PATRIOT Act II = VICTORY Act?

[zakur]

From this story (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60129,00.html) in Wired:Congress may consider a bill that not only expands the government's wiretapping and investigative powers but also would link low-level drug dealing to terrorism and ban a traditional form of Middle Eastern banking.

The draft legislation -- titled the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or Victory Act -- includes significant portions of the so-called Patriot Act II, which faced broad opposition from conservatives and liberals alike and embarrassed the Justice Department when it was leaked to the press in February.

The Victory Act also seems to be an attempt to merge the war on terrorism and the war on drugs into a single campaign. It includes a raft of provisions increasing the government's ability to investigate, wiretap, prosecute and incarcerate money launderers, fugitives, "narco-terrorists" and nonviolent drug dealers. The bill also outlaws hawalas, the informal and documentless money transferring systems widely used in the Middle East, India and parts of Asia.

A June 27 draft of the bill, authored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by four fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, has been circulating in Washington, D.C.

Critics say the bill is an opportunistic attempt to link the fight against drugs to the fight against terrorism by creating a new crime called "narco-terrorism." According to the draft, narco-terrorism is the crime of selling, distributing or manufacturing a controlled substance with the intent of helping a terrorist group.

[Upchurch]

"Narco-terrorism"?

Narco-terrorism??

ugh. Canada is looking better and better...

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"Narco-terrorism"?

Narco-terrorism??

ugh. Canada is looking better and better...

Agreed. I'm about ready to buy a solar-powered Winnebago and head north until the nazis are out of power here.

[rikzilla]

The left wing is victorious in JREF!

....but while you guys were partying,.... :roll: :p

Judge Moore and the righties are taking America. :D :D

...and good for them. The pendulum swings gentlemen. The lefties will only win their way back into power when the righties have gone too far, and the terrorists are all dead or in jail.

IMHO they haven't gone quite far enough yet....but they're beginning to get warm.

-z

Have fun in Canada! Don't let the border gate hit you in the ass.

[Samus]

How exactly does some 18-year-old kid selling pot contribute directly to Osama bin Laden and his corps? Trying to link the two, and punishing the kid like he's a terrorist, is a bad idea.

I'm not for the legalization of drugs, but I am against giving the government more power to interfere with my life. Safety at the expense of liberty is not an option.

[Pyrrho]

'Vast strategic manoeuvre -- perfect co-ordination -- utter rout -- half a million prisoners -- complete demoralization -- control of the whole of Africa -- bring the war within measurable distance of its end victory -- greatest victory in human history -- victory, victory, victory!'

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The left wing is victorious in JREF!whatever :rolleyes:
Judge Moore and the righties are taking America. :D :Dyou think the right is for the quite un-American attempt by Moore to establish a state endorsement of a specific religion? I think you need to check out the news... The only ones backing Moore's actions are the fundy Christians.
The lefties will only win their way back into power when the righties have gone too far, and the terrorists are all dead or in jail."lefties" or "righties", I think they're both going too far and I don't think it will require all the terrorists to be dead or in jail. Mostly because you literally cannot get all the terrorists either dead or in jail.

No. This act is an unimaginable infringement on the inalienable rights of Americans and not at all in accordance with American principles.
IMHO they haven't gone quite far enough yet....but they're beginning to get warm.What would you prefer? Camps for those of middle-eastern descent? That citizens be forced to carry identification papers or risk being jailed? Indescriminate monitoring of all our communications for anything that might be considered "inappropriate"?

What do you want to see happen? What is far enough?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Upchurch

What do you want to see happen? What is far enough?

My tongue was firmly in-cheek there UC.

...but good questions:

What do I want to see happen?
No more terror attacks in the US. GWB gets a big A+ there. The WOT is obviously working as advertised, the terrorists are hiding from the hunters...or attacking soft targets far from the US. This is not because they suddenly think we're great people and they like us now. It's because they have been rendered INCAPABLE. Thank you GWB. Shame on you Bill Clinton.

