Readers’ Responses to Our Question (100)

Hello. Just look at this amazing site tokyo escort [url=http://tokyo-escort.ueuo.com]tokyo escort[/url] http://tokyo-escort.ueuo.com tokyo escort Buy!

Hello, nice site :)

Hello, nice site :)

idk anything to say cuz idk..............

idk anything to say cuz idk..............

idk anything to say cuz idk..............

idk anything to say cuz idk..............

idk anything to say cuz idk..............

wvuqfsk gjao idylqa fytlz itjyer srytwgp mgohq

wvuqfsk gjao idylqa fytlz itjyer srytwgp mgohq

wvuqfsk gjao idylqa fytlz itjyer srytwgp mgohq

For those naysayers against the wire-tapping to gather intelligence about Muslims and the homegrown terrorism read the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20278590/

The problem, apparently, is with the human reluctance. The attitude is: "even if there are credible and verifiable facts that underlie the truth, I am not going to accept it because it goes against my deeply-held beliefs and traditions". It's sort of a crisis of identity because these deeply-held beliefs/traditions could be proven to be wrong under some extraordinary circumstances.

This survelliance for intelligence gathering is surely USA's, and nobody else's business. US citizens pay tax to the US Govt. for their safety and hence expect the same in return.

Comparing India to USA is hilarious and an exercise in futility.

(1) India is a country, founded after Bapu (M. K. Gandhi) espoused his non-violence nuisance that has acquired the fame as labeled as "Gandhigiri" in the Bollywood film "Lage Raho Munnabhai" starring Sanjay Dutt (convicted felon) and Arshad Warsi. Non-violence maybe what ACLU activists hold high and mighty, but is in reality a foolish political ploy. The British gave Indians freedom because of Sir Clement Atlee, who was a labor party member, and because England was already a sinking ship then, being wounded in the World War II economic crisis/losses. It couldn't maintain its overseas "servant" anymore. Too bad. Non-violence is a form of escapism. You don't do anything worthwhile; but just become a nuisance like a street kid who shows of his/her ugly manners.

(2) Indians have shown time and again in history that they are willing to compromise on matters of personal freedom and national security. (Just read the book by Will Durant on invasion of India by Muslim hordes, and you shall find out what he wrote.) The past BJP-led "nationalist" NDA Government was seen escorting Maulana Masood Azhar (Jaswant Singh, Foreign Minister) out of the Indian jail and handed over to the Taliban in exchange of the lives of the passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines. Maulana Masood Azhar was a notorious terrorist. This is so much for brave political will of the elected representatives of the Indian Government.

(3) Indian Parliament was attacked by the daring Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) terrorists who are based in Pakistan. Indian Govt. dared not take any action, because such bold action would not sit well with Indians themselves who want an "amicable" relationship with their neighbor who admits funding terrorism inside India. Porous and/or open borders have made it almost impossible to control the flow of such militants and thus the growth of militancy inside India.

(4) In the recent times starting with the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, in retaliation of the revenge for the December 6, 1992 Babri Masjid demolition, Muslims in India have acted and threatened havoc. The recent bombings by Muslims in New Delhi, Mumbai, Varanasi comes to one's mind. The SIMI (Student Islamic Movement of India) has been involved hand-in-glove with such carnage and has been "almost confirmed" to be in cahoots with LeT (based in Pakistan). India, with all that it knows, does not take action in view of its respect for long history of non-violence (ahimsa).

(5) India's Muslims are the most troublesome minority. They get all the benefits including holding the supreme positions (President of India), but still bear the hatred towards the majority (Hindus). When Kashmiri Hindu Pandits were butchered mercilessly by these Muslim radicals of Hizb-i-Islami, Harkat-ul-Mujahaeen, the Indian polity was engaged in the armchair debate over whose fault it was that these Kashmiri Hindu pandits were getting killed. Some political parties (obviously representating some portion of the Indian populace) sloganed that let Kashmir go to the Muslims and let it secede. Their formula was that if India climbed down from its hardlined position, the violence would stop. Just like in USA, no Muslim organization actively opposed the Pakistani-backed terrorism, except to issue some token protests. However, Indians have shown to remain happy with that.

(6) The exiled author, Tasleema Nasreen was attacked in Hyderabad by some fanatic rabid Muslim members of parliament. Mohammad Farahtullah Khan, a member of the Congress-led state government called for the death of Dr. Nasreen. It is ironic that the police in India (Hyderabad) have filed a case against Dr. Nasreen under Indian Penal Code. It's some relief to read that this Khan has been booked, and that too after loud protests. (The link is: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/14taslima.htm .) Thanks to India on her 60th birthday for touting as a secular, democratic Republic and which often prides itself as having similar personal freedoms like USA offers to its citizens.

(7) The secuiry apparatus in India is fatally flawed. Abductions/kidnappings/paid-killings of the common upper middle-class is far too common. The law and order situation is in te dumps. Corruption and scandals are the norm of the day. To understand the nature of this corruption and how it plays in light of the so-called secular politics, one need to recall the (in)famous Shah Bano case in 1985, where the Congress government could manipulate and overturn the Supreme Court ruling, that ruled against the polygamy and cruelty of Shah Bano's husband, who had left her destitute. Muslim politicians had taken advantage of this ruling by making a mockery out of the Indian Constitution at each and every possible opportunity.

(8) The recent caste-based quota system for admissions to higher instututes of learning and jobs show the level of corruption that is practiced in India.

I can go on and on, and I was born and raised in India. However that does not prevent me from telling the awkward truth. The truth is that many Indians who come to USA, like me or Fareed Zakaria, don't go back. If India (or any other country) was so damn good, why come here in the 1st place ?

The comparison between USA and India on the need for having a good intelligence gathering system is thus moot. India's corrupt socio-political system will not let any good to happen. Plus Indian politicians there are all too willing to sell out their country and the people. So let India remain India and judge her needs, and let her mind her own business instead of lecturing other countries on following India's footsteps that would inevitably lead to corruption and deceit.

At the outset the answer seems to be in affirmative. However, a moment later only you realize that no country – including the US – has ever displayed any kind of foresight towards preventing terrorist activities anywhere in the world based on their “intelligence” reports. To think that today’s terrorists are so naïve so as to discuss their plans over telephones and the Net is akin to living in fools’ paradise.

