Obama Continues Bush's Illegal Drone Surveillance

[Rome]

If we have to keep an eye on our citizens to prevent terrorism then so be it.

Fine.  Volunteer yourself and your family for state-sponsored monitoring.

Just leave me and my family out of it.

[Phanatic]

Don't have to. We've already been asimulated. Heck we don't even get offered virgins!!

[DutchBird]

The only islamic country I can think of that has their shtein together is Turkey. Guess what? You don't hear about terrorists from Turkey.

If we have to keep an eye on our citizens to prevent terrorism then so be it. As soon as it is abused, and knowing human nature and governments it will be, then there should be a process in place to prosecute and attack that problem. This is the new era we live in. The Have nots are working outside of their shteiny governments to go after the haves.... us!

And you are wrong with the interpretation there, I think...

The reason why Turkey is not a religious inspired state is because Ataturk, when he founded modern Turkey in the aftermath of WW I, as a secular state, he put a clause in the constitution that every government has to be approved by the army. The army is what keeps Turkey secular. Most recently less then a decade ago, when an islamist party won the elctions (overwhelmingley) and the army threatened to intervene if certain sections of their political program were not scrapped. Although it is a little blun and generalizing to say, you are not that far of when you state that modern Turkey stops 2 miles from the city-limits of Istanbul, Ankara and the beach-resorts.

Second, Turkey does not get much press because it is, politically, a very useful ally for the United States. Turkey has waged a campaign against the Kurds that short of the use of chemical weapons was as bad or even more destructive then what Saddam did towrds the Shiites and Kurds. Turkey has in the past, and in some respects to this day, had a ruthless policy of "Turkification" that can be compared to elements of the Balkan Wars of the 1990's, and even policies of Arianization/Germanification and resettlement as implemented by Hitler between 1938 and 1945. Turkey to this day denies the Armenian Holocaust (over 1 million dead, and some historians argue that this is where Hitler got some of his crucial ideas for the Jewish genocide from, especially the "deathmarches" and mass shootings as occurred before the widespread use of carbon-monoxide and chemicals). In fact, any mention of this is still punishable by law.
As a reward the US has been pushing heavily to admit Turkey to the EU (dating back to at least the 80's).

Anyway, they still know terrorism... both the Kurdish element and Islamist element (which at times make the press over here) as well as from ultra-nationalist Turks towards non-Turks (theseseldomly make the press over here).

Turkey simply has not been hit by fullscale terrorism for a couple of reasons, IMHO (listed in no paticular order):

• Turkey is a muslim country, but not an Arab country (just like Iran). Also, their brand of Islam is not as extreme as the versions preached in Saudi-Arabia and Iran (which differ from eachother considerably, with IMHO the Saudi from way more oppressive, especially concerning women). The fact that they are muslim, already makes them a less likely target, as it is harder for the terrorists tojustify an attack on fellow muslims. In fact, even in Iraq these terrorists are running into justification problems some of their attacks, predominantly those that exclusively target civilians who are NOT cooperating with the occupation forces.
  
• Despite the fact that the army is all powerful (and almost untouchable) Turkey does not have a regime that is as oppressive and corrupt as say that of Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and Algeria. So the support among the population for this kind of terrorism is less. The fact that Turkey is more and more dependent on Western Europe only decreases further support.
  
• Turkey can not be accused of any cooperation concerning Iraq. In fat, it has won great respect (at least among large sections of Arab/mulim society) for refusing to bow for the bribes and bullying by the Bush administration. So again, the terrorists lack justification.
  
• Other regimes make far better and juicier targets. The West for their imperialist policies... and the regimes in Saudi-Arabia and Egypt because of the generall dissatisfaction among large sectionf of the population.
  

If there, IMHO ever had been a "western" muslim country, which had it's shtein together it would be Lebanon.... before Israel and Syria screwed things up over there... and IMHO there is good hope that they can get there as well. As long as both Syria and Israel stay out of it. And then in fact, one could argue it would make as good if not a better EU candidate then Turkey, Ukraine, Israel.

