Slashdot Log In
Stallman: Thousands Dead, Millions Deprived of Liberties
from the well-said-man dept.
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.
I'm ashamed to say it, but I agree with RMS (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
Brazil legalizes airline passenger guns. (Score:4, Interesting)
The flight-attendant speech is being revised to add instructions on how to plug a hijacker with minimum risk of puncturing the pressure hull, crew, and other passengers.
(This may be a bow to the inevitable. I understand that well over 60% of the Brazillian population already carries concealed pistols, often in violation of their existing gun laws.)
FYI: If this is ever legalized where you fly, I recommend the Charter Arms
(Try Glaser Safety Slugs, too - in this or anything else. Think of pistol-round sized shotgun shells that spread out in the first thing they touch, rather than a jacketed bullet that penetrates and damages whatever is behind the target. That's also what "Black Talon" slugs were REALLY about.)
Re:Funny you should mention Uzi's... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, I'm a pilot.
How many times do you have to point out that Franklin never said the quotation contstantly mangled here (the one about security and liberty)? Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma.
And so I don't get shot down for being off-topic, not a single one of the suggested and/or planned "security measures" would have made the slightest difference last Tuesday. I can make a weapon with a plastic spoon and an emory board or with a shoelace and the in-flight magsazine. The only way to have truly safe flights is to strap all passengers down like in slave ships, not that we're that far removed already. Lose your rights and gain NO security.
The false sense of security people are getting from all these knee-jerk actions is actually more dangerous than being scared and therefore attentive. People in the US are too busy waving their flags right now to remember the hundreds of thousands who fought and died for the rights they're now ready to simply give up. THAT is shitting on the memory of far more people.
woof.
perspective: 5,000 dead is the monthly toll on US highways.
The whole thing HAS NOT been blamed (Score:5, Interesting)
Please, tell me where it has? Last time I checked, most informed (not speculative) news analysis in mainstream papers (not Wired News) has discussed $6/hr rent-a-cop airport security, unpreparedness of the Pentagon, the years of flight training taken by the bad guys, and Osama bin Laden's ability to finance all of this and create terrorist cells around the world. Where's this clamor against the net that I haven't seen on the 10+ websites I read daily on the subject?
try the New York Times (Score:5, Informative)
This week the papers are getting down to business. Check out these two articles from today's New York Times:
This one recomends ISP censorship. [nytimes.com] with the lame excuse for corporate control of the public network as, "But the community standards that most Internet service providers apply can be more restrictive." Today it's hate speach, tomorow it will be embarasing or unpopular speach.
This one detailing the FBI making it easier for an ISP to turn over email. [nytimes.com] Try this thrilling quote that got their attention, "The online posting on Aug. 30 sounded like the rantings of a crank: The subject was "911," and it warned "Something is going to happen tomorrow . . . REPENT!" On Sept. 4, the author of the first message, "Xinoehpoel," was back: "Wait 7 days," he wrote." At least the article goes on to worry about improper collection making such priceless quotes inadmissable. So what's the solution, hint hint? Monitoring? Geee, to bad that it won't work as the above quote really could contain a message and is indiscerable from pure garbage.
There you go. Reputable, non speculative reporting for you advocating government and corporate controls on the internet. Why would big publishers like that? Other news sources have not even bothered to mention privacy.
Sign the petition (Score:5, Informative)
`In the aftermath of the ruthless attack on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon, we implore the leaders of the United States to ensure that
justice be served by protecting the innocent citizens of all nations all
over the world.
We demand that the President maintain the civil liberties of all U.S.
residents, protect the human rights of all people at home and abroad, and
guarantee that this attempted attack on the principles and freedoms of the
United States will not succeed.
We plead for a thorough investigation of the terrorist events before any
retaliation.
We call for PEACE and JUSTICE, not revenge. LET THERE BE PEACE ALL OVER
THE WORLD!`
http://www.care2.com/go/redirect/2/2400
This is silly (Score:5, Interesting)
British citizens have "chosen" to give up their freedom for nothing.