Score: Doves: 0, Hawks: 1

What is far enough?
Far enough is relative. Since I have love for my fellow man, far enough for me would be when terrorism is punished by the world, and not just the UK/US. I'd like to see an end to terrorism worldwide. It would mean that the rest of the world (including France) stop rewarding terrorism and start implementing remedies that work. They can use the American example. :)

It's hard to argue with success!
-z

BTW: Would someone please tell the UN that using Ba'athist minders as security guards is not a good deterent to Ba'athist terrorism. :rolleyes:

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by rikzilla



BTW: Would someone please tell the UN that using Ba'athist minders as security guards is not a good deterent to Ba'athist terrorism. :rolleyes:

What evidence or sources can you cite that this is the case? What is your evidence that all Ba'athists are security risks and recruiting any of them as security guards will compromise security?

[chulbert]

Originally posted by rikzilla
What do I want to see happen?
No more terror attacks in the US. GWB gets a big A+ there. The WOT is obviously working as advertised, the terrorists are hiding from the hunters...or attacking soft targets far from the US. This is not because they suddenly think we're great people and they like us now. It's because they have been rendered INCAPABLE. Thank you GWB. Shame on you Bill Clinton.

Score: Doves: 0, Hawks: 1

How is it "obviously working"?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


What evidence or sources can you cite that this is the case? For evidence/source click here! (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME)
What is your evidence that all Ba'athists are security risks and recruiting any of them as security guards will compromise security?

You're kidding right? Tell me you're kidding..... :(

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by chulbert


How is it "obviously working"?

Things not going boom in US cities.

....an obvious benefit of even an imperfect implementation of a WOT is that the battlefield is quiet on Manhattan and in DC.

...Or is it because we've moderated our foreign policy and now Bin Laden loves us?

-z

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


...

BTW: Would someone please tell the UN that using Ba'athist minders as security guards is not a good deterent to Ba'athist terrorism. :rolleyes:

Well, if that is really what you think then you may be interested to learn that the USA would rather have more and more Iraqis take over security duties as opposed to sending in more troops. Thus, one should not be surprised if this sort of thing starts happening to Americans.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well, if that is really what you think then you may be interested to learn that the USA would rather have more and more Iraqis take over security duties as opposed to sending in more troops. Thus, one should not be surprised if this sort of thing starts happening to Americans.

I rather doubt your crystal ball's accuracy CB. Why don't you leave the fortune-telling to the professionals? :wink8:

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


I rather doubt your crystal ball's accuracy CB. Why don't you leave the fortune-telling to the professionals? :wink8:

Well, in all fairness, I did not say that these types of attacks would happen, just that one should not be surprised if they do happen.

But maybe you are right and there will be none of these attacks on Americans. Instead, we will just have to deal with the smaller scale shootings and bombings that happen just about every day and which result in at least one more US soldier getting killed over there just about every day.

However if you have a moment, then you may want to review the below article just to see if it confirms your thoughts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29121-2003Aug21.html
General Cites Rising Peril of Terror in Iraq

The top U.S. military commander for the Persian Gulf region said yesterday that terrorism is becoming the "number one security threat" in Iraq, with foreign fighters entering the country through Syria and a revived group called Ansar al-Islam now firmly established in Baghdad.

...

Abizaid [Army Gen. John Abizaid, the head of the U.S. Central Command] said defeating the terrorists should not require increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. Instead, he argued for intensifying efforts to develop new Iraqi security forces and to expand the ranks of peacekeeping forces from other countries. His prescription echoed the strategy outlined earlier in the week by administration officials.

[chulbert]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Things not going boom in US cities.

....an obvious benefit of even an imperfect implementation of a WOT is that the battlefield is quiet on Manhattan and in DC.

...Or is it because we've moderated our foreign policy and now Bin Laden loves us?

Or because they're reloading? To claim success you must demonstrate you prevented acts of terror that would have otherwise occurred.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Things not going boom in US cities.

....an obvious benefit of even an imperfect implementation of a WOT is that the battlefield is quiet on Manhattan and in DC.

...Or is it because we've moderated our foreign policy and now Bin Laden loves us?

