malicious software, and then search for other computers to infect.” – Microsoft Security Advisory (899588). (“Microsoft Security,” LOL.)
Poulsen continues, “US-VISIT is a hodgepodge of older databases maintained by various government agencies, tied to a national network of workstations with biometric readers installed at airports and other U.S. points of entry. The $400 million program was launched in January 2004 in an effort to secure the border from terrorists by thoroughly screening visiting foreign nationals against scores of government watch lists.”
“The workstations at the front end of US-VISIT run Windows 2000 Professional, so they were vulnerable to attack. Those computers are administered by the DHS’ Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, which learned of the plug-and-play vulnerability Aug. 11, according to the new documents. The agency’s security team began testing Microsoft’s patch Aug. 12, with an eye to installing it on more than 40,000 desktop computers in use in the agency,” Poulsen reports. “But as CBP started pushing the patch to its internal desktop machines Aug. 17, it made the fateful decision not to patch the 1,313 US-VISIT workstations.”
“On Aug. 18, Zotob finally hit the US-VISIT workstations, rapidly spreading from one to another,” Poulsen reports. “At international airports in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami and elsewhere, long lines formed while CBP screeners processed foreign visitors by hand, or in some cases used backup computers, according to press reports at the time. At CBP’s data center in Newington, Virginia, officials scrambled overnight to distribute the tardy patch.”
Full sordid story here.
MacDailyNews Take: It just figures that the “U.S. Department of Homeland Security” uses the world’s most insecure OS, doesn’t it? If they had Macs instead, none of this would have happened – and that’s a fact. Please see “Related MacDailyNews articles” below.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
US Department of Homeland Security: patch Microsoft Windows now or risk complete system compromise – August 10, 2006
CCIA wants U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security to reconsider buying ‘insecure Microsoft software’ – August 29, 2003
U.S. Department of Homeland Security says Windows vulnerable to attack – August 01, 2003
Department of Homeland Security chose Microsoft due to time and money limitations – July 21, 2003
U.S. Department of Homeland Security awards enterprise agreement to Microsoft – July 15, 2003
Get a Mac: Viruses, spyware cost U.S. consumers $7.8 billion over last two years – August 08, 2006
Symantec details more security holes in Microsoft’s Windows Vista – July 26, 2006
Symantec researcher: At this time, there are no file-infecting viruses that can infect Mac OS X – July 13, 2006
Sophos: Apple Mac OS X’s security record unscathed; Windows Vista malware just a matter of time – July 07, 2006
Sophos Security: Dump Windows, Get a Mac – July 05, 2006
What Microsoft has chopped from Windows Vista, and when – June 27, 2006
Apple: ‘Get a Mac. Say ‘Buh-Bye’ to viruses’ – June 01, 2006
FBI: Viruses, spyware, other computer-related crimes cost U.S. businesses $67.2 billion per year – February 01, 2006
Security company Sophos: Apple Mac the best route for security for the masses – December 06, 2005
Hackers already targeting viruses for Microsoft’s Windows Vista – August 04, 2005
16-percent of computer users are unaffected by viruses, malware because they use Apple Macs – June 15, 2005
If I was a Democrat, the gubment would use Macs.
MDN word “coming”.
“If you disagree with me, using The Patriot Act, we’ll be coming to get you”.
If NASA, parts of the army and other government agencies “get it”, why doesn’t Homeland Security?
Seriously, WHY do Governments and Administrations rely on Microshaft for mission-critical stuff? Doesn’t the EULA on Windows specifically state that it is not designed for mission-critical environments? Then why do they persist? And why are they surprised when things like this happen?
It simply beggars belief.
MW: behind
“If I was a Democrat, the gubment would use Macs.
MDN word “coming”.
“If you disagree with me, using The Patriot Act, we’ll be coming to get you”.
Oh yeah, that must be it. Because back during the clinton years, they all used Macs right?
Can you name one person that has been negatively affected by the Patriot Act? (besides those terrorists in London that were planning to hijack 10 planes, and were stopped).
MDN word – “heard”
As in has anyone heard of anyone being hurt by the patriot act.
Connor MacBook that’s because the biggest idiots in our government all work in our security apparatus. They make decisions based on fear and not on any rational reasoning.
Didn’t the old saying go something like “no one ever got fired for buying Microsoft”?
Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore use Macs. Please explain that dichotomy.
This is what is called a “boondoggle”, much like the acres of mobile homes in Hope, AR.
Their hearts might have been in the right place, and when you let bids, you don’t always hear back from the best. Also, for the entire system to talk to each other, they probably felt they HAD to go Windows.
For the money spent, though, too bad the entire Government couldn’t go OSX.
Of course, as many units as that would take, then there wouldn’t be any Macs left around for us to buy…
Thought Process: I could tell you, but then i would have to kill you, or at least Git-mo you!
Thought process – Give this some thought
Under the Patriot Act, the definition of terrorism is expanded to cover anyone or any group that tries to bring about change for political or ideological reasons and uses any kind of force to bring it about. This could range from nailing a poster to a courthouse door to carrying a picket sign. Thus, the government now has the authority to harass a broad range of political dissenters, ranging from Greenpeace to anti-abortion protesters to environmental activists to the National Rifle Association.
Under the Patriot Act, the government can, and most likely already has, conducted black bag and sneak and peak searches. In other words, government agents—much like other authoritarian regimes—can now enter your apartment or home and look through your documents, computer files and possessions (“sneak and peak”) or take documents, files and possessions (“black bag”) without giving you notice that they’ve ever been on your property.
Also under the Patriot Act, the government has routine access to your educational and financial/banking records as long as the government asserts that snooping through your records is “related to a terrorism investigation.” What this means is that all a government agent has to say to get access to your records is, “We’re conducting a terrorism investigation.” And, believe it or not, your school or bank cannot inform you that the government has gotten this information.
The Patriot Act allows government agents to conduct document searches and seizures of businesses as well. Moreover, any company, including employers, libraries, Internet providers, banks, bookstores and video stores must provide all records relating to the subject under investigation. Again, these entities cannot inform anyone, including the suspect or the media, that they have been rifling through their files. A violation of this provision is a federal offense that can result in imprisonment.
Under the Patriot Act, the government is allowed to conduct roving wiretaps. Any judge can issue a wiretap order for a telephone line, Internet line or e-mail system anywhere in the U.S. in order to follow a targeted individual anywhere—even if the individual is not named by the government. Known as a “Doe” target, it means that if you are labeled a suspected terrorist, any of your electronic communications are continually monitored by the government. This obviously makes it easier for the FBI—using the powerful Internet spying technology called Carnivore—to monitor computers, read e-mails and track which web pages are visited by American citizens with merely the say-so of an employer or university.
There are many other intrusive and violative provisions of the Patriot Act, which clearly and dramatically emasculates key provisions of our Bill of Rights. Not only does it inhibit and chill free expression by American citizens, it is also an intrusive violation of our privacy and undermines the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. There was obviously some concern about this by Congress, which is the reason that the Patriot Act was sunset at five years.
One day after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon traumatized our nation, President Bush vowed, “We will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms.” Unfortunately, by becoming an aggressive advocate of the Patriot Act, the President is doing just that.
Actually fear ain’t so bad a motivation. As Andy Grove liked to say, “Only the paranoid survive.” Better fear than complacency.
“Can you name one person that has been negatively affected by the Patriot Act?”
No one can, because if you reveal the name of anyone arrested under the Patriot Act, you’re put in the cell next to him/her, and your name is added to the list hanging on the rack in the torture chamber.
I recall seeing pictures of “Governor” G W Bush with a PowerBook on his desk.
Ok, there’s this problem with DHS’ computers, and, a few days ago, the Memphis DHS office was found to have listening devices in it.
Yipe.
Check yourself there, Freedom Fister
“to bring about change for political or ideological reasons and uses any kind of force to bring it about. This could range from nailing a poster to a courthouse door to carrying a picket sign”-
Where is the force used there? Putting the nail in? Picking up the sign? What is YOUR definition of terrorism?
While it is good that citizens always check legislation that could conflict with the Constitution, please don’t slant it to pass your ideals.
Also realize that Congress passed this, and I don’t recall the Dems playing the filibuster card like they have for political-rather than constitutional, reasons.
If you are against this and the government as a whole for passing it, then people like you are a blessing to any democracy. If you think this is a “Facist Ploy” by the right, please “move on”.
“Thought Process”, part of the difficulty of showing anybody “hurt” by the Patriot Act is that many of provisions of the Patriot Act are secret. Thus, nobody knows about them. Things like secret searches and the like.
But since you asked, I figured I’d name a few names.