The idea that this is needed to keep a country safe, IMHO, is a fallacy. Not only that, but you  are relying on the goodwill and faith of those in power or (probably more correct) those running these operations, to not abuse them. Which, IMHO is a huge risk, and a risk not worth taking. Because, behind the scenes, the government has now appropriated for itself a good number of powers that enables the Syrian regime to keep control (and terrorism down) or the KGB, Gestapo and SD to found their reign of terror.
In fact, almost all, if not all, of the provisions Hitler used to get into power were put in there by the victorious Allies of WW I, and the flaws were known, but everybody relied on good faith that eventally what happened would not happen. Bush himself might not have the intention to go this far, some of those around him might not, but someone in the future might... in fact, even today with the current provisions there might be some who abuse the system.

[Rome]

I'm embarrassed that a non-American can state a case for liberty more eloquently than any of us.

Absolutely excellent post, Dutch.

Well done.   

[JTrotter Fan]

War and Peace.  Read it!

[Diomedes]

I have read it.  It has nothing to do with terrorism or civil rights.  Tolstoy had bigger fish to fry.

Thanks for joining the fray, Dutch.

[MadMarchHare]

Now who's delusional?  That line's from Caddyshack.

[Geowhizzer]

Lebanon is much different from other "Muslim" nations in that only 60% of the population is Muslim.  Approximately 40% is Christian.

[Phanatic]

Excellent Post Dutch. I feel smarter for having read it.

I do think that the more affluent countries that aren't as repressive to their population breed less terrorism. My example was a bit short sighted however.

In saying that I think that this power will be abused. I know it will be because all human endeavor is flawed. The great thing to be about America is that it will be policed and reacted too when that happens and I just can not believe that the entire US government would take advantage of these powers on such a grand scale. Maybe that is because I know folks that work for DOD and the FBI. Maybe that is because I worked for the US government in the military and I know people still doing the job.

I guess I'm just an optimist about it. I know there will be mistakes and flaws and I feel it will all work out in the end. I think the overall positives of preventing an attack will outweigh the mistakes. Certainly the mistakes will get all the press though because that sells.

[MURP]

um... dutchbird for prez? 

[DutchBird]

Lebanon is much different from other "Muslim" nations in that only 60% of the population is Muslim.  Approximately 40% is Christian.

I know that Lebanon had quite a large Christian population... though their numbers have been on the decline (relatively). But what is most remarkable about Lebanon both before the civil war and now is that their are all kinds of provisions within the constitution that safeguard rights of others. Provisions that, to my knowledge, are far more solid and less susceptible to manipulation and abuse and have far less loopholes then what is now being implemented in Iraq. In principle it is the most democratic country in the muslim world.

By the way, on the "democracy"-list of muslim countries Iran probably would rank fairly high. Certainly above the staunch allies in the "war on terror."

[DutchBird]

Excellent Post Dutch. I feel smarter for having read it.

I do think that the more affluent countries that aren't as repressive to their population breed less terrorism. My example was a bit short sighted however.

In saying that I think that this power will be abused. I know it will be because all human endeavor is flawed. The great thing to be about America is that it will be policed and reacted too when that happens and I just can not believe that the entire US government would take advantage of these powers on such a grand scale. Maybe that is because I know folks that work for DOD and the FBI. Maybe that is because I worked for the US government in the military and I know people still doing the job.

I guess I'm just an optimist about it. I know there will be mistakes and flaws and I feel it will all work out in the end. I think the overall positives of preventing an attack will outweigh the mistakes. Certainly the mistakes will get all the press though because that sells.

Thanks for the compliments....

I agree with you that if it gets too far out of hand, the people will react. It is a given... for me, the more important question is how much damage I think will be done before the country/people reacts, and how much of it is irreversible.

Where I have little faith, and that goes for almost any powerfull organization, wether government, military or business, is the abuse element. What, IMHO history has shown is that it can take very few people at a few crucial spots to gain horrific results. They do not necessarily even have to have the same interests, but just some common elements within their interests...

And to go back to WW II, one of the most shocking realizations after the war both in Germany and the occupied countries was for how easy it was for humans to compartimentalize, and just ignore the big picture by simply doing their job... the basic problem of every single bureaucracy. It is stunning to see or read how it took only a few men (with largely different interests) to turn the German Gestapo or the German Gruene Polizei (regular police) in instruments of terror. IIRC one of the most stunning turnarounds was the fact that one of the most avid Nazi-hunters of the 1920's became IIRC head of the SD before the end of WW II. And he could completely rationalize it away. In general, it is stunning to see how easily and fast it was to turn bureaucracies around for the Germans in occupied countries... and they didn't do it by replacing 90% of personnel.
IIRC Klaus Barby is one of the greatest war criminals in French history. Not because he shot Jews or ordered them to be shot. No, his crime was that he rubberstamped the transports that sent over 100,000 Jews to their deaths in Eastern Poland and Byelo-Russia.

