Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties 1632
Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties?
By Richard StallmanThe worst damage from many nerve injuries is secondary -- it happens in the hours after the initial trauma, as the body's reaction to the damage kills more nerve cells. Researchers are beginning to discover ways to prevent this secondary damage and reduce the eventual harm.
If we are not careful, the deadly attacks on New York and Washington will lead to far worse secondary damage, if the U.S. Congress adopts "preventive measures" that take away the freedom that America stands for.
I'm not talking about searches at airports here. Searches of people or baggage for weapons, as long as they check only for weapons and keep no records about you if you have no weapons, are just an inconvenience; they do not endanger civil liberties. What I am worried about is massive surveillance of all aspects of life: of our phone calls, of our email, and of our physical movements.
These measures are likely to be recommended regardless of whether they would be effective for their stated purpose. An executive of a company developing face recognition software is said to be telling reporters that widespread deployment of face-recognizing computerized cameras would have prevented the attacks. The September 15 New York Times cites a congressman who is advocating this "solution." Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help. But that won't stop the agencies that have always wanted to do more surveillance from pushing this plan now, and many other plans like it. To stop them will require public opposition.
Even more ominously, a proposal to require government back doors in encryption software has already appeared.
Meanwhile, Congress hurried to pass a resolution giving Bush unlimited power to use military force in retaliation for the attacks. Retaliation may be justified, if the perpetrators can be identified and carefully targeted, but Congress has a duty to scrutinize specific measures as they are proposed. Handing the president carte blanche in a moment of anger is exactly the mistake that led the United States into the Vietnam War.
Please let your elected representatives, and your unelected president, know that you don't want your civil liberties to become the terrorists' next victim. Don't wait -- the bills are already being written.
Copyright 2001 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.
We lose liberty, we lose America (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep an eye out. (Score:1, Insightful)
Secondary damage is going to occur. We Americans need to fight for what we care about, both within our borders and without.
ars
An eye for an Eye!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Taking advantage of the situation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Face Recognition. (Score:2, Insightful)
Because, we all know that check agents stay awake at night trying to memorize the faces of all know criminals and terrorists, and can name them on sight... Of all of the arguements against face recognition software this has to be the lamest one I have ever heard.
I can't calculate PI to 1000 digits in my head, I guess my computer can't either...
Re:Taking advantage of the situation? [not] (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of folks will exploit this tragedy to advance their own agenda. But RMS isn't among them - his warning is truly linked with the events and he is being sincere in his fears.
Hitler (Score:1, Insightful)
The source. [smokylake.com]
65 H4x0r 33 f04t00N
Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me in this hysteria people are looking for a good scapegoat, wheter it be flight training schools, MS's Flight Simulator, contruction at Logan Airport, some middle eastern terrorist (that the US supported at one time), strong encryption, Quake, or whatever. Unfortunatley many people here in the US will say "There needs to be a law for <blank>" and then go back to downing a six pack and watching TV.
Hm ... 6 days, took longer than I t hought... (Score:2, Insightful)
Face it Richard, no one really cares about where you or I go, or what we did today, our lives just aren't that important. That placed on the fact that there is absolutly no law that currently prevents face recognition software from being used, either in public or private sectors, makes your little diatribe about it just an excercise in scaring people about the new laws.
And I seem to recall that President George Bush did not need Congress to OK his sending thousands of troops into Saudia Arabia. The President is the Commander-in-chief and not Congress in order to provide for swift deployment of forces when needed. So the Congress blank-check bit is also little weak for an argument.
So, this gets to the phone taps. The FBI want's to be able to tap any phone a specific person can use, instead of having to get one for each phone. I do have to agree that that sounds a little over-zealous, and could provide a carte-blance to tap the entire cellphone network. But just remember that any evidence recovered that does not pertain to the specific charges cannot be used. Yes, they could listen to your phone call just because you happend to let that guy who is under suspicion use your cell once three years ago. But if you confess you stole burritos from 7-11, they cannot use your phone call in court. And having worked for a mobile phone company and occasionally have to listen to phone calls to monitor the system, I can tell you that most phone calls are boring beyound belief.
So what was your point again???
OK
Small price to pay (Score:1, Insightful)
Short term bad, long term maybe good? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is very likely civil liberties will be hedged for a short time. But now, the debate is on the front page of the newspaper rather than the techno-backwaters of Slashdot. People will notice the loss of their freedom. Up to now, freedom was being eroded and few noticed or cared.
I think that the short-term consequences, sadly, will include depriving U.S. citizens of civil liberties in the name of safety. But I think the long-term consequences are a heightened awareness of the balance and tension between security and liberty.
Is Osama "Emmanual Goldstein"? (Score:3, Insightful)
The new enemy is practically undefined and is broadly described as "terrorist organizations and the states that support and harbor them". America, Joe Sixpack's America, cannot wage a war against this new enemy without first putting a face on it. That face is Osama Bin Laden, whether or not he had any involvement in New York and Washington.