How about Brandon Mayfield, who the government detained because of it’s belief that he was part of the Madrid bombings? Or how about Sami al-Hussayen, who was arrested and charged with providing “material support” for a terrorists by posting links to “objectionable materials” on a website–links that were also available on the BBC. How about Michael Galardi–owner of a couple of Las Vegas strip clubs? The government was on a fishing expedition to see if he had bribed local officials. Investigators used provisions of the Patriot Act to obtain records, even though Galardi was not suspected of terrorism. Then there’s Tomas Foral, who moved Anthrax-infected cow tissue from a broken freezer to a working one.
Oh, and don’t forget that the parts of the Patriot Act used by government investigators to catch that guy who was posting Stargate SG-1 episodes…
I have a PB now, too.
MARIA BARTIROMO (CNBC): I’m curious, have you ever Googled anybody? Do you use Google?
DUBYA: Uhh, occasionally. One of the things I’ve used on the Google is, uhh, to pull up maps.
White House, Oct. 11, 2006
Goodbye MDN— Can’t take these political rants on a technology site.
BYE BYE! This site is removed from my shortcuts bar.
Freedom Firster: Your comments are right on the mark.
Thought Process: The London hijackers you refer to were stopped by British police exercising their police powers in Britain. The trigger for the arrests in London was that Pakistan detained an alleged member of plot – in Pakistan. The Patriot Act is a US law and had NOTHING to do with apprehending the London hijackers.
About who has been harmed by the Patriot Act: We don’t know. Nobody does, because the US Dept of Justice won’t release the data – even to Congress. Just “trust us” said John Ashcroft. This is not a credible response. We are a nation of laws, and we rely on institutions, separation of powers, due process, freedom of information, and the right to petition for redress of grievances to ensure that government acts reasonably and within the limits of its authority.
Lastly, the Library Connection – an association of 26 libraries in Connecticut – was indeed harmed when it received a “National Security Letter” demanding library records of patrons. The association had to sue in court, and could not even reveal it was the plaintiff, because the government absurdly claimed that to do so would harm “national security” – even after the press had publicly identified the plaintiff from court documents.
Jeez, wtf are they using MS??**!!
These bozos look after security?**!
Unbelievable — if it wasn’t so typical.
It just figures that the “U.S. Department of Homeland Security” uses the world’s most insecure OS, doesn’t it? If they had Macs instead, none of this would have happened – and that’s a fact.
We will be shortly presenting evidence to prove that everything about the Department of Homeland Security is Bill Clinton’s fault and – where that just isn’t believable – we’ll find evidence that John Kerry and Al Gore were the guilty parties.
Anybody who wants to point out the irony of Michael Chertoff receiving the Henry Petersen Award for service to the DoJ’s criminal division (the only time its ever been awarded to a political appointee) may as well pack their beachware as we’re gonna waterboard your ass in sunny Cuba for a couple of years.
Spark says: Goodbye MDN— Can’t take these political rants on a technology site.
Translation: I’m leaving and not coming back… you’ll see… you’ll be sorry.
————————————————————————-
You’ll be back. In fact, I suspect you’ll be back in minutes to see if anyone responded to your post. Few can bear to stand alone in their convictions!
This entire thread, this site, this platform, this planet is political. Everything is political!
Unfortunately, far too many political exchanges are divisive and devolve into branding and name-calling, especially where politics trumps principles.
It’s all good though, so stop running away, and take a stand, Spark. You see, even your post adds to the mix.
MDN: if they had the new 24 inch iMacs they wouldnt be able to connect at all as their is a big problem with their airpor connexions – have a lot at the Apple support forums they are full of it.
Anybody who has flown on a commercial airliner in the US in the last 5 years has been negatively impacted.
Silly: the computers would not be using airport connection at all. Totally irrelevant.
How many by the way? Apple forums are full of it… hummm, maybe at least 50 users! Indeed: a pandemic at Apple support forums. Reminds me like the infection of the iPod: The sky is falling: iPods are now a virus vehicle. How many? less than 1% of those coming from a specific third party producer.
The more Windows apologists try to compare Apple and Crap the more they look like the average ignorant Windows trolls who waste their low life here.
@ Thought Process
There are many cases of the negative impact of the Patriot Act. It is a knee-jerk reaction and requires an continuous atmosphere propagating fear.
Under the Patriot Act you have allowed the fear-mongers to take away your rights. “Habius Corpus”, is gone — the Patriot Act trampled all over almighty Constitution — and you let them do it!
Read about a Canadian Citizen named Maher Arar to see how ill conceived your beloved Patriot Act trully is… http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
Spark,
I feel your pain. However, we only get political because our country is currently F’d in the A and we just have to vent sometimes.
I didn’t complain about anything when Clinton was president! I had a job and everything was just hunky-dory. (Although the repubs got all bent out of shape because of a freaking blowjob.) Funny, because our current president is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet no one seems to give a crap about that. When someone actually does criticize the current administration, they’re labeled as anti-US and pro-terrorist.
I love my country. I want it to be the greatest country in the world again. But that won’t happen until we teach all of these holier-than-thou, mouth-breathing, inbred, xenophobic Jesus-freaks that not everyone wants to live by THEIR rules. Not everyone believes in THEIR God.
If only we could reboot our government. Kick all of the dems and repubs out and start fresh.
m
if a Morocco-born virus is able to cram Homeland security — ok, they use Windows, they beg for being sodomized — are we still surprised Mohamed Atta got a visa to enter the US and train to pilot airplanes? “No land or take off instructions please Sirs, those problems are already taken care off”.
Habius is an abusing latin.
Habius is Kazahk prostitute.
“Doesn’t the EULA on Windows specifically state that it is not designed for mission-critical environments?”
So does the EULA on Mac OS X, as I recall. Actually, what they say is that they should not be deployed in installations where system failure could cause catastrophic property damage, environmental contamination or personal injury or death.
It’s a legal liability thing.
“No one can, because if you reveal the name of anyone arrested under the Patriot Act, you’re put in the cell next to him/her, and your name is added to the list hanging on the rack in the torture chamber.”
Oh, I see.
….Do they send Big Foot come to pick you up?
“Under the Patriot Act, the definition of terrorism is expanded to cover anyone or any group that tries to bring about change for political or ideological reasons and uses any kind of force to bring it about. This could range from nailing a poster to a courthouse door to carrying a picket sign. Thus, the government now has the authority to harass a broad range of political dissenters, ranging from Greenpeace to anti-abortion protesters to environmental activists to the National Rifle Association.”
Is that what it means? HMMM, funny, I still have not heard of anyone being negatively impacted. However, I see protesters with picket signs all the time. For the war….against the war….against abortion….etc, etc.
But, just because you say so, I guess I’ll be against the Patriot Act, and just hope that terrorist organizations stop killing people. Better sorry than safe.
“it means that if you are labeled a suspected terrorist, any of your electronic communications are continually monitored by the government.”
Wow…so if someone is named as a terrorist, they actually WATCH them, how horrible. They should send them flowers so they won’t want to hurt anyone.
I remember the reaction of the security community when the CIO of Homeland Security announced that the Department would standardize on Microsoft Windows.In a phrase, they went ballistic. No matter. About the same time, I publicly asked our Agency’s new CIO when any analysis of the risk associated with installing Windows above the level of the desktop (e.g. on servers) had been performed. He didn’t know. A few months later we were hit by SASSER.
My colleagues in the Risk Analysis group were unaware of any such analysis having been done. I documented some of the known problems. RA tried to pursue the issue. No one at a higher level was interested. It seems they just didn’t want to know!
BTW, I tried to get a “waiver” to use the then unapproved Firefox browser rather than IE. Waiver was denied. That demonstrates the kind of obtuseness one finds in some agencies.
Tommieboy, way earlier in this rant on what is now stupidity you mentioned Rush and Al have Macs that they use. You asked about the dichotomy.
The way I see’s it, one is a winner and one is a loser. One is known to tell the truth and one is known to lie big time. One says what he says out of a deep conviction while the other says what he believes to be the popular opinion. One is credited with giving Barak Obama the name osama obama or obama bin laden while the other is actually in the same company or party with the man who originally said the words. [Hint:Ted Kennedy]
My point is that we live in interesting times.
REMEMBER: Normal is just a cycle on the washing machine.
“The London hijackers you refer to were stopped by British police exercising their police powers in Britain. The trigger for the arrests in London was that Pakistan detained an alleged member of plot – in Pakistan. The Patriot Act is a US law and had NOTHING to do with apprehending the London hijackers.”
You are completely incorrect. The way this plot was discovered, was through the monitoring of communications that the pacifists have demonized as “domestic spying”.