Concerning these kinds of laws, one of the more remarcable things IMHO is that countries which have a far greater history with terrorism (like Spain, UK, but even the likes of India and Indonesia) are not implementing anything as close as stringent as the USA Patriot Act. In fact, when Blair tried to do something in that direction he was, in a political sense, completely destroyed, AFAIK (maybe Bobby and Henchman can clarify this further).

The idea that this is necessary to prevent further terrorism is a fallacy, IMHO. It was a given that the US would get hit, just as it was that England would get hit, and chances are that we will get hit as well. Sheer size of both the country and the influx of people and goods is a guarantee. The question should not be if terrorism will stike, but when.
And many (as in 95+%) of the potential terrorists will not be caught by these kind of measures that would not, if competently applied, have been caught by other measues. there are those who argue that anyone caught by this methods who would have not been caught  by measures already in place are caught through  luck rather then anything else. The London bombers would IIRC never have been caught, not even with the measuress of the Patriot Act, unless they had cameras installed everywhere etc, etc, etc. Numerous attacks have been prevented on this side of the Atlantic without such invasive laws and methods as currently employed or suggested by this administration.
Add to that the fact that it probably is impossible to treat the data found the way they should have been. Because there will be too much of it, for too few men. And then the question is, are you willing to accept the setbacks... of which the one mentioned below is one of the lesser...

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsa...OFLY.xml&rpc=22

US no-fly list vexes travelers from babies on up

Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:12 AM ET166

By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sarah Zapolsky was checking in for a flight to Italy when she discovered her 9-month-old son's name was on the United States' "no-fly" list of suspected terrorists.

"We pointed down to the stroller, and he sat there and gurgled," Zapolsky said, recalling the incident at Dulles International Airport outside Washington in July. "The desk agent started laughing. ... She couldn't print us out a boarding pass because he's on the no-fly list."

Zapolsky, who did not want her son's name made public, said she was initially amused by the mix-up. "But when I found out you can't actually get off the list, I started to get a bit annoyed."

Zapolsky isn't alone.

According to the Transportation Security Administration, more than 28,000 people have applied to the TSA redress office to get on the "cleared list," which takes note of individuals whose names are similar to those on the terrorism watch list, but does not guarantee an end to no-fly list hassles.

[MadMarchHare]

The Patriot Act wasn't put in place to catch terrorists.  It was put in place to lay the groundwork of usurping power.  I honestly believe that.  The question then becomes - will the Congress do anything about it.  It's pretty clear to me that the current administration has stopped even caring what the general populace thinks.  They're already doing whatever they want and damn the consequences.

If the Congress won't step in, then it falls back to the populace, which the founding fathers understood all too well.  The guardians of liberty aren't politicians, it's the governed.  Most people have forgotten this.  You can either flee the country and say USA be damned, or you can stay and fight.  With two small kids, I'm not sure what I'll do if it comes to that.  My inclination is to ship them off and fight.  But reality is a lot different than the movies....

[Rome]

Damn straight.  They had all these ideas stored away somewhere and when 9/11 happened, they collectively realized they could put these ridiculous ideas into practice without so much as a peep from a scared American populace.  What they didn't count on, obviously, was that after the initial fervor died down, people would start questioning the practices and then start screaming about them.

That's happening now as you can see from yesterday's dismissal of the Patriot Act by the Senate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051217/ap_on_go_co/patriot_act   

Bush and his pals are in full retreat now.  Therefore, I fully expect a terrorist incident to occur any day now because without fear to prop them up, they have nothing.

[JTrotter Fan]

Our government is totally farged.  The problem is, nothing will ever be done about it.  I can't do anything, you can't do anything our kids can't do anything.  It's as corrupt as organized crime. 

I spy on you.  You spy on me.  So what?  What do you do that you don't want to the government to know about?  Do you find your life that important that the government can't see it?  I could care less if they see me sitting here tonight, lying on the floor and watching my son play with his toys.  Big fargin deal.  What do you do that is so private that they haven't already seen?