What kind of signals are we sending to the Constitution terrorists if we don’t speak out against the erosion of liberty right now?
Imagine we were attacked again. It’s easy if you try.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
What If Terrorists Attacked The US Again? - Comments Page 2
Article comments
26 - Shark
BTW: I think I kinda agree with Nalle's "fight terrorist with terrorist" approach. Which, ironically, sorta implies that "police" actions, ie intelligence, secret acts, infiltration, monitoring, tracking money, arms, etc. -- is a MUCH BETTER approach than all-out land war.
ie. I remember a few years ago when the Right-Wing demagogues were MOCKING "liberals" who wanted to use "police" methods against terrorists.
Buncha anti-patriotic pussie with no stomach for an all-out invasion.
Anyway -- IRAQ IS STILL FESTERING MISTAKE and a future region-destroying civil war --- thanks very much George -- and it wasted and diverted essential resources in the REAL fight against terrorism.
27 - Dave Nalle
Nuking Riyadh seems just a tiny bit indescriminate, Ruvy. We could probably get even better results by nuking Tel Aviv. Or to balance things out, let's nuke both.
Perhaps rather than nuking anything we should try to single out those who are our enemies, draw them into the open and then deal with them in a terminal way that is more specific.
Dave
28 - Ruvy in Jerualem
Dave,
If you want to fight a war against savages, you can't behave like a gentleman. Pardon. You can, and live a short life. War is organized killing. The most humane war is scaring the shit out of the enemy so that they do no want to fight. Barring that, the most humane war is the one that gets the enemy to his knees - FAST.
"Drawing the enemy out into the open" is the present strategy of the State of Israel, forced down its throat by the United States. It costs Israeli lives. Too many of them. The idea that MY son should fight like a gentleman and risk his life for the sake of armchair moralists in Washington and New York leaves me less than pleased, to put it mildly.
My strategy costs NO American lives. It gets the enemy - the thugocracy of ibn Saud - to its knees FAST. It convinces folks in the Moslem Brotherhood and similar groups that opposing the US is not smart. At this point, Moslems do not put a high value on life anyway. A nuclear hit that kills millions will change their perspective on the issue.
And to top it all off - it costs very little money. I'm talking about VICTORY. I'm talking about scaring the shit out of all the folks who do not share your ideals, so that they do NOT want to fight you.
What is your problem with that, Mr. Nalle?
29 - Aaman
Ruvy,
Israel should study the history of Japan. Do you really want a totalitarian regime that exists in a state of war for a thousand years, like Japan did for most of the last millenium?
30 - Ruvy in Jerualem
Aaman, I'm not talking about what Israel ought to do, I'm talking about what America ought to do.
As for us here, were we to adopt a nuclear strategy, it would have to be a first strike strategy; we don't have anywhere to retreat and three good size nukes would do us in anyway.
As for remaining a military garrison state, unless we pursue victory over the Arabs in a convincing way, that is what we are doomed to remain. The peaceniks here - backed by heavy European and American pressure - think that by unilateral withdrawals and other surrender techinques, they can buy peace from the Arabs. They refuse to take the Arabs seriously.
Al Qaeda, on its website, admits that ACCORDING TO THE QUR'AN we have the right to this land. Their argument is that - because we are willing to compromise on it - because we do not put G-d first - we have lost our right to the land.
But this article is not about us Israelis surviving here, it is about America ending the terrorist threat it faces.
31 - Temple Stark
Ruvy,
I never really brought out tactics in my post. That's really a separate discussion. I was talking about liberty vs security (you may have noticed).
If you want to talk about fighting Muslims - of course Iraq was the last place to start, wasn't it?
I din't bring up every angle because then I would be writing many books on the subject. Right?
My preference would have been to kill Osama bin Laden; to decimate the camps and kill as many of them as possible. It was a war and we would have had both the practical and moral high ground.
No disrespect, but I don't want Americans to live like Israelis - in fear of death at every waking moment.
32 - Ruvy in Jerualem
"No disrespect, but I don't want Americans to live like Israelis - in fear of death at every waking moment."
I guess that is why I brought up tactics, Temple. Just discussing liberty versus security is nice, but it is much nicer to be able to walk into a supermarket WITHOUT someone checking my wife's bag, or checking me to see if I'm carrying a weapon and have the papers for it...
That's how we live here.
That's what's coming your way if you don't identify your enemies and WIN against them.
The fear you talk about in your comment - and which is reflected in your article - is just a tiny fraction of the load of fear every Israeli steels himself to carry daily.
33 - Temple Stark
But Ruvy, it's not an either or.
If you look hasn't much of what's been done in the name of security been worthless? Especially as everyone seems to believe - "we'll be attacked again."
So with that inevitability, comes the question - do you live your life cowed or do you find ways to balance security and liberty without succumbing and falling on your knees to fear?