People who assume they aren’t targeted aren’t concerned with the consequences because they feel it doesn’t affect them. They would only BECOME concerned if they WERE targeted. By that time, there isn’t a person in the country that could protect them because once you’re labeled a “terrorist” (whether you are or aren’t), laws no longer apply.
>Rush Limbaugh and Al Gore use Macs. Please explain that dichotomy.>
Gore’s was free, for inventing the internet. Always a scrounger on the take.
Thought Process:
Are you being dense on purpose? I challenge you: What evidence do you have of the Patriot Act applying to the London hijackers? And what specific section of the Patriot Act – which is over 300 pages long – would apply to foreigners plotting on foreign soil?
The mere fact that the US may have gathered intelligence and shared it with the British authorities does not prove that US actions were done under the authority of the Patriot Act. Indeed, such intelligence gathering and intelligence sharing was happening long before the Patriot Act was ever passed.
And if you still “have not heard of anyone being negatively impacted”, then you simply aren’t paying attention to all the names of people and organizations that have been posted in this forum, and elsewhere on the Internet. Just because YOU haven’t personally heard of these names before doesn’t mean they weren’t impacted.
“Wow…so if someone is named as a terrorist, they actually WATCH them, how horrible. They should send them flowers so they won’t want to hurt anyone.”
Really, you are being extremely naive. No one is talking about sending flowers. The problem is that ANYONE can be labeled a terrorist — for the flimsiest of reasons or suspicions. The US government is absurdly incompetent in simply translating documents – look up Sibel Edmonds on the web for examples of this.
And there is virtually NO RECOURSE available. This is the worst of it. You can rot in jail for MONTHS, and you have to prove your innocence. By that time, your job is gone, your family life has been disrupted, and your rights have been shredded.
The evidence for this is clear: The vast majority of people initially accused on terrorist offenses by the Ashcroft and Gonzales Justice Departments have been convicted on much lesser charges, or had charges dropped against them.
They may not have working computers, but at least those morons at the Department of Homeland Security didn’t let any of that dreaded toothpaste on any flights!
Oops! I think they just started a file on me.
The Constitution is there to protect the citizens of the US from abuses by the Government – NOT the other way around.
We forget that to our peril.
Anyone who is willing to forego ANY of our hard won rights because they are too blind/stupid/ignorant to see how how precious they are, probably doesn’t deserve them.
Thought Process, you can relinquish YOUR rights if you’d like, but I would like to keep mine, thank you very much.
If we give them up – we are not going to get them back.
Thought Process, take a second and use “th’ Google thingie” and look up guantanamo+free+mistake. You’ll find more than a few stories about 5 guys from Ireland that the U.S. kept in Guantanamo for 5 years without charging them, without letting them talk to lawyers, and subjecting some to torture. The “old school” U.S. laws prevented that, but Alberto Gonzales interpreted the Patriot Act to say that we could do this type of thing. After 5 years we released them. Sent them back to Ireland. No charges – nothing. UK Gov’t interviewed them and decided that there were no charges to file. So tell me, my little patriot, would you consider imprisoning someone for 5 years and torturing them, etc. harming them? If not, you need to re-examine your Thought Process. This is something we would expect out of Nazi Germany, but never something that we should accept from the U.S. government.
Read the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence – these kind of abuses were EXACTLY why these documents came to be.
Anyone who believes that a government (ANY government) can be blindly trusted is an idiot.
Hence the need for a 25,000-mile 50-foot-high security fence around the perimiter of the lower 48, one around Alaska and one on pontoons around Hawaii.
Nobody cares about Guam.
“Thought Process, you can relinquish YOUR rights if you’d like, but I would like to keep mine, thank you very much”
Funny, I don’t seem to have lost any rights. But, I do know that we haven’t had any other successful terrorist attacks.
Wow, where was all this passion when the Constitution was being bastardized by the Supreme Court? Judgemnets like abortion, affirmative action, civl rights, eminent domain, seperation of church and state, and even judicial review itself. some are these are good, some bad, some just plain made up.
If you want the Constitution to protect you, you have to protect the Constitution, and many of you are way too late to start picking and choosing. You want it to be “living and breathing” when it gives you something, and “to the letter” when you feel something is being taken away. Figure it out, you can’t have it both ways.
To everyone here posting about the Patriot Act, government actions post 9/11, the Department of homeland Security, et al:
Do any of you have direct, first-hand knowledge of what’s going on, or are you all just regurgitating whatever shit the media has spoon-fed you?
Finding post-9/11 facts has become like finding aliens in Roswell. Things have been so spun & distorted by all sides involved that it’s become its own reality. A person has to wonder if whatever truths behind it all have already been lost.
As for the Feds running Windows, I don’t think it’s so much as “Nobody ever got fired for buying MS”, as much as “Nobody ever got FIRED”. There’s far, far too much establishment, cush jobs, and lack of accountability today. Good luck on getting anyone from the inside to make any serious effort to change anything.
umm… MacGolfer, I read your linked article and it clearly states that Arar’s incarceration was a direct result of the Canadian Authorities (RCMP) incorrectly identifying him as a link to terrorism. it had nothing to do with the Patriot act. He was in the US when bagged by homeland security, but that was using info willfully exchanged with by the canadian govt. then to compound the matter, the Canadian Govt. refused to admit their wrongdoing in the matter and this kept Arar in Syrian Jail months longer than necessary. The US and patriot act had little to do with this man’s plight other than his name popped up on our database & we acted to protect our citizens.
(for the record, I personally don’t think the patriot act is a good idea if only because it was passed into law faster than a greased pig who’s eaten a box of Ex-Lax.)
for what it’s worth though, Arar was Canadian, not a US citizen, so to use this example as evidence that the Patriot Act is bad for U.S. citizens, doesn’t quite help you make your point.
If you believe that Islamic terrorists are a conducting an unconventional war against you, your family, your friends, and your neighbors you have to expect innocent casualties. This is not a callous and cold hearted comment; this is a sad and historically documented consequence of violent conflict regardless of whose side you are on. You have to ask, how far am I willing to go to prevent myself, my family, my friends, and my neighbors from being killed or maimed in a terrorist attack? I think that people who are most opposed to vigorous and aggressive opposition against terrorists are the same people who actively or passively support terrorism, or at least find satisfaction in the free world suffering the consequences terrorism. If there is another way to eliminate the threat of terrorism without passively submitting to their every demand I haven’t heard it. How many of you would submit to a life-time of Sharia law as a non-Muslim and second-class economic and political status as an infidel? It is much easier to criticize the current administration than propose an alternative plan, isn’t it?
If you send money to a family member, friend, or associate to “start a business” or “pay off a loan”, which is instead a contribution to a terrorist group, you have brought suspicion on yourself. If you travel to places where Taliban and Al Qaeda control the population, you bring suspicion on yourself. If you send e-mails or letters to known or suspected terrorists, you bring suspicion on yourself. If you attend a mosque or belong to a group where hate and murder are preached, you bring suspicion on yourself. It’s odd that some people see govenrmental conspiracies everywhere, but are blind to the crimes and collaborations of others.
If you are an innocent Arab or Muslim, a bigot, business competitor, or enemy can “inform” the police that you are a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism. In this case, who is the true criminal, the bigot, your business competitor, your enemy, or the police? Of course, I would expect and demand that the authorities act in good faith with probable cause, but they don’t act who else will? If you won’t dial 911, what other number do you call?
These post are just getting better.
That’s why we won’t hear from Frank or Johann.
TowerTone, sounds like you’re bringing up so-called “Activist Judges”, which is so much tripe. They don’t exist anymore than the “Liberal Media”. It’s all right-wing spin & the stupid sheep eat it right up.
Well put, Spyke.
I’m talking about your foot in your mouth and your head up your ass.
Why don’t you deny the sun also?
Just because you don’t like it, don’t believe it, and don’t want it, does not make your dream come true.
I’m sure you also believe in global warming and that America is the problem, not the solution, to many of the worlds problems.
And calling us sheep is baaaad.
maczealot writes:
“I think that people who are most opposed to vigorous and aggressive opposition against terrorists are the same people who actively or passively support terrorism, or at least find satisfaction in the free world suffering the consequences terrorism.”
This is an outrageous allegation. Do you have any hard evidence for this view? I bet you have none – just your imagination and perceived notions, selective interpretations, and wild exaggerations.
Remove your ideological blinders, and ask yourself:
Do you include people like Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, the US Navy lawyer who fought a three-year legal battle against Bush’s military commissions in Guantanamo Bay? He won his prolonged court battle, with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his client’s favor in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, decided in late June 2006.
Do you include Lord Steyn, a serving Law Lord of the United Kingdom, who described the US military commissions as “a monstrous failure of justice”?