That's only one example. In France, there is a law that forbids people to use any kind of encryption. Net result ? Algerian terrorists, the ETA, the FLNC still plant bombs in the country. French people too have given up their freedom for nothing.
I'm all for giving up things that make it possible to catch terrorists, but freedom is not one of them. Watching people is not the solution.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Please explain (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, the hijackers were carrying those items on their carry-on bags? I havent heard that, but it sounds true. Plastic knives though? The only confirmation I heard was plastic "box-cutters" and "razors". Those are legal items to carry on planes (well, until last tuesday anyways). They would show up on an X-Ray scan, and no one cared about them. There is no-precedent involved with disallowing passengers to board with shaving razors and/or box-cutters. They arent weapons, really.
So lets say someone gets stopped and is searched, and has a video on how to fly a jet plane. Does that mean they cant fly? Is that illegal? Is being Arab and having a how-to-fly video make you a terrorist? Does being on a "watch" list make you a terrorist?
The real fact of the matter is that even with this face recognition software in place at Logan on the day of the attack, nothing could have stopped these men once they had their attack in motion. They didnt need any weapons to speak of, they didnt break any laws before hand (excepting consipiracy and other thought-based crimes), and they were in the country legally. We can take away all these freedoms we enjoy to try to curb terrorism, but in fact, we wont have any effect on them. Terrorists dont need missles or bombs; they will use whatever they at their disposal.
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.
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.
how about voluntary, opt-out options ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps what's needed is NOT legislation as the article suggests. For as with toll bridges, once set, they are very difficult to repeal.
Instead, why not voluntary programs? For example, my enrollment in the above program would automatically expire in a year's time, unless I opt out right away. No harm is done either way, as I choose to go the long route.
Granted, we are temporarily suspending some of our civil liberties, in return for safety, but in a way where we control the duration and participation in the program.
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.
Face recognition yes, crypto backdoors no. (Score:3, Interesting)
RMS, and Roblimo before him, [slashdot.org] correctly argue that we must not let our freedom of speech (and freedom to control our personal property!) be compromised by mandatory crypto backdoors. Putting aside the fact that such a decree would be totally unenforceable, and that users would surely revolt (I know I would), and that it would surely be found unconstitutional as prior restraint on speech, nonetheless this is a terrible idea that we need to fight.
(Note that all discussion of this in connection with this incident is 100% theoretical anyway. If the bad guys used crypto, we don't know it yet - only grandstanding politicians have suggested anything of the kind.)
But I must say that I feel very differently about face recognition - particularly in airports. Such a system could have caught some of the hijackers - several of whom who were WANTED BY THE FBI and FLEW UNDER THEIR OWN NAMES! - before they killed 5000 people. Extending it to public spaces such as Times Square is more questionable to me, but particularly in airports where the possible harm is now much greater than we ever imagined, I think this is a technology that would be welcome.
Remember that you already give up a lot of rights while you fly. It's too bad, and I don't enjoy having to check potentially hazardous luggage (e.g. knives) any more than the next guy, but flying is materially different from all other forms of transit. You can't crash an Amtrak train into much more than another train, or a station. You can't do that much with a bus. But you can kill thousands with a plane, and as such we need to exercise extreme caution there.
FUD from RMS... (Score:3)
I'm sorry, I completely agree that giving up any freedoms we have would be a very bad idea, but I take issue with the above statement from RMS. First, the Vietnam War was fought over an ideology, a non-direct threat of a 3rd world country, and one in which we had very little vested interest. Reporting from Vietnam that a US Navy ship was deliberately attacked (when it was a fishing vessel that got too close to the ship and that was it), which was yellow journalism at its best, is far different than watching in horror as your countrymen are dying, buildings are falling, and your capital of your country is being attacked.