Just to give you an example, though not related but relevant nevertheless:

Post India’s successfully testing its nuclear capabilities in Pokhran in Rajasthan in 1974 – “when Buddha had smiled (!)”, the US had put 24x7 surveillance over that area fearing India might test again. And, India did test again - at the same site in 1998 and the US never came to know about it in time! Interestingly, one of the test shafts was named White House!

Therefore, the American intelligence agencies’ plan to monitor global communications that transit the U.S. is doomed to meet a similar fate because tackling terrorism requires much sincere and “intelligent” effort than this.

Another important aspect is very high chances of communications data getting misused and misinterpreted if they get into “unintelligent” officials’ hands. The case in point is the recent fiasco over detention of Dr. Mohd. Haneef in Australia over his so-called involvement in the London failed bombings as he had innocently given his still-active SIM card to his London based cousin Sabeel - an alleged terrorist - when he was to shift to Australia.

It is a dangerous path and the US needs to tread it cautiously. A global debate is required on it as it concerns citizens from all parts of the globe. For which, international diplomats and bureaucrats need to sit together and show a bit more of their imagination in arriving at an “intelligent” strategy to combat global terrorism.

Ultimately, we all want the same thing – secure borders, the ability to live free from harm, and rights protections as we enjoy this safety. Dispute as to how to achieve these objectives and what compromises the government can/should make to ensure the safety and freedom of its people is natural, but I do think there is a somewhat reasonable medium. Or at least, there has to be.

I don’t think that it is illogical to be concerned about such mass-violence and “terrorism,” as Deb-C has pointed out. It is clearly a problem that the government has been keeping under wraps through several administrations. But, similar to Bob-VA’s emphasis on the justice system, it is necessary to have more transparent views and processes when alleged terrorists are prosecuted, among other methods that should be examined and implemented. We must be able to hold the government accountable and check ethnic/religious profiling.

While I do think that “reasonable doubt” could be stretched – with specific parameters – given the gravity and breadth of such attacks on the country, I think BobL’s point of protecting the persecuted is really the primary contention I have against this surveillance. Government-authorized racism and non-protections are intolerable. I am an Asian-American professional in my twenties and I fly frequently for work. And yet, the majority of the time I go to my gate –my computer, carry-on, and ziploc all organized and in-tow-- I am checked aggressively by security. In DC, I have been physically checked multiple times to the point where I often take the Amtrak. My ticket is always circled. It is quite embarrassing when I am traveling with teammates or clients. Once, a nice gentleman witnessing the scene accosted the security guard because I was reprimanded for having an “unlabeled” lipgloss in my ziploc. Really, the only explanation that I have for this is the color of my skin. Granted, this is nowhere near what injustices others face, but it’s just a sampling of the racial profiling that already happens every day and does not need to be exacerbated by anti-terrorist measures. It goes far beyond not being able to hail a taxi. Surveillance legislation enables the government to come into your home and potentially warp personal details and communications within your life for their purposes, whatever these may be. The measure of a nation is not only by its most educated and innovative, but also by its marginalized and oppressed. Failing to protect our fellow Americans because of their beliefs or ethnic origins is ludicrous.

I know that many criminals take advantage of America’s legal system, falling through loopholes and manipulating the law. This is unfortunate. But there are principles of justice and equity that the nation MUST uphold so that we do not become the image of a nation that anti-Americans have crafted to fuel their charge.

I also just want to entertain one additional point—the KKK and other radical racist groups are constantly plotting violence against ethnic minorities, women, and the gay community. Hate crimes within our country run rampant. Why hasn’t the government ever thought to wire-tap to prosecute these baleful groups? (This is a question that could be used for and against the argument for broader surveillance…)

DebC,

My points aren't complicated. You should be able to understand them rather easily. First, the Western Nations have more treasure, more arms and a history of using them. This isn't even an arguable point. It's just history. What we have here is a David and Goliath scenario. The West is so far superior militarily and economically to the Islamic Nations that it isn't close to a fair playing field. We took out the Taliban government with 20,000 troops. We took out a country of 25 million people with just 135,000 troops. They can't stand up to us militarily and they know it. They can't get in a fight with us and expect to come out victorious. Hell, they can't even rid the land of Israel whick they dwarf in terms of size and population. Militarily they are inept. (do I still sound like I'm pro-Islam?)

Second, our involvment in the creation of Israel and the continued support of the same is anti-Muslim. Muslims had to be displaced and we have and continue to assist in this process. Add to this fact what we have done in the past in terms of interfering in the area (like the Shah) and we have proved we are willing to take actions that are contrary to their self determination.

I'm all for patting America on the back when they do something good. I'm also all for criticizing America when they commit serious blunders. Blunders like lying about WMD's and invading countries without having probable cause. However, since probable cause doesn't mean that much any more in America why should Boosh care about it overseas either?

DebC,

My points aren't complicated. You should be able to understand them rather easily. First, the Western Nations have more treasure, more arms and a history of using them. This isn't even an arguable point. It's just history. What we have here is a David and Goliath scenario. The West is so far superior militarily and economically to the Islamic Nations that it isn't close to a fair playing field. We took out the Taliban government with 20,000 troops. We took out a country of 25 million people with just 135,000 troops. They can't stand up to us militarily and they know it. They can't get in a fight with us and expect to come out victorious. Hell, they can't even rid the land of Israel whick they dwarf in terms of size and population. Militarily they are inept. (do I still sound like I'm pro-Islam?)

Second, our involvment in the creation of Israel and the continued support of the same is anti-Muslim. Muslims had to be displaced and we have and continue to assist in this process. Add to this fact what we have done in the past in terms of interfering in the area (like the Shah) and we have proved we are willing to take actions that are contrary to their self determination.

I'm all for patting America on the back when they do something good. I'm also all for criticizing America when they commit serious planders. Blunders like lying about WMD's and invading countries without having probable cause. However, since probable cause doesn't mean that much any more in America why should Boosh care about it overseas either?

BobL-VA:

Looks like you are a closet pan-Islamist. Though I am not sure. You always refer that USA has done this and that to Muslims which is why they are retaliating. That's the most stupid line of escapist argument I have seen being circulated in recent times.

Obviously you have not read the article I had posted from THE HINDU, where the author Hasan Suroor (a Muslim) challenges and laments at exactly same the escapist pan-Islamic verbiage that you are dishing out.

Hi Tom,

If you really believe a significant amount of Muslims are such an immediate threat to our security and safety then why beat around the bush? (pun intended)

Muslims and Christians have been killing each other for centuries. However, when we kill them we're being noble and when they kill us they're being evil. So let's start advocating killing all of them? That will rid the world from the problem you see. My best guess is you don't want to go down this road as genocide is such an ugly word. So instead of dealing with your preceived problem let's start limiting US freedoms to develop a security plan that would do very little to solve the problem that exists today? That simply doesn't make any sense.