Do you include the US Army officers who re-wrote the Army Field Manual earlier this year to prohibit all forms of torture, as well as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees, especially during interrogations?
Do you include the FBI officers who filed reports to headquarters about the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Garaib prison in Iraq?
Do you include the International Committee of the Red Cross workers who visit, register, and monitor the treatment of prisoners, including alleged terrorists, in conflicts all over the world?
Do you include Senator John McCain, who was held captive and tortured for five years by the North Vietnamese, who forced Bush and Cheney to abandon torture as an interrogation technique?
Do you include Guido Salvini, the Italian prosecutor who issued an international arrest warrant against 13 CIA operatives for kidnapping a man in Milan and secretly transporting him to Egypt, where he was tortured?
Each and every one of these people has stood up for the system of government they believe in, and against overreaching and overstepping by the Bush administration. So have countless others.
And 53% of Americans now believe (October 2006 CNN poll) that the Iraq invasion has made the US less safe from terrorism.
Do all of these people, in your view, “actively or passively support terrorism”? Or “find satisfaction in the free world suffering the consequences terrorism”?
If you seriously answer yes, even in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary, then you are making an ideological assertion that is not grounded in reality.
I would suggest an apology for and withdrawal of your allegation is in order.
Not to speak for maczealot, but the first two words you quote are “I think”
As far as your examples go, and I’m glad someone on the left finally gives real examples,(thank you) the argument could still be made that many of these are not in our interest.
Swift may be a good example, but I trust very few in foreign governments when it comes to judging our system (Lord Steyn)
I would think the Army Field Manuel was written with Congressional oversite.
The FBI officer is a bit different. There have been many there and very few who complained.
How did the Red Cross compare us to others? Just curious.
Sorry, but McCain didn’t really get anything out of his dispute, just some press to make him look good to people like yourself-mod to lib.
Could you give some more info on the man stolen from Italy? You failed to explain WHY we took him
As far as a CNN poll, I put more faith in cubert or Frank than the slanted questions they use to get the results they want for the evening news. Honestly, you have to look at the internals of a poll to understand what it really means.
Now, I don’t feel I dissuaded you with this argument, I didn’t intend to. Just to let you know that these examples are not “open and shut”.
Liberty Interest:
I will not apologize for supporting vigorous and aggressive action against terrorists and terrorism. In fact, there are only two kinds of people on this planet: those that support terror and those that don’t.
It is obvious that you disagree with the some of the methods used by the current administration to prevent further terrorist attacks. Since I am not apprised of all the details of all the cases and accusations that you present and since I am not an expert in legal matters regarding terrorism, the Geneva Convention, and national security I cannot provide you with the answers you so desperately want.
However, I am open to read what your immediate and long-term plans and strategies are for fighting terrorism.
TowerTone is just mad ‘cuz he was had!
Baaaaaaa!
TowerTone, “Just because you don’t like it… does not make your dream come true.”
Neither does it make yours – and it doesn’t make you right either.
yeah, spyke, you really put me in my place with all you ideas and facts.
And, yes, there are activist judges, most on the left would concede this as they get some bad “laws” upheld this way. I don’t like it, it’s just a matter of fact. We had a judge in Texas years ago who decided all schools had to be bilingual. Not just for the students to learn English, but for their own completely Spanish education. This was a huge burden on smaller schools.
this is just one of many example, not all liberal, of judges seeing fit to prescribe what laws need to be implemented, which is the job of the elected legilative branch. So quit swimming in “the Nile”, it’s full of gaters.
legislative
TowerTone,
Right, just like you put me in my place.
Your example might have been of a bad judge, but that doesn’t make him an “activist” one. And I’m sure there can be found just as many examples of judges doing things the left doesn’t like too.
Gee – maybe some judges are just bad?
But some wacko, conspiracy theory about “activist judges”? Riiiiiight.
And as for the other stupid “boogieman” the right likes to bandy about in front of their sheep; to have a “liberal media”, would require a media capable of critical and independent thought. It would also require a media that actually reports the news and actually has some journalistic skill. We don’t have this.
If the “media” has any bent at all, it’s to $$$.
I say we don’t have a “liberal media” because we don’t.
The last refuge of scoundrels … nationalism (religion too). Now you know why they share the same bed and why it’s called the “Patriot” Act.
MW: Science – now that’s a solution – clear, logical, scientific thinking. Bring in some who can, even if you have to get ’em from recent third world countries.
Exactly my point, spyke, activist can be found on both sides. You may call them “bad”, but the reason I think their decisions are “activist” is because of the influence they wield., such as Taney’s 1857 ruling on slavery, Griswold vs Connecticut-leading to Roe vs Wade, Griggs vs Duke Power Co and affirmative action, or Silveira v. Lockyer for gun control. These decisions trample the Constitution for the purpose of influencing society through control.
Call them bad, stupid, self obsessed, self rightious, or activist, I don’t care. Claiming this problem doesn’t exist because conservatives point it out more than the left is small of you, acting as if this is a game and your side is smarter than ours when in fact we are ALL on the same side(mostly), just using different tactics.
As far as the liberal media, if I were wearing blue colored glasses, I wouldn’t notice too many reds, would I?
Less is More
yeah, buddy. good idea. Why don’t we just skip that part and elect HAL2000?
science is not equipped to deal with politics, society, or human nature, only constants, which the evolution of two of those lack.
Liberty Interest, Less is More, Spyke:
Apparently, you gallant defenders of the free world are full of bluster and self-righteous indignation, but without a clue how to effectually deal with terrorism. Tell you what, when you guardians of liberty can initiate and sustain a genuine plan to fight terrorism let us know. Until then be thankful that someone else is putting their life and limb on the line to protect your sorry asses so you can post more drivel.
US Department of Homeland Security is a farce.
Less is More
Something bothered me about the context of your quote, which is actually “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”, and it is the fact that Sam Johnson, author of “The Patriot” was not describing patriotism so much as what some people will do to stay on the good side of the law, and is in fact alluding to FALSE patriotism.
Why you throw religeon in there is beyond me, as your religeon appears to be science, you scoundrel.
absentminded:
Please contact Liberty Interest, Less is More, and Spyke. Perhaps you four rebels without a clue can combine your infinitesimal knowledge of national security and develop a better plant to fight terrorism. Hurry, the longer the nation waits the less credibility you have.
Ewww … touché, eh? You won’t eradicate terrorism by wholesale application of force; that only encourages more terrorism. I would go after the culprits quietly, and go after the root causes of terrorism noisily. The alternative – in the extreme – is a police state committing genocide, or abnormal concentration of power in politicians and wealth in military industrialists (not a recipe for a happy people). Let’s see what the voters say.
Less is more:
How long did it take you to come with that amazing plan? Could you please be more specific?
“You won’t eradicate terrorism by wholesale application of force; that only encourages more terrorism.”
This does not explain why terroism increased in the 90’s. To encourage terroism is to apply pacifism which is interpreted as weakness. I know of no instance where negotiating with radical Islamist insured a lasting peace, because they do not want a lasting peace.
“I would go after the culprits quietly”
Good luck with that. While it would be nice if possible, you can’t send the military into a sovereign nation on a hunting mission. So then what? You announce it to the govt, and then the surprise is over.
“and go after the root causes of terrorism noisily”
Like we are in Iraq? No? Then name the root causes.
“The alternative – in the extreme – is a police state committing genocide, or abnormal concentration of power in politicians and wealth in military industrialists (not a recipe for a happy people).”
How Orwellian of you. Take the worst of Facism, add a dash of Socialism, and smother it in Communism, and voila, you have what people have been claiming America would become for a century. This only happens in countries that allow it. We wouldn’t.
maczealot, thank you for having the guts to admit that you have no facts to back up your opinions. You are welcome to your opinions, but I can’t share them, and don’t share them, because they are not grounded in any reality that I recognize.
You remind me of the US soldiers who destroyed the Vietnamese village in order to save it.
The America that was my country didn’t “disappear” people. The America that was my country didn’t lock people up, hold them indefinitely, in secret, without charge, without access to lawyers, the Red Cross, or family members. The America that was my country could never torture people. The America that was my country would never kidnap people and whisk them in secret to a foreign country that was known to torture its prisoners. The America that was my country would never again round up people and lock them away in internment camps. The America that was my country would certainly not engage in a war of choice against a country that had not attacked it.
The America that was my country was a world leader when it came to human rights. The America that was my country was looked up by people all over the world as a bastion of liberty and justice for all.
Where did these values go? John McCain may or may not be a political opportunist, but he got it right when he said: “It’s not about who they are, it’s about who we are”.
We have lost the moral compass that guided us as a nation. We have allowed our politicians to exploit our fear, and we have overruled our better judgement.
