Full Version: Looking for info on explosives . . .
| QUOTE (stevebugge) |
| Countries like [...] Germany [...] can [...] be believed to have the ability to keep their weapons controlled well enough that a single person cannot just fire one off and most of the inventory can be accounted for. |
Easy in their case, since they don't have any nuclear weapons -- even though they could make them quickly and easily should the need arise.
| QUOTE (stevebugge) |
| Countries like […] Israel can […] be believed to have the ability to keep […] most of the inventory […] accounted for. |
News to me—they don't officially claim to own an arsenal, and secret arsenals (if they exist—I consider it pretty much fait accompli, but I have no proof
) don't inspire confidence in security, at least for me.~J
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Edit: Anarchist Cookbook free download link removed due to it being an utterly worthless scam. |
Seriously, I don't know how anyone can even take it seriously.
Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons, nor did it have any in the past. It's more a political question than a technical one, of course.
It is rumored the German Democratic public had hid enough material from the great brother (the USSR) to build a few bombs during Honeckers time.
Our local schloss still has a graffiti on it's wall "Arbeit statt Raketen" (work instead of rockets), which dates back to the earlier eighties. It protested the stationing of the SS20, or the pershing, or both. I can't really remember, I was still young then
.
I am not sure which type of nuclear power plant is needed to create atomic material usable for weapons. But since it's german policy to phase out the existing nuclear power plants, it wouldn't be easy to obtain the materials to build a bomb.
It is rumored the German Democratic public had hid enough material from the great brother (the USSR) to build a few bombs during Honeckers time.
Our local schloss still has a graffiti on it's wall "Arbeit statt Raketen" (work instead of rockets), which dates back to the earlier eighties. It protested the stationing of the SS20, or the pershing, or both. I can't really remember, I was still young then
.I am not sure which type of nuclear power plant is needed to create atomic material usable for weapons. But since it's german policy to phase out the existing nuclear power plants, it wouldn't be easy to obtain the materials to build a bomb.
| QUOTE |
| North Korea and Iran don't meet either criteria, and Pakistan clearly has some difficulty keeping count of their weapons and production facilities. Russia also has trouble keeping it's inventory under control, but in that case it seems to be in spite of the best efforts of their government not because of government policies. |
Really? One has to look at the big picture here. PRK has a couple tiny half-assed nuclear weapons and some missles that don't work right. Iran doesn't even have that. Pakistan's military efforts are aimed at their little cold war with India.
The US alone, however, has enough weapons to destroy several planets. They can't afford to let their megear nuclear arsenals out of their sight and they certain can't aford having one of their weapons used in a first strike. That wouldn't be MAD, that would be suicide. The only reasonable motivation for these countries to create a nuclear arsneal is self-defense. Considering that their current political positions are very tennuous and most of the world is against them, (with the exception of Pakistan which is simply in an arms race with India) that isn't unreasonable at all.
Why, there are currently enough troops pointing their weapons across both sides the DMZ to restart the Korean War at any time and the PRK really can't win if that happens. A nuke might just scare that "axes of evil" guy into thinking twice about an invasion.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) | ||
Really? One has to look at the big picture here. Koreas has a couple tiny half-assed nuclear weapons and some missles that don't work right. Iran doesn't even have that. Pakistan's military efforts are aimed at their little cold war with India. The US alone, however, has enough weapons to destroy several planets. They can't afford to let their megear nuclear arsenals out of their sight and they certain can't aford having one of their weapons used in a first strike. That wouldn't be MAD, that would be suicide. The only reasonable motivation for these countries to create a nuclear arsneal is self-defense. Considering that their current political positions are very tennuous and most of the world is against them, (with the exception of Pakistan which is simply in an arms race with India) that isn't unreasonable at all. Why, there are currently enough troops pointing their weapons across both sides the DMZ to restart the Korean War at any time and the PRK really can't win if that happens. A nuke might just scare that "axes of evil" guy into thinking twice about an invasion. |
I'm not sure that the Rational Actor Model can safely be applied to either Iran or North Korea. Iran's President is a documented Apocalyptic Twelver and Kim Jong Il does not seem to be stable. In North Korea's case though an reasonable case can be made that they are simply trying to continue their previously succesful effort to extort material assistance from the USA in exchange for delaying or curtailing their development program.