Our new war will have no victory. Soon, Americans will grow used to news reports of military actions in Middle Eastern countries more so then with the same from Kosovo and Iraq. This is because this war will be ongoing as will the state of war and its consequences on civil liberties and domestic tolerance. Getting to the point To win this war America, and its allies, need to prove a negative, that is that terrorism no longer exists. Does this mean that, eventually, the focus of this war could be "terrorists" in Montana? What about First Amendment protected Hate groups or far from center muckrakers. What comes after that? Double Plus Good Domestic Security? Telescreens? Thought Police? We're on a slippery slope here with Double Plus Crisco.
Re:Taking advantage of the situation? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the moment of greatest vulnerability for civil libertarians. This is no time to be meek, quiet or accepting, it is the time when those who previously only sympathized must begin to act.
And thank you for providing such a scabrous, troll-like platform of a post for me to take advantage of. I can't say I blame you for AC'ing.
Bryguy
Please explain (Score:5, Insightful)
So, we now require all check-in agents at all airports to memorize the faces of thousands of known terrorists? I must have missed that in the news...
Personally, I'm all for placing face regocnition systems in airports. If it will save lives, beginning with mine and my family's, then let's get it done. Absolutely.
Look, the age of technology is here, and the criminals are already using technology to the max. The use of facial scanning technology, matching against wanted or known criminals in airports is not a violation of civil liberties, IMO. The unrestricted use of facial scanning technology by government may be, but it is important that we build out our legal system to accomodate new technologies AND protect civil liberties.
For example, we could make a distinction between "scanning and matching" and "tracking" (without a court order).
What I'm totally against is reactionary diatribes about the loss of civil liberties that don't cast an eye towards reshaping law. We have to keep seeking out that unique balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting society.
What's wrong with airport face recognition? (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand *fully*, why face recognition systems in public places is wrong. BUT, the airlines have a right and a duty to know who their customers are, and if face recognition systems help peal off the layers of anonymity they should be allowed to use them. Airlines have the right to know with whom they are doing business with. The business transition of purchasing a ticket is done on a contractual basis, and the airlines and the customer have the right know who the other party in the contract is.
Logic Error (Score:4, Insightful)
This does not make much sense. Generalising gives "Given that humans cannot do something means that computers cannot do it either" should explain. I really don't know what is meant here. We have something that is already happening poorly. Someone has suggested that using technology would improve it, and this is an infringement of civil liberties. Sorry, I just don't buy that argument.
Airlines have a right (and, de facto, an obligation, especially now) to know who is using them. Using computers can make their execution of this duty much more effective: it is counterproductive (to say the least), to demand that they forgo this because the use of this technology by some other body may infringe civil liberties.
It may be that the use of the same technology, for a different end, by a different body, will be an infringement of civil liberties: by all means fight that battle then. But to try to stop a technology that has beneficial uses because it also has bad uses is luddite.
And to fight the battle with the weapon "it's no better than what we've already got" is just dumb.
Identification System (Score:5, Insightful)
Although careful oversight would clearly be needed, if properly administered this system, allowed only to check against existing wanted criminals and terrorists and not allowed to track the movements of those not in the database or to store long-term information on non-tagged individuals, could provide a very powerful tool to intercept people who should not be allowed on an airplane.
The idea that this is a loss of liberty is grabage. You need to present identification at an airport; you have no right to travel by air anonymously, airports are public places and noone has any right to expect not to be exposed to surveillance in this context. Mr. Stallman needs to learn to pick his battles, stick to what he knows, and choose his words more carefully. This tragedy is a little too recent to be using the phrase "thousands die" as a point of rhetoric. And though I am not at all a Bush supporter or fan, I agree with comments about Mr. Stallman's parting shot. Mr. Bush was elected: he was put into power by the Electoral College like every president that has served The United States of America.
Re:Not The Time For Anti-Patriotic Rhetoric (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd argue the opposite. At a time when everyone is agreeing it is even more important to question what is being said. Now the issue of the election is perhaps not the best example, but at times like this it becomes even more difficult, and more important, to disagree with the majority, even if it might be "un-American"
-chris
Re:We lose liberty, we lose America (Score:1, Insightful)
The mythical "freedom versus security" tradeoff is a false choice.
The WTC attack did not occur because Americans enjoy too much freedom.\
It occurred because:
- U.S. border/immigration policy (or selective enforcement thereof) allowed known terrorists to enter and remain in the country while attending flight school.
- The terrorists were able to gain access to the cockpits of the hijacked aircraft.
The fact that William Cohen, Dick Gephardt and other statists propound that the only solution to terrorism is to "trade freedom for security" betrays the reality that their true agenda is to curtail freedom.Fallacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.
I'm sure I'll get flamed or worse either for disagreeing with RMS or for suggesting that "evil" face-recognition might be an effective deterrent, but the above statement is not true. Human face recognition performed by the check-in agents didn't work, but do you think it would've worked if the check-in agents were the CIA agents who'd been looking for two of the hijackers for a couple of weeks? Do you think the computer face recognition is more likely to be like the bored, underpaid check-in agents, or more like the highly trained CIA agents especially familiar with their targets?
likely consequences (Score:2, Insightful)
- Problems with international porting. Do you need to publish a different version of the software for each country, with a back door usable by only that nation's law enforcement community?