I'm not sure Israel had a choice in the matter but this seems to be the point for America where we can stop and assess the situation before our liberties erode away.
That's not to say we'll ever be a police state, but there are, internally, less painful ways to avoid it then talking a gient step forward ... off a cliff.
In other words it's not a "nice" discussion, it's a vital one that needs to happen in this country now. Because we're not in the unfortunate geography where Israel sits; though extremist Muslim hate us just as much.
34 - Ruvy in Jerualem
OK Temple, if you want to step back and assess, assess. But at least get your enemy straight.
The immediate ones are not "extremist Moslems." The IMMEDIATE ENEMY is the Wahhabi cult that has hijacked Islam and tuned it into a religion of conquest and hate.
So, quite simply, on the home front, your efforts need to be focused on them and on those they control. They ARE the immediate enemy. So it is their liberty you want to curtail, while maintaining your own.
35 - Temple Stark
comment #2. Sorry just noticed.
This isn't incorrect. In my phraseology - hyperbolic a tad - These are terrorists of the Consitution, not terrorists following the constitution.
36 - Aaman
Forgive my long quotes, but a relevant poem by Langston Hughes seemed in order,
37 - Aaman
Also, possibly relevant, Dylan (Bob) mused,
38 - Temple Stark
#34. Surely, for the sake of discussion here Wahhabists are "extremist Moslems?"
And, of course, I agree with you - to a point. The Taliban, for example, doesn't follow the Wahhabist perversion of Islam.
On a different topic, how's the mood in Israel with the news of Ariel Sharon? A hero? Good riddance?
39 - Christopher Rose
Aaman: I love the Langston Hughes poem - and his vision of America, the one that it's rightly famous for, and loved, worldwide. Thanks a lot for posting it. Kinda shows up that Dylan geezer too.
40 - troll
(nice poetry sit Aaman - thanks
troll)
41 - Aaman
Thanks Troll and Chris:)
42 - Ruvy in Jerusalerm
#34. Surely, for the sake of discussion here Wahhabists are "extremist Moslems?"
No Temple - that is sloppy thinking. That is how people can lead you down the garden path of doing a great deal against an imaginary enemy, like "Islamo-fascists."
The Wahhabis are a cult that has been kicked out of Islam several times in the past - and now has the mnoney to buy the whole of the Sunni Moslem operation, lock stock and turban.
In other words, they are not Moslems at all, they are rebels who have taken over Islam.
As for Sharon, I can't give intelligent news on Israelis (who should be) sleeping. It's 3:00 in the morning here, and I just finished sending an article on this to Blog Critics.
43 - Anthony Grande
I guarantee that there will be no more 9/11 scale attacks as long as we keep the Patriot Act and other Bush policies, though, I would feel a bit safer if we crack down on illegal immigration.
44 - Temple Stark
Ruvy, I agree that's it's sloppy thinking. No question. But it's not my sloppy thinking. They consider themselves Moslems; they do what they do in he name of Allah. They are Moslems in the eyes of most people; for the narrow-minded view they are the totality of Islam.
There seesm to be this strange idea that hough Christians can have 3,042 splinter groups - Anglican, First United Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, etc, each at different levels of adherence and their own version of God's word, that somehow Moslems are this omniscient group wih only one way of thinking about life, liberty and the pursuit of eternity.
Understanding some of this would also help NOT have a repeat attack; reasonable Moslems exist int he millions and they can be brought togther for a common cause. Isn't that the root idea behind our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I know you may be ZZZZZZZZZing now. Hope you had a soft pillow and good dreams.
45 - Temple Stark
Please, sncerely explain the thought process behind your guarantee Grande. You're more confident than most of those with intimate knowledge of the PATRIOT Act.
46 - Aaman
Give Temple a cookie and some cactus juice - most Muslims are sane, regular people like everyone.
47 - swingingpuss
A wise shaman like Temple deserves Peyote not cactus juice ;)
48 - Temple Stark
Cactus Juice IS good.
By the way, may all bow before me as the king, emperor and supreme diety of a little cult I like to call Typoism. Holy books have been attempted by true believers, but they were incomprehensible before page 3.
By the way 2 - Langston Hughes, thanks for that. Feeling lyrically delicious today, no?
49 - gonzo marx
now now..wel all know the king os "pyto" is my own half brother...
Typo Marx
and don't even get me started with the Esoterica of our other brother...
Crypto Marx
but i digress...
Excelsior!
50 - Anthony Grande
"Please, sncerely explain the thought process behind your guarantee Grande."
Here is my thought process on the subject:
1. In 1998, Usama bin Laden declares war on the U.S. Clinton does nothing.
2. Because Clinton does nothing it is not much of a big surprise that we are attacked on 9/11/01.
3. During the Clinton presidency we were attacked four times (U.S.S. Cole, 1st 9/11, Embassies in Africa bombings and with the Somalia disaster). Usama got away scott free each time and EASILY carried out the next ones.