-z

Um, aside from the WTC bombing and 9/11, what other major terrorist attacks have happened in those cities? Wasn't there years where no terrorist actions occurred in both of those places? Why are you attributing the lack of such to these policies?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by rikzilla
For evidence/source click here! (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME)


You're kidding right? Tell me you're kidding..... :(

I am missing something. You obviously know something that I don't and you are not communicating what you know of these connections because I ought to be up to speed on the latest theories and evidence and apparant connections.

I don't see where it is stated that Ba'athists were used to secure the UN building that was targeted by the suicide bomb. It mentions rebuilding an Iraqi police force, it does not say that the said police force has been mandated to include Ba'athist recruits.

There is this vague reference to Iraqi security

Kerik, in Iraq to rebuild the police force, said some of the Iraqi personnel initially refused to cooperate with authorities and were being interrogated.

Most of the building's security guards had been placed in jobs at the U.N. facility by Saddam's security service before the war and reported on U.N. staff movements at the Canal Hotel when it was the headquarters for U.N. inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction.



Of course, your response was to mock me and attribute either stupidity, ignorance, or an intentional use of comedy to my request for you to support your claims. Then I was to somehow see the connection between your profound insight and the vague references in the article you posted.

No I will not tell you that I was kidding, so that leaves stupidity and or ignorance on my part. Your continuing rhetoric will eventually show me the truth I am sure. I must try harder to draw the obvious connections between your claims and world events.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Valmorian


Um, aside from the WTC bombing and 9/11, what other major terrorist attacks have happened in those cities? Wasn't there years where no terrorist actions occurred in both of those places? Why are you attributing the lack of such to these policies?

Well, aside from the almost-too-obvious cause/effect, there may well be no real correlation. However, in order to see the whole picture we'll have to look at the past administration's policies.

[Clinton alert]
(forgive me now as I mention the name that sends all liberals into histrionics)

During the Clinton years we had yearly acts of devastating terrorism targeted mostly against American interests overseas. The inept responses made by the Clinton admin (bombing the asprin factory, empty terrorist camps, implementing Desert Fox) did nothing to deter Al Qaida's growth. The first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings, USS Cole, all provoked inadequate/inept responses. 9/11 was planned by Bin Laden during the Clinton admin's last years in power, but then he screwed up and implemented it during GWB's first year. The WOT is the result,and since the WOT began, the yearly terrorism we experienced under Clinton has ended.

I don't know if it can last....but even if a bomb goes off tomorrow GWB has still done far more in his few years as president to secure America and defeat terrorism than Clinton did in 8.

[/Clinton alert]

-zilla

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe



No I will not tell you that I was kidding, so that leaves stupidity and or ignorance on my part. Your continuing rhetoric will eventually show me the truth I am sure. I must try harder to draw the obvious connections between your claims and world events.

Don't worry too much about it,....maybe the UN will hire you as their next security expert. :rolleyes:

Things that need no explanation:
Fire is hot
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Water is wet
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Mountains are high
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Seas are deep
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
The Nazis were bad
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Mother Theresa was good
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Blind people should not drive
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Marriage is between one adult male, and one adult female
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse

Hey, at least the UN is suddenly relevant again....
...I'll be here all week folks.....


-z

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Don't worry too much about it,....maybe the UN will hire you as their next security expert. :rolleyes:



First, I am to tell you that I am kidding,
now you are telling me to not worry? By what authority do you determine what I can or can not worry about? Are questions about your claims inappropriate? If you command me not to question your rhetoric and claims, then thy will be done.


Things that need no explanation:
Fire is hot
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Water is wet
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Mountains are high
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Seas are deep
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
The Nazis were bad
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Mother Theresa was good
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Blind people should not drive
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse
Marriage is between one adult male, and one adult female
The fox should not be used to guard the henhouse

Hey, at least the UN is suddenly relevant again....
...I'll be here all week folks.....


-z



Ah, absolutes and generalisations all of them...

Absolutes that require no explanation, at that, because you have deemed them not to be required to have explanations. Thy will be done.

Have you got more so that we can classify everything so simply so that there is no more uncertainty, so that world and military leaders can make and practice policies in a predictable black and white world?