President Franklin Roosevelt told us that the only thing we had to fear is fear itself. He was speaking in 1933 about the Great Depression, but his words were prophetic and could easily apply to current times. President Dwight Eisenhower in 1961 warned us about the dangers and distortions created by the military-industrial complex. We have ignored the wisdom of both these leaders, much to our own loss and detriment.
No, maczealot, I don’t have a magic solution to eliminate terrorism, any more than I have a magic plan to eradicate poverty, reverse global warming, or colonize Mars. None of us on this forum is a policy expert on these matters.
What I do know is that any plan to “fight terrorism” that requires Americans to lose sight of who they are is a plan that will do more long-term damage to the idea of America than the terrorists ever could have dreamed of doing.
fight terrorism why? with your government who needs terrorist!
PS. I pity you americans. living in the land of the once free. sad so very sad
Liberty Interest:
Funny, that you mention FDR, your icon of American liberalism. FDR imprisoned over 120,000 men, women, and children, yes, innocent U.S. citizens. Yet, somehow, you revere the man who committed these atrocious crimes. And let’s not forget FDR’s hand-picked accomplice, Harry “A-Bomb” Truman, who collaborated with FDR and ordered the killing of one-quarter million Japanese men, women, and children in radioactive holocausts. But you’re not shedding a tear for their lost liberties, are you? Maybe, you’re just a self-deluded hypocritical bigot in a liberal disguise.
absentminded:
Since you consider U.S. government more dangerous than the Taliban or Al Qaeda I suggest that you leave whatever country you live in immediately and seek sanctuary in Khost. Send me a post card when you arrive, OK? Just to let me know you’re all right. Bon voyage, dimwit.
its more dangerous to you not me but then as you gave up your rights you probably don’t care.
“No, maczealot, I don’t have a magic solution to eliminate terrorism, any more than I have a magic plan to eradicate poverty, reverse global warming, or colonize Mars. None of us on this forum is a policy expert on these matters.”
Liberty Interest:
Well, since you confess that you’re not an expert in dealing with terrorism (and a myriad of other issues you have admitted ignorance) I reckon that this means you are incompetent and unqualified to judge the actions of others who actually have education, training, and experience in these matters. Therefore, all your previous comments and criticisms are nothing more than pathetic and inconsequential ramblings of a chowder head. Can I call you, chowder head? Or do you prefer buffoon? I kinda like doofus, too. Yeah, I think that you’re a bit more doofus than bufffon actually.
absentminded:
Actually, no, but thanks for thinking about me. Your concern is underwhelming. Better hurry and pack your bags for Khost before the rendition team snags you and spirits you away. Go, go now. Adios, numbskull!
maczealot you are almost funny but sorry no go.
Liberty Interest:
I apologize for saying that FDR simply imprisoned over 120,000 innocent U.S. citizens. FDR also stole their property and confiscated their money. So FDR was a tyrant and a thief. And why do you revere this guy so much?
absentminded:
OK, don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Now, what would you prefer, the black hood with blue ear muffs or the gray hood with red ear muffs? We also have a nice set of stainless steel shackles; you’re a size 9, right? You’re in luck, our new Hiatt handcuffs just came in, you’re going to love them. And don’t forget our complimentary sun block SPF-40. We apologize that chocolate mints are no longer placed on the pillows, they would often melt. Welcome to Gitmo, enjoy your stay!
maczealot,
I think you’ve gone off the deep end. What’s with all the ad hominem attacks? Too much coffee late at night?
FDR was wrong, fundamentally and absolutely wrong, to have interned Japanese-Americans and confiscated their property. This is universally acknowledged as being wrong, and I thought we all had learned that lesson. And that makes George W. Bush mistake — when he opened prisons in Guantanamo Bay and started interning people there — even more appalling and dangerous to the idea of America.
And by striving so hard to diss FDR, you conveniently ignored my main point: Any plan to fight terrorism that requires America to give up its core values is not a plan that I would support.
Btw, I am not a policy expert, but I do think the first place to start fighting terrorism in the short term is to start inspecting containers brought on cargo ships, securing our nuclear and chemical plants, and ensuring the traceability and integrity of our food and water supplies. Five years after 9/11, the Bush administration hasn’t even begun to address these issues in any significant way.
In the long term, the best way to fight terrorism, according to Thomas Friedman and others, is to achieve energy self-sufficiency in environmentally friendly ways. I don’t know if this would help fight terrorism or not, but it certainly would be a good goal to achieve, energy wise and environmentally. If Brazil can achieve this, why can’t the United States?
Why the US of A can’t become energy self-sufficient? quite simple. money and power i.e. if they deplete the rest of the worlds energy resources then all power go to the US. at least in theory. but of course if that fails the money hungry gits will at least have made a big profit.
TowerTone wrote: “This does not explain why terroism increased in the 90’s.”
What evidence do you have that terrorism increased in the 1990s? Do you mean terrorism globally, or only against the United States?
“‘and go after the root causes of terrorism noisily'”
“Like we are in Iraq? No? Then name the root causes.”
Why don’t you try naming the root causes? I hope you don’t just spout Bush’s drivel about “They hate our freedom and our way of life”. This is simplistic and mindless nonsense and not supported by any credible study that I’m aware of.
According to Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago: “what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.” (Pape is writing about suicide attacks specifically, and excludes other forms of terorism.)
According to Thomas Homer-Dixon, of the University of Toronto: “From this research [since 9/11], a clearer picture of terrorism’s underlying causes is beginning to emerge. This picture suggests that participants in terrorism tend to be men in their twenties or thirties who are ferociously angry because of powerful feelings of humiliation. The humiliation can have many sources, but it’s likely to arise when relatively well-educated young men are deeply frustrated by a lack of political and economic opportunity and when, at the same time, they strongly identify with a group, society, or culture they perceive as oppressed or exploited. Extremist leaders then inflame and manipulate these feelings of humiliation, partly by defining the “enemy” — the group or society that’s responsible for all problems and that should be the target of attack.
We don’t know if humiliation is the sole root cause of terrorism, but surely it is among the more significant ones. At the very least, terrorists cannot get support from the broader population unless there are legitimate grievances shared among that wider population for the terrorists to exploit.
Liberty Interest:
I just call ’em like I see ’em. Besides, you’re the one who confessed to know practically nothing about anything, I’m just agreeing with you. I used words like doofus and chowder head, because I wasn’t sure that you would understand words with more than three syllables. And your use of Philosophy 101 terminology neither intimidates nor impresses me.
So, your brilliant plan to fight terrorism is for U.S. to become energy-independent. Well, why the hell didn’t you say this before? Saudi Arabia is essentially energy-independent and so is Iraq, but citizens in each of these countries are beset or threatened by terrorism. How do you explain this, doofus? Your inconsistency and bumbling attempts to develop a reasonable and rational argument are not helping your credibility as an astute thinker, you know. In fact, I think that you are grasping at straws.
I feel compelled to give you some advice, “Don’t post anymore.” It makes you look stupider than you already are, or, then again, maybe that’s impossible. Anyhow, you’re an embarrassment to your family, have some respect for them and spare them further ridicule.
Sorry, I should have put an end quote after “… should be the target of attack” in the posting immediately above.
The paragraph that starts with “We don’t know if humiliation….” contains my words, not Thomas Homer-Dixon’s.
Apologies for any confusion.
maczealot, I think only one of us is coming across like an idiot, and I don’t think it’s me.
You’ve definitely had too much coffee, or maybe you’re off your meds.
I don’t recall hearing any brilliant plan to fight terrorism coming from you. So what’s your plan, genius?
maczealot writes: “So, your brilliant plan to fight terrorism is for U.S. to become energy-independent. Well, why the hell didn’t you say this before? Saudi Arabia is essentially energy-independent and so is Iraq, but citizens in each of these countries are beset or threatened by terrorism. How do you explain this”
First, it’s not my plan. I made it plain that this idea came from Thomas Friedman and many others, who have written on the distortions created by energy dependence. I wrote above that I didn’t know whether energy independence would, by itself, prevent terrorism, but it was worth trying, and is a good thing to do energy wise and environmentally anyway.
So thanks for completely distorting what I wrote. Why don’t you learn to read what people actually write, and not what you think they write?
Second, I never said anything about Saudi Arabia and Iraq being immune from terrorism. Clearly, the House of Saud’s legitimacy is being questioned, and threatened, by those who want to replace that government for allowing US troops on Saudi soil.
Iraq was not a primary location for terrorist attacks prior to 2003. It is such a location today, thanks to George W. Bush’s decision to invade, a cesspool of foreign terrorists and domestic insurgents and people who out and out hate each other. (Btw, Iraq is hardly doing well on the energy front. Oil production and electricity supplies are below pre-war levels.)