DebC,

I don't know what the Muslims ever did to you, but it's obvious they certainly must have done something. Christian societies have more weapons, more people, more money and a demonstrated ability to use all of these things to interfere with the Muslim World. They spit back at us and we're supposed to run around and start yelling, "The Muslims are dangerous." I'm sorry we're already killing them on a daily basis in numbers that far exceed our losses. The Taliban supported Bin Laden and we invaded their country and overthrew them. Saddam really didn't do much of anything and we invaded, deposed, occupied, started a civil war and watched in disgust as he taunted at his execution. If I was a Muslim I'd be scared of us. We've proven over and over again we're more then willing to take military action against them. You really don't expect them to fight back?

All Muslims dream of an Islamic Caliphate that would make some monochromatic deity up in the heavens very happy(Deb Chattertree)

BobL-VA:

Sorry about that link, it's broken for now. I am reproducing the entire article.

My apologies for the long article.

Date:17/07/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/07/17/stories/2007071755660800.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Debate or denial: the Muslim dilemma

Hasan Suroor

More Muslims need to realise that Islamist terrorists are not simply “misguided” individuals acting on a whim but that they are people who know what they are doing and they are doing it deliberately in the name of Islam.

Judging from much of the Muslim reaction to the latest Islamist outrage — last month’s attempted bombings in London and Glasgow — the community seems to have talked itself into a default position in relation to violent Muslim extremism. The same old arguments are being flogged again betraying an unwillingness to acknowledge either the scale of the problem or its nature. The fear of making the community or Islam look bad has created a strange silence aroun d issues that lie at the heart of the Islamism debate.

Broadly, the Muslim argument is that it is all down to a host of external factors. Top of the list is the western foreign policy, especially with regard to the Palestinian issue, compounded by the invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq. Then there are social and economic reasons such as lack of education and high rate of unemployment in the Muslim community — again attributed to external causes such as racial or religious discrimination.

In other words: don’t blame us; it is all other people’s doing. We are only the victims. As someone who feels the same pressures as other Muslims, I wish this was true. But it isn’t. It not all other people’s doing. We are not just the victims.

I used the term ‘default position’ as an euphemism. There is a more robustly appropriate term, which is being increasingly used to describe the Muslim position: denial. The view that Muslims are in denial of the extent of the problem and their own responsibility in dealing with it is no longer confined to right-wing Muslim-bashers. Even liberal opinion has started to shift.

Appearing on an NDTV panel discussion last week, I was struck by how closely my two distinguished co-panellists — one in New Delhi and the other in Bangalore — stuck to the ‘default’ position. They kept refer ring to “looming images” from Iraq and Palestine; and to the frustration and “anger” bred by American and British foreign policy. There were obligatory references to social deprivation etc., etc. And as for the three Indian doctors suspected to have been behind the London-Glasgow plot, they were simply “misguided” individuals acting alone.

There was much hand-wringing when the anchor underlined the fact that Muslims had been behind all recent acts of terrorism. Yes, it was worrying. Of course, the community condemned any violence committed in the name of Islam, a peaceful religion. And, indeed, there was need for introspection and discussion. But all this was hedged in with so many “ifs” and “buts” that the whole debate seemed like a huge exercise in denial. At least up to the point where I was cut off because the satellite time ran out.

It is the response of a community that sees itself under siege and is irritated that every time a Muslim does something silly it is expected to stand up and apologise. Add to this the prevailing Islamophobia (it is pretty widespread, make no mistake about it), and it is not difficult to understand why Muslims are in this defensive mood. But how long will they continue to shy away from facing the truth? And the truth is that many of their assumptions about the underlying causes of extremism are flawed. Every fresh terrorist attack chips away at the idea that foreign policy and socio-economic factors are the sole drivers of Islamist extremism, making the Muslim default position more untenable.

Hassan Butt, a reformed British extremist, recalls how “we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.” Writing in The Observer, he said if he was still stuck in his old ways, he would be “laughing once again” at suggestions that the June 29-30 failed attacks were motivated by anger over British foreign policy.

Mr. Butt criticised Muslims and liberal non-Muslim intellectuals and politicians for failing to recognise the “role of Islamist ideology in terrorism” — an ideology that, according to another lapsed extremist Shiraz Maher, preaches a “separatist message of Islamic supremacy” and seeks to establish a “puritanical caliphate.” Mr. Maher knew Kafeel Ahmed, the Indian who tried to blow up Glasgow airport and is now fighting for his life in a hospital in Scotland.

Both Mr. Butt and Mr. Maher were activists of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, one of Britain’s most controversial radical groups with a long and notorious history of recruiting potential jihadis in mosques and on university campuses. Mohammed Siddique Khan, who masterminded the 7/7 bombings, was a member of Hizb at the same time as Mr. Butt. The July 7 attacks were widely attributed to the invasion of Iraq and other west-inspired “atrocities” against Muslims. According to Mr. Butt, though many extremists were enraged by the deaths of fellow Muslims across the world “what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.”

Arguably, defectors are not the most reliable of people and there is, inevitably, an element of exaggeration in what they say about the organisation they have left and of their own role in it. Yet, so long as we are careful to remember where they are coming from and don’t allow ourselves to be mesmerised by their insiders’ account, they remain our best guide to understanding the world they have left behind. It is only an ex-extremist who can help us get a glimpse of what goes on inside an extremist organisation and sometime that can change our perceptions of an issue in a fundamental way. So, when people like Mr. Butt and Mr. Maher debunk some of the most widely held assumptions about the nature of Muslim extremism it is important to pay heed. And they are not the only ones. Ed Husain, another ex-Islamist, has written a whole book (The Islamist) warning against complacency.

First and foremost, Muslims must acknowledge what Ziauddin Sardar, one of Europe’s most prominent Muslim scholars, calls the “Islamic nature of the problem.” Islamist extremism has not descended from another planet or been imposed on the community from outside. It breeds within the community and is the product of a certain kind of interpretation of Islam. And, in the words, of Mr. Sardar, terrorists are a “product of a specific mindset that has deep roots in Islamic history.”

