A two part question concerning the War on Terror

[Guest kiwimatt]

It is a 2 edged sword isnt it?... on one hand your laws pushed through since 9/11 MAY have prevented some attacks, but you will probably never know..

on the other hand if the laws wern't there and there was another major attack... your government would be accussed of failing in their duty to protect you from further attacks.

I am currently living in London, where the government is actively finding and dealing with terrorist cells, and missing the odd one...ie London Underground..

The UK is the most monitored country around - has 1 cctv camera for every 10 people!!! and I doubt the UK authorities would care too much if phone taps etc infringed on someones human rights... that is a mindset and ideal that you Americans hold dear, so your laws have to somehow take that into account.

Maybe the fact you haven't had an attack in 5 years shows that prehaps your laws are helping out ?

[Gerioke]

It's great that international terrorism has been choked off so far, but I have to wonder how international terrorism differs from domestic terrorism? I personally see no difference between a threat from a radical muslim or a hyped up crackhead.

While citizens seem to be safe from the Taliban, domestic crime is running rampant.

I would think that it would be wise to leave those who don't want American or Canadian support to fight amongst themselves and assign our respective forces to protect us from any threats on our own soil.

Our schools are targets for disillusioned teenagers. Our children and loved ones are being abducted, killed, raped and/or assaulted on a daily basis.

Why is there not as much emphasis on dealing with this type of crime?

[ted]

It is a 2 edged sword isnt it?... on one hand your laws pushed through since 9/11 MAY have prevented some attacks, but you will probably never know..

on the other hand if the laws wern't there and there was another major attack... your government would be accussed of failing in their duty to protect you from further attacks.

I am currently living in London, where the government is actively finding and dealing with terrorist cells, and missing the odd one...ie London Underground..

The UK is the most monitored country around - has 1 cctv camera for every 10 people!!! and I doubt the UK authorities would care too much if phone taps etc infringed on someones human rights... that is a mindset and ideal that you Americans hold dear, so your laws have to somehow take that into account.

Maybe the fact you haven't had an attack in 5 years shows that prehaps your laws are helping out ?

I'll have to look them up, but I'm sure I read where intervention has foiled a few plots against us in the past few years. Didn't a recent one expose threats to our subways, or something like that?

What I am sure of, though, is that the Government is not revealing all of the interventions for several reasons- not the least of which is the fact that revealing some of these victories may impact further investigations which came about during the investigations of them.

All that really means is that we have found stuff relating to attack plans through stopping other plans. As we try to work our way up the ladder, they don't want to let people know that we may be on to them.

That much I do know.

What I can't know, as a result of this process, is exactly how much of an impact some of these newer laws have on terrorism. I'm not so worried about that. What I do worry about is that there could be abuses of certain procedures and laws.

Yes, we do hold privacy and individual rights dearly, but I would hate for that to be an excuse for not setting up an effective protection program- one that works and respects individual rights.

I wonder if it's possible to create a happy medium?

It's great that international terrorism has been choked off so far, but I have to wonder how international terrorism differs from domestic terrorism? I personally see no difference between a threat from a radical muslim or a hyped up crackhead.

While citizens seem to be safe from the Taliban, domestic crime is running rampant.

I would think that it would be wise to leave those who don't want American or Canadian support to fight amongst themselves and assign our respective forces to protect us from any threats on our own soil.

Our schools are targets for disillusioned teenagers. Our children and loved ones are being abducted, killed, raped and/or assaulted on a daily basis.

Why is there not as much emphasis on dealing with this type of crime?

Great points, but I was putting the light on laws dealing with foreign terrorist threats, and not so much domestic crime.

I guess the two could be lumped together in a broad sense of the terms- domestic crime and terrorism. Each one is sorta designed to create a victim.

But, domestic crime has it's own set of unique factors as does foreign terrorism, making them both different from each other, and needing specific attention to combat both.

I think we are trying to put a dent in domestic crime, but the criminals just aren't cooperating like we would hope in today's society. There are definite laws and programs to combat it, as well as enforcement of existing laws.

Again, great points, but not for which this thread was designed.

t.

[Guest LadyC]

A big thing is that, according to what I read, all this "terrorism hysteria" has just about ruined the USA tourist industry.

do you live in a city that thrives on international tourism buck? i do, and i can assure you that here in las vegas, 'terrorism hysteria' hasn't had any long-term impact on tourism. it did have for about the first six months, but business is again booming as usual. in fact, it's busier now than it was pre-9/11. of course some increase from year to year is natural anyway, so i won't go so far as to say that it's busier "because" of anything, but it certainly hasn't had a negative impact.

