The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

In response to the report in USA Today that the government has been collecting entire databases of phone call data

Not to respond to the comment, but to the story.

Very deep in the USA today article, it is noted that no names or content of the calls - in other words, this database includes no recording of the conversation - are kept.

My point isn't that this is good or bad....only that I believe the story and headlines are intended to make it seem as if every call is being recorded and monitored. This is not the case.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

My point isn't that this is good or bad....only that I believe the story and headlines are intended to make it seem as if every call is being recorded and monitored. This is not the case.

I heard and read dozens of reports about it yesterday...every one of them mentioned that it was just phone numbers. I don't think there was an attempt to bury that.

And now, the White House is trying to block civil liberty cases from even reaching the courts under the guise of "national security" and "confidential information". What a GREAT way to erode civil liberties...just do it and then say imply that anyone who questions it is a traitor. I mean, it's not like the judicial system was set up as a part of a system of checks and balances or anything.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I heard and read dozens of reports about it yesterday...every one of them mentioned that it was just phone numbers. I don't think there was an attempt to bury that.

Yeah, it was reported. Probably the conspiracy theorist coming out in me.

I just think that the vast majority of news readers read the headline and perhaps the first paragraph. When I see the headlline "NSA keeping a huge database of phone calls", I don't think just the number, I think the entire conversation.

[Alex]

I need to know why the NSA wanted the information and how they use(d) it before I decide if I'm upset that they have it (though my assumption is that I'm not going to like it).

I am, however, upset that AT&T, Verizon, and the other one would just hand it over without forcing a subpoena or warrant.

I'm also firmly behind the idea that the construction "The War on X" should only apply where values of X are country names. Or at least specific political organizations.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I'm also firmly behind the idea that the construction "The War on X" should only apply where values of X are country names. Or at least specific political organizations.

So you would be fine with the "War on Terror" if it was redefined in several terms such as "War on Al Qeada" and "War on Hamas" and "War on Islamic Jihad" and "War on terrorist organization du jour"?

[Alex]

I'd be better with it. "War on Terror" is a war against a method. You can't defeat a method. And the most dangerous thing to a liberal democracy is a perpetual open-ended state of war.

The government rightly gains power at the expense of civil liberties in a time of war. It is therefore in the best interests of the unscrupulous to maintain a state of war. When you fight a specific thing there becomes a point at which war is a charade not easily supported (if we're fighting a nation and they stop fighting or officially surrender for example). Fighting a concept offers no such easy resolution.

The United States has spent most of the last 60 years at war with concepts. From 1945-1990 we were in a Cold War with communism. The civil liberty ups and downs of that conceptual war waxed and waned but generally suffered from us not having excuses to kill people (except for two sub periods in Korea and Vietnam). Fortunately for us, over time communism came to equal Russia. If it hadn't we could still easily be in a war with Communism.

The war on terror similarly is a conceptual war. Even if we killed every person who cast a pondering eye towards Al Qaeda, interested parties will always be able to find other groups on whom to continue a war. Because the method of terrorism will always exist. It has always existed. It isn't like "terrorism" is something that popped into existence on September 11, 2001, and can be put back in its box. It wasn't even invented in the 20th century or in the last two millenniums.

So yes, I'd be more happy with individual wars labelled as you describe. At least rational discussion can be made about whether we should be at war with Hamas but not Islamic Jihad or whatever. War powers are a very big hammer, and for those who make a profit selling hammers it is a huge incentive to define everything as a nail. And fighting a concept or method makes that way too easy.

[JWBear]

I want to apologize for my outburst yesterday. It was a combination of a very frustrating day at work and the fact that the immigration issue gets me very emotional (why, I don’t know). I’m better now, but I’m going to avoid that particular debate from now on.

That being said:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I'd be better with it. "War on Terror" is a war against a method. You can't defeat a method. And the most dangerous thing to a liberal democracy is a perpetual open-ended state of war.

The government rightly gains power at the expense of civil liberties in a time of war. It is therefore in the best interests of the unscrupulous to maintain a state of war. When you fight a specific thing there becomes a point at which war is a charade not easily supported (if we're fighting a nation and they stop fighting or officially surrender for example). Fighting a concept offers no such easy resolution.

The United States has spent most of the last 60 years at war with concepts. From 1945-1990 we were in a Cold War with communism. The civil liberty ups and downs of that conceptual war waxed and waned but generally suffered from us not having excuses to kill people (except for two sub periods in Korea and Vietnam). Fortunately for us, over time communism came to equal Russia. If it hadn't we could still easily be in a war with Communism.

The war on terror similarly is a conceptual war. Even if we killed every person who cast a pondering eye towards Al Qaeda, interested parties will always be able to find other groups on whom to continue a war. Because the method of terrorism will always exist. It has always existed. It isn't like "terrorism" is something that popped into existence on September 11, 2001, and can be put back in its box. It wasn't even invented in the 20th century or in the last two millenniums.

So yes, I'd be more happy with individual wars labelled as you describe. At least rational discussion can be made about whether we should be at war with Hamas but not Islamic Jihad or whatever. War powers are a very big hammer, and for those who make a profit selling hammers it is a huge incentive to define everything as a nail. And fighting a concept or method makes that way too easy.

I agree completely!