In a seminal essay, “The Struggle for Islam’s Soul” (New Statesman, July 18, 2005), Mr. Sardar argued that Islamists were “nourished by an Islamic tradition that is intrinsically inhuman and violent in its rh etoric, thought and practice” and this placed a unique burden on Muslims as they tried to make sense of what their co-religionists were doing in the name of Islam. “To deny that they are a product of Islamic history and tradition is more than complacency. It is a denial of responsibility, a denial of what is happening in our communities. It is a refusal to live in the real world,” he wrote.

Mr. Sardar’s views are significant. He is a practising Muslim with deep grounding in Islamic theology. He was deeply upset by Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses and is often involved in verbal duels with Islamophobic commen tators. But as he points out because he is a Muslim and it is in the name of his religion that terrorists are acting, he believes it is his “responsibility critically to examine the tradition that sustains them.”

More Muslims need to realise that Islamist terrorists are not simply “misguided” individuals acting on a whim but that they are people who know what they are doing and they are doing it deliberately in the name of Islam. However perverted their interpretation it remains an interpretation of Islam and it is not enough to condemn their actions or accuse them of hijacking Islam without doing anything about it.

Let’s face it; there are verses in the Koran that justify violence. The “hard truth that Islam does permit the use of violence,” as Mr. Butt points out, must be recognised by Muslims. When Islam was in its infancy and battling against non-believers violence was deemed legitimate to put them down. Today, when it is the world’s second largest religion with more than one billion followers around the world and still growing that context has lost its relevance. Yet, jihadi groups, pursuing their madcap scheme of establishing Dar-ul-Islam (the Land of Islam), are using these passages to incite impressionable Muslim youths. Yet there is no sign of a debate in the community beyond easy platitudes, and it remains in denial.

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

BobL-VA:

You are, unwittingly, playing into the hands of the pan-Islamists. Homegrown Muslim terrorism is a real threat. Of course, in USA, the Democratic party has mostly viewed Islamic terrorism as a common law and order problem, and that Osama bin Laden and his cronies are nothing more than common murderers.

But, that's a state of juvenile denial. Just as Muslims are in a state of denial about the responsibilities they have to fulfil as mature, civilized citizens in a multi-polar world. All Muslims dream of an Islamic Caliphate that would make some monochromatic deity up in the heavens very happy. To that end read this article at this link:

http://www.thehindu.com/2007/07/17/stories/2007071755660800.htm.

LIkewise, you are also in a state of perpetual denial about the existence of homegrown Muslim terrorists and the dire need to combat them.

BobL

"...Now as to your Muslims are trying to take over the world concept you are probably right. In their minds they envision a world of nothing but Muslims. Of course most Christians envision a world of nothing but Christians. Considering the relative strength of the Muslim Societies today, or lack thereof, you have a better chance of seeing pigs fly then the Muslims running the world. Muslims can't even unite to throw out an occupying Christian Army from their soil. They are more worried about evening old scores then they are about being subjected to US military rule. Yup, pigs will fly first..."

First of all, there is no comparison between Christians and radical Islam i.e., Jihadist. There is no fundamental Christian Caliphate, no fundamentalist Christians bombing Mecca (except maybe Tancredo if he becomes President) or calling for a resumption of the Crusades.

Christians, Hindus, Buddist and Jews (and all others) shouldn't even be mentioned while discussing radical Islam. Radical Islam is here and now, and should be discussed on its own merit as a threat to world peace, and for their jihadist goals in today's world.

Today's jihadist are not as simple as liberals like to make them. Bin Laden and his cohorts are not Hell's Angels in robes. They are not simple criminals, but individuals that advance an ideology based on the ancient (going back to the seventh century) establishment of imperialist Islam. They are not acting alone, and contrary to what Liberals want us to believe, they are not motivated by our foreign policy, but are motivated by their strict interpretation of the Koran and their duty to Allah. The immediate goal of the jihadist (like Bin Laden) is to reestablish all Muslim countries under the rule of the Caliphate, and that includes all countries that were at one time conquered by Islam (Spain, France(?), etc.). Bin Laden is not acting alone in this plan.

1. The Muslim Brotherhood was established in the early twentieth century and follows a radical Salafist philosophy (Bin Laden). They are a prominent political organization with roots in Egypt. Some of todays radical Islamic organizations are offshoots of the MB such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

2. Wahhabism is a fundamentalist Islamic philosophy patterned after Salifism. Saudi Arabia has funded the spread of Wahhabism world-wide. Is it really surprising that most of the hijackers from 911, and almost half the foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia?

3. Iran is a radical fundamental Shiites state about to become a nuclear power and Iran also has control of Hizbollah which is an international Islamist terror organization. Iran's influence is expanding.

There is a connection between most Islamic wars in the world today and the Salafist (Wahhabist) fundamentalist Islam that Bin Laden follows. In addition, home grown terrorism is a developing threat especially in Europe.

This is not to say that there is a terrorist in every neighborhood in America ready to become a martyr, but it does say that one needs to UNDERSTAND the jihadist goals and realize that their philosophy is expanding within the Muslim community (spread of Wahhabism). Only then will we be able to understand their threat, and in my opinion, they are a significant threat (enough to not worry about passing the NSA).

One other interesting fact. Al Qaeda has a significant presence in Iraq, but none to speak of in Afghanistan (yet) which tells you which war they consider most important.

Deb Chatterjee _ Excuse me! You go ahead and cite the Bill Of Rights. The problem is, the Bill Of Rights doesn't mean squat and hasn't in quite some time. Conservatives, as witness tose defending the actions of the Bush Whtehouse here, are all for "curtail" or fltat out doing away with the Bill Of Rights as they please. Liberals are no better. Bring up gun control and they will wingle and re-interpret the 2nd Amendment to read as they please. The 14th Amendment, passed during Reconstruction, has been misused to read that the children of illegal aliens have automatic citizenship, but it *can* be read to deny that. It's all a matter of who's ox is being gored. I wish it were different, but politicians long ago learned how to break the public up into single issue special interest groups and convinced them that their single issue is of paramount import. So we've got pro-abortion and anti-abortion groups...oh, sorry, pro_choice and pro-life. And we've got public unions and politcian's representing public employees who are more than willing to chop down forests, raise taxes and drive working people from their homes, lie, hide budgett items, you name it, so long as they get that benefit increase or salary increase. Likewise, "investors" could care less about outsourcing and the negative impact it has on this country, just give them a "decent rate of return". It's a mess and no one can or will work together. Expect the country to rattle along for a while longer and, then, for the whole thing to just fall apart. This latest awful piece of legislation by Bush and those ignorant fools in Congress is just another nail in the coffin that contains the sorry remnants of this once great country.

