Aren't most of these "horrors" of the PA electronic? Looking for patterns in transactions, phone-calling, purchases.
I don't think OBL's motivations are quite so simple. My own belief is that OBL is primarily interested in setting up a modern Caliphate with him, or at least someone who follows Wahibism, as its leader. The West, secular and moderate regimes in predominately muslim countries and dissension in the Islam stand in the way of that being accomplished. To get past those things he needs to forment a war of civilizations and cultures and the best way to do that is to attack West in the name of Islam using historical and modern injustices as the stated motivation. What he's counting on is what we are giving him a big counter reaction that he can then legitimately argue is proof that the West really is out to destroy Islam and that secular regimes and Islamic dissension stand in the way of uniting to defend Islam against the West. So while I agree that OBL could care less about whether we wait inline at airports are not, I don't think he hates us ore really cares about our freedom, he wants a heavy handed reaction by us towards Muslims in general. I also agree that there is an eliment of desiring revenge upon the West and the US in particular but I think all of that fits into a greater context of gaining power for him and his movement. Remember the Al Qaeda means "the base" or "foundation" and not "vengeance" or something poetic like "the sword of justice". I believe its meant to represent the foundation from which a new Caliphate will be built from.
Here's a question to the forum. What do people, particularly those in favor of the Patriot Act, think of RICO (The Federal Racketeering and Corrupt Organization Act not some guy named Rico for the inevitable smart@ss replies)? The reason why I ask this is because RICO is an example of what I see as the potential longterm problems with the Patriot Act and why its a bad idea making many of its provisions permanent. I think most of us agree that the Fed needs to aggressively pursue the Mafia but I don't think many of us would agree with using RICO to go after anti-abortion protestors. The problem with the Patriot Act is that while its targetted at terrorism inevitably it will be used to go after all sorts of things. John Ashcroft's Justice Dept. even drafted recommendations for prosecutors to use the Patriot Act to go after non-Terrorists related issues. So even if the threat of Al Qaeda and foreign terrorism were to abate the Patriot Act will continue to be around being aplied to all sorts of things. So what was intended to deal with an imminent crisis will be a permanent decrease of our civil liberties.
Excellent post Sishir! Weren't some of the provisions of the PA used to track down the dems in Texas last year when they left the state in protest over redistricting?
Excellent analysis, and I think you are exactly right about what you said. If you notice, Al-Qaeda seems to be going out of its way to make sure that Muslims (especially those living in Western societies) are implicated as part of "the problem" and are viewed with suspicion from their fellow countrymen, be it in Britain or the U.S. The hope is that Muslims living in the West would experience a backlash from their societies, and that way he could divide Western societies and incite racism and bigotry in the West, which would in turn create resentment and fear -- turning into anger -- in hopes of convincing those Muslims in the West that this IS as war against Islam and all Muslims, which would provide extremists worldwide with bases of support in the heart of Western society. The heavy-handed response is not only predicted by Al-Qaeda, but in fact endorsed. In that sense, they want a man like Bush in power (whom Bin Laden himself called "predictable" and someone he doesn't mind to "deal with" because of the similarities he exhibits when compared to "our regimes in the region"). As for the issue of creating a powerbase from which an Al-Qaeda version of the Caliphate could be established, that also is true. The first speech given by Bin Laden mentioned one and only one thing: the need for American troops to evacuate the "Holy Land of Arabia", which Bin Laden said was ruled by a "tyrannical regime" that is nothing more than a puppet of the "Americans and the Zionists". THAT was his sole issue according to his first televised speech, which leads me to believe that his only concern was (and remains to be IMO) to be able to kick the American military presence out of Saudi, which would enable him to at least have a chance (which I think he doesn't regradless of American military presence) at toppling the current Saudi regime. I think that's what Bin Laden means by "Al-Qaeda", which literally means "The Base". So what do you know? I guess Bin Laden is just another "revolutionary" radical who is trying to acquire political power through violence (which the region's history has seen far too many of).
Giddy, you and vlaurelio say, or imply, that we put Saddam in power. (I assume you think we did that through covert CIA ops.) We did not. I wrote a fairly long post about it a while back, which I haven't the time to dig up, but Saddam managed to ride his tribal family (killing some of them along the way) to power without our help, thank you very much. This wasn't a Shah/Iran operation at all. Mango knows a great deal about it, if he choses to chime in. We did give him important support during the bloody Iraq/Iran War, which lasted several years. There is a famous photo of a much younger Rumsfeld, grinning like a loon while shaking Saddam's hand, from back then. It was a classic, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," routine. This was when we had an actual, functioning foreign policy... something foreign to the current Bush Administration. Bush Senior was an underrated master of it. (see Gulf War I) Just an friendly FYI. Carry on. Some of this is fun reading, and I love seeing some "old timers" posting in D&D again. Long may it continue. Keep D&D Civil!!
you know what I'm saying.. not focusing on more important matters first - North Korea & Iran, twisting intelligence to justify Iraq war, providing breeding ground for terrorists, outing cia agent just to name a few..
You asked about the "original justification"-- singular specific not this laundry list. Rather than guess what you had in mind, I was just asking.