Lastly, the largest number of terrorist attacks have been in Sri Lanka, where the Tamil Tigers have been fighting for independence for at least 2 decades.
Liberty Interest:
I can’t believe me eyes! You actually think a 6-week course in building self-esteem is going to eliminate terrorism. Maybe you and Spyke and Less Is More can join absentminded on his trip to Khost and teach the Taliban and Al Qaeda something about self-awareness and “turning your frown upside down”. How’s about it, fellas? You four can be the first wave of New Age revivalists in Afghanistan. Just remember to turn your watches back 800 years.
Liberty Interest:
If you don’t agree that energy independence is an effective means to thwart terrorism, why did you mention it at all?
Would like to make a post commenting on some of the arguments here, but I’m afraid spending Sunday afternoon at UpChucky Cheese with a hoard of kids has left me drained.
Nice points you made Liberty Interest on the America you were raised in.
I’m sorry, but the older you get, the more you will find that America has been like this all along. It is in the innicence of our youth that we form a picture of the world, what is good and bad. As we grow older, we learn that many things are not as simple as we had thought.
FDR’s internment camps are a great reminder of what we fight for, and why. At the same time, no one can say for sure that a small number, even 1% of the interred might not have sided with their ancestors, and this number, when pitted aginst not just the greater good, but the LIFE of the greater good, was what weighed heavily on an already exhaused man charged with saving the United States from what at the time seemed almost certain defeat.
No easy choice. And for all that I disagree with his northeastern liberal elite upbringing, and his almost socialist social programs, he past the greatest test I could ask of a President, and that is to preserve The United States America.
There were many who had a hard time giving him the benefit of the doubt, but in those days, politics DID stop at the shore, good or bad.
This President has deserved the benefit of the doubt, because when we suceed, the Mideast, stagnant for 60 years in dispute, will be changed. It is the undermining of this effort that the right deplores.
No war is ever fought in total sucess for either side (although Israel got close in six days) And to think that these methods were not used in the past is childish. Check the laws from the Civil War and WWI. Check the methods in WWII or the Spanish-American War. Study the Mexican-American War or the Indian Wars. Although not always shining examples of so called “liberty at its finest”, all of the wars ended with the betterment of our society, which has in turned benefited the world tremendously.
And absentminded
I don’t know what country you live in, but we as a nation would have to fall a great deal more to ever come down to another’s level. If you don’t agree, post whatever your country has done in the past ten years that will affect this world for centuries.
Good Night.
maczealot, you are a complete idiot. Stop twisting words. This has nothing to do with self-esteem.
The humiliation that Thomas Homer-Dixon writes about comes from watching your pregnant wife being blocked from going to the hospital because the only security checkpoint – manned by foreigners occupying your land – was closed without warning.
The humiliation starts with individuals, but then expands to cover the society or nation as a whole. That’s when it ceases to have any relation to self-esteem and instead becomes a raw lesson in how powerless the whole society or nation is, in the face of a much larger and stronger force that acts like a bully.
Get over yourself, maczealot. You have yet to provide any of your own solutions or ideas. I bet you have none.
Liberty Interest:
You and Spyke and absentminded and Less Is more are the one who eagerly jumped on the bandwagon of criticizing the current administration’s efforts to fight terrorism. If you pathetic whiners had any rational ideas to accomplish the task you would have made them abundantly clear by now. Well, I’m still waiting and so far, every attempt that you four have made to demonstrate that you have a better immediate plan or long-term strategy has failed miserably. Admit, you losers, you haven’t a clue and probably never will. So, leave foreign policy and national security to the people with the expertise and let the grown ups do their job.
maczealot: “If you don’t agree that energy independence is an effective means to thwart terrorism, why did you mention it at all?”
There you go again, twisting and distorting what other people write.
I said I don’t know. There’s a difference between saying it will have no effect, and saying that it may have an effect. Certainly, it’s worth trying.
Lastly, I don’t believe there is any one single magic bullet to end terrorism. The causes are complex and multi-faceted, and the solutions will undoubtedly also be complex and multi-faceted.
maczealot: ” So, leave foreign policy and national security to the people with the expertise and let the grown ups do their job.”
Oh I get it. So George W. Bush is doing a bang-up job in Iraq, and our borders are secure, and incoming cargo is being inspected, our nuclear and chemical plants are secure, and our food supply is robust?
What sort of fantasy land do you live in? Bush and his cronies are the most incompetent administration to lead this country since the Grant administration.
Liberty Interest:
The Twin Towers were attacked before the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. If you’re going to make a point at least know the history.
The U.S. does not control the civilian populace in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Dubai or Jordan the United Arab Emirate or Qatar or Bahrain or Bangladesh or Chad or Egypt or Turkey and the list goes on.
You are getting more and more stupid as you post. Keep it up and soon you will be a tenured professor at some left-wing university.
TowerTone, I am all too aware of the history of the United States, the cruelties of war, and the corruptability of leaders.
None of that changes the fact that the United States does have core values, that are documented in the founding documents (e.g. Bill of Rights), and that have been implemented to varying degrees in the past 217 years.
During the Cold War, the US routinely criticized the Soviets for all manner of unspeakable human rights crimes. It was the Soviets who imprisoned journalists, locked people up without lawyers or charges, that sent people to internment camps in Siberia, that tortured people.
And now look at us. We’re doing the same.
Liberty Interest:
How many times do I have to say it? If you don’t like what the Bush administration is doing, present an alternate plan. If all you can say is “We don’t like what Bush is doing” you have tacitly admitted that you’re too stupid to think of an alternative strategy. I know this realization may be embarrassing and frustrating to to you, but that’s the truth.
maczealot, “The U.S. does not control the civilian populace in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Dubai or Jordan the United Arab Emirate or Qatar or Bahrain or Bangladesh or Chad or Egypt or Turkey and the list goes on.”
Really? Thank you for letting me know. I had no idea! Wow, you sure set me straight. NOT.
You are an idiot.
The US doesn’t have to directly occupy or control the land or its people in order for people to feel powerless in the face of US strength.
The reason the Palestinians hate Israelies is because they think their land is being occupied. The reason many (but not all) Palestinians hate the US is because the US props up the country that is oppressing them – Israel.
Even George W. Bush has admitted the obvious reality that the US for over 60 years propped up dictatorships in the Middle East as long as they kept the oil flowing.
So now you disagree with your hero Bush, whom you think is doing a terrific job?
“At the same time, no one can say for sure that a small number, even 1% of the interred might not have sided with their ancestors, and this number, when pitted aginst not just the greater good, but the LIFE of the greater good, was what weighed heavily on an already exhaused man charged with saving the United States from what at the time seemed almost certain defeat.”
You liberals complain about the administration holding a few hundred prisoners at Gitmo, many caught on the battlefield, but you excuse FDR’s imprisonment of tens of thousands women and children living ordinary lives as U.S. citizens. You people aren’t just pathetic and hypocritical, you’re fucking dangerous.
Maybe many Palestinians who are terrorists kill women and children because they are ignorant and murderous thugs who will use any excuse to kill. You havn’t made a convincing argument. In fact, most Palestinians probably want to live in peace.
maczealot, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Why don’t you take a look in the mirror?
I have repeatedly challenged you to provide any facts for your opinions, and you have none.
I have repeatedly asked for your genius ideas, but you have no ideas of your own, except to be a cheerleader as Bush on as he drives this country into the ditch.
I have given my opinions, backed them up with facts and specific references. I have explored some suggestions made by others about the possible causes, short term solutions, and long term solutions, and given credit where it is due.
I have acknowledged that the problem is complex and not likely to be solved through a single magic bullet.
I have made it plain that American values of the rule of law and human rights are central to the idea of America, and that we cannot allow Bush and his cronies to tarnish them, or else the terrorists will definitely have won.
So what have you done in this discussion, genius, except to drink too much coffee, forget to take your meds, and hurl insults and personal invective in every direction?
maczealot: “Maybe many Palestinians who are terrorists kill women and children because they are ignorant and murderous thugs who will use any excuse to kill.”
And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?
“You havn’t made a convincing argument.”
Fair enough – you don’t agree that humiliation is a cause of terrorism. So what? I have no problem with that.
(I do have a problem if you distort what I write, or hurl insults instead of discussing the topic.)
“In fact, most Palestinians probably want to live in peace.”
Yes, I agree – the vast majority of people want to live in peace and get on with their lives.
But as I see it, the problem starts when these same people are humiliated and radicalized by having their powerlessness rubbed into their face. Then they start to give support to exremists who claim they are fighting back. Mayhem and chaos ensue.