DebC,

If you had a point on this throng of terrorists running amok in our society maybe, just maybe, I could buy into your argument. However, thre is no creditble evidence to support your claim. That's a real problem when you want to fundamentally change our society. Contrary to popular belief there is no evidence a terrorist is hiding behind every fire hydrant. If you want to live your life under that supposition be my guest, but I'd rather live mine planning for what actually is happening in the world and our own country today.

You'll have to do better then argue the bogey man is going to get us if we don't allow warrantless wiretapping.

BobL-VA:

Sorry, I cannot agree with your percept of "American Freedom". I understand, what the US Constitution states. Yes, eavesdropping is a bad thing to do. No sane person would deny that. But saner persons would agree that USA is surrounded by invisible emenies (homegrown Muslim radicals who collaborate with pro-Jihadist orgs. outside USA). Thus, what James Madison wrote in 1786 was also more so in the context of those times. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams recognized the "Mussulman" barbary and indeed Jefferson ordered US Navy to have them defeated. You surely need some sense of self-preservation to stay alive and weather rough times. Thomas Jefferson certainly had that in him.

With time, the American view has dissolved into the quagmire of self-destructive liberalism. I do submit that all Muslims are not suspect. But, you know what ? It is getting extremely difficult to convince die-hards like you of the practicality of such "draconian" measures in the present context. With the stubbornness that you have displayed, by your fanatical adherence to some form of purist interpretation of "American values", I am afraid that such attitudes are a quick recipe for cultural disaster. As you maybe aware that great civilizations are destroyed by the follies of its citizenry and political lordships. Roman empire is one; it allowed barbarians who had no actual allegiance to have the same rights of its own folks. The result has been penned by Edward Gibbons in his classic epic.

To quip, the present rage over eavesdropping for pre-emptive arrests of suspected Muslim terrorists and their collaborators refects the ostritch mentality of Americans. These self-deluded persons live in a fanciful world of toothless egalitarianism that serves nothing less than death-traps for the US Constitution.

I have always admitted that not all Muslims are terrorists. At the same time, the 19 hijackers out of the 1.1 billion Muslims caused cataclysmic disaster that may have been averted by an active and performing intelligence system. Yes, I also agree that nothing is guaranteed and simply having a good network of intelligence may not be foolproof. Terrorists always will try to sneak in and cheat the system. But, that does NOT mean that US Government shall not take measures to counter such fatal threats.

It is probably futile to remind you and other naysayers of the Great Britain scenarios. The UK Muslims are calling for beheading of the members of the British parliament and the citizenry, and want to establish a Caliphate. The Hizb-ut-Tahir in England is actively recruiting Jihadists from Muslim families by going to campuses, and preaching Dawah. Given the London bombings, and the recent Glasgow bombing by the suicide bomber Dr. Kafeel Ahmed, I think it is simply practical to have eavesdroppingh in place to avoid such scenarios in future. If the British people, falling prey to deceptive contrarian slogans of the radical left, vote to have such measures kept in abeyance, then it is they who are to blame.

There is nothing wronng in a Government trying to the correct thing for "greater good". Yes, maybe when you are in the little boys room, your intimate pictures maybe seen by the NSA intelligence officer, but I am sure that if he finds you just responding to nature's call, s/he would just delete that file. But, the same NSA officer, if s/he doesn't have the mechanisms to see if you are not strapping yourself with the suicide belt, then that would simply be a failure of the American system for which Americans are only to blame.

If the free World wants to fight terrorism effectively, I am sure it wants so, it has to think about method exceeding issuing new laws restricting more civil rights. I thing, the US authorities should have rather issued laws prohibiting the US-administration of cooperating with dictatorships and to fight corruption crimes committed by officials, supported or even appointed by Americans in some other countries. Let us take Iraq for example: After the removal of Saddam regime, the Iraqi population was largely friendly to the Allies forces, but after the Americans began to appoint their corrupt agents, from Iraqi origin, a wave of corruption has overwhelmed this country and situation on all levels to deteriorate rapidly, which caused on its side great dissatisfaction among the peoples of Iraq. The increasing dissatisfaction has mutated gradually to terrorism, which is in increase now. Nobody has the right to support dictatorships ruling over other countries and peoples, or impose its own corrupt agents on them as rulers. If you want democracy for yourself at home, you have to accept our right also to establish a democratic system.

Will it also target drug smugglers and drug kingpins?

This isn't about stopping terrorism at all, and most people know it. The snooping law is well-publicized, and it is the height of absurdity to imagine a terrorist is going to ring up his supplier in the U.S. and say, "Gimme another shipment of doorbells, will you - they make dandy detonators for IED's". Everybody knows about it, people who don't want to be overheard will simply go around it, but Bush still insisted he had to have it. Now he's got nobody to eavesdrop on but ordinary people going about their ordinary lives, and the opposition. However, that'll be enough to keep them content for awhile, rooting out fifth-columnists and people who otherwise loathe this government. The snooping law will inevitably be subject to mission creep, and before you know it your local police will be listening in, too. Well, if nothing else, it'll go a long way toward making America the dour Puritan nation its religious fundies devoutly wish for. Everybody will be afraid to say anything on the phone unless it's preceded by "Praise the Lord, and God bless George Bush".

DebC,

I'm not against eavesdropping if it's ordered by a court. I'm against the government engaging in fishing expeditions and invading our privacy. It is a very slippery slope they are going down. Terrorists are either criminals or in the case of State sponsorship they are committing acts of war. Either way we already have laws on the books to effectively deal with them.

We cannot allow ourselves to be held hostage in regards to our rights to privacy by a few people on this planet. (I know the Constitution never uses the term right to privacy, but if you look at the 1st, 4th and 14th amendments and the subsequent supreme court rulings over an individuals rights to privacy from undo government interference it is easy to deduce that certain rights of privacy exist in the US)

We're a system that is supposed to be made up of checks and balances. Our forefathers were very explicit about this point. They had deep belief that one branch of government should be too powerful and wrote the constitution accordingly. Monitoring calls in and out of the US as well as personal mail and email is acceptable as long as a judicary member certifies it. When probable cause exists to basically spy an individual who you have a reasonable belief is either in the act of committing a crime or will commit one. Just because some arbitrary number of Muslims in the US (I've seen 10% as about an average number) are pro jihad isn't in itself a reason to invade 100% of the groups private communications. I'm sorry that's profiling and it's not legal in the US. If it were an argument could be made that 30% of all black males in Washington DC between the ages of 18 and 35 have either been in jail or will go to jail. Hence, let's start dispensing with their rights as we know a high percentage of them are either now criminals or will be criminals. Once Pandora's Box has been openned it is very difficult to close it. Today terrorism is the sexy political word used to justify just about everything. Tomorrow it could the illegal immigrants and in 5 years it could just be crime in the US. If warrantless searches are allowed to stand today over the issue of terrorism it will branch out into other areas of our society. Some right wing nut jobs my think this is a good thing, but I'm neither right wing nor am I a nut job so I think it is very poor policy. Our freedom is to be cherished, protected and fought for. It should never be taken away by any politican for political reasons.