What evidence is there, or what clues have I unintentionally included in my posts that the UN may hire me as their next security expert? Considering I have not applied for the job, how is it that you came by this information. I am not aware that I am being considered for the job. I wouldn't want it, I am not qualified.
:wink8:


The UN is suddenly relevant again because you say so? Thy will be done.

Thank you for making the world so much more understandable and predictible with your absolute edicts.

[shanek]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Things not going boom in US cities.

And how much of a chance, statistically, was there of a terrorist attack anyway in the relatively short time since 9/11? It was basically ZERO...or at least so close to it that it's laughable to state that some sort of policy prevented it.

[rikzilla]

You're welcome. :)

...my job here is done.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by shanek


And how much of a chance, statistically, was there of a terrorist attack anyway in the relatively short time since 9/11? It was basically ZERO...or at least so close to it that it's laughable to state that some sort of policy prevented it.

Kenya/Tanzania was 08/1998
USS Cole was 10/2000
9/11 was of course 9/2001

It's 8/2003 now.....the terrorists are late. Or is it just that they aren't really trying? Or maybe our policy changes have delighted them and they don't want to hurt us anymore? Wakeup Shane.

So Shane, tell me what was the statistical chance of an aircraft coming through any given window of the WTC at 300mph as of Sept 10th 2001?

Let me answer for you, in your own words; "basically ZERO"

Perhaps it is premature to state that current policy is preventing attacks, but it is not laughable. If terrorist acts were still happening in the US, you would undoubtedly point to them as a failure of current policy....why can't I point to the absence of them as evidence that policy is at least on the right track?

-z

[CapelDodger]

From rizkilla:
WOT is obviously working as advertised, the terrorists are hiding from the hunters...or attacking soft targets far from the US
Al Qaeda has always struck at soft targets. And they have a disastrous policy of using up all their local resources in each attack. When you consider what they've really achieved, and picture what the strategists of the IRA would achieve with the same objectives and resources, these people are laughable. Even in Afghanistan, with the Pak-Taliban available, they were reduced to murdering Ahmad Shah Massood, may his tribe increase.

The US war on terror, and the al-Qaeda war on the US, might as well be happening on different astral planes. Dealing with Afghanistan was clearly a meaningful act, but it seems the real decision-makers in the US were always more concentrated on Iraq - for reasons entirely separate from the WOT. The attention-span problem has kicked in again in Afghanistan, but still and all I will treasure my memories of the Taliban front-line getting carpet-bombed. You'd need a heart of stone not to go "whooo-weee".

Recent successes against al-Qaeda are the result of local governments starting to take action (SE Asia and Saudi), and/or the aforementioned strategy of blowing all your resources in each strike. Pakistan, on the other hand, has gone right back to support of the Taliban - and what do we hear about that? If the US wants to make inroads against Islamic terrorism they should have followed Afghanistan with Pakistan. In that, they would have the support of India, China and a large number of Pakistanis. As it is, India (which offered support to the US, but was ignored) is faced with a much calmer situation in Kashmir now that the Islamists are busy in Afghanistan again. The Pakistanis received hundreds of millions in US subsidy, plus all sorts of relaxation of sanctions (this is an Islamic nuclear state, which was a matter of some concern a few years ago), and played a double-game all the time.

What the US establishment can never grasp is that foreigners are so much better at diplomacy and duplicity than they are. The Old World has been at it for thousamds of years. A US diplomat that comes to understand a society and tries to explain things to colleagues is regarded as having gone native. Americans are quick to complain that, when they get involved, everybody wants a piece of them, but they fail to notice that everybody gets a piece of them.

[CapelDodger]

from rizkilla:
The inept responses made by the Clinton admin ...
When he did make those responses, the VRWC was accusing him of diverting attention from the Lewinsky affair. What would have been their response if he'd launched a full-scale invasion of Arghanistan?

[CapelDodger]

from shanek:
And how much of a chance, statistically, was there of a terrorist attack anyway in the relatively short time since 9/11? It was basically ZERO...or at least so close to it that it's laughable to state that some sort of policy prevented it.
Zero is absolute, not "basically". Clinton's VP, what was his name?, anyway it seems that he was in charge of an analysis of airport security in the US, as a response to the changing nature of terrorism (as evidenced by al-Qaeda). A report was produced, and the recommendations regarding international flights were implemented. However the recommendations concerning internal flights would have meant, according to the airlines, the death of air-travel in the US and probably a complete melt-down of the economy. They were not implemented. They have been now, and funnily enough, no end of civilisation.