- If there's a back door for the encryption that's embedded in the software, it's necessarily
a public key scheme, and we've seen that with massive resources, these schemes can be cracked. The key embedded in software used for a large proportion of US e-mail would be a very attractive target for cracking.
- Open source encryption software can be trivially modified to remove back doors. For that matter, with a little work, binary distributions probably can be also. But that might not stop regulations that prohibit open source encryption. Or they might require expensive registration with a government agency, which practically speaking rules out underfunded open source development.
There's no need to invoke a nightmare scenario to see the potential problems.Balance of Liberty and Security (Score:3, Insightful)
Often in the past we have traded security for liberty--for example, when we assigned blacks and women the right to vote, or when we allowed a new state to join the union. Each of these movements--and many others like them that are by far too numerous to list here--have helped create the impression that "civil liberties" are a absolute good in and of themselves. But down that road lies anarchy, if we travel it far enough.
What many liberals often forget, and their uneducated conservative oppoents are slow to mention, is that we have as often traded liberty for security. When we discarded the Articles of Confederation for the strong federal government of the Constitution, we traded liberty for security. When we joined the United Nations, we traded liberty for security. Every time we sign a new treaty, pass a new law, or apply the old law to a new thing, we are trading the liberty of Americans for the security of Americans--and not always the same Americans.
In this brave new world of the 21st century, we will have choices to make as a nation. Do we trade the freedom of disposable e-mail address and anonymous soapboxes for the security of accountability? Do we trade the security of childhoods free from terrorism for the liberty of invisible travel?
These choices, and many more, should be discussed in a rational, national conversation--one as free from empty rhetoric and petty politics as possible. Richard Stallman was eloquent, but the message above is neither free from empty rhetoric nor petty politics. To wit:
WHY are civil liberties important? Of course they're threatened in the wake of this terrorism--but so is the security of the nation. To win the argument in favor of personal liberty over national security, it is necessary to state and defend the reasons why civil liberties are more important--not simply state their moral superiority as some assumed point.
Also... unelected president? Hardly. Geroge W. Bush was just as elected as any other president we've ever had. The popular vote has NEVER mattered, only the votes of the Electoral College. This was true when George Washington was chosen more than two hundred years ago, and this was true when George W. Bush was chosen just last year.
This is about Fear not Retaliation or Revenge (Score:2, Insightful)
Where does that leave us ? They can make us afraid, but as a civilized group we have nothing comperable to hold over their heads. However, the phrase 'civilzed group' offers a glimpse into what I believe is a potential weapon. As a civilized group we are taught to punish those directly resposible against whom we are largely impotent. I would advocate instead that we scare those who assist them. A worst case scenario, destroying an orphanage above the terrorist headquarters is repugnant, but IMHO necessary. The goal is to make the next manager of the orphanage less likely to to give sanctuary. Destroy the television stations spewing hate and propaganda. Burn the banquet hall holding a fund raiser. Make the people who support the terrorists afraid, and the terrorists will have fewer places to sleep, and less to eat.
It's not 'civilized' but it may be effective.
"unelected president" (Score:3, Insightful)
the bush and gore families are powerful political engines...not as powerful as the kennedy machine, but still powerful.
to claim that President Bush is an "unelected president" takes away from what i view as a sacred document--the US Constitution.
the man is legally the president of the united states, so show some respect, and do not use that wording.
otherwise, i agree fully with the paper. the dotGOV will use this incident, and the emotional aftermath, to erode our freedoms.
Protect liberties, but abide the constitution. (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with you wholeheartedly on protecting our civil liberties.
You are wrong about Vietnam. You realize why America was over there? To prevent the Communist North Vietnamese from taking over the "Free" South Vietnamese, and initiating the usual "reign of terror" that accompanies communist dictatorships. The problem was that congress couldn't stand to support the President in doing his job. And that is the same problem that Bush is facing now!
You have a Senate Majority Leader and a bunch of liberals in the media who cannot stand to give support to the President in this time of crisis. Take a look at this [newsmax.com] and this [newsmax.com] and also this [newsmax.com]
Re:I gotta say something (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know what everyone that is griping out the "Face Recognition" either. In the US, there has never been a right to privcacy in public space. There isn't even a "reasonable expectation" of privacy. Public is just that, public. If face recognition can do the same job as 5,000 FBI agents eye-balling the city, then great. It is cheaper and more accurate, and I believe fewer innocent people and mis-identifications would happen.
If people start mandating cameras and the like in people's own houses, without a warrant, where there is a "reasonable expectation" to privacy, then people should be pissed. But in public, and even in the workplace, there really isn't a gripe.
But before that, how about decent software that checks airline lists against lists of known felons/terrorists. Sure people would lie, and maybe a few people would be delayed from mis-IDs, but that is a place where it is needed.
One Straw Man: (Score:3, Insightful)
Likewise, since human face recognition has not eliminated civil liberties in America, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would do so. So what's the big deal?
Perhaps a better argument is that current face recognition technology sucks, and almost certainly would NOT have helped in this situation.