For those who correctly point out that Germany has no and has not ever had a nuclear arsenal, they were included because they are a good example of a functional Federal Republic. Japan is another example of a country more than capable of constructing a weapon but unlikely to build, deploy, or use one, because of their political system.
Israel's undeclared status is a bit unsettling. Most of the research I've done indicate that they most likely have a stockpile of between 500-1000 Tactical and Theater scale weapons. (based largely on work done by the Carnegie Endowment and Stansfield Turner's 1998 book Caging the Nuclear Genie)
As for North Korea's Current stockpile, yeah it's not impressive compared to China's or the USA's but it still is a deadly stockpile. In Pakistan's case most of their effort does go towards keeping up with India, however it is difficult to believe that the smuggling and exportation of their Nuclear Technology went on completely without the knowledge and approval of at least some of their government.
the main reason to be affraid is not so much who korea and iran might launch at but whom they might sell to. Iran has a history of backing by many different ways, islamic terrorists and the thought of one of them getting ahold of a nuke of any gauge is scary.
Yeah. Anyone watched "The Sum of All Fears?" That's exactly what I'm worried about.
I'm not worried about the prospect that North Korea is going to strap a nuke on a missile and punt it over here. Their best missiles can only hit Japan, and we have all sorts of missile defenses in place to shoot that bird down long before it even gets over the ocean.
What I am worried about is that Osama's billions are going to convince Kim Jong to part ways with one of his dirty birds. Then the lunatic's flunkies strap it inside a truck or something, smuggle it in, and irridate a major city.
That, or Kim Jong Il will get an attack of the stupid, nuke the DMZ, and suddenly it's Korean War 2.0.
I'm not worried about the prospect that North Korea is going to strap a nuke on a missile and punt it over here. Their best missiles can only hit Japan, and we have all sorts of missile defenses in place to shoot that bird down long before it even gets over the ocean.
What I am worried about is that Osama's billions are going to convince Kim Jong to part ways with one of his dirty birds. Then the lunatic's flunkies strap it inside a truck or something, smuggle it in, and irridate a major city.
That, or Kim Jong Il will get an attack of the stupid, nuke the DMZ, and suddenly it's Korean War 2.0.
| QUOTE |
| Mistakes are made, and sometimes people do stupid things. I'm not convinced they had no cause. It was mentioned somewhere that some people there frequented known hacker boards. There's no telling what was said on those boards to give the government cause for alarm, but I would bet that it wasn't just a bunch a guy sitting around and one says "let's go raid someone without a reason." |
Mistakes such as imprisioning Kevin Mitnick - a US citizen - for how long and under what conditions?
| QUOTE (Butterblume @ Aug 24 2006, 01:17 AM) |
| Germany doesn't have nuclear weapons, nor did it have any in the past. |
Technically that is true. But the Luftwaffe has a squad of Tornado IDS specially equipped and some pilots specially trained for the deployment of nuclear weapons.
| QUOTE (ronin3338) |
| The seizure of those materials and freezing of accounts almost put SJGames under permanently. They had a hard road to recovery, and I think they're still feeling after-effects. From a consumer standpoint, they've never seemd quite the same since then. |
From their article about it:
| QUOTE |
| The raid, and especially the confiscation of the game manuscript, caused a catastrophic interruption of the company's business. SJ Games very nearly closed its doors. It survived only by laying off half its employees, and it was years before it could be said to have "recovered." |
Sounds to me like Steve thinks they had recovered at some point -- although they've had other major setbacks since then, such as 2001 incident where their CFO left after not exactly doing his job properly for at least year, forcing them to lay off 13 people.
| QUOTE (Oracle) | ||
Technically that is true. But the Luftwaffe has a squad of Tornado IDS specially equipped and some pilots specially trained for the deployment of nuclear weapons. |
Let me guess. Our nuclear weapons?
That was much too easy. ^^
| QUOTE (Butterblume @ Aug 23 2006, 05:17 PM) |
| Our local schloss still has a graffiti on it's wall "Arbeit statt Raketen" (work instead of rockets), which dates back to the earlier eighties. It protested the stationing of the SS20, or the pershing, or both. I can't really remember, I was still young then . |
It was the Pershing. East Germans weren't, AFAIK, really given much opportunity to protest like what happened in West Germany and the US itself (and there were protests. My God... The protest in Manhattan was over 1 million people).