It's not as if nobody ever mentioned flying a plane into a building before 9-11. It was a stock example of modern society's vulnerability, like a chemical attack on a subway. Winning the lottery is a small but non-zero chance, but often somebody does.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
If the US wants to make inroads against Islamic terrorism they should have followed Afghanistan with Pakistan. In that, they would have the support of India, China and a large number of Pakistanis. As it is, India (which offered support to the US, but was ignored) is faced with a much calmer situation in Kashmir now that the Islamists are busy in Afghanistan again. [/B]

Two small problems with that:

1) Pakistan is a nuclear power.

2) Pakistan is a nuclear power.

(you know the line I'm going to quote so I shan't even bother)

Actually, the reason that Pakistan wasn't next after Afghanistan is the same reason that Saudi Arabia wasn't top of the list from the start. Even though Saudi is the source of the philosophy that underlies much Islamist terrorism, and the home country of most of the World Trade Centre attackers, the regime is pro-US. (Also completely tyrannical but that's never bothered the democratic west before). So America's interests are more easily served by supporting the Saudi regime against the Islamists who are their internal political enemies.

Same in Pakistan. The "president" (generalissimo really) Parvez Musharraf is a pro-US secular ruler, and the party of the PM that Musharraf ousted in a coup is also pretty secular, as things go in Islamic countries. Yes, there's a very powerful Islamist movement, but it doesn't hold the reins of government (except, iirc, for the regional government of the NW Frontier Province, which borders Afghanistan).

Invasion doesn't accomplish much if the guys commanding the army you fight aren't the guys you're after...

Anyway, I think Rikzilla is missing an attack. What about Bali? (Or did they decide that wasn't linked to al-qaida after all, I can't remember...) The more important point, though, Rikzilla, is that two of the attacks you list were not on US soil. Pulling off an attack on US soil is and always has been very difficult for bin Laden's little helpers, and those they did pull off (like the first wtc attack) were less than impressive. The second WTC attack was admittedly terrifying in the damage they were able to do, but I have seen no evidence that they will be able to do anything like that again... and certainly not in the immediate future.

And lest anyone feel tempted to gloat about Afghanistan, please remember that if the Taliban had handed over bin Laden(as Bush demanded), then the entire al-qaida apparatus (apart from that one leader) would still be intact, and Mullah Omar would still rule in Kabul....

[CapelDodger]

From The Mad Linguist:
And lest anyone feel tempted to gloat about Afghanistan, please remember that if the Taliban had handed over bin Laden(as Bush demanded), then the entire al-qaida apparatus (apart from that one leader) would still be intact, and Mullah Omar would still rule in Kabul....
Not the sharpest tools in the box, are they? That's probably the main reason why we'll beat them (hope I'm not being presumptious with the "we") is their determined stupiidity. When one soldier knows how a gun works, and the other thinks there are demons trapped in the cartidge that get angry when the firing-pin hits them, who clears a jam more quickly?

The "president" (generalissimo really) Parvez Musharraf is a pro-US secular ruler,
Sorry, far too simplistic. You have to delve pretty deeply into the history of Pakistan (not a long history) before you can believe just what a disaster it is. It was created by a British faction for Jinnah, who had the ill-grace to be dying of cancer by independence. It was the first modern Islamic state; which means what? Because it's also secular and democratic - as required in 1949. The whole place is a complete nonsense. The British motivation - which was shared by a minority of politicians but had strong backing in the military and diplomatic services - was to create a nonsense that would always have to depend on foreign allies - that is, the British. Giving Britain an entry-point to the region in future if needed. A direct parallel with Kuwait in the 20's.

While Pakistan is only an irritant to India, which gets on with having a life, Pakistan can only define itself in relation to India. Shared Islam means nothing when you're comparing the Pashtuns to the coastal Pakistanis. (The Pashtuns, by the way, objected to the creation of Pakistan. They preferred not to be effectively ruled by distant Delhi than not to be by nearby Islamabad.) Even the military leaders have to pander to all the different groups, including the Pashtun insistence that no law but Sharia law is valid in an Islamic state (which means what?).

