Irritating Things From The 'War on Terror'
- Thread starter evildave
- Start date
-
- Tags
- irritating terror war
evildave
Unregistered
E
Mycroft said:
It's hard to say. I think both are looking for a quick way out.
As I may have said before, Dubya might deserve a second term to be held responsible for his actions. After all, the right-wingers will just blame Kerry for all hell breaking loose if/after he gets elected.
evildave
Unregistered
E
What, you don't think the politicians would blame opponents for their own failures? I suppose such a thing might be unprecedented in history.
evildave said:
Do you have anything on the people WITHIN the US who have been detained under the Patriot Act as possible terrorists??
I attended a meeting where an attorney (or maybe she was a law professor) talked about the many people she's been called upon to help because they were locked up without access to lawyers (or even their families) for an indefinite period of time to await assessment under the Patriot Act. I believe that these were all men with green cards and/or visas who just happened to be from some MIddle Eastern nation.
I've been trying to find more information on this, but the links I find pertain to detentions at Gitmo. I'm more interested in the people who were detained within the US. Do you have links?
evildave
Unregistered
E
Google provides these fairly easily.
Google: aliens detained US
http://immigration.about.com/od/deportationinthenews/i/DetaineeIssue.htm
http://www.migrationint.com.au/news/azerbaijan/jul_1995-06mn.asp
http://216.26.163.62/2004/ss_terror_08_02.html
Apparently, detaining aliens indefinitely is nothing new at all. It predates the 'War on Terror' by about five years. Opinions about the practice go back before the 'War on Terror' as well.
A google search adding 'indefinite'...
Google: aliens detained in US indefinite
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0426-04.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/01/1088488091787.html?oneclick=true
http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2004/0629/p01s04-usju.htm
http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news1429.htm
It's all in how you phrase the search. Since you're looking for 'aliens', alien and 'detention' and 'US' are the key words. 'Indefinite' simply narrowed it down to more relevant stories.
Google: aliens detained US
http://immigration.about.com/od/deportationinthenews/i/DetaineeIssue.htm
http://www.migrationint.com.au/news/azerbaijan/jul_1995-06mn.asp
http://216.26.163.62/2004/ss_terror_08_02.html
Apparently, detaining aliens indefinitely is nothing new at all. It predates the 'War on Terror' by about five years. Opinions about the practice go back before the 'War on Terror' as well.
A google search adding 'indefinite'...
Google: aliens detained in US indefinite
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0426-04.htm
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/01/1088488091787.html?oneclick=true
http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2004/0629/p01s04-usju.htm
http://www.immigrationlinks.com/news/news1429.htm
It's all in how you phrase the search. Since you're looking for 'aliens', alien and 'detention' and 'US' are the key words. 'Indefinite' simply narrowed it down to more relevant stories.
evildave
Unregistered
E
Helpful links?
dsm said:
I don't claim any evidence. I was being sarcastic. I would assume Evildave's statement was true. They had several of the 9/11 hijackers on a watch list and they didn't stop them.
I've complained that Airport security is a joke many times.
[sarcastic]
I guess only the celebrity terrorist get recognition.
[/sarcastic]
evildave
Unregistered
E
Well, it's free advertising for Cat Stevens. Now people will look into 'Cat Stevens' and probably buy a significant number of 'Easy Listening' CDs. And if he really does 'fund terror' (which seems a bit absurd), well he'll have more money to do it with.
One of the interesting problems with these 'Watch Lists' is the government won't tell anyone who's on 'em. So it's always a surprise when someone discovers they've 'illegally' boarded a plane. No chance to find it out and go to the government to see WHY they've stuck you on a special 'list', and sort it out reasonably. Nope. Gotta discover it by having a bunch of big guys with guns 'take you down' and handcuff you in public, and then interrogate you for hours as to why you had the gall to show your face at an international airport.