[JustinM]

Protecting the rights of American Citizens should be our number 1 priority. The warantless wiretapping procedure really wasn't designed to monitor Americans. So, people that live outside the US should not be protected by our rights. Critics like to say that we need to set an example for the world to follow and give everyone on Earth the same rights Americans have fought, died and paid for. How can someone appreciate something they didn't work hard to obtain? We are a great example to the world, we are given unprecedented rights and if the world hasn't learned from our example so far, then it probably won't ever learn.

Wiretapping should be allowed, but only on a monitoring basis. It should not be used or allowed in a criminal court when an American citizen is being charged with terrorism, or aiding it, unless there was a warrant issued.

What are our rights for? To keep the government from wrongfully imprisoning us. If John Bob wants to talk to muhamed allah jihad muhamed, then that shouldn't be illegal. Suspicious, yes. Further monitoring should follow to determine whether John Bob is helping muhamed allah jihad muhamed kill americans.

I don't want someone in the CIA to be worried about getting imprisoned for attempting to protect American Citizens from being murdered by terrorists.

If terrorists use our banking system to fund terrorism, then their cash flow needs to be monitored and stopped. That should be allowed.

Abolishing the no fly list is a bad idea. If muhamed allah jihad muhamed is a world known terrorist, then his picture and aliases need to be on record and he needs to remain on the no-fly list indefinitely. Remember our country is trying to protect us. Letting a known terrorist fly on a passenger airline to America is irresponsible and just plain stupid.

[Guest yod]

The UK is the most monitored country around - has 1 cctv camera for every 10 people!!! and I doubt the UK authorities would care too much if phone taps etc infringed on someones human rights... that is a mindset and ideal that you Americans hold dear, so your laws have to somehow take that into account.

I read that England now has cameras watching even the garbage bins to make sure that people recycle properly...or get fined.

That is a little more than a Texan would put up with...

[sweetycakes]

Interesting topic.

And interesting comments made here.

Myself, I think I would like to just monitor where this discussion leads for a while before adding any of my own comments, not least because I am largely undecided regarding these things at the moment.

I am not American, but English, but I DO like to keep myself up to speed with what is happening in the US.

There's just simply so much to think about when trying to come to conclusions on a topic such as this.

But for starters, I would say that I detest the terrorists who blatantly and viciously destroy human lives and families for NO reason. On the other hand, though, I am also somewhat concerned as to where this total surveillance society is leading us.

I think both of these concerns are valid points to be concerned about. I just don't know the answer at the moment. It's something I've wrestled with in my mind for a number of years.

Seems we're getting to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. And things are not as simple as they seem, or as they should be, in my opinion.

I wonder just who we can we trust these days.

More to come

[Gerioke]

A big thing is that, according to what I read, all this "terrorism hysteria" has just about ruined the USA tourist industry.

do you live in a city that thrives on international tourism buck? i do, and i can assure you that here in las vegas, 'terrorism hysteria' hasn't had any long-term impact on tourism. it did have for about the first six months, but business is again booming as usual. in fact, it's busier now than it was pre-9/11. of course some increase from year to year is natural anyway, so i won't go so far as to say that it's busier "because" of anything, but it certainly hasn't had a negative impact.

We've seen a major decline in US tourists this past year at Peggy's cove. Most of our tourist action has been Canadian.

[Guest LadyC]

where's peggy's cove? (i'm geographically challenged!)

i think many places may have been affected more so than vegas. nothing stops tourism to this city for long.

[Guest LadyC]

butero, let me get back on topic and say i tend to agree with you. i haven't been affected by the new regulations, nor do i know anyone who has been. i do know OF an instance where, according to my understanding of the wiretapping laws, the law was abused in congunction with the now famous "g-sting" case, and if it was abused, then that should not be allowed to occur. but then, my understanding is that wiretapping without a warrant can only be listened to if the party on the other end of the phone is outside the country. if that's the case, then i think it's fine as it is.

at this point i don't see any reason to change any of the regulations. i think there should be wiser USE of some of them, such as profiling. and yes, i'm all for profiling when it comes to our national security. our biggest threat comes from the middle east. it makes sense to profile based on race. an 89 year old white (or black) grandmother is not likely to be carrying a bomb.

and for surveillance cameras, who cares? we're only assured of privacy in areas where there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy. if you're on the public sidewalk, you can take a photo of anyone you want and legally post it online, and it's amazing how many people will actually play up to the camera in lude and lacivious ways. if they're ok with that, then they have no right to complain about law enforcement agencies snapping your mugshot on a city street or a dark alley.