Everyone needs to quit being such pantywaists and realize what happened on 9/11/01 - OUR COUNTRY WAS ATTACKED on its own soil! Let's quit talking about this shit and go do something already. Not fighting to keep your freedoms when they're attacked is just as bad as voting to do away with some of them! Osama, the Taliban, and plenty of islamic fundamentalists hate the US way of life - life, liberty, free speech, and the right to believe whatever you want to believe. Islamic terrorists believe its their Allah appointed duty to annhilate their enemies, and do so while lying about what they're actually doing (i.e. - no one is claiming responsibility for this attack). Talking and hoping and giving them stuff has failed. It's time to punish the evil with consequences for evil acts, no matter the casualties.
Wouldn't you do everything in your power to keep an evil doer from raping your wife after they have so completely infiltrated your everyday life that there's no stopping their evil actions?
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.
"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.
Pardon my attitude but... (Score:3, Troll)
piss moan whine Don't take away my freedom
bitch piss moan You better not use this to take advantage of me
gripe bitch whine Oh no, the guy I didn't want for President gets war time powers during war time
What I do not hear:
Members of congress here is a way to realize Civil Liberties AND the protection of world citizens
Mr President I wish to help, here are some possible solutions to the problem
I'm sorry people but if we are only going to bitch about what our government officials do and never give them workable ideas and solutions then shame on us.
And remember as Abraham Lincoln told us, we have a "government OF the people, BY the people FOR the people"
that statement requires your active partitcipation not just you criticisms.
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.
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.
Flawed Argument-There is no privacy invasion here. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the only real argument that Stallman puts forth save, "I don't want big brother is watching me!!!"
Does anyone else see this as ridiculous. The whole purpose of putting computerized facial recognition in place is because humans aren't perfect. Neither are computers for that matter, but humans are much more flawed. What are you going to do, make all of the Security Guards memorize faces of all suspected terrorists? I wouldn't trust myself to pick out one, why should I trust a $6 rent-a-cop?
You could use this to identify "possible" suspects, and then rather than just gang probe them, place an armed air marshall on board, like they have in Israel. The air marshall can supervise the flight, and has one leg up on the competition, should anything happen, because he/she is prepared.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want everyone tracking all of my personal travel, but if you're travelling, that information is already in a database, the airline you're flying with, who I'm sure has no beef sharing this information with the goverment. What possible civil liberty encroachment is there?
Seriously folks. You guys need to calm down.
Captain_Frisk
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.
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
Heh.... (Score:3, Funny)
-Henry
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.
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
RMS Totally misunderstands one of his three points (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Congress worked very hard to pass a resolution that wasn't the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Indeed, the thing that most impressed me about Congress during this whole thing was that vote. They said, in effect, "We support our President and the leadership he is giving, but we will not abandon our duty to the American people or to the Constitution by handing off our responsibilities to him."
I haven't been following the actions of the supposed control conspiracy too closely in the last week, but if Stallman can't even get it right on a major, out in the open, published and discussed on every major news outlet in the world Congressional resolution, I dare say I feel rather safe assuming for the time being that he's got no clue about anything else that's happened in the last week either.
Re:Taking advantage of the situation? (Score:3, Interesting)
To save our civil liberties and more, we should come to a full stop. Do not invade Afghanistan and others. Immediately pull out of Iraq, without even bothering to tell Sadaam.
Over the next few years, unilaterally pull out of the rest of the middle east and eastern europe. Tell Israel we won't even try to stop them from doing whatever they think is necessary to survive. Say so long to NATO. Start weaning Japan and Taiwan. Do whatever it takes to become independent of imported oil. Tell the disappointed war-mongers in the US that they're being good Christians.
Let the Palestinians crow over their "victory" - at least until they realize we aren't going to be there to stop the Israelis any more. Let the terrorists claim they they've won and are great heroes. Let Sadaam strut and probably brag that he was behind the WTC attack. Let the international media record it all.
Then, about 3 years from now, after all the bragging and celebrating is over, and we know who our enemies are, strike with no warning, with deliberate and massive force.
Or would you rather salve your ego, toss aside your civil liberties, and go into an impossible war on terrorists that has potential to quickly escalate into WW III?
?? (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: