The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 78

scaeagles · 05-12-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

It doesn't matter so much that the conversations weren't tapped, but that they are invading what Americans perceive to be their privacy rights on MILLIONS of Americans. That spells Trouble with a capital "T."

You may consider this to be probelmatic, and I don't care much about polls, really, but I don't think there will be much of a problem, as a very recent poll based on this story showed 65% of people don't care.

I don't. Really. Because phone records are up for sale. You can go to any number of websites and buy cell phone logs. It's legal. Phone call data is far from private.

Alex · 05-12-2006, 09:03 AM

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 · 05-12-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

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 · 05-12-2006, 09:24 AM

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.

scaeagles · 05-12-2006, 09:34 AM

I think that's a distinction without a difference, though. Will every terrorist organization go away? No. When one dies, another will rise in its place. Because as you rightly point out, terror is a method. There will always be organizations that employ that method.

So I see it as open ended no matter how it is named. Calling it a "war on terror" by default means that we do not accept terror as a method from anyone and will act to defeat organizations and/or countries that employ such methods.

Not Afraid · 05-12-2006, 09:40 AM

OH NO! The NSA will know that Ubergeek and I talke every day!

JWBear · 05-12-2006, 09:41 AM

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:

Quote:

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!

Ghoulish Delight · 05-12-2006, 09:44 AM

millenniums?

scaeagles · 05-12-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

I want to apologize for my outburst yesterday.

That's cool. We all have bad days. No big deal from my standpoint, JW. But for some reason I have this evil urge to poke at you and say we were discussing illegal immigration, not immigration.

But I would never do that!

Alex · 05-12-2006, 09:46 AM

But obviously that is not true. We have taken no action against most of the terrorist organizations in the world. This has not been a "war on terror." It has been a war against specific entities but by labelling it a war on terror we avoid the appropriate discussion.

There is a huge distance between "we oppose the use of terrorism as a tactic and will not support any organization that does (but know that we define terrorism as a case by case basis as defined by our personal interests)" and "we are at war with terrorism."

As I said, "war" gives the government powers it wouldn't otherwise have. And a war without end gives them those powers permanently. If the IRA gets back into business tomorrow, are we going to invade Ireland to battle the foe of "terrorism?" No. Because we're not at war with terrorism. That is just a label used as a tool. Are we going to invade Spain to snuff out the Basque separatists? East Timor? Chechnya? No, because we're not really at war with terrorism.

If somehow we go to war with Iran, will it be a war against terrorism? No. But it will be labelled that way because it gives the government the most power with the least effort. I supported (and still do) the war in Iraq, but it wasn't a war on terror.

It is a distinction with a huge difference. Because it is using vagueness as a tool to prevent examination.

05-12-2006, 09:03 AM	#772
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

05-12-2006, 09:24 AM	#774
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

05-12-2006, 09:34 AM	#775
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I think that's a distinction without a difference, though. Will every terrorist organization go away? No. When one dies, another will rise in its place. Because as you rightly point out, terror is a method. There will always be organizations that employ that method. So I see it as open ended no matter how it is named. Calling it a "war on terror" by default means that we do not accept terror as a method from anyone and will act to defeat organizations and/or countries that employ such methods.
	Submit to Quotes

05-12-2006, 09:40 AM	#776
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	OH NO! The NSA will know that Ubergeek and I talke every day!
	Submit to Quotes

05-12-2006, 09:44 AM	#778
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	millenniums? __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

05-12-2006, 09:46 AM	#780
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	But obviously that is not true. We have taken no action against most of the terrorist organizations in the world. This has not been a "war on terror." It has been a war against specific entities but by labelling it a war on terror we avoid the appropriate discussion. There is a huge distance between "we oppose the use of terrorism as a tactic and will not support any organization that does (but know that we define terrorism as a case by case basis as defined by our personal interests)" and "we are at war with terrorism." As I said, "war" gives the government powers it wouldn't otherwise have. And a war without end gives them those powers permanently. If the IRA gets back into business tomorrow, are we going to invade Ireland to battle the foe of "terrorism?" No. Because we're not at war with terrorism. That is just a label used as a tool. Are we going to invade Spain to snuff out the Basque separatists? East Timor? Chechnya? No, because we're not really at war with terrorism. If somehow we go to war with Iran, will it be a war against terrorism? No. But it will be labelled that way because it gives the government the most power with the least effort. I supported (and still do) the war in Iraq, but it wasn't a war on terror. It is a distinction with a huge difference. Because it is using vagueness as a tool to prevent examination.
	Submit to Quotes