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Mistakes are made, and sometimes people do stupid things. I'm not convinced they had no cause. It was mentioned somewhere that some people there frequented known hacker boards. There's no telling what was said on those boards to give the government cause for alarm, but I would bet that it wasn't just a bunch a guy sitting around and one says "let's go raid someone without a reason." |
Dude. Seriously. Read the link to the story. There's one thing in their search of the author of the book. The search and seizure of property at SJ Games' offices, however, were pretty much based on, "It's here, so it's evidence" in spite of the fact that that assumption was, and is, illegal. So, yes, they did sack the office and the company of property without a reason--Well, beyond, "It's here..." There was nothing even remotely related to the sourcebook material mentioned in the affadavit.
| QUOTE (Judge's Opinion) |
| During the search of Steve Jackson Games and the seizure of the three computers, over 300 computer disks, and other materials, Agent Golden was orally advised by a Steve Jackson Games, Inc. Employee that Steve Jackson Games, Inc. was in the publishing business. Unfortunately, Agent Golden, like Foley, was unaware of the Privacy Protection Act and apparently attached no significance to this information. The evidence is undisputed that Assistant U. S. Attorney Cook would have stopped the search at the time of this notification had he been contacted. |
Yeah, when in doubt don't tell the lawyers anything. Good idea.
| QUOTE |
| The Secret Service denies that its personnel or its delegates read the private electronic communications stored in the seized materials and specifically allege that this information was reviewed by use of key search words only. Additionally, the Secret Service denies the deletion of any information seized with two exceptions of sensitive" or "illegal" information, the deletion of which was consented to by Steve Jackson. However, the preponderance of the evidence, including common sense (F5), establishes that the Secret Service personnel or its delegates did read all electronic communications seized and did delete certain information and communications in addition to the two documents admitted deleted. The deletions by the Secret Service, other than the two documents consented to by Steve Jackson, were done without consent and cannot be justified. By March 2, 1990, Agent Foley, Agent Golden, and the Secret Service, if aware of the Privacy Protection Act, would have known that they had, by a search warrant, seized work products of materials from a person or entity reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a "book" or "similar form of public communication." |
| QUOTE (Judge's Ruling and Opinion on the First Issue) |
| However, the evidence is clear that on March 1, 1990, "work product materials," as defined in 42 U.S.C. 2000aa-7(b), was obtained as well as materials constituting "documentary materials" as defined in the same provision. (F7) (James' note: This is specifically in regards to the material for GURPS Cyberpunk.) The Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000aa, dictates: "Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation . . . of a criminal offense to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication . . . ." _See_, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000aa(a). |
| QUOTE |
| During the search on March 1, and on March 2, 1990, the Secret Service was specifically advised of facts that put its employees on notice of probable violations of the Privacy Protection Act. It is no excuse that Agents Foley and Golden were not knowledgeable of the law. On March 2, 1990, and thereafter, the conduct of the United States Secret Service was in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000aa _et seq_. |
| QUOTE |
| The government could and should have requested Steve Jackson as chief operating officer of the corporation to cooperate and provide the information available under the law. The Secret Service's refusal to return information and property requested by Mr. Jackson and his lawyers in Dallas and Austin constituted a violation of the statute. |
| QUOTE (Judge's Ruling and Opinion on the Third Issue) |
| The Government Defendants contend there is no liability for alleged violation of the statute as Foley and the Secret Service had a "good faith" reliance on the February 28, 1990, court order/search warrant. The Court declines to find this defense by a preponderance of the evidence in this case. |
Underlining by me.
I hate to burst anyone's illusion of the nobility of law enforcement, but when it comes to searches and seizures the community as a whole has an unfortunate tendency to push against the line between legal and illegal searches all the time. They may not break the law, but throughout history they've done a very good job of bending it pretty hard.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
News to me—they don't officially claim to own an arsenal, and secret arsenals (if they exist—I consider it pretty much fait accompli, but I have no proof ) don't inspire confidence in security, at least for me.~J |
Me either... I'm probably even more afraid of Israel than of Iran...