For me, the issue is about efficacy, checks and balances, and priorities.

First, do we believe that broad surveillance is integral to deterring and identifying terrorists, or do we see such surveillance as a supplemental tactic? If we can prove that such surveillance is critical to the prevention of terrorism, and that it is the most effective plan, then I do believe that it may be justified in trumping privacy rights -- with specific exceptions, balances, and protections. From the little information available to the public however, efficacy has yet to be proven.

Second, one of the greatest fears of such surveillance is that it will lead (has led) to unlawful persecution, unchecked government authority, and a police state of sorts. We have a right to due process. There is nothing more terrifying than thinking that you may be targeted by the federal government and have no venue for advocacy and defense. Therefore, with such surveillance, additional and just checks and balances should follow, even if they may arguably "weaken" the efficacy of such surveillance. For example, citizens should be allowed a better understanding of how the surveillance system works, we should be able to see who is (unlawfully or lawfully) prosecuted, we should have the right to an attorney and to a fair trial. We should be guaranteed protections rather than being threatened within their own country and by our own government.

And last comes the issue of priorities. If measures to identify terrorist activity is so important for national security (which I do believe it is), then why are we settling with a broad surveillance system that contentiously dives into the slippery slope of explicit and implicit rights violations? With all of the resources we have invested in Iraq, for example, could we not have invested in other anti-terrorism tactics? Could we have discovered (or discover) another mechanism for more effective security? Or perhaps we could have extirpated some of the causes of terrorist and anti-American sentiment. Additionally, how do we decide that "national security," as it is so defined, trumps citizen rights, when in other cases --i.e. domestic violence and rape that over time have caused an equal amount of terror, instability, and economic and social consequences-- we so ardently protect privacy rights? Some may believe that nothing can be compared to the importance of national security. But in assessing the current administration's overarching approach to terrorism and citizen protections, I question who we are protecting and who we fail to protect with such programs and priorities.

For me, the issue is about efficacy, checks and balances, and priorities.

First, do we believe that broad surveillance is integral to deterring and identifying terrorists, or do we see such surveillance as a supplemental tactic? If we can prove that such surveillance is critical to the prevention of terrorism, and that it is the most effective plan, then I do believe that it may be justified in trumping privacy rights -- with specific exceptions, balances, and protections. From the little information available to the public however, efficacy has yet to be proven.

Second, one of the greatest fears of such surveillance is that it will lead (has led) to unlawful persecution, unchecked government authority, and a police state of sorts. We have a right to due process. There is nothing more terrifying than thinking that you may be targeted by the federal government and have no venue for advocacy and defense. Therefore, with such surveillance, additional and just checks and balances should follow, even if they may arguably "weaken" the efficacy of such surveillance. For example, citizens should be allowed a better understanding of how the surveillance system works, we should be able to see who is (unlawfully or lawfully) prosecuted, we should have the right to an attorney and to a fair trial. We should be guaranteed protections rather than being threatened within their own country and by our own government.

And last comes the issue of priorities. If measures to identify terrorist activity is so important for national security (which I do believe it is), then why are we settling with a broad surveillance system that contentiously dives into the slippery slope of explicit and implicit rights violations? With all of the resources we have invested in Iraq, for example, could we not have invested in other anti-terrorism tactics? Could we have discovered (or discover) another mechanism for more effective security? Or perhaps we could have extirpated some of the causes of terrorist and anti-American sentiment. Additionally, how do we decide that "national security," as it is so defined, trumps citizen rights, when in other cases --i.e. domestic violence and rape that over time have caused an equal amount of terror, instability, and economic and social consequences-- we so ardently protect privacy rights? Some may believe that nothing can be compared to the importance of national security. But in assessing the current administration's overarching approach to terrorism and citizen protections, I question who we are protecting and who we fail to protect with such programs and priorities.

Deb introduces the fork in road.

Do we protect ourselves or open ourselves to the danger that very well could be.

The other concern is privacy rights.

-------------------------------------

Almost without question, we all feel we need to protect ourselves.

At the same time, the vast majority does not trust the conservatives (All Republicans, Hillary, and other Democrats would fall in with this catagory) with such power, and for very good reason.

It has become crystal clear that the politicians collect their paycheck from the lobby interest groups. Unless that factor is restricted by the law, corruption will flourish whilst we are protecting ourselves.

Personally, I'd rather run the risk of a terror attack, rather than allow the conservatives continue to deconstruct our freedoms and economy yet still be at risk of a terror attack.

I, honestly, find that the damage the Conservatives are doing to the United States of America is just as bad as any intention that Osama Bin Laden might have for us.

Bob:

The argument is technically about the 4th Amendment. But in practical terms, it is also about the 1st Amendment.

If some editor draws a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad (like in Denmark) in USA, then Muslims in USA can get incensed and plot with jihadis outside USA to bring harm to the country. (There are various issues/ways that would incense Muslims and indeed it's unfathomable. Try keeping a track of those issues after the outburst has happened.)

If the wiretapping did not exist, then such home-grown terrorism has a very very slim chance ofd being apprehended, unless you get very lucky.

The wiretapping/eavesdropping intention is to keep a watchful eye on what's happening in mosques, over internet, phone lines etc with Muslims. This is not to be construed that all Muslims by default are terrorists. But, I submit that majority of today's terrorists are Muslims and the law-enforcing agencies have to work with some starting point. So, to keep a good vigil one needs to do what is practical and necessary.

DebC,

This argument isn't over the 1st amendment. It's over the 4th amendment. Go read the 4th amendment and the supreme court decisions handed down over it and then come back and make an argument.

MikeB,

I, agree, with you 110 percent on everything you've said.

Pelosi bailed on one of the most important pieces of legislation of the century when she led the Democrats to drop the Fuel Efficiency Bill.