Re:how about voluntary, opt-out options ? (Score:2, Insightful)
And for those who are about to respond, "If I'm not doing anything wrong then what do I have to worry about?" Grow Up! Does the name McCarthy mean anything to you? The Communists were not our enemies. They were people exercizing their Constitutional rights of freedom of expression, freedom of association and the ability to question the policies of the government that they, at least in theory, elected. Didn't keep 'em from being hunted and fired from their jobs, black-listed so they couldn't find any other job, and generally ostracized from their communities.
Think it couldn't happen to you? It has happened over and over again in just the short 225 year history of the United States. Ever heard of the internment camps that Americans of Japanese decent were put into during World War II? Ever heard of civil rights workers in Mississippi that were trying to get Americans of African decent the right to vote? These people were not doing anything "wrong" either.
Re:Not The Time For Anti-Patriotic Rhetoric (Score:4, Insightful)
To quoute a DK song:
Tell me: who's the real patriot:
The Archie Bunker slobs waving flags
Or the people with the guts to work for some real change?
...
Our land, I love it too
I think I love it more than you
I care enough to fight the Stars and Stripes of Corruption!
Who the hell are you to call anyone un-American? You're the one violating American ideals.
Re:Taking advantage of the situation? (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news, Congressman Bob Barr (of Georgia) was on CNN today saying that enforcement of current laws is more important than cracking down on our civil liberties. If you are in Georgia, please give him your support and bring up how either the mandatory encryption backdoor issue or the amendment tacked on to H.R. 2500 vastly increasing [wired.com] the authority of law enforcement to wiretap with reduced oversight will impact civil liberties without any proof that they are necessary to combat terrorism.
Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's... (Score:4, Insightful)
Aways in general I agree with you, but you have to remember we trade some liberties, just by having a government, but you should always be careful and fully conceder all consequences of giving up any liberties, instead of the kneejerk reactions of many who are too concerned about personal security, of which they will never recieve.
Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS (Score:2, Insightful)
Letting the FBI monitor the internet will NOT put a hampor on terrorism, but it will make people give up their liberties that the terrorist hate so much, and only give them one more win.
Re:Sign the petition (Score:1, Insightful)
The Forth Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
While I, too, am concerned that there will be attempts to ride roughshod over some of our civil rights, I think this piece is a rather inflammatory.
If you read the Constitution [nara.gov], you will notice that above all, the framers worked at balance. Balance of powers (executive/legislative/judiciary) and balance of rights. In the Bill of Rights [nara.gov], the 4th Amendment says, in part
Note the word "unreasonable." This is a rather vague word; intentionally so. It is up to society to determine unreasonable search and seizures. There is no guarantee of absolute privacy. While I feel we should set the bar as high as possible, the example RMS uses of video recognition technology, especially in a public place, is certainly not unreasonable, given of course, that such technology does not result in hundreds of innocent people being held or detained inappropriately.
People are concerned about knee-jerk right wing reactions, lets not make the same mistake in defense of civil liberties and oppose everything that is suggested. Save energy for the battles that really matter.
Re:I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS (Score:4, Insightful)
Congress: We need more power. Trade us some of your freedom for a facade of security.
Benjamin Franklin: They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Congress: The FBI needs to be able to read any and all digitised correspondance whenever they take it into their heads to do so.
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution: 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.
FAA: The passengers of Flight 53 are heroes for fighting the attackers. We obviously need more security. Make yourself as helpless as possible while flying.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Thomas Jefferson: The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
The "security" measures currently under proposal have only one effect: Reduction of the freedoms of the people of America.
Excellent point! however... (Score:0, Insightful)
The Mathematician's View:
A "victory" means eliminating every terrorist threat now facing the free world. Even if the US and its Allies could somehow manage to destroy every known terrorist organization (quite an undertaking), there is always the possibility that one more exists. As the parent said, "To win this war America, and its allies, need to prove a negative." Impossible!!
The Engineer's View:
A "victory" means making the world a very bad place to be a terrorist. If the US and its Allies can put enough heat on the bad guys, kill a whole buch of Osamas, and reestablish security and intelligence throughout the world, then things might become extremely difficult for terrorist activities to occur. Close enough to declare war... I guess.
Re:The whole thing HAS NOT been blamed (Score:2, Insightful)
Some restrictions may apply (Score:3, Insightful)
It would have been helpful if Stallman had said what measures he would tolerate. It is a given than in wartime some restrictions are necessary.
He might have also addressed the question of duration. Some restrictions might be acceptable temporarily.
He might also have addressed under what condition he would accept more stringent restrictions. If the attacks continued or reoccur, more restrictions might be necessary than they are now.
He might also have addressed the issue whether it is better to err on the side of too few or too many restrictions. It's unlikely the legislators are going to get it exactly right.
Stallman might also have made a distinction between rights, which are defined by the U.S. Constitution, and privileges, which can be removed at the whim of the legislature. Clearly, we would be willing to give up more privileges than rights and for longer.
One question to ask is what restrictions on traditional rights might have prevented the attack on September 11. The next question to ask is what restrictions would prevent terrorists from using poison gas and biological weapons in the future.
Whatever the answers to those questions are, they are the ones we will have to live with.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Once more ... (Score:4, Insightful)
They could also have connected them to the other 2 or 3 people in the plane.
If you can't see how stopping these two would have prevented further carnage, then you really are not even trying to understand.
BTW, what freedom is restricted by checking your face ? They are supposed to check your ID at the very least, is that a restriction on freedom too ? Where does it say you must enter an airplane anonymously ?
BTW 2, one of them had a FL arrest warrant too.
You are all forgetting.... (Score:2, Insightful)
In this country, people are innocent until proven guilty, we extend this right to all who we prosecute under our law, so please, don't jump the gun here. There is zero evidence to back up the allegations against Bin Laden, though he may be a bastard for his past attacks, we have to consider the possibility that he is NOT behind this one, and that those who WERE behind it are still out there, readying their next volley.
The basic message is: Keep a cool head when passing judgement, you're less likely to regret it later.
Towards World Liberty Day? (Score:4, Insightful)
It may help, with regard to what I'm about to say, that you know "where I'm coming from"
I'm a computer consultant involved in a project with major security angles (so I've made myself aware of the issues) I'm nowhere near as skilled as many of the slashdot contributors but it pays the bills.
I'm also a political philosopher, atheist, transhumanist and libertarian anarchist.
Generally, as you might expect, therefore, I oppose a great deal of what both the US government and my own stand for.
However, I also try to be both pragmatic and objective.
OK, so much for the bio.
You may be aware that we've had a little local difficulty with our own home grown terrorists for the past 30 years. A number of points ought to be sticking out like sore thumbs as a result of our experience.
First off, as I've said, I'm no supporter of the British establishment. But one thing is crystal clear. No one knows more about combating terrorism than the Brits. No one even gets close. They were the first victims of modern terrorism (Palestine, late 40s) and have since fought it actively in every corner of the world. British anti terrorist special forces have been trained in real terrorist situations ever since the second world war. The Israelis come a not very close second (their experience is too parochial).
What lessons have arisen from that expertise?
Well, for a start, we've learned that the only terrorism which can be defeated is that which - unlike the current threat - has a very narrow base of support. (Oman is the classic example) Other forms can be suppressed and, to some extent, controlled, but not defeated. Why not? For the simple reason that Terrorism is a response to historical and political conditions. If those remain as they were when the terrorism began, then, even if you manage by extraordinary good fortune to wipe out every member of the current generation of terrorists, more will emerge, like mushrooms, from the background environment. If you don't tackle the conditions which produced the problem, you will reap a regular harvest.
Alarmingly, I do not hear, in the current debate, any mention of what needs to be done in order to reduce the political pressures which produced this attack. Unless AT LEAST as much effort goes into that political effort then the result of even a successful military campaign will be worse than you can probably imagine. Not immediately, not perhaps for 10 or 20 years. But unlike American politicians, the enemy here is patient and has time on its side. Don't lose sight of the fact that Tuesday 11 September 2001 has been in the planning stage for at least 8 and probably 10 years.
If we do nothing to tackle the background causes of this cancer, then even if we succeed in excising the current tumour, it has already metastasised and will inevitably flare up again in the future. And given the developments in delivery systems for biological agents (eg anthrax) and the progress being made in genetic engineering, the attack in 2011 or 2021 can be expected to kill not a few thousand, but millions or even hundreds of millions.
Having said that, terrorists, even when they carry out devastating attacks with the high degree of professionalism we saw on our TV screens, aren't very clever politically. The key breakthroughs in our Irish problem have generally come about as a result of the IRA committing atrocities which even their own supporters couldn't stomach. This has, at times, not only choked off their major source of funding (from the terrorists main supporting country, the USA) but also made it very difficult for them to justify their actions to their own grass roots.
It is very clear, from the speed with which even terrorist sponsor countries like Libya and Syria have jumped on the condemnation bandwagon, that this is precisely what has happened among the vast Islamic community who, though generally hostile to the USA, have recognised the World Trade Centre as an attack too far. The Pentagon, on its own or even the White House might have been regarded as legitimate military targets and you'd have seen a lot more than a few angry Palestinian teenagers dancing in the streets. But most Moslems, even the ones who hate the US, are not so unreasonable that they would seek to justify massive civilian casualties.
It is that reaction which should form the core of the political analysis and response.
The world is now divided into two hostile camps. The vast majority of us are hostile to what the Hussein/Laden axis carried out last week.
I'm not claiming that the figures I'm about to give are accurate, but they are in the right ballpark..
In excess of 99.9% of the human population would probably like to see bin Laden and/or Hussein quickly executed, together with all those for whom we can prove a valid connection to the attack, or preparation for the attack. There are, nevertheless possibly a million or so, who fully support the terrorists aims and methods, even including what they did in New York.
Of that million, probably no more than 5000 are combatants. We need not worry about killing any of those. Their deaths will be widely seen - even amongst the usually anti American community - as completely fair game. Their deaths will, of course, rouse fierce resentment from the million, but they were already in the enemy camp in any case, so the situation will not have been made any more dangerous than it already is.