Israel's also surrounded by nations that hate them, and their government is traditionally more hotheaded than the U.S.'s. I'm surprised they haven't nuked someone yet.
| QUOTE |
| Mistakes such as imprisioning Kevin Mitnick - a US citizen - for how long and under what conditions? |
Yes, mistakes like that. Innocent people get imprisoned in the criminal justice system as it stands now. Expecting new pieces of it to be problem free is naive.
| QUOTE |
| Dude. Seriously. Read the link to the story. There's one thing in their search of the author of the book. The search and seizure of property at SJ Games' offices, however, were pretty much based on, "It's here, so it's evidence" in spite of the fact that that assumption was, and is, illegal. So, yes, they did sack the office and the company of property without a reason--Well, beyond, "It's here..." There was nothing even remotely related to the sourcebook material mentioned in the affadavit. |
I read it the last time this discussion was had and it was posted. And I responded to it then. But just in case you don't remember or weren't involved that time I'll reiterate what I wrote above.
| QUOTE |
| Mistakes are made, and sometimes people do stupid things. |
All your many quotes tell me is that we need better training of our enforcement officials. With the proper training the entire situation would have been, if not avoided entirely, at least blunted.
| QUOTE |
| They may not break the law, but throughout history they've done a very good job of bending it pretty hard. |
"Bending" the law is a misnomer. Laws specify what can and cannot happen in a situation. If you operate within the lines of the law then you're fine. If you step out of the lines then you're breaking the law. If the lines are unclear then there is no applicable law to "bend." People generally say "bending the law" when the law allows something they don't like.
Talking about laws:
Here are two sites with a collection of really stupid laws that were never revoked:
Dumb laws
Another Website on Dumb laws
Enjoy! ^_^
Here are two sites with a collection of really stupid laws that were never revoked:
Dumb laws
Another Website on Dumb laws
Enjoy! ^_^
| QUOTE (JesterX) |
| Talking about laws: Here are two sites with a collection of really stupid laws that were never revoked: Dumb laws Another Website on Dumb laws Enjoy! ^_^ |
I've looked at that Dumb Laws dot com one before, some of those are hillarious. Here in Washington State we actually had one of those frontier towns that banned dancing in the 1800's and the law was finally repealed in the late 1990's, which made the local news when the town celebrated by having a dance.
| QUOTE (James McMurray @ Aug 24 2006, 09:07 AM) |
| "Bending" the law is a misnomer. Laws specify what can and cannot happen in a situation. If you operate within the lines of the law then you're fine. If you step out of the lines then you're breaking the law. If the lines are unclear then there is no applicable law to "bend." People generally say "bending the law" when the law allows something they don't like. |
Actually, most laws are rather vauge and rely on concepts that are realitive. This is a good thing, for the most part. It allows such laws to be interperated depending on the situation. Since lawmakers are not omniscient, they can't write a law that applies iself perfectly to all situations. Taking laws literally at face value eventually leads to absurdy for this very reason. Interpertation is necessary to keep everything running smoothly.
When people refer to "bending the law" they mean interpertating the law in such a way that it violates the spirit or the intent of the law without violating the letter of the law.
To tie this into Shadowrun, I'll give an example from Harlequin's Back. In the Arthurian metaplane the party must go to the Isle of Apples. No man may set foot onto the Isle of Apples and live. This is made clear to the PCs and any male PC that does set foot on the Isle instantly dies.
Bending the law, in this case, would involve the male character having female characters carry him in a sedan chair, building a wheelchair for himself, riding a horse, or having him simply cut off his feet and replace them with steel leaf-springs. In such cases the PC would be following the literal letter of the law (no man may set foot on the Isle of Apples) but he would be violating the spirit of the law.
I'd call that great thinking on the PC's part, not bending the law.
The litter idea, yes.
Knee-walking across the island, no.
~J
Knee-walking across the island, no.
~J
Why not? We're dealing with a magical realm and a magical curse. Magical curses have always (or at least for a veeeery long time) been gotten around by interpreting their wording as literally as possible. That's totally off topic though, so if it's really interesting we should start a new thread or take it to PM.
My point is that if you're operating within the bounds of the law to get your goals accomplished then you are doing good. Many instances of "bending the law" that people disagree with tend to break other laws. But instead of looking at the synergy between the two laws they hold up the one they don't like as the culprit.
This of course assumes that your goals are good, but that's an entirely different discussion.
My point is that if you're operating within the bounds of the law to get your goals accomplished then you are doing good. Many instances of "bending the law" that people disagree with tend to break other laws. But instead of looking at the synergy between the two laws they hold up the one they don't like as the culprit.