4. 9/11 happens, this is the latest of the series of easily carried out attacks by Al Quaeda. But this time Bush cracks down and does something Clinton should have done: Clean up Afghanistan and take care of Saddam.
5. For the next 4 years we have seen no more attacks. Why haven't we been attacked in these last 4 years? What happened to the EASE Osama had with the previous attacks during Clinton's years?
Gee, maybe Bush is doing something right.
"You're more confident than most of those with intimate knowledge of the PATRIOT Act."
The few with intimate knowledge with the Patriot Act aren't confident as I because IT IS THEIR JOB NOT TO BE CONFIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR NATIONS SECURITY.
51 - gonzo marx
where's Osama?
Excelsior!
52 - Temple Stark
They are my mini-onions
:-)
53 - Temple Stark
Al these comments aren't showing up in order for me until I go away, check my e-mail, and come back. Weird.
-- missed this one - isn't "Shaman" toilet paper?
No Anthony, I said thought process, and ... Actually, just joking. Thanks for the reply.
I have one question - isn't Al Qaeda in Iraq now, attacking us? I could be persuaded that voluntary military targets are better than civilians in this case, but they ARE attacking us, now
5. Between 1994 and 2001 there were no attacks on US soil from Al Qaeda, but the group did attack - yep, a military target, as they are doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's the difference in these time period?
So you feel safer is what you're saying? True, plane travel became immediately safer on 9-12 (well, when flying resumed) as passengers knew that they would never let terrorists fly into anything else if they could do anything about preventing. But that was before - barely - the PATRIOT Act was brought out and a little while before the DHS was born.
There are, hmmm, how many terrorist convinctions by the Justice Department in those five years? That's what the PATRIOT Act is designed to gather. THat and intelligence to stop future attacks.
But then, as addressed in the orginal post - why are we being force fed the idea that we're not safe, that there will be an attack? More so before Nov. 2004 than after.
Why do Senators and Reps. need to be convinced the PATRIOT Act is doing much good and that it should not, in fact be curtailed? Why isn't there clear, irrefutable and undeniable evidence to show them that the act has done as advertised - helped capture "bad guys" who threatened us.
Why, if the PATRIOT Act was so damn good, was there the extra need to circumvent the FISA Court?
That's a lot of questions, not "just one." Cactus Juice has that effect on me. Perhaps you could ask yourself some of them.
best
- Temple
54 - Anthony Grande
Temple,
"Isn't Al Qaeda in Iraq now, attacking us?... but they ARE attacking us, now"
Then what Bush says is true, "It is better to fight them there than here."
There is a big difference between the roadside bombs and the U.S.S. Cole attack: The U.S.S. Cole is a Naval ship. In this war the Navy and our ships are not threatened what so ever.
And last time I checked the Embassies that were blown up in Kenya were not military targets.
Can you say that Bush is doing a good job pretecting us?
55 - Temple Stark
Not until you make a better case.
Oen that doesn't cede one of your main points that we haven't been attacked since 9-11-2001. Though thanks for the honesty on that.
Put it this way - what do soldiers say they fight for?
56 - Ebony Ghost
I would like to point out that nowhere in the Constitution is George Bush blessed with the responsibility of protecting us. That fine distinction falls to We The People (unless, of course you figure the second Amendment was just thrown in to help reach the word limit).
One problem is that, as Ruvy pointed out, we fail to recognize just who the enemy is. The friend of my enemy is my enemy. And, occupying the position of Commander in Chief of our armed forces does not shield him from any consideration that "enemies domestic" would include ANYONE with the power to harm our nation.
The erosion of our civil liberties is not a twenty-first century phenomenon. I'm sure that the framers of the Constitution would be aghast at the idea that the government would feel free to go around kicking in people's doors of that one could be imprisoned for the contents of their pockets. But, people are O.K. with this. They're happy to have the freedom to do anything they are allowed to do, as this has somehow come to be equated with liberty. Woe unto he who would engage in unauthorized activity for I need to feel safe, though I will lift no finger to protect myself.
So, we allow ourselves to be herded and protected. This is the legacy of freedom we leave to our posterity.
57 - Temple Stark
Well, certainly a president can become an enemy. Just the same as any American can.
58 - Natalie Davis
Understatement there.
59 - Temple Stark
It's the British upbringing. I could never get that upper lip to stiffen though :-)
60 - gonzo marx
some starch perhaps?
or we could just crazy glue a bit of sheet metal there
if you are moustachioed then we can easily apply about a half inch of poly urethane
tha should do it
but i digress...
Excelsior!
61 - Margaret Romao Toigo
This was an excellent article that should make a lot of people think. There are very few out there who completely reject any anti-terrorism policies that violate civil liberties.
