Post 9/11 Security State

[heckofajobbrownie]

This is dead on.

 

Fareed's Take: U.S. has made war on terror a war without end

By Fareed Zakaria, CNN

 

Whatever you thought of President Obama's recent speech on Afghanistan, it is now increasingly clear that the United States is winding down its massive military commitments to the two wars of the last decade.

 

We are out of Iraq and we will soon be largely out of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is dead, and al Qaeda is a shadow of its former self. Threats remain but these are being handled using special forces and intelligence. So, finally, after a decade, we seem to be right-sizing the threat from terrorist groups.

 

Or are we?

 

While we will leave the battlefields of the greater Middle East, we are firmly committed to the war on terror at home. What do I mean by that? Well, look at the expansion of federal bureaucracies to tackle this war.

 

Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has created or reconfigured at least 263 organizations to tackle some aspect of the war on terror. Thirty-three new building complexes have been built for the intelligence bureaucracies alone, occupying 17 million square feet – the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols or three Pentagons. The largest bureaucracy after the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs is now the Department of Homeland Security, which has a workforce of 230,000 people.

 

The rise of this national security state has entailed a vast expansion in the government's powers that now touch every aspect of American life, even when seemingly unrelated to terrorism. Some 30,000 people, for example, are now employed exclusively to listen in on phone conversations and other communications within the United States.

 

In the past, the U.S. government has built up for wars, assumed emergency authority and sometimes abused that power, yet always demobilized after the war. But this is, of course, a war without end.

 

So we continue to stand in absurd airport lines. We continue to turn down the visa applications of hundreds of thousands of tourists, businessmen, artists and performers who simply want to visit America and spend money here, and become ambassadors of good will for this country. We continue to treat even those visitors who arrive with visas as hostile aliens - checking, searching and deporting people at will. We continue to place new procedures and rules to monitor everything that comes in and out of the country, making doing business in America less attractive and more burdensome than in most Western countries.

 

We don't look like people who have won a war. We look like scared, fearful, losers.

[Mr. T]

And 1 out of every 4 terrorist detainees released from Gitmo are reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities.

 

Dead on

[DieHardBrownsFan]

With a name like Fareed, he must be a terrorist sympathizer.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Not exactly the discussion I had hoped for. And exactly what I expected.

[Westside Steve]

Well besides the jingoism of the glorious victory, I don't think he's off base.

If I may coin a phrase, " any crisis worth having is worth over reacting to. "

WSS

[Lady Z]

The agreement Prez Peace Prize talked about in his speech from Afghanistan commits our forces for another 12 years including training Afghan soldiers and police. I heard a report on NPR, the goal of training is to get the troops up to the first grade level in counting and reading, and for officers a third grade level. We are going to pay the "mayor" of Afghanistan and our good friends in Pakistan billions of dollars for the privilege. The Prez also said he will get "global" approval for his agreement. So, the Senate is just chopped liver?

 

Fareed Zakaria has good reason to worry about Big Brother. It's never going to go away. All of the twenty-somethings I know don't think their right to privacy or liberty is being violated by Big Brother.

 

Oh and Fareed said, "We don't look like people who have won a war. We look like scared, fearful, losers."

 

Prez Peace Prize never said we won the war.

[Westside Steve]

Screw the right to privacy.

You can spend thousands securing your home, and still you will find ants in the kitchen.

I don't care who is in power but just wait until some shit bag smuggles a bomb onto a plane.

The demagogues will be out in force.

And who ever is sitting in the big chair will be called week on terror.

WSS

[sadbrownsfan]

And who ever is sitting in the big chair will be called week on terror.

WSS

Or whoever was before him if it happens early enough in his tenure.

 

If someone wants to attack us bad enough that they have a total disregard for their own safety, suicide bombers, sooner or later they will find a way. There is no way to "Win" this "war on terror", unlike if we where actually fighting a country or local fighters, sooner or later one side will surrender, but with the war on terror there will never be a peace treaty or someone from the other side saying we don't want to fight anymore.

[Lady Z]

Screw the right to privacy.

You can spend thousands securing your home, and still you will find ants in the kitchen.

I don't care who is in power but just wait until some shit bag smuggles a bomb onto a plane.

The demagogues will be out in force.

And who ever is sitting in the big chair will be called week on terror.

WSS

 

I like that old saying by Ben Franklin, "people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"

[DieHardBrownsFan]

True, you can't win the war on terror. But you must do all you can to protect your citizens from terror attacks. There was a time when the USA thought it was invulnerable from terror attacks. That changed with the first WTC basement bombing, then the OKC Federal Building, then of course 9/11. I agree that some of the things the government has done, the TSA for example is pretty worthless. They hire 50,000 screeners, that do no better of a job then the private security they had before. Remember, the hijackers all brought on items that you were then allowed to bring. It's a very difficult situation for anyone to deal with, because no matter what you do someone will attack your actions.