Then 41 Democrats voted to legalize the illegal activity of Bush and Gonzales with their Wiretap Bill, this past week.

Clinton does not have to be our next President.

WE THE PEOPLE could band together through networks of blogs and have an effect on who is elected. Look at this past mid-term election.

http://timmaaaysworld.blogspot.com/

www.timmaaaysworld.blogspot.com/

MikeB,

I, agree, with you 110 percent on everything you've said.

Pelosi bailed on one of the most important pieces of legislation of the century when she led the Democrats to drop the Fuel Efficiency Bill.

Then 41 Democrats voted to legalize the illegal activity of Bush and Gonzales with their Wiretap Bill, this past week.

Clinton does not have to be our next President.

WE THE PEOPLE could band together through networks of blogs and have an effect on who is elected. Look at this past mid-term election.

http://timmaaaysworld.blogspot.com/

www.timmaaaysworld.blogspot.com/

There are underlying assumptions to the statement as given.

one is that communications surveillance can "stop terrorist organizations". as given, this statement is certainly false. covert organizations can circumvent conventional communications channels, and have been doing so for decades. message encoding and alternate signal and delivery methods have been used throughout human history. they are used today by organizations, legitimate and otherwise, on all sides. even modern methods of data aggregation and analysis ("data mining") require that communications of a given variety be recognized for what they are, in order to further distinguish them from other pattern artifacts. indeed, without at least general distinctions between types of communications, whether by origin and destination or by content, are required before such analysis methods will yield any meaningful patterns at all.

so, communications surveillance of any kind cannot, by itself, yield sufficent material to "stop" any kind of activity at all. the idea is absurd, and indicates a dismal unfamiliarity with the realities at stake.

a etter wording of the question might be: can monitoring of global communications materially contribute to efforts to curb and counter "terrorist activities"? the answere here is yes, but only in a role supportin other information collection efforts.

another question remains, from either formation of the issue. is global communications monitoring and optimal method or tool for the given task? are there more productive, and possibly more efficient (in terms of time as well as cost) and reliable (in terms of ambiguity of information and conclusions produced) methods available? again , history indicates that the most effective tools of counterintelligence and counter-operations are infiltration and bribery. these two methods are so effective as to dwarf all other strategies combined.

also, significantly, infiltration and bribery generally cause little if any changes in the legitimate social structures of the national entities that implement and use them.

there seems to be some quasi-moral objection to spending money in such a way that enemies of the state derive any kind of profit or satisfaction, even when this causes them to cease their violence and subversion. apparently, we would rather send our soldier to their deaths, and compromise elements or our social achievements, rather than violate this abstract economic ethos. we are also pleased to spend a much greater amount of money in the process, and attempt to apply novel but misunderstood technologies in the effort.

It is strange that some are still clinging to their sophomoric ideas of "Freedom and 1st Amendment" of 1786. While James Madison was right to his money, I am wondering if James Madison would have thought differently and otherwise if:

(a) Madison could forsee that (mis)using the 1st Amendment, a wave of new immigrants (Muslims) carrying a very radical political/social ideology (Shariah) would enter United States and then collaborate against the United States to have the very foundations that distinguish United States, destroyed.

(b) that there were shall be some human-rights groupies who would hire lawyers and provide legal help to exactly these same people who are hell-bent on destroying USA. These jabberwacky civil defense lawyers would go dogs over finding loopholes in the articulation and interpretation of the 1st Amendment to defend these who have entered USA, albeit legally.

(c) that there would be Americans who would remain in an eternal state of confusion, or cluelessness and provide opinions on both sides of the argument that are mutually exclusive.

Would then brother James have penned the 1st Amendment ?

MikeB

I was not arguing the notion that the USA could or should stop further illegal immigration. Neither was I arguing about racial profiling [for I do not know how they do it, nor its "Succcess rate" with respect to terrorism]. I was stricktly arguaing that there is no way that the USA can [without commiting economic suicide] proceed with the repatriation of the 12 million or so [presently in USA] so called illegal immigrants.

Please also note that I can not compare USA/EU immigration policies for I do not know enough concerning either. My awareness of EU is limited to my daughter's [Canadian citizen] experience as Univ student in Germany, then wife of Spanish citizen in Spain, with relation to work permits etc.

I agree with you that privatization and outsourcing, due to greed of USA money class, has had a very strong negative effect on the working stiff. In the long run these measures ill served the USA citizen at large and the USA economy. I further agree with you that some statistics of USA government with respect to inflation [as effects the working stiff], minimum wage rates, educational help for the poorer classes for post secondary and the mess in health care are all contrary to moral actions by your government [if they are not outright lies] supposedly serving by the people for the people.

The disaster to befall the USA was long in fruition, but started with Nixon, then Reagan and "ACHIEVED" by the Idiot in Command with his "EXPERT" advisors [Such outstanding ones Brown in New Orleans, your sec. of Defence, Gonzales, and the AEI/AIPAC crowd].

Salamon, I don't want this to be a racial thing. Most Musilm's are good people, simply trying to live. But, amoungst that one group, most of the problems we have with genuine terrrorists live. What's wrong with using common sense and using that information as a part of the profile to find the genuinely bad people? Likewise, most of the American's of Spanish descent are as harmed by illegals as the rest of us. Ther wages and benefits have been spirallling downward becasue of the millions of illegal competing with them foe scarce jobs. I was in Europe recently, and in Otaly, Germany, Holland, Denmark and Austria they look for illegal immigrants and deport them. Moreover, the use profiling to identify them. If someone cannot speak German, they are stopped and questioned and asked to produce documentation. That's everyone, tourists and illegals. If you don't speak German and cannot produce a passport and visas, they stick you in jail. In Italy, they've had troubles with gypsies for year. Most of them are not Italian citizens, don't speak Italian, and look like gypsies. It's a profile. Whenever they encounter them, they literally place them in a deportation camp, a priso camp, and deport them in a group. Moreover, in Europe (also Mexico and most South AMercian countries) there is no such thing as "automatic citizenship". The child of an illegal is illegal. And, everywhere, they confiscate savings and assets of illegal immigrants that are captured. It's common sense and it really does discourage illegal workers and illegal immigrants.

MIKEB:

I am sorry to see that the USA citizenry have regressed to the level of Japanese internment in 2007, with as little analysis of the problem as it happended over 60 years ago.

At the time of the financial mess brought about by the MAESTRO [Greenspan's printing presses] which is threatening the USA economy to its core [a.k.a credit collapse], to suggest that the USA economy would be better with 10-12 million "illegal immigrants" shipped home [mostly to Central and South America] is verging on insanity.