One of the interesting problems with these 'Watch Lists' is the government won't tell anyone who's on 'em. So it's always a surprise when someone discovers they've 'illegally' boarded a plane. No chance to find it out and go to the government to see WHY they've stuck you on a special 'list', and sort it out reasonably. Nope. Gotta discover it by having a bunch of big guys with guns 'take you down' and handcuff you in public, and then interrogate you for hours as to why you had the gall to show your face at an international airport.
evildave
Unregistered
E
Well, Sen. Kennedy was on the list, too. Stopped five times.
Makes you wonder. Tuttle, Tuttle, Tuttle, Buttle, Tuttle....
Makes you wonder. Tuttle, Tuttle, Tuttle, Buttle, Tuttle....
evildave said:
IF it were possible to talk to the government about who was on their "watch" lists, then could potential terrorists use that to get off the watch lists? In other words, are watch lists a good idea for keeping alert to potential terrorists?
evildave
Unregistered
E
dsm said:
Hard to say.
Here's a fascinating story....
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/10821313p-11739302c.html
Bitter fight over air security
The problem here is "secret laws". If there's no way for you to know what's 'illegal', how could you possibly know a behavior would be breaking the law?
Sure, maybe 'watch lists' will catch terrorists. MAYBE they'll be used to harrass political opponents or critics, or limit their access to travel with little 'clerical accidents'.
A lot has been made of the loss of faith in the foundations and institutions of our society created by terrorist attacks. Yet those same people don't seem to realize that having "secret laws" and "classified guidelines" created with no possibility of public oversight erodes at our very faith in the institution of government its self.
It's possible that having the police go house to house - everyone's house, every week from now on to do a complete and thorough search would also discover terrorists. Of course maybe they should do that 'randomly' because they'd need a lot of cops. Then the way the 'randomness' is done needs to remain a 'secret', and that breeds additional mistrust, as 'random' might not really be so 'random'.
If you are a terrorist, or even more typical criminals, you already know there's a damned good chance you're in a 'watch list', and that the police will be looking for you at airports. That's why they shave and use stolen or forged papers. The only people this is LIKELY to trip up and inconvenience are honest people who aren't a 'terrorist', except in the fevered imagination of a computer that bumps up a score because some overzealous cleric finds an old newspaper story or off color comment made by you. For every *real* terrorist this finds, a million normal people will be barred from flying or harrassed at air terminals, while the real terrorists take a bus or rent a car, or take a launch off a private yacht and show up on a quiet beach, or take a walk across the border with a big group of 'wet backs', and repeat the exercise as many times as they get caught.
How about this scenario (not that I'm suggesting it) for something that might spring out of the "War on Terror":
Facial recognition software is improving dramatically due to the search for terrorists. In the (not so distant) future, airports (and other terminals) might be covered with (unobtrusive) cameras that take everyone's picture. Computers would then (hopefully) quickly analyze the photos to see if anyone on the "watch" list is in the area. The police would then be alerted to move in.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Obviously, assuming the facial recognition software develops to near infallibility, the ability of terrorists to move around would be greatly restricted. However, this would also lead to a database being created somewhere that (inadvertently?) documents the movements of EVERYONE! By simply changing the "watch" list, the computers could sift through all previous photographs to get a sense of the movement of an individual. Initially, it might be within the purview of the intelligence or homeland security czars to do this on the grounds of national security, but who knows where it might go...
What do others think of the future of such things?
Facial recognition software is improving dramatically due to the search for terrorists. In the (not so distant) future, airports (and other terminals) might be covered with (unobtrusive) cameras that take everyone's picture. Computers would then (hopefully) quickly analyze the photos to see if anyone on the "watch" list is in the area. The police would then be alerted to move in.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Obviously, assuming the facial recognition software develops to near infallibility, the ability of terrorists to move around would be greatly restricted. However, this would also lead to a database being created somewhere that (inadvertently?) documents the movements of EVERYONE! By simply changing the "watch" list, the computers could sift through all previous photographs to get a sense of the movement of an individual. Initially, it might be within the purview of the intelligence or homeland security czars to do this on the grounds of national security, but who knows where it might go...
What do others think of the future of such things?