Those who may feel and think the same way but are afraid to say so because of the fear mongering that has made such assertions unpopular need to know that they are not alone and that rejecting security measures that violate our civil liberties is not some radical "fringe element" notion.
I especially liked the part about how our leaders should seek to change the will of the majority -- without the use of fear mongering propaganda -- rather than simply pander to it.
We elect our representatives to represent our will as well as our best interests and they should uphold the latter when the former is threatening to take us in an unconstitutional, unprincipled or just plain irrational direction -- as is the case when the majority cannot rise above its fear of terrorism to see that tyranny is the greater evil.
Sadly, I believe that Temple is likely correct that another terrorist attack would break the American will. I would much rather take exception with him on that point, but I cannot find compelling evidence to support that argument.
Although I do like to think there is hope that we might someday elect a leadership that works to inspire our courage, instead of stoking our fears.
62 - alpha
Temple. Fine start to this long, exciting argument. Needless to say I agree with you. But Aaman gets a prize for turning the argument toward trial by poetry.
If that could be continued it would be a far, far better site we have than we have ever had before. And that is called a literary illusion. Just as George Bush is really a political illusion... or allusion as the case may be.
It is almost 2 AM here so I can't write a coherent cry for freedom and constitutionalism so it is a fine thing that you already have and Aaman reminded us that Langston Hughes (and others) also cried out for freedom and against using fear and terror(ism) to build a political power base.
63 - Dave Nalle
If only it were an illusion, but in fact it was an allusion. But here's some poetry for you.
The Fabulists
When all the world would keep a matter hid,
Since Truth is seldom Friend to any crowd,
Men write in fable, as old Aesop did,
Jesting at that which none will name aloud.
And this they needs must do, or it will fall
Unless they please they are not heard at all.
When desperate Folly daily laboureth
To work confusion upon all we have,
When diligent Sloth demandeth Freedom's death,
And banded Fear commandeth Honour's grave--
Even in that certain hour before the fall,
Unless men please they are not heard at all.
Needs must all please, yet some not all for need,
Needs must all toil, yet some not all for gain,
But that men taking pleasure may take heed.
Whom present toil shall snatch from later pain.
Thus some have toiled, but their reward was small
Since, though they pleased, they were not heard at all.
This was the lock that lay upon our lips,
This was the yoke that we have undergone,
Denying us all pleasant fellowships
As in our time and generation.
Our pleasures unpursued age past recall,
And for our pains--we are not heard at all.
What man hears aught except the groaning guns?
What man heeds aught save what each instant brings?
When each man's life all imaged life outruns,
What man shall pleasure in imaginings?
So it hath fallen, as it was bound to fall,
We are not, nor we were not, heard at all.
--- Rudyard Kipling (1918)
64 - Scott Butki
Temple - great post, great thread.
I was looking at your blog for your email address and didn't see it so I'll respond here re:
Hi. I saw your comment at my fotolog. Can you tell me if the page is easier to read now?Was that when you were trying to say.
I've always been a word guy, not an visual-design guy
Fixed my typo too
Scott
65 - reggie von woic
Terrorists: America's scariest nightmare.
Here's a riddle for you.
--I preach peace.
--I posess the most destructive weapons 'just in case'.
--I attempt to take away existent (or non-existent) WMD, to no avail, by the way from 'dangerous nations' at a huge cost to both myself and the nation in question.
--I then sit at home askin people 'who and why would anyone do such a thing to us'?
who am i?
66 - Richard Brodie
Sadly, I believe that Temple is likely correct that another terrorist attack would break the American will.
I disagree. Another large scale attack, especially a nuclear one, would galvanize America to finally get serious about putting an end to the scourge of Islamic terrorism once and for all, along the lines that Ruvy has wisely indicated would be the only really effective way.
67 - reggie von woic
Another large scale attack is inevitable. Its gonna come and we all know it.
No way its over, not yet (ever?).
Heard of EMP?
I hear that [Deleted] has it. Forget nuclear attacks, imagine wiping off an american city's (or state's ) electricity, considering how practically everything in America is electrically powered.
68 - James
It can happen any time any where America always has to be ready because i wouldnt be surprised if it happened again but in future at least we will be more aware
69 - bliffle
Only if the president actually reads the intel memo a month beforehand.
Only if the National Security Advisor sees fit to bring the warning to his attention.
70 - TS
Can we NOT give this 2006 piece a 2008 date? I'd rather not have my piece misrepresented so egregiously. What happened? Is there a reasonable explanation?
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
AGAIN, this piece was written in 2006 but was given a 2008 date.
71 - Dave Nalle
TS, as far as I can tell from the tracking system that 2008 was in the title from the time it was published 2 years ago. The thread was brought back by the recent comments, not the date in the title. I've removed it so you can rest easy.
Dave