However, each death outside that circle of combatants will probably:
a) "promote" ten of the million non combatant supporters to full combatant status in their own right and
b) recruit 10 new terrorist supporters - including possible future combatants - from the currently outraged wider Islamic community who otherwise would, regretfully, have "tolerated" (they wont stretch as far as "support") the shooting of their wild dogs.
You can see this attitude most clearly in Pakistan. The military leadership will keep the lid on their generally Laden supporting population in order to ensure that they themselves do not wake up in the firing line. They are currently host to 2.5 million Afghan refugees - who are no friends of either the Taliban or Bin Laden. But if ONE of their number back home is killed by a coalition attack - you can expect a hundred recruits to the anti American cause. And the rest of the Pakistan population would go apeshit. Not that they would necessarily seek to become terrorists themselves, but they would certainly make it easier for terrorists to conduct their business.
It is crucial, therefore, to have very precise targets and stick rigidly to those.
The problem of precision, of course, lies in locating the 5000 combatants. As we've already learned, 12 of the 19 identified had been living in the USA on and off for most of the past few years. How many more are already there? Where are the rest? Its extremely unlikely that they are still hanging around the known training camps in Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan etc. They will have dispersed back to their home villages, or to entirely different countries around the world. What are we going to aim at then?
If the coalition sticks to the Runsfeld line, the answer to that is going to be "whatever we can find - even if there isn't a terrorist within a hundred miles - providing it hurts the host country and makes them think twice about allowing terrorists to operate freely within their borders ever again" That way lie many thousand newly motivated terrorists.
There must be No blanket bombing. No non-combatant casualties - even at the cost of greater casualties for our side.
In this war, we need brains and bullets not blather and bombs. Precision targeting, should mean the sniper's bullet not the laser guided smart bomb. I'm more than happy to see the talk of lifting the ban on CIA assassinations. This is indeed a dirty war and, paradoxically, if fought dirty, will actually be a lot safer for the rest of us.
The Brits have had no compunction in that direction. Its been a major factor in their relative success. Check out, for example, http://www.flamemag.dircon.co.uk/dirty_war_in_ire
And that, above all, or at least alongside the military manoeuvres, is the light that must be placed at the end of the tunnel. If there is no prospect of political reform, there is no prospect of an end to the War on Terrorism. After all, if they're already prepared to sacrifice their lives, what else have they got to lose?
Primarily this means, somehow, forcing Israel and the Palestinians to share, peacefully, a territory over which both claim sovereignty.
The administration has already spoken of flushing out the roots of terrorism. In fact, it has no current strategy for dealing with that ambitious project at all. There are mixed signals coming from Runsfeld. On the one hand he talks about using small units of special forces - which is encouragingly realistic. Assassination is the appropriate tool here. On the other, he talks about the terrorists not having capital targets to go after, but their harboring countries do; so we might go after those instead. Teach them not to support the terrorists in future. This is alarming nonsense. And precisely the kind of behaviour which will increase the problem by recruiting more terrorists to the cause.
Indeed, most depressingly, such talk indicates that they haven't even understood what the "roots of terrorism" are. They are not spoilt arab ex-playboys with too much money (bin Laden) or egomaniacal despots who used to be on our side (Hussein) or training camps in the desert. The roots of terrorism are the political conditions which have provoked widespread anger amongst about 25% of the human population. Are we going to kill them all? Thats what you'll have to do if you wish to flush out the roots of terrorism without confronting the political issues.
There are many such issues, but, without doubt, the strongest, most important root of all, is the ongoing war between Israel and the Palestinians. Find the magic formula for that one, and most of the rest will wither on the vine. Even Iraq would cease to be a problem if it was no longer able to nurture support through its unconditional succour to the Palestinians. This is the area we should be most focussed upon.
One final point on the emerging shape of the Coalition policy. As touched on above, we are apparently supposed, from now on, to be going after not just the combatants themselves, but after the countries which provide support, or merely harbour them. I wonder if the author of that policy is aware that, had the UK adopted such a policy say 15 years ago, it would have necessarily needed to attack Eire for harbouring and the USA for allowing its Irish contingent to provide most of the logistical and financial support which kept the IRA going. Somehow, I can't see the USA having been so keen to support such a policy at that time. Now, of course, that they have become the target, however, we seem to get a faint whiff of double standards...
Moving on...
...to the threat to our civil liberties,
The naivete of some of the responses I've read here is absolutely frightening. It seems that some of you seriously believe that this war is going to be "over by Christmas". Let me make it plain. I'm a fanatical privacy advocate. Indeed I hope in the near future to be able to promote the concept of near absolute safety achieved through and dependant upon the guarantee of near absolute privacy.
Despite that, if I genuinely believed that giving up my rights to privacy for, say, a couple of weeks, or even months, would guarantee success in this war, I would probably concede that it was a price worth paying.
However, first, I would want the control of that situation in my own hands. In other words, at the point I decide that either my sacrifice of privacy is no longer effectively contributing to the war effort, or that the authorities are abusing my surrendered privacy, I would want to be able to switch my privacy back on - regardless of whether they approved or not.
