Portland Contemplates Its Navel

[Conan71]

So is the answer then that we'd far rather see 3000 Americans killed rather than risk violating the civil rights of one individual who is consorting with known terrorist rings by using unwarranted taps or intercepting emails?

[we vs us]

So is the answer then that we'd far rather see 3000 Americans killed rather than risk violating the civil rights of one individual who is consorting with known terrorist rings by using unwarranted taps or intercepting emails?

Aaaaaand we're back to the ticking time bomb.  The correct answer is:  it's not an either/or.  It's both.  We can prosecute the war on terror with the tools we've been given, while not violating civil rights. 

Do you think our laws are inadequate for dealing with terrorism? Does the current threat not fit into threats we've faced and developed law for in the past?   

[guido911]

Oh, wait, just let me throw out one of the favorite old cliche's;  "rule of law".  Anyone remember that??

I used to until I went through a security check at the airport. Nothing like being free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the whole notion of random strangers feeling me up without any reasonable suspicion.

[Conan71]

Do you think our laws are inadequate for dealing with terrorism?

I think they are inadequate when we wind up harrassing blue-haired old women because we are more concerned about the appearance of profiling or violating civil rights of people who are plotting to take away the civil rights of thousands of others.

Much as it appears I've got to settle for a good grope or shot of radiation if I care to fly, we all need to get used to the idea that national security carries a high price when it comes to privacy and personal liberty.

[we vs us]

I think they are inadequate when we wind up harrassing blue-haired old women because we are more concerned about the appearance of profiling or violating civil rights of people who are plotting to take away the civil rights of thousands of others.

Much as it appears I've got to settle for a good grope or shot of radiation if I care to fly, we all need to get used to the idea that national security carries a high price when it comes to privacy and personal liberty.

The harassment of the mythical blue-haired lady doesn't keep us from prosecuting people like the Somali Situation.  The argument is always that one prevents the other, that the blue haired lady problem -- aside from being despicable -- also endangers us, but that's just not true.  We can and do do both pretty often.   

In many ways, the blue haired lady conundrum makes sure that we're all stakeholders in the state that we're creating; if we must tolerate these sort of personal abuses (and the litany of "regular people cavalierly treated like smile by the TSA" stories, which seem to abound) then at least we're intimately involved in how the security state is growing.  Or we're complicit.  Or at least we knew and chose not to act as it grew. 

More Bush bashing (but deserved, because all of this happened on his watch):  he set the precedent of government (and his party) thinking of the GWOT as somehow extranormal, as outside the realm of our experience or our ability to prosecute.  He viewed 9/11 as spectacular and unique, rather than a spectacular version of familiar crimes.  All of his security responses flowed from that conviction -- that we had never done this before and had to blaze a new trail. 

This was a flawed response because we have a long history of dealing effectively with international terrorism, and treating 9/11 as a truly unique event encouraged us to ignore the time-tested solutions and go for the gusto in as many quasilegal ways as possible. 

The whole idea that our constitution "can't handle" certain parts of the GWOT, or that we have to sacrifice some of our lesser freedoms to guarantee the rest of them is an idea pushed by the Bush Administration throughout the 2000s.  But it's a false choice, and has primed us to believe that our laws and their outcomes will fail.  Look at how Guido saw the 200-odd counts tossed out against the dude from Guantanamo.  A failure of our system to guarantee a predetermined verdict.  When in fact the system almost certainly acted in the way it was always supposed to . . . force a hefty burden of proof upon the state, and in essence tell the state that its evidence didn't amount to a hill of beans. 

[Breadburner]

I used to until I went through a security check at the airport. Nothing like being free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the whole notion of random strangers feeling me up without any reasonable suspicion.

Was it free....If so I'm there....!!!!

[Red Arrow]

Was it free....If so I'm there....!!!!

I think you have to have an airline ticket. So, not free.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Conan,
It ain't that tough to get a warrant.  The Patriot Act took care of that - all that is needed is a whim.

Guido,
I can't believe we actually agree on something - unreasonable search and grope.  So the general population is now being imposed upon in similar fashion to the "suspicious ones".

See what we have lost?  What is horribly sad is so many that don't.