I might be wrong here, but I am guessing he is referring to the Bush proclomation of an "iminent threat" of "WMD" that Iraq supposedly had, as well as their alleged attempt to acquire "yellow cake" from Niger, which Joe Wilson and his CIA wife dismissed as faulty intel and said as much to the Bush people, who in turn didn't like the way Joe Wilson was sabotaging their carefully designed plans to invade Iraq with or without concrete evidence to their WMD claims, and in turn unleashed the administration's own "bulldog" Rove to coordinate a smear operation against Wilson and out his CIA wife. Obviously, since the WMD myth was debunked, we are on reasons number 4 and 5 as to why we invaded Iraq, which continues to evolve into other reasons/justifications as the conflict rolls on, which in turn has created a credibility gap that has led the nation to now question the entire Iraq operation and now largely oppose it altogether. But again, I could be wrong, that might not be what he's refering to.
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 21, 2005 Don't Reauthorize the Patriot Act Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 3199) in no way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or allays concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be used to abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this bill has revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses. However, simply sunsetting troublesome provisions does not settle the debates around the PATRIOT Act. If the PATRIOT Act is constitutional and needed, as its proponents swear, why include sunset provisions at all? If it is unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately? The sunset clauses do perform one useful service in that they force Congress to regularly re-examine the PATRIOT Act. As the people’s representatives, it is our responsibility to keep a close eye on the executive branch to ensure it does not abuse its power. Even if the claims of HR 3199’s supporters that there have been no abuses of PATRIOT Act powers under this administration are true, that does not mean that future administrations will not abuse these powers. HR 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the library provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. HR 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause. Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in no way hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing, federal authorities still would have numerous tools available to investigate and monitor the activities of non-citizens suspected of terrorism. Second, restoring the Fourth Amendment protections would in no way interfere with the provisions of the PATRIOT Act removing the firewalls that prevented the government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information. The probable cause requirements will not delay a terrorist investigation. Preparations can be made for the issuance of a warrant in the event of an emergency, and allowances can be made for cases where law enforcement does not have time to obtain a warrant. In fact, a requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement focus their efforts on true threats, thus avoiding the problem of information overload that is handicapping the government’s efforts to identify sources of terrorist financing. The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a judge preserves the Founders’ system of checks and balances that protects against one branch gathering too much power. The Founders recognized that one of the chief dangers to liberty was the concentration of power in a few hands, which is why they carefully divided power among the three branches. I would remind those of my colleagues who claim that we must set aside the constitutional requirements during war that the founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergences. My colleagues should also keep in mind that PATRIOT Act powers have already been used in non-terrorism related cases, most notably in a bribery investigation in Nevada. Mr. Speaker, HR 3199 does take some positive steps toward restoring respect for constitutional liberties and checks and balances that the original PATRIOT Act stripped away. However, it still leaves in place large chunks of legislation that threaten individual liberty by giving law enforcement power to snoop into American citizens’ lives without adequate oversight. This power is unnecessary to effectively fight terrorism. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.link
The Patriot Act Four Years Later Congressman Ron Paul July 25, 2005 Congress passed legislation last week that reauthorizes the Patriot Act for another 10 years, although the bill faced far more opposition than the original Act four years ago. I’m heartened that more members of Congress are listening to their constituents, who remain deeply skeptical about the Patriot Act and expansions of federal police power in general. They rightfully wonder why Congress is so focused on American citizens, while bin Laden and other terrorist leaders still have not been captured. The tired arguments we’re hearing today are that same ones we heard in 2001 when the Patriot Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. If the Patriot Act is constitutional and badly needed, as its proponents swear, why were sunset provisions included at all? If it’s unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately? All of this nonsense about sunsets and reauthorizations merely distracts us from the real issue, which is personal liberty. America was not founded on a promise of security, it was founded on a promise of personal liberty to pursue happiness. One prominent Democratic opined on national television that “most of the 170 page Patriot Act is fine,” but that it needs some fine tuning. He then stated that he opposed the ten-year reauthorization bill on the grounds that Americans should not have their constitutional rights put on hold for a decade. His party’s proposal, however, was to reauthorize the Patriot Act for only four years, as though a shorter moratorium on constitutional rights would be acceptable! So much for the opposition party and its claim to stand for civil liberties. Unfortunately, some of my congressional colleagues referenced the recent London bombings during the debate, insinuating that opponents of the Patriot Act somehow would be responsible for a similar act here at home. I won’t even dignify that slur with the response it deserves. Let’s remember that London is the most heavily monitored city in the world, with surveillance cameras recording virtually all public activity in the city center. British police officials are not hampered by our 4th amendment nor our numerous due process requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters of the Patriot Act want our own police to act. Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be made completely safe against determined terrorists. Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings don’t prove the need for the Patriot Act, they prove the folly of it. The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice: Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political question of our day, but it’s quickly forgotten by politicians who once promised to stand for smaller government. Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that.link
I strongly disagree with this. Bin Laden is smart enough to know that there is no chance of him or someone of his ilk being at the center of any Caliphate. No outcast or rogue like Bin Laden, even with Saudi lineage could ever dream of being legitimized by the Muslim world as the next Caliph. The Arabs would never rally around someone who does not directly descend from Muhammad. The concept of forming a Caliphate is not as simple as anyone with some power or influence assuming control and declaring himself ruler of the Muslim lands. The Muslims would have to pledge him their allegiance and support and this claim could only be made by someone of noble heritage. Bin Laden is already a polarizing figure enough as it is, much less anyone with any blood nobility. So no, I don't think this is Bin Laden's mission at all. He knows he can never legitimately gain the support of the Muslim world.