[Westside Steve]

I like that old saying by Ben Franklin, "people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"

Slogans aside, what is it anyone expects freedom to do? Compared to other reasonably civilized country in what ways do we enjoy more liberty?

WSS

 

-Ben franklin: The only president of the united states who was never president of the united states...

[Lady Z]

Or whoever was before him if it happens early enough in his tenure.

 

If someone wants to attack us bad enough that they have a total disregard for their own safety, suicide bombers, sooner or later they will find a way. There is no way to "Win" this "war on terror", unlike if we where actually fighting a country or local fighters, sooner or later one side will surrender, but with the war on terror there will never be a peace treaty or someone from the other side saying we don't want to fight anymore.

 

I agree. I suppose the next thing the TSA will dream up is strip searches for everybody.

 

May 8, 9:59 AM CIA derails plot with al-Qaida underwear bomb

 

ADAM GOLDMAN

Associated Press

 

... The device did not contain metal, meaning it probably could have passed through an airport metal detector. But it was not clear whether new body scanners used in many airports would have detected it. The device is an upgrade of the underwear bomb...

 

http://hosted.ap.org...-05-07-18-39-31

[Westside Steve]

True, you can't win the war on terror. But you must do all you can to protect your citizens from terror attacks. There was a time when the USA thought it was invulnerable from terror attacks. That changed with the first WTC basement bombing, then the OKC Federal Building, then of course 9/11. I agree that some of the things the government has done, the TSA for example is pretty worthless. They hire 50,000 screeners, that do no better of a job then the private security they had before. Remember, the hijackers all brought on items that you were then allowed to bring. It's a very difficult situation for anyone to deal with, because no matter what you do someone will attack your actions.

Also in situations of terrorism there is noone to retaliate against. We can bomb afghanistan back into the stone age ( granted that's only a couple 100 years) and these groups will plan their mischief from the sudan yemen pakistan or miami beach.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well besides the jingoism of the glorious victory, I don't think he's off base.

If I may coin a phrase, " any crisis worth having is worth over reacting to. "

WSS

 

I'm not sure I see anything close to jingoism.

 

And I agree on the demagogues.

[Lady Z]

Slogans aside, what is it anyone expects freedom to do? Compared to other reasonably civilized country in what ways do we enjoy more liberty?

WSS

 

-Ben franklin: The only president of the united states who was never president of the united states...

 

Well that's just it, other countries do not recognize human rights as policy. Our privacy and liberty are being compromised by total government control and it's getting more and more restrictive. You must be aware that violation of privacy and human rights have been codified into our federal laws. One of the latest, Prez Peace Prize insisted on getting legal extrajudicial execution. The law doesn't have limitations, US citizens can be legally executed now without due process on the word of the president.

 

For example, the TSA doesn't do a good job for all their invasive security theater. I've read about quality control where guns and things that look like bombs get through TSA security. I've read that the TSA is doing their thing at train and subway stations, and plan to take their activities literally onto our roads and highways.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Freedom makes the world more peaceful. And, of course, freer. Those are good things.

[Westside Steve]

Freedom makes the world more peaceful. And, of course, freer. Those are good things.

Actually I think it's prosperity that makes the world more peaceful or at least wherever it exists.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Well that's just it, other countries do not recognize human rights as policy. Our privacy and liberty are being compromised by total government control and it's getting more and more restrictive. You must be aware that violation of privacy and human rights have been codified into our federal laws. One of the latest, Prez Peace Prize insisted on getting legal extrajudicial execution. The law doesn't have limitations, US citizens can be legally executed now without due process on the word of the president.

 

For example, the TSA doesn't do a good job for all their invasive security theater. I've read about quality control where guns and things that look like bombs get through TSA security. I've read that the TSA is doing their thing at train and subway stations, and plan to take their activities literally onto our roads and highways.

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Which innocent u s citizens are we talking about that the president has murdered?

 

And, since you don't seem to trust a police officer as to whether or not to search you do trust the judgement of every judge who may be called upon for a warrant?

 

And I'd still like to see the list of civalized countries with many less freedoms then we have.

 

Don't miss understand, I don't think we are all that free and we are becoming less so in some ways but I don't think it's ever been much better, and has probably been a lot worse.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Actually I think it's prosperity that makes the world more peaceful or at least wherever it exists.

 

WSS

 

Well, that's part of it, but it's obviously not an either/or, and one stems from the other. You can't have real prosperity without freedom. You want economic freedom and political freedom, and the two beget each other. The Chinese, for instance, are becoming more politically free and open as they become more economically free. Petro states, like Saudi Arabia, have pockets of prosperity and widespread poverty, with limited economic or political freedom.

 

Free markets, free elections, free press, human rights. You don't have to be against those just to have an argument or to try and be different. They're good things.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Which innocent u s citizens are we talking about that the president has murdered?

 

And, since you don't seem to trust a police officer as to whether or not to search you do trust the judgement of every judge who may be called upon for a warrant?