This of course assumes that your goals are good, but that's an entirely different discussion.
| QUOTE (James McMurray @ Aug 24 2006, 08:07 AM) |
| Laws specify what can and cannot happen in a situation. If you operate within the lines of the law then you're fine. If you step out of the lines then you're breaking the law. If the lines are unclear then there is no applicable law to "bend." People generally say "bending the law" when the law allows something they don't like. |
Oh, man. I don't think I've had as good a laugh in a long time.
Cool, another typical useless but trollish post by SL James. Some things never change. If you'd like to wander away though, some of us are having a grownup discussion.
But seriously; how can you claim that laws are always clear cut enough that they can not be creativly interpreted/bent? Or am I misunderstanding you? If this is what you mean, I'm just lost for words really 
<<edit>> Perhaps you are playing with words. You say that bending the law is not really bending it; it's doing something within the law in a way that was not intended or that is generally disliked. Well, that is what bending the law is, so why should that expression not be used?
<<edit>> Perhaps you are playing with words. You say that bending the law is not really bending it; it's doing something within the law in a way that was not intended or that is generally disliked. Well, that is what bending the law is, so why should that expression not be used?
I'm not saying laws are always clear cut. I'm saying that usually if an interpretation of a law would be considered "bending" it, that interpretation also ends up violating other laws. There is a lot of room for improvement in the way our (America's) laws are written, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of them. If there are holes in the email scanning laws that allow for abuse or misaccusations you close the holes, you don't scrap a system that can and has put criminals behind bars.
I don't know if this is different in the US, but in Denmark you generally can't bend laws. The courts simply say you've tried to get around the law and then rules as if you've broken it. Law just isn't so strictly "by the letter" as some laymen think it is.
An example: By Danish law, you can't make lease contracts that allows the owner to cancel the contract (unless the tenant breaches the terms of course). You can, however, make lease contracts with a time limit. You could use this as a way to effectively give the owner the ability to terminate the lease by just making a series of time-limited contracts - the owner can decide to not make a new contract if he wants to get the tenant to move. Even though this isn't specified in any way in the law, if brought to court the owner will lose on the basis that he tried to circumvent the laws denying owners the ability to terminate leases, and rule that the tenant can stay. Even though no step in the process was against the law, the steps combined are effectively against it.
Laws well be more strictly interpreted in America though, I wouldn't know.
An example: By Danish law, you can't make lease contracts that allows the owner to cancel the contract (unless the tenant breaches the terms of course). You can, however, make lease contracts with a time limit. You could use this as a way to effectively give the owner the ability to terminate the lease by just making a series of time-limited contracts - the owner can decide to not make a new contract if he wants to get the tenant to move. Even though this isn't specified in any way in the law, if brought to court the owner will lose on the basis that he tried to circumvent the laws denying owners the ability to terminate leases, and rule that the tenant can stay. Even though no step in the process was against the law, the steps combined are effectively against it.
Laws well be more strictly interpreted in America though, I wouldn't know.
Something like that is possible, but would probably come down to the skill of the lawyer and the whim of the judge as to whether it catually happened or not.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| you don't scrap a system that can and has put criminals behind bars. |
That's tautological. Any law that carries a punishment of imprisonment and can be broken (ok, granted, also "and can be enforced") will put criminals behind bars, because the mere act of breaking it renders someone a criminal.
~J
Add "dangerous" if that makes it more palatable to you. Or change "criminal" to "terrorist".
I know what I meant to say and I'm pretty sure you knew as well. If you really didn't, let me know and I'll try and be more clear in the future.
I know what I meant to say and I'm pretty sure you knew as well. If you really didn't, let me know and I'll try and be more clear in the future.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Add "dangerous" if that makes it more palatable to you. |
It certainly makes it more discussable. What about burglary, then? Fraud? Counterfeiting? Embezzlement?
| QUOTE |
| Or change "criminal" to "terrorist". |
I'd really rather not
| QUOTE |
| I know what I meant to say and I'm pretty sure you knew as well. If you really didn't, let me know and I'll try and be more clear in the future. |
Actually, I'm not convinced that you know what you meant—not in any unambiguous sense. That's really what worries me—in most of my discussions with you about law, it has seemed to me that you start from the point of view that the laws are predominantly good and argue from there, rather than beginning by examining the laws. Maybe there are years of soul-searching over legal texts behind it all that let you start from that point because you've already evaluated it to be the case, but I can't say that with what I know.