Failing that degree of personal autonomy (which is difficult, though not impossible, in today's world) I would accept no less than a democratically controlled policy where the decision was made not by elected representives but, using a national referendum, by the people themselves in a single issue vote. With a guarantee - enshrined in the wording of the referendum - that the powers being ceded would be time limited to, say, 12 months, after which the powers would lapse unless renewed by another referendum.
Secondly, we are not talking about a short term policy here. I've already made it clear that until and unless you can cure the Arab-Israeli problem (at least), the roots of terrorism will continue to thrive. Those who favour anti-privacy measures will clearly expect them to be in place for as long as the terrorist problem remains. Until, in fact, the roots of terror have been eliminated. So ask yourself the question. How long is it going to take to sort out the Middle East?
Its already taken more than 50 years. I see no immediate reason to believe we could achieve significant progress in less than another 10 or 15 years. Are you really prepared to lose your privacy rights for that long? And do you really believe, that if you gave them away so easily (i.e. without the annual referendum above) that you could ever easily win them back?
And with the so called War on Drugs as a precedent, do you (anti-privacy lobbyists) really understand what you're suggesting. You're already widely regarded as a near police-state with the highest prison population in the western world and have already suffered massive unchallenged breaches to your sacred constitution - the authors of which must be spinning in their graves.
Please, for your own sakes, and for the sake of those who died on September 11, don't sacrifice even more of your freedoms in the mistaken belief that it will protect them. What you'll end up with is a country which is no longer worth protecting.
On September 11 2002 we will commemorate the first anniversary of this horrific attack on civilisation. I hope that the most appropriate name for this day in the future will reflect the fact that it will be recognised as the day the world began to turn away from intolerance, and began instead to pay more than lip service to the very freedoms which are supposed to be enshrined in and protected by - first and foremost - your very own American constitution.
I hope it will be called World Liberty Day.
I know the dead deserve nothing less.
I would like to think that our own actions,
between now and that first sad anniversary,
and all those anniversaries to come,
will make us all feel that we deserve it too.
Harry Stottle
Re:FUD from RMS... (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. For the first time in history, two big cities in the US were attacked. Now, there's something interesting about it: the US has played first role in the bigger wars in the past 50 years, and none of these wars were fought on american soil. Think about it for a moment.
Remember the $40M the US gave the Taliban this year [robertscheer.com]? Well, maybe this should be a reason to review the US foreign policy.
Why is it so hard to some people to understand that the recent attacks were a direct retaliation made to the US by the terrorists? Please, I beg you to think about it and understand that the US has already caused lots of casualties in Mid-East countries, and that those casualties are the main cause of the terrorism we saw last tuesday.
Read this letter from an Afghani-American [craigslist.org], and try to understand why bombing Afghanistan is useless.
Terrorism is not dominant in the islamic countries. It's a product of radical groups, spread all over the world. The best way to make them stop attacking the US, is make them stop wanting to do it. And not by fear, but by reason.
Re:Another Unpopular Position Taken By RMS... (Score:2, Insightful)
One thing I have always appreciated about the US is a healthy disrespect for the law. There are many stupid laws out there passed by special interest groups that serve no one but a priviledged minority, and it is an American right to break those laws. This breakage can only occur because law enforcement has limited means and tends to use those means to enforce the important stuff.
Pulling out of Israel? (Score:1, Insightful)
If we were to stop providing support for Israel, Israel would cease to exist within 1 year. Every other middle eastern country would attack it.
You don't realize the hatred towards Israel by the other countries in that region.
And look what hasn't come back after wartime... (Score:2, Insightful)
You are incorrect. Federal Income Tax was instituted again in 1942 as a "war measure". It ended up being permenant.
Oh and speaking of which, Some officials have been hinting that this will be one of those "never-ending" wars, like the "War on Drugs"(tm), while not a traditional "war", is still considered one. You can have your property seized without being charged with a crime, with virtually no hope of getting it back, even if you are innocent. All it takes is for someone to accuse you of trafficing in drugs, or suspect you of any "criminal activity". And guess what, they're doing it often [lp.org].
This isn't the 1860s where our government had some sort of decency. The government didn't repeal the income tax after ww2 because they knew they could get away with not repealing it.
You're assuming that our government is trustworthy enough to give us our rights back. History has shown that they are not. You're a fool if you think otherwise.
The worst part of it is that civil liberties given up in vain. The law breakers always find ways around them.
'Conservatives' vs. 'Liberals' vs. 'Libertarians' (Score:1, Insightful)
Today Wall Street opened, and among the few industries that increased value were defense, and those face recognition system makers.
Why don't I agree this increases our 'national security'?
Neither one of these industries prevented 5,000 deaths last week, and there is no evidence that they will in the future, nor will the demands for back doors to encryption, increased wire-tapping, lifting bans on assassination, or other assaults on our civil liberties. I agree with RMS.
Look at airline safety. Paul Krugman in yesterday's New York Times pointed out that it had been privatized by the Reaganites. As a result, airlines contract out to foreign companies who pay workers less than burger tossers. We get the security we pay for. Both the Regan 'conservatives' and libertarians are wrong in bashing government intervention here--the market clearly can't decide not to fly on American or United or U.S. Air because they are 'less safe'.
