A nation racked with fear.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I see no "nation racked with fear". I really don't.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

To the average (though perhaps not so bright) joe on the street, seeing these added measures, in spite of how ineffective we all know they are, makes them feel better.

Errr??

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But this brings me to another point. Why has there been no campaign of car bombings in the US? Or blowing up stores or malls? Would that not have a huge impact for anyone wanting to disrupt our way of life? It makes me wonder if (a) the terrorists are incapable of doing it here for some reason, b) security is doing more than we know, or (c) our intelligence community is doing one hell of a job that we just don't know about.

Honestly I think it's a combination. Yes the intelligence community is doing some good, but I think in the minds of Bin Laden and company things are already going to plan. The US (by which I mean Bush) has pissed away the goodwill and respect of the world that was evident when we went into Afghanistan. Pissed it away on a war of aggression to satisfy the personal vendetta of one man and whether you personally feel that's true or not (I'm guessing not ) I don't think you can deny that is how most of the world looks at it. Radical Islam is on the rise a lot faster than Democracy around the world and that is a direct result of the policies of Mr. Bush. So why stir a pot that's already boiling?

Also just to clarify, I'm not arguing for no security anywhere. I'm arguing for effective security. Tracking down terrorists where they live is good. Disneyland is using "security" to get rid of banner towing small aircraft circling their park. Sports stadiums are using "security" to keep people from brining food into the park so they can sell you hot dogs for $6 each.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. "
-Benjamin Franklin

Good man. They made 'em smarter back then.

[Ghoulish Delight]

My impression is that car bombings are carried out, in general, by the terrorist masses. And while they are truly terrifying, they are not particularly damaging (most kill no more then a handful of people). Even pre-9/11, it was no small feat to get terrorists over. It took planning and expense. They're not going to waste that effort on one guy to go blow himself up and take out a few people. That's like saying, "Assault rifles are really effective weapons, why didn't we just send a guy over to Iraq with an assault rifle?" Car bombings are an effective tool for them in their local area because it's quick, dirty, and cheap. If they are going to go to the trouble of doing something over here, it's going to be something big, a-la 9/11.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

But part of security is feeling secure. To the average (though perhaps not so bright) joe on the street, seeing these added measures, in spite of how ineffective we all know they are, makes them feel better. Is it logicial? No. But they can say "we're doing something" and be secure in that. Is it logical? No.

Agreed, but I resent spending tax dollars, and giving up a measure of our freedom, to pacify Joe Moron. Better to spend that money on education and maybe break the cycle of stupidity that exists in Joe Moron's family.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Could be. But not psychologically to the average American. If the treasures and history of our country can be attacked and destroyed, i think that damages our way of life more than heavy security surrounding them.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I am far more disturbed by the loss of civil liberties than I would be if the Liberty Bell were blown up. The Liberty Bell is a symbol of the freedoms that are being eroded, so it would be ironic indeed to value that symbol more than the ideas that it represents.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Errr??

Radical Islam is on the rise a lot faster than Democracy around the world and that is a direct result of the policies of Mr. Bush.

Sorry for the confusion. I think one reason why I don't see a nation racked with fear is that security forced, no matter how ineffectual they may be, are almost omnipresent now, and that contributes to a feeling of security. I think if there was no evidence of trying to do something there would be much more angst evident.

I dispute Radical Islam being on the rise faster than Democracy and that being as a result of Mr. Bush. 9/11 happened before any Afghanistan or Iraq policies were implemented (so obviously it was already on the rise), and we are well on the way toward functioning democracies for 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are these the only two since the fall of the wall? I think they are, but I am not sure.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I couldn't disagree with you more. I am far more disturbed by the loss of civil liberties than I would be if the Liberty Bell were blown up. The Liberty Bell is a symbol of the freedoms that are being eroded, so it would be ironic indeed to value that symbol more than the ideas that it represents.

How is extra security around the Liberty Bell a loss of civil liberties? We've debated this before, but I don't know anyone who has lost civil liberties. The only thing I can think of which comes close (well, two now) are the Guantanamo detainees (and only if they are US citizens) and a provision proposed in the new Patriot Act taking away judicial oversight on certian warrants (which I oppose).

I just don't see civil liberties being eroded.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Radical Islam is on the rise a lot faster than Democracy around the world and that is a direct result of the policies of Mr. Bush.

I thought we were supposed to blame Newsweek for that...

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

How is extra security around the Liberty Bell a loss of civil liberties? We've debated this before, but I don't know anyone who has lost civil liberties. The only thing I can think of which comes close (well, two now) are the Guantanamo detainees (and only if they are US citizens) and a provision proposed in the new Patriot Act taking away judicial oversight on certian warrants (which I oppose).

I just don't see civil liberties being eroded.

You know perfectly well I was referring to such things as the 'Patriot Act' and the indefinite imprisonment of suspects, etc. I suppose as long as it doesn't affect you it's alright? That provision in the Patriot Act allowing the FBI to rifle through your records and not be answerable to anyone is frightening and is a huge blow to our civil liberties. The only reason the Act got passed was because of this climate of fear that the OP wrote about.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

You know perfectly well I was referring to such things as the 'Patriot Act' and the indefinite imprisonment of suspects, etc. I suppose as long as it doesn't affect you it's alright? That provision in the Patriot Act allowing the FBI to rifle through your records and not be answerable to anyone is frightening and is a huge blow to our civil liberties. The only reason the Act got passed was because of this climate of fear that the OP wrote about.

Wendy, I'm not trying to be a jerk. All FBI searches involved in the Patriot Act do require judicial warrants. There are provisions making it easier to get certain warrants and it does eliminate some redundancy, but there is judicial oversight. If someone will point out to me even one person, beyond the guantanamo prisoners who are US citizens (I do not include those who are not because non-US citizens have no gaurantee of rights under our Constitution - I completely agree that those US citizens being held there are being denied their rights, and in fact, judicial oversight ordered their release. Forgive me if some of my details aren't exact.), who has had their civil liberties compromised, that would be great. I honestly do not know of anyone.

If you are referring to the library records thing that was a big deal a while ago, I never had a problem with it because it is called a "public" library. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.