Any effective strategy to prevent terrorism has got to include, at a minimum, steps to prevent the radicalization of the broader society. This means marginalizing the extremists, and addressing the legitimate grievances of the broader society.
Liberty Interest
Claining that you know the history of America is one thing, but understanding it is another. You do a disservice to yourself when you make a broad statement as this
“During the Cold War, the US routinely criticized the Soviets for all manner of unspeakable human rights crimes. It was the Soviets who imprisoned journalists, locked people up without lawyers or charges, that sent people to internment camps in Siberia, that tortured people.
And now look at us. We’re doing the same.”
We are doing nowhere near the same. That is like claimeing that since North Koreans vote they are free, or that Venezuela has money and cares for the poor becasue they gave fuel away.
What few people we have in detention because of war the U.S.S.R would intern on a monthly basis for political crimes against the state, not for actually atacking it.
Imprisoned jounalist? Really? I hope you are NOT talking about Judith Miller. You will have lost what little credibilty you had with me.
Your talk of torture is torturing me. Do I get a book deal? Do you really thing we have drawn and quatered souls? Cut off fingers of the strong? Rendered knowledge by blindness? You sound like a young John Kerry in front of Congress, stretching the truth merely for attention.
And your solution for the terroist and other plight in the Middle East is……..(drum roll, please)
“Any effective strategy to prevent terrorism has got to include, at a minimum, steps to prevent the radicalization of the broader society. This means marginalizing the extremists, and addressing the legitimate grievances of the broader society.”
These are words, mere words, and when strung together in this fashon, make only for a pile of, well, words.
What steps to prevent the radicalization of the broader society? The underlying Palestinian problem? How? Give them more land, money, and freedom to launch attacks on Israel? This issue will never be solved until Israel is destroyed, or until the “refugees” are driven into Syria, Egypt and Jordan. Oh, and have you ever wondered why these countries have never taken in these so called refugees of their own kind? Because they care for them even less than the Israelis.
Or are you talking about poverty being the underlying cause of their redirected hatred? These people of the rich oil lands? Sounds like they have no desire to help their fellow Muslims.
When you at last are honest with yourself, you will realize the ONLY underlying cause for this struggle is their religeon. These conditions I descreibe afflict people of all nationalities and religeons around the world, none react as the Islamic Fundalmentalist do.
Now, please, list some of the “legitimate grievences of the broader society.” I await as you did for maczealot’s facts.
MW:sense, as in “let’s put some sense back into this argument.”
Never should use a Windows system for security!
Towertone I have a solution for you
And your solution for the terroists and other plight in the Middle East is……..(drum roll, please
Make a grand show of taking every bullet that we produce in the states here for the military and dip them in the blood of an unclean animal. (pigs)
We then procede to fight the war in Iraq on the level that the terrorists want to make it. A religious level. Let them understand that when they die they will be unclean and just like the soup guy used to say with a slight noun change,”no virgins for you”.
Liberty Interest:
Since you have already made it abundantly clear that you agree that FDR was right to imprison over 120,000 U.S. citizens living otherwise normal and peaceful lives, you can’t argue that the Bush administration is wrong to imprison several hundred persons caught on the battlefield or found in terrorist strongholds.
Since you have also made it abundantly clear that you agree that FDR and Harry Truman were right to actively bomb civilian targets in Japan killing nearly 2 million men, women, and children, you can’t argue that the Bush administration is wrong because of unintended civilian causalities.
Since your latest argument is that killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children is justifiable because terrorist harbor pathologically destructive feelings they cannot control, then you have legitimized murder for people who won’t put their energies in more constructive action. If you can excuse the pain and suffering that terrorism has caused the world because of a sense of powerlessness, an obsession with causing the deaths of innocent civilians, and glorifying murder why are you so critical of the Bush administration vigorous desire to prevent homicidal maniacs from killing you? It seems cowardly and disingenuous to hide behind people between you and the terrorist and condemn them for protecting you.
Hey, Opie
Even though I like Rummy, I hear there may be an opening for Secretary of Defense, and I like what I am hearing from you…
MW morning, as in “Morning!”
Liberty Interest:
I just got off the phone with a terrorist. He told me that no more killing would occur if you and your family are exterminated and all your remaining property is given to him and his cousins. Well, what do you say? He’s offering a solution to the killing. Be a sport and, as you said, injustice against a minority is justified if it benefits the greater good of society. Put your principles into action, or do you lack conviction as well as intelligence?
“Maybe many Palestinians who are terrorists kill women and children because they are ignorant and murderous thugs who will use any excuse to kill.”
Liberty Interest wrote, And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?
Ummm, because they actively target women and children, asshole.
Opie and tower tone:
You two are just as ignorant as Liberty Interest. Dipping bullets and other projectiles in the blood of pigs will only alienate and anger Muslims who are our allies against the terrorists.
maczealot, you’re a moron. I explicitly said above that FDR was WRONG to intern Japanese-Americans. I did NOT sanction that. I explicitly criticized Bush as having repeated FDR’s mistake.
I also never said that Truman was right to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I defy you to cite one posting from me saying otherwise.
“If you can excuse the pain and suffering that terrorism has caused the world because of a sense of powerlessness, an obsession with causing the deaths of innocent civilians, and glorifying murder”
This is unbelievably offensive. I never once excused the pain and suffering of terrorist victims. This entire discussion is an effort to understand the causes, or potential causes, of terrorism and possible solutions to those causes. I don’t know aobut you, but my motivatation is a desire to prevent future terrorist attacks … not to excuse past attacks or future ones.
“Ummm, because they actively target women and children”
That’s evidence of civilians being direct targets of terrorists. How is this evidence that the these terrorists “are ignorant and murderous thugs who will use any excuse to kill”?
“I just got off the phone with a terrorist. He told me that no more killing would occur if you and your family are exterminated and all your remaining property is given to him and his cousins.”
That’s odd, the terrorist told me that you were his greatest recruiting tool, followed real closely by George Bush. “Keep doing what you’re doing! Stay the course!” he shouted. “The more you overreact, the more followers we get! Can’t you get Congress to spend another $100 billion? Pretty please? Cherry on top?”
Maczealot, did you ever graduate from kindergarten? The level to which you drag down this debate is just juvenile.
>>”Any effective strategy to prevent terrorism has got to include, at a minimum, steps to prevent the radicalization of the broader society. This means marginalizing the extremists, and addressing the legitimate grievances of the broader society.”
>These are words, mere words, and when strung together in this fashon, make only for a pile of, well, words.
That’s what he’s been saying all along and why I’m reluctant to take part in this argument: one side seems to have a comprehension problem. Those words “strung together” in that “fashion” contain insightful ideas.
As for responses to my comment, I stand by what I wrote.
Terrorists who commit crimes against humanity need to be brought to justice. But that by itself won’t stop terrorism. “Addressing legitimate grievances” that fuel the terror-motive is the only viable long-term solution.
You know, of course, if you’ve studied history, that crimes against humanity are defined as those crimes committed by the losing side – and not the winning side. What some people call terrorists, others call freedom fighters. The strong can hurl their weapons of mass destruction from a distance; the weak must walk their explosives in, which takes some courage or a hell of a lot of provocation.
A one-sided point of view is incapable of coming up with a solution short of genocide.
Hey supposed maczealot,
Tell me if your so smart why the terrorists cut the heads off their enemies? Is it because of their religion or are they just barbarians like genghis kahn? If the dog is rabid you put it down. Oh and for your information in case you missed it. They are angry and alienated already. There you go thinking like a lib again, saying something that makes one wonder who you want to win in the battlefield of ideas and principles.
“I explicitly said above that FDR was WRONG to intern Japanese-Americans. I did NOT sanction that.”
Yet you quote FDR as a paragon of moral guidance in trying times. How can you revere and respect FDR as the example of an ideal president and exemplary human being and also condemn FDR as tyrant and a thief?
“I also never said that Truman was right to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I defy you to cite one posting from me saying otherwise.”
Both FDR and Truman started the A-bomb program with the predetermined intent to kill and injure thousands of men, women, and children. If bombing Japan wasn’t right was it necessary? If it wasn’t right, why do you quote FDR to support your moral argument? If it was necessary then you have to admit that FDR and Truman both collaborated to order the armed forces to murder and maim women and children. In fact, three-quarters of civilian deaths in Japan were the result of carpet-bombing cities with incendiary bombs ordered by both FDR and Truman not atom bombs.
Now, who are the greater criminals, FDR and his henchman Truman or Bush? You can’t legitimately idolize FDR and defend FDR’s co-conspirator Truman on one hand as moral heroes and also condemn them for war crimes on the other. Yet, you left-wingers criticize the Bush administration for far less horrendous and unintended civilian casualties.