 

And I'd still like to see the list of civalized countries with many less freedoms then we have.

 

Don't miss understand, I don't think we are all that free and we are becoming less so in some ways but I don't think it's ever been much better, and has probably been a lot worse.

WSS

 

The point isn't that he murdered an "innocent" US citizen. It's that there was no real legal process that adjudicated his guilt. The executive branch just said, "We've looked at it, and he's guilty, so we killed him." That's not the way it should be, and people are right to question it.

[Westside Steve]

The point isn't that he murdered an "innocent" US citizen. It's that there was no real legal process that adjudicated his guilt. The executive branch just said, "We've looked at it, and he's guilty, so we killed him." That's not the way it should be, and people are right to question it.

But that's exactly what it meant.

If in fact a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law killing him constitutes murdering an innocent man.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well, no. They'd gone through a process that had declared him guilty of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism against America. It's just not one that involved any judge or jury that we know of.

 

There's a court you have to go to if you want to secretly wiretap Americans, for instance. There is no court you go to if the president wants to kill an American with a drone. They have some sort of "legal process." Whatever that was. We don't know.

 

I know you love to trust in government (except when you don't) but this is troublesome.

[Westside Steve]

Well, no. They'd gone through a process that had declared him guilty of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism against America. It's just not one that involved any judge or jury that we know of.

 

There's a court you have to go to if you want to secretly wiretap Americans, for instance. There is no court you go to if the president wants to kill an American with a drone. They have some sort of "legal process." Whatever that was. We don't know.

 

I know you love to trust in government (except when you don't) but this is troublesome.

I'm not attacking your defending the government.

I assume there may have been u s citizens living in hiroshima or nagasaki.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm not attacking your defending the government.

I assume there may have been u s citizens living in hiroshima or nagasaki.

WSS

 

I don't know what that has to do with this either.

 

All I'm saying is that when the executive branch wants to target an American citizen they believe is plotting terrorist acts against our government, and that this person is in a hostile foreign country and can't be apprehended, then they have to present the evidence of this person's guilt to some neutral arbiter and have them swear off on it. The Intelligence Committees should probably also be involved. They can't simply decide unilaterally that they've looked at the evidence and think it's okay by them.

[Lady Z]

<br /><b><br /> Which innocent u s citizens are we talking about that the president has murdered? <br /><br /> And, since you don't seem to trust a police officer as to whether or not to search you do trust the judgement of every judge who may be called upon for a warrant? <br /><br /> And I'd still like to see the list of civalized countries with many less freedoms then we have. <br /><br /> Don't miss understand, I don't think we are all that free and we are becoming less so in some ways but I don't think it's ever been much better, and has probably been a lot worse.<br />WSS </b><br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

No wait, I posted the Fourth Amendment to contrast what the TSA are doing.

 

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

I don't think it matters which US citizens the president has ordered or will order to be executed. Without due process extrajudicial execution at the president's order violates the Bill of Rights.

 

You may or may not agree with my opinion that other countries do not recognize human rights as policy. I was thinking of our Bill of Rights and our Constitution, which I believe surpass any other country on human rights.

[Westside Steve]

Yes that was so the king couldn't requisition your farm food horses and weapons for his soldiers.

In other words take your property for the good of the kingdom.

I think we use neutered that one many years ago don't you think?

Eminent domain ring a bell?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes that was so the king couldn't requisition your farm food horses and weapons for his soldiers.

In other words take your property for the good of the kingdom.

I think we use neutered that one many years ago don't you think?

Eminent domain ring a bell?

WSS

 

No it's not. There's a section specific to quartering a foreign soldier, and that's the part that you're talking about. That's the antiquated part.

 

To say that the 4th amendment of the Constitution was only written so the king couldn't take your food and horses is a complete, willful misreading of the original Constitution, and everything that's come since.

 

Come on, man.

[Lady Z]

<br /><b><br /> Yes that was so the king couldn't requisition your farm food horses and weapons for his soldiers. <br /> In other words take your property for the good of the kingdom.<br /> I think we use neutered that one many years ago don't you think?<br /> Eminent domain ring a bell?<br />WSS </b><br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

You might include eminent domain as part of the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth. The Fifth Amendment requires "just compensation" for private property taken for public use.

[Westside Steve]

<br /><br /><br />

 

You might include eminent domain as part of the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth. The Fifth Amendment requires "just compensation" for private property taken for public use.

It does indeed.

And who decides just compensation, the owner for the usurper?

 

Also it occurs to me that was the afterthought. When the founders decided it wasn't such a bad idea to take what they wanted they added The just compensation bit.

WSS

[Lady Z]

It does indeed.

And who decides just compensation, the owner for the usurper?

 

Also it occurs to me that was the afterthought. When the founders decided it wasn't such a bad idea to take what they wanted they added The just compensation bit.

WSS

 

As far as I know the property owner gets a take it or leave it offer from the government.