Note that our defense industries are essentially privatized, the "military-industrial complex" in Eisenhower's words. Note that those facial recognition and biometric systems are essentially privatizing public safety--the system in Tampa, for example, is funded by the company, not the government. One judge refused to fine speeders because a private company, Lockheed, gets a percentage of the speeding tickets recorded on its cameras. This is corruption.
Suppose that liberals or socialists are right in nationalizing the airline safety system. Then will a bloated, lazy, corrupt civilian force do a better job? Who will promise they will be treated any better than the airline controllers under Reagan?
I am all for increased public safety. Why is it that so many people are suddenly experts on the situation now and why is it that I am afraid to leave my house and mingle amongst all those idiots?
Ignorance.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Wow, that is disturbing. It seems to me that much
of the U.S. population (sorry to generalise) just don't "get it".
Look at the facts before this "tragedy", America is directly responsible for more deaths in one month than all casualties from the WTC. This is foreign soil I am talking about.
America is the big player in the world scene, the government knows and the American people know this. Decisions in the U.S. (generally) have a large impact on the rest of the world. I'll make this brief and not cite the many many problems around the world (of course America is not responsible for all).
That is the point, responsibility.. You can't be the big bad bully on the block and not expect a punch in the face. The "innocent" people that died were (generally) American taxpayers/citizens, THESE are the people that have to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for the government they put in, either legally or illegally (corruption has no boundaries of authority).
The most valid statement I have heard is, and continues to be: "You reap what you sow".
Hypocrisy and more violence, what the world has come to expect from the American government. I CANNOT stress that enough, the culprit here is the government. The buck stops at the American citizen.
If they open their eyes they will see that America has long been the joke of the world, and everytime the GWB puppet spouts "freedom" his nose grows that little bit longer....
Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's... (Score:2, Insightful)
Frangible bullets can be used inside aircraft at altitude with very little risk of decompression.
Even without weapons, I agree that any hijacker on a US plane will probably be swarmed by passengers (either out of bravery, or fear that the USAF would shoot the plane down) during the initial stages of trying to secure the aircraft. In such close quarters a swarm attack is very effective against even a trained and armed opponent.
?? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think that Saddam could easily invade Saudi Arabia, nor do I think that he has the intention to do so absent American involvement.
Kuwait is different. Kuwait was originally part of Iraq and when the British pulled out, they created that country as a way to "keep their foot in the door" in that region. As a result Iraq has, for some time (and long before Saddam) looked for a way to reclaim that land.
Don't get me wrong, even though I am highly critical of American war crimes (19 counts of which were tried in front of the international war-crimes tribunal and convictions were reached on all counts against Bush, Powell, etc), Hussein is no good guy. Anyone that would gas his own citizens with poison gas (during the Iran-Iraq war when he was our ally and probably on the payrole of groups like the CIA) certainly deserves much of the disdain he receives.
The 'net is full of people who have never even unfolded a newspaper, much less opened a history book, yet who are only too happy to tell us all what we ought to do. I guess such, er, diversity of opinion is one of the benefits of living in a free society, though.
Speaking of history, the last time a country really went to war over a terrorist act was Austro-Hungary, 1914. Although I can't speak for others, when I say I am afraid this would lead to WWIII, I base it on the following observations:
1: Massive tension in the Middle East which focuses around resentment towards "foreign invaders"-- mostly the Israeli's bot also the Americans.
2: The volitility of the Pakistan/India/China border. I predicted a few years ago that if WWIII broke out, that would be where. Pakistan and India have been fighting over the Cashmere for a long time and about every 20 years, China tried to invade India...
3: Russian Paranoia-- The Russians have been historically paranoid about foreign troups near their borders. We saw how they acted in WWI, at the end of WWII, and in Kosovo. The strategy is always based around a show of force and/or control of border states to prevent hostile troops from entering Russia. I think a war in Afghanistan would qualify there as well.
3:
Re:If now is not the time for dissent, when is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Februrary 28, 1933
Does any of this sound familiar? Can you not see similarities to the proposed 'new FBI powers' and 'relaxed wiretap requirements' discussed in Congress today?
Granted, perhaps the most recent terrorist bombings were no Reichstag fire [historyplace.com]. Is that any excuse for ignoring the lessons of history?
Re:Pulling out of Israel? (Score:2, Insightful)
imho, the creation of israel was an extremely bad idea and another example of British/American arrogance. we thought that we could mandate this solution and it would somehow work despite all of the natural reasons why it would devolve into the constant state of war that it's been. i'll admit to not knowing that part of post-war history as well as i should, but it seems obvious to me that israel as an artificially created jewish state was destined to be in its current situation.
that opinion notwithstanding, we'd never go back on that decision for at least 2 reasons that i can think of:
1) it would involve admitting that the idea was an error, something that we never do. admitting culpability usually leads next to people demanding reparations and we can't have that.
2) a large, very active and very passionate (about israel) jewish electorate in the u.s.,
who carry a lot of weight with our elected officials.
it's a bad situation, but it seems unlikely that any of the primary actors are going to reverse any of their positions in our lifetimes.