“That’s evidence of civilians being direct targets of terrorists. How is this evidence that the these terrorists “are ignorant and murderous thugs who will use any excuse to kill”?
It’s obvious or do you consider the elderly, the physically handicapped, pregnant women, newborn babies, and pre-school children a direct and immediate threat to your freedom deserving death?
Less Is More:
If a terrorist considers your own, your family’s, your friend’s, or your neighbor’s continued existence on this planet a legitimate grievance and your death a desired objective, do you agree with him or her and are you willing to die or have your family, friends, or neighbors killed?
Hey, I’ll say it till the cows come home
FDR and Truman were right to do what they did, in the context of why they had to do it.
I defy anyone to read the hour by hour details of the Battle of Okinawa and come away with any conclusion but what we had to do and did to end the war with Japan with complete and utter surrender. I also ask you to check the number of deaths caused by these two attacks and compare them to the firebombings of Dresden. The simple truth is the A bombs dropped saved American lives.
As far as internment, I only have a problem with how they were treated afterwards, not the act itself, at the time it was done, for the reasons it was done. (by the way, Sulu [George Takei] was held at one in Arkansas, of all places) WWII was a very serious war in that, even had the Confederates won the Civil war, there would have been a smaller US-who knows-but a loss to the Nazi’s or Imperial Japan would have doomed us.
And maczealot, I can understand the liberal view and disagree, and obviously I can understand the conservative view(being one), but I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about.
MW:leaders
so much to read but so little time
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm
Japanese American internment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
Japanese Canadian internment. even in Canada!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment
PS. “To err is human, to forgive divine”
Based on our points of view, the short answer to your rhetorical question is that you are much more likely to face that hypothetical situation than I am, and neither you nor I are likely to face that situation at all.
Fact is, more Americans have died prosecuting a war in Iraq than died in the 911 terrorist acts by September 3, 2006 (2,974 deaths). Estimates of Iraqi civilian casualties vary widely: 45,000-55,000 by one admittedly limited count, over 600,000 by another! (One is obviously a scientific count while the other is a scientific estimate – the uncountable reality is somewhere in between.) That’s a lot of widows and orphans in a country that had nothing to do with 911.
If anything, there must be more people now prepared to strike back than before. Just how does that make you more secure?
I recommend to current books.
1. “Fiasco”
2. “The Looming Tower”
BTW- Less is More nailed it.
What is the corrolation between those dying in the initial attack and those that have died in the ensuing battle on terror have to do with anything? How many died at Pearl Harbor verses the entire war? What the hell are you talking about?
Whoever said Iraq ever had anything to do with 911? A link, please. They are part of the War on Terror. Can you not understand that? What did Pearl Harbor have to do with the Germans? Did any of you honestly think we could walk away from this after Afghanistan, even if Osama was caught? Do you think it is that simple and are you that shortsighted?
If so, I have some sobering news for you, it is far from over. Even if Syria can be talked into line, the Iranians cannot without a revolt to oust the Mullahs. If that does not happen, we can either face them in a conventional war this decade, a nuclear war next decade, or decide which Mullah to pray for leadership on Nov. 7, 2027
MW:basic, as in “this is so basic”
Less Is More:
For some people the question is not rhetorical. So, imagine being in their shoes, and answer the question.
I wish that you had taken the time to inform the rest of us how many of those civilians who died or were wounded in Iraq were killed or wounded by domestic and foreign terrorists. Wouldn’t that be more explanatory of the cause of these casualties?
How many people must be killed or wounded to prosecute a war or to win a war? FDR and Harry Truman killed are responsible for the deaths of 2,000,000 Japanese civilian men, women, and children. Was this too many, too little, or just the right amount?
“If anything, there must be more people now prepared to strike back than before. Just how does that make you more secure?”
A rhetorical question, right? Here’s another one. If Saddam Hussein had provided terrorists with weapons of mass destruction and these weapons killed several hundreds or thousands of your citizens would you criticize U.S. for not invading Iraq earlier if these schemes were suspected?
Always Right thinks that you “have nailed it”. Can you explain what you “have nailed”? I still haven’t gotten a cogent answer what the alternative plan to fighting terrorism should be.
absentminded:
If FDR planned to incite the Japanese government to attack Pearl Harbor then there was no reason to suspect that U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were colluding with their kinfolk across the Pacific. Therefore, there would have been no legitimate reason to imprison so many U.S. citizens. This would make FDR a warmonger, a conniving bigot, and one deceptive bastard. Wouldn’t this tarnish the liberal idol a bit?
I suppose that you have a similar document detailing how persons in the administrative branch concocted a similar scheme in the 21st century. If you do, why won’t you publish it as well?
“…go after the culprits quietly, and go after the root causes of terrorism noisily.”
The Nail:
Oh, that nail. Could you please be MORE specific or do you believe that success can be achieved only by broadly sweeping abstractions of undefined, vague, and unenforceable ambiguities?
I have a provided a few initial questions below for you to answer about your nail and your obscure hammer. Obviously, none of the questions should be too difficult to answer, since these questions have already been anticipated.
Who would you talked with as allies?
What concessions would you make to encourage allied support?
Will you “go it alone” if you have no allies?
Will you initiate your plan if not all nations you seek as allies will give your plan support?
When will you begin?
Where will you begin?
How long will you devote to the task?
How many troops would you use?
Which troops will you use?
What weapons would you use?
What weapons won’t you use?
If you won’t use certain weapons explain how denying troops these particular weapons will not be considered a lack of determination on your part?
How much money will you spend?
How many civilian casualties will you consider acceptable?
How many allied casualties will you consider acceptable?
Will you enter sovereign nations uninvited to go after the culprits?
If you do enter nations uninvited to go after the culprits what will you do if you are found out?
Will you lie about U.S. troops in countries where they are uninvited and will you disavow any knowledge and support of their presence?
If you won’t enter uninvited into other nations to go after the culprits how will you root out the terrorists?
Will you keep troops in Muslim nations?
If your keep troops in Muslim nations and terrorists say that they will refuse to talk with you as long as allies troops “occupy” Muslim nations what will you do?
What’s plan B?
The Nail:
Oh, that nail. Could you please be MORE specific or do you believe that success can be achieved only by broadly sweeping abstractions of undefined, vague, and unenforceable ambiguities?
I have a provided a few more initial questions below for you to answer about your nail and your obscure hammer. Obviously, none of the questions should be too difficult to answer, since these questions have already been anticipated.
What are the root causes of terrorism? You can’t destroy the root if you can’t identify it, right?
How will you destroy the roots?
What concessions will you offer to terrorists?
How much money will you spend to destroy the roots of terrorism?
How long do you anticipates that it will take to destroy the roots?
What will you do about uncooperative sovereign nations that support terrorism?
What will you do about real and potential terrorist groups in U.S.?
What method will you use to surveil real or potential terrorists in U.S.?
What method will you not use to surveil real or potential terrorists in U.S.?
What groups do you consider terrorist?
What groups do you not consider terrorist?
What’s plan B?
Better get busy, your intelligence, commitment, and credibility are on the line!
The Nail:
Oh, that nail. Could you please be MORE specific or do you believe that success can be achieved only by broadly sweeping abstractions of undefined, vague, and unenforceable ambiguities?
I have a provided a few more initial questions below for you to answer about your nail and your obscure hammer. Obviously, none of the questions should be too difficult to answer, since these questions have already been anticipated.
What will you do with terrorists caught in battle?
What will you do with terrorists caught in U.S.?
What will you do with terrorists caught in other nations?
Where will you put captured terrorists?
Will you provide terrorists public defenders?
Are terrorists criminals, soldiers of fortune, irregular troops, guerilla fighters, soldiers without official uniforms, civilians with arms, or spies?
How should terrorists be punished?
How should nations that support terrorists and terrorism be punished?
If a friend or family member swears perpetual revenge against you for killing, capturing, or imprisoning a terrorist, how does this influence you decisions about killing, capturing, or imprisoning terrorists?
What’s plan B?
Speak up, defend your plan. If you can’t answer these questions, you can’t be taken seriously. The Washington press corps will ask these and tougher questions, not to mention members of the Senate and House committees, and most importantly, citizens of U.S.
So, why the delay in answering? Did you not consider these questions? If you didn’t consider these questions, why not?
Less Is more, Liberty Interest, Spyke, et al.:
You can’t beat something with nothing. Because you haven’t developed a plan that can stand on its merits you have built a foundation for failure.
Less Is more, Liberty Interest, Spyke, et al.:
Congratulations on your recent congressional victories. Now would be a good time to start thinking about a plan, but hurry, you have less than 2 years to think of something.
You can’t blame a Republican congress now. We’ll see how well you are up to the task.