While I can see that you regret the economic cost of H-1 etc on your old trade of computer programmers, and similar displacement of some unskilled and lowly skilled workers by "illigal/legal Immegrants, I would suggest that you did not analyse the repercussion of repatriating all these immigrants to their home country vis-a-vis USA economic stablity.
Consider: approx 2 000 000 empty housing units, and their effect on the present mortgage crisis - banks, hedge funds and various pension funds -- all VERY NEGATIVE: loss of great amount of wealth.

Consider that so many people [12 million] do not have to be provided by transport, food, clothing, etc --- TREMENDOUS CONTRACTION OF RETAIL/TRANSPORT INDUSTRIEs with numerous. bankrupcies. Consider the lack of PRISON Spaces, when all your prisons are OVERFULL, where you going to stockade all these "immigrants" in middle of Washington DC? and where are you going to find the guards?

Give up on this pipe dream, there is no way the USA economy can afford the displacement of 12 million or more people, - except if you wish to commit economic suicide for your HOMELAND - you are on the verge of it anyway, courtesy of your nation's voting habit in the last 15-20 years. China, Russia, some members of OPec just gave your Senate a "gentle" hint .. do not gamble your nation's future.

Institutions exist for the individuals. The individuals do not exist, indeed never existed, for the sake of the institutions.

To sacrifice the individuals to the institutions is nonsense that invites unmitigated political failure and disaster in any so-called democracy.

That this is what too many posters here still subscribe to (explicitly or by implication) is a sure sign of a frightening lack of democratic culture, today, in the United States of America.

"Live free or die"? Time to walk the talk, folks. Time to walk the talk!

Patrick Henry did NOT say, "Give me security or give me death." There's a good reason for that. The Founders of this nation knew that Liberty was more important than anything, including life itself. Too bad most Americans today don't think that way. If America had been populated by such weaklings in 1776, we'd still be a British colony and we'd be singing "God Save the Queen" at our ball games.

"...Is this surveillance justified if it helps stop terrorist operations?"

-- I wish it was that simple. Just say yes to this question. And add vigorous head nodding while saying so. Logically, the only folks who wouldn't want terrorist operations to stop ARE terrorists and their supporters. Care to wager if Bin Laden will post a comment?

I'm left with answering this question with a question: David, do you know of any person or government entity, given the kind of unchecked latitude that this program seems to have...NOT abuse the priviledge?

As for me, all things considered - I'd rather fight something/someone I have the possibily of SEEING, rather than hoping and praying that some intellegent computer program/analyst won't mistake my iranian deli order for a terrorist threat.

A few hundred years ago, a few gentlemen farmers banded together to take on, at the time, the most powerful military on earth. Our nation was born of the courage of their convictions.

Shouldn't we show a little backbone also?

The fact that such a bill would pass conveys the general racist view in our country that is even worse than the dominant racist reaction to Japanese Americans in WWII: the nationalist-racist identification of Japanese Americans is not as broad as the religious-racist identification of Muslim-Americans!

The logical fallacies inherent in arguments supporting generalized surveillance and special powers is also a reflection of our neo-fascism, where emotions instead of reason govern political actions and reactions! How can one logically infer from the fact that a few hundred, or even thousands, of Muslims are engaged in terrorism against the United States that over 1 billion people worldwide, and the entire Muslim-American community, are somewhat associated with terrorism? Only a racist ideology that lumps all Muslims (and Arabs) together, like lumping all "black" people or "yellow" people together, justifies this kind of "reasoning."

Our country is currently seized by an intense racism fueled by those who proclaim that "Islam" is violent, or that it is because of Islam that some people are attacking us and thus "Islam" and all associated with it should be held accountable. This is the same argument of the deranged terrorists who lump together all "Americans" or "Christians" or "Jews" and are intent on demonizing them!

The fault is that of our politicians and our media (including many people writing for the Washington Post...) who depict a racist reality as the only viable alternative. And almost everyone is reduced by fear into the demonization of different people! There is no justice, liberty, or equality in a country that treats Muslims and/or Arabs as potential suspects just because they are Muslim or Arabs! That is the same justification Hitler used to eradicate Jews, and we are no better than Hitler if we believe that we have the right to "investigate" Muslims and Arabs living in America because of who/what they are!!!

Timmaaay!!! - We all undersstand that no one with an ounce of sense (or sense of self preservation) trusts Bush and his gang of thieves, but what are we ging to replace them with? Ms. Clinton and her outsourcing and corpporate ties? ow about the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party that stoops to inserting a little rider doubling the number of H1-B visas in the "immigration reform" bill? How about all those Democrats all too willing to hand over the jobs of working men and women to illegals becasue they don't thik we will notice and they want to win the "hispanic" vote? Give me a break! There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the current Democratic leadership and the Republican's. Both are blinbd, stupid, greedy fool, feeding at the corporate trough.

Thee Question is not 'if it helps stop terrorists' it's more like...

Can Alberto Gonzales be trusted with such power?

Can we Americans trust Cheney and Bush with such power?!

no

no

NO!

They have been proven untrustworthy!!!

They have proven that they will used said power to bolster the corporate agenda and the oil and gas industry while abusing said power!!!

They are doing what the terrorists would do, only they are starving the country of infrastructure financial support to support the War for Oil.

-------------------

Petition your members of Congress to FIRE HALLIBURTON AND KBR!!!

Sacrificing privacy and liberty for the illusion of safety is a sham. This legislation is nothing more than a power grab through fear mongering aimed to further entrench a despot administration and its corporate power base. Does anyone really believe this administration has anyone in place who competent enough to actually spot a plot if it jumped out at them? This illegal, and totally undemocratic, interception and data mining is not designed to uncover terrorist plots. More likely, it is being used by the military industrial complex, corporate greed mongers, and corrupt political parties to profile and target any opposing voices. This legislation is not the product of a democracy. In fact, it violates the very essence of a democratic and free society and is in clear opposition to the Constitution of the United States of America.

What is a "terrorist"? I would think it is anyone who terrorizes someone else. Do you think the five children drown by their "white" mother in Texas a few years ago felt terror? Or the students at Virginia Tech? Americans are just as mean as anyone else. We just like to think we're better.

Of course, it is justified, in using all practical means to gather intelligence about our enemy in time of war.
Especially when we have valid reasons to believe that, that enemy has embedded within our own population, it's own covert soldiers, sabateurs and operatives.