~J
| QUOTE |
| What about burglary, then? Fraud? Counterfeiting? Embezzlement? |
Those are also dangerous in their own ways, just not (usually) physically.
| QUOTE |
| I'd really rather not |
Then I'm not sure how far we can go in this discussion, as the base idea (scanning emails) is aimed at capturing terrorists.
| QUOTE |
| Actually, I'm not convinced that you know what you meant—not in any unambiguous sense. |
When discussing what's "right" and "good" there's precious little out there that's unambiguous. No, I have not poured over the law for years, but I worked for a law school for 3 years and came into contact with a lot of it, and a lot of people who were already practicing or well on their way. And I continue to keep myself informed when I can.
I certainly don't think that every law is designed to increase the greater good and I'm not sure how you got that idea, since the only things I've ever talked about here are anti-terrorism, privacy (and it's status as a myth), gun control, and the like. We've never touched on voting districts, tax law, FCC regulations, or anything like that. There are many laws I disagree with (including gun control and many tax laws). I just happen to think that a well regulated surveillance program can both maintain privacy (for those that still think it exists) and protect lives.
Laws help capture terrorists? That doesn't seem to be the belief of most governments—at least not regular, peace time laws intended to protect civil liberty. Now, martial law; that seems to be the right medicin
James, just because the rest of us don't go to the local precinct for our daily body cavity search in the name of protecting the motherland, doesn't mean our ideas/opinions/stances are somehow less valid than yours. Welcome to reality.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) | ||
Then I'm not sure how far we can go in this discussion, as the base idea (scanning emails) is aimed at capturing terrorists. |
I (admittedly ungenerously) misunderstood what you were saying there. Yes, let's change the focus of the discussion unambiguously to "terrorists"—much as I disagree with that label in general. That said, it is totally irrelevant that the program is aimed at capturing terrorists, because it is not restricted by law to only being used in terrorism cases—we have enough evidence to say without question that if a law can be used more generally than its stated-during-discussion-but-not-in-the-law-itself scope, it will be.
I'll admit that I haven't actually seen the basis of the email-scanning—I've been focusing more on surveillance done without permission of law. If it has a law supporting it that actually does specifically restrict it to terrorism cases (putting aside for now the fact that terrorism is a vague enough label itself to make most anything fit under it), then I guess that last criticism wasn't valid for once.
Regardless, the question of whether or not it has put terrorists behind bars (I'll add: has it?) is almost irrelevant to the question of whether or not the practice is conscionable.
| QUOTE |
| I certainly don't think that every law is designed to increase the greater good and I'm not sure how you got that idea, since the only things I've ever talked about here are anti-terrorism, privacy (and it's status as a myth), gun control, and the like. |
As a matter of fact, that's how I got that idea. The fact that there are areas of the law that you disagree with is highly available to you, but it is totally unavailable to me since (as you point out) we've never talked about it. Nevertheless, we've talked about enough laws for me to be able to establish a trend. It's great that there are other areas of the law you disagree with (I guess… I mean, there's nothing inherently good (or bad) about it, but a lot of the law deserves it), but in the areas we discuss, there is a very solid pattern of you apparently backing laws and practices that may or may not make us safer and, in many cases, definitely do inconvenience the innocent if not worse on the basis that they may make us safer/catch terrorists.
| QUOTE |
| I just happen to think that a well regulated surveillance program can both maintain privacy (for those that still think it exists) and protect lives. |
The question is, is it well-regulated? There's also the question of how broad it is, but you could argue that that's part of "well-regulated" (though it's a design issue rather than a regulation issue).
I wrote this over about four different blocks of time, so I hope it all still makes sense.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Regardless, the question of whether or not it has put terrorists behind bars (I'll add: has it?) is almost irrelevant to the question of whether or not the practice is conscionable. |
I'm not sure that the goal of SigInt Programs that sweep for keyword or monitor calls made from specific phone numbers have the goal of putting terrorists behind bars as much as they have the goal of disrupting terrorist operations. Whether foreign terrorists even should be tried in the US legal system is really in my opinion very debateable. It really comes down to whether or not you view them as Criminals or if you think they are more properly classified as ununiformed Sabotuers and Irregular Infantry. The problem with terrorists is that unlike soldiers they don't (at least officially) have the backing of a goverment, so you can't declare war against them in the traditional sense. The conclusion a lot of people jump too is that they must then be criminals, which is also not entirely accurate. Criminal enterprises are focused on material gain whereas terrorist organizations are bent on political change through violent means. Some are large enough to essentially be landless states themselves (Hezbollah is a good example). Using the traditional definition of terrorist (Non state political organizations who use violence to advance their political agenda) gets sticky when the terrorists in question have popular backing of a significant part of the population, like say the Earth Liberation Front, it gets back to the cliche "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."