While Pakistan is only an irritant to India, which gets on with having a life, Pakistan can only define itself in relation to India. Since they can never defeat India, rather than sit there gnawing their own feet off in frustration they invent strategies to justify things they can do. Like cause death and disaster in Kashmir, or achieve "strategic depth" by establishing a client in Afghanistan. The blow-back, of course, has been that the Islamists have become more influential in the ISI and the civil service than the army is.

I've given this some thought, and there is only one solution that I can come up with. Form a new country called Pashtunistan, comprising southern Afghanistan and the hill-country of Pakistan. Coastal Pakistan joins India and gets immediately richer and safer. Northern Afghanistan can breathe a sigh of relief and get a life, based on the ancient Great City of Kabul. And the Pashtuns can go back to killing each other and not bothering the rest of us.

[The Mad Linguist]

Hmm, what you've said doesn't exactly jibe with my understanding of what went on around Indian independence... although I agree, it's a mess and the former British Empire is largely to blame.

But it doesn't refute my main point - which is that the US's best bet for dealing with Islamist support in Pakistan for al-qaida is to support the Musharraf government, which courts the radicals but, when push comes to shove, will side with the US.

Musharraf IS secular by the standards of most Middle-East states. And he IS pro-US, by the standards of most Middle-East states. And he's certainly a dictator who took power by military coup, whihc is why I say "generalissimo".

[CapelDodger]

From The Mad Linguist:
Hmm, what you've said doesn't exactly jibe with my understanding of what went on around Indian independence...
Well, the Muslim League was formed in 1906 very much with the encouragement of the British, and the secretary to the Viceroy described its formation as "... the pulling back of 62 millions of people from joining the ranks of the seditious opposition [Congress]". The League never sought independence and all its actions seem to have been directed at disrupting Congress. It only took on partition as a policy when independence became inevitable. It was associated with rejectionists on the British side throughout. Overall I think my interpretation is tenable, but then I would.

The Kuwait situation is clearer, since in those days there was no embarrassment about slicing up ground for your own convenience. Discussion was quite open (the government papers are available) inside and outside government. Again, those Brits that rejected independence fell back on creating a toehold, a client state which could strangle Iraq at will by closing off the Gulf. At first it was a client of Britain, later the US. The point of the place was entirely forgotten in 1990; if one regiment of US troops had been in the country to engage in "routine and long-planned joint manoeuvres with a valued ally" Saddam wouldn't have been able to mis-calculate. If he invaded he would clash with the US and the US would kick his ass in response.

Re Pakistan, it wasn't only the term "Muslim State" that was undefined. The very term "Muslim" was undefined. A quote from the Munir Report in the 50's
.If we adopt the definition of any one of the ulemas we remain Muslims ... but unbelievers according to everybody else ... The net result of this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Akl-i-Haddith nor Barelvis are Muslims
(Of course in modern Pakistan we have frequent, organised attacks by Sunnis on Shias.) The manufactured nature of the place - and poorly-manufactured at that - becomes horribly clear.

Musharraf IS secular by the standards of most Middle-East states. And he IS pro-US, by the standards of most Middle-East states.
We clearly need to mobilise the good guys in Pakistan. But that's asking any government to cut off an offending hand. As currently constituted Pakistan is its own enemy. Put a line around coastal Pakistan and define the hill-people as non-Pakistani - combatting them becomes much easier.

I don't see the Saudis as the more dangerous mostly because of numbers. There just aren't many Saudis and they can be fairly easily observed. In Pakistan there are huge numbers, and teeming, anonymous cities. The nuclear capability issue certainly needs to be taken account of, but I think it could be arranged for control of them to fall into sympathetic hands at the crucial time. "Sympathetic" being anyone with a comfortable life, a family and an interest in not having to watch Pakistan evaporate

[jj]

Originally posted by chulbert


How is it "obviously working"?

The terrorism is obviously working. We have abandoned our civil rights, become an outlaw state that attacks other countries on imagined, falsified grievances, (yes, the dictator of the country was a despicable thug, or worse, no doubt there), and are currently seeing a deliberate, government-coordinated attempt to remove more civil rights via obvious, dishonest scare tactics.

I'd say that yes, the terrorists were successful beyond their wildest imagination, and have succeeded in turning the USA on the path to a totalitarian religious society.

Just look at that traitor in Alabama, will you?

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Things not going boom in US cities.


No big booms, just little ones, when a person here, a person there, has their civil rights taken away.

And when they came for me, there was ....

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla

[Clinton alert]
(forgive me now as I mention the name that sends all liberals into histrionics)

During the Clinton years we had yearly acts of devastating terrorism targeted mostly against American interests overseas. The inept responses made by the Clinton admin (bombing the asprin factory, empty terrorist camps, implementing Desert Fox) did nothing to deter Al Qaida's growth. The first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, Kenya/Tanzania embassy bombings, USS Cole, all provoked inadequate/inept responses. 9/11 was planned by Bin Laden during the Clinton admin's last years in power, but then he screwed up and implemented it during GWB's first year. The WOT is the result,and since the WOT began, the yearly terrorism we experienced under Clinton has ended.

I don't know if it can last....but even if a bomb goes off tomorrow GWB has still done far more in his few years as president to secure America and defeat terrorism than Clinton did in 8.

[/Clinton alert]

-zilla

And when Mr. Bill tried to do something, the "right", for purely dishonest, unethical political reasons, attacked him from all sides, deliberately made him ineffective, and as such, showed their full and complete status as fellow-travellers of the terrorists.

We should incarcerate the "right" as "fellow-travelers", given the support they gave the terrorists by directly attacking Mr. Bill when he tried to do something about it.

What's more, the "right", for purely malicious political purposes, created an impeachment attemt that was obviously intended to usurp the lawfully elected government under false color of law.

The right has no room to do anything in this matter but take full and complete responsibility for denying Mr. Bill room to act, for distracting his entire government with ill-intended accusations and unconstitutional legal harrassment, and for making a stupid president who got a "favor" from an intern (you may assume I am speaking in a very scornful voice referring to Mr. Bill here) more of an issue than a president who lied to the entire country about a war issue that has killed large numbers of people.

According to the 'right', it was worse that the president got his rocks off than it was for the president to lie outright about the state of Iraqui weapons systems.

According to the "right", "something" must have been wrong with whitewater despite the total lack of even the veriest whit of evidence after 5 years of unconstitutional searches and seizures.

According to the "right", there's nothing wrong with 'W' hiding his drunk-driving record, and everything wrong with Monica hiding a blue dress.

According to the "right", "atheists can be neither patriots or good americans, this is one nation under god".

In short, the "right" is neither in the right nor on the right, the "right" we have at present is a bunch of revolutionary reactionaries.

Leave it to the right to create that, eh?

Now, let's talk about the "left". No, let's not, I'm disgusted enough already.

[CapelDodger]

From jj:
And when Mr. Bill tried to do something, the "right", for purely dishonest, unethical political reasons, attacked him from all sides, deliberately made him ineffective, and as such, showed their full and complete status as fellow-travellers of the terrorists.
The US right had no hesitation in damaging the office of President in their hysterical pursuit of the usurper. Government was paralysed as the president, and anybody near him, were subject to increasingly wild charges. The damage done to the US by being unable to pursue a meaningful foreign policy meant nothing to the right; all that mattered to them was to get this interloper out of the White House that they feel is rightfully theirs.

Democracy also means nothing to the US right - it's just a useful word to put in speeches. Considering what happened at the last election anyone who thinks that the Patriot Act is not going to be mis-used by politicians is a hell of an optimist. Seems the great American Experiment is coming to an end. It had an exceptional run considering how unprecedented it was. All kudos to the drafters of the Constitution.

Any chance of California and the North-East seceding?

[jj]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Any chance of California and the North-East seceding?

Don't forget about the Pacific Northwest and Alaska...

But I really hope we all know that that won't work.

None the less, given Ashcroft's lists, one wonders just how far he is from using troops to sieze the "traitors who uphold the constitution".