| QUOTE |
| Laws help capture terrorists? |
Ummm, no. But thatnks for being silly. Law enforcement personnel, using laws (including surveillance laws) capture terrorists.
| QUOTE |
| James, just because the rest of us don't go to the local precinct for our daily body cavity search in the name of protecting the motherland, doesn't mean our ideas/opinions/stances are somehow less valid than yours. Welcome to reality. |
When did I say that I go get body cavity searches? And when did I say your opinions were less valid then mine? Just because I stand by my belief doesn't mean I'm putting yours down. It's called "open discourse." You know, where one person says what they feel, another says what they feel, etc. It's one of those fancy little things the country was founded on.
Disagreement != devaluation. If that's your belief you're probably looking forward to a long life filled with arguments with people that have a different opinion than you.
| QUOTE |
| That said, it is totally irrelevant that the program is aimed at capturing terrorists, because it is not restricted by law to only being used in terrorism cases—we have enough evidence to say without question that if a law can be used more generally than its stated-during-discussion-but-not-in-the-law-itself scope, it will be. |
I agree. I just happen to feel that better laws are required, as opposed to fewer laws, which appears to be the opinion of most people here.
| QUOTE |
| the question of whether or not it has put terrorists behind bars (I'll add: has it?) |
Just last week England and Pakistan arrested several people for suspicion of terrorism based on surveillance of their communications (telephone and email).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125551,00.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...22/173217.shtml
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/in...%20News&id=2153
Those (especially the last one) many successes of the partriot act, of which the interception of electronic communications is a part.
Is it perfect? Experience shows us that it is not. Has it worked? Experiences shows us that it has. To me that is a sign of success that needs some work.
| QUOTE |
| the question of whether or not the practice is conscionable. |
What is conscionable depends on one's conscience. Given the vast differences in peoples' belief systems there's no such thing as a law that is conscionable to all. In my opinion email scanning, followed by actual reading if certain patterns present themselves, if conscionable.
| QUOTE |
| The fact that there are areas of the law that you disagree with is highly available to you, |
Sorry, I thought you had probably seen my stance on gun control elsewhere on this board as it's come up a few times. For the record I'd love gun control if it had a chance of working, but since it can't keep the guns away from criminals it does more harm than good.
| QUOTE |
| The question is, is it well-regulated? There's also the question of how broad it is, but you could argue that that's part of "well-regulated" (though it's a design issue rather than a regulation issue). |
Whether it's well regulated or not isn't a one time question. It's a question that has to be asked every time the law is used. I currently think it's regulated fairly well, but could use some work.
| QUOTE |
| I wrote this over about four different blocks of time, so I hope it all still makes sense. |
Yeah.
I replied over several blocks of time as well, so hopefully my side is also understandable. | QUOTE |
| Criminal enterprises are focused on material gain |
That's an interesting statement that isn't backed up by any definitions I have seen. Criminals come in all stripes. Those looking for a quick buck are by far the most common, but certainly not the only kind.
| QUOTE |
| terrorist organizations are bent on political change through violent means |
Most forms of violence are crimes (at least in America, I can'tspeak for the world). Certainly almost all (I can't hink of any that wouldn't be) types of violence used by terrorists to spread terror are crimes. Thus a terrorist action on American soil is most definitely also a criminal action.
Well said Steve. However, when it comes to the Freedom Fighter v. Terrorist cliche, its really simple. The former obeys the the Laws of Land Warfare, the latter does not. I do not reacall George Washington targeting Loyalist civillians becuase the British Army was tough.
Kage, if the litmus test you want to apply is what is conscionable, rather than even what is Prescribed by Law, I don't know how you could mold this into any sensable public policy.
As to the broader question if unconscionable (and even illegal) surveilance measures are used to stop terrorists, thats tricky. If there are illegal and unconscionable they are unlikely to be disclosed, either to prevent legal challenges or public outcry or both. Beyond that, if they were effective because of their covert status, revealing them would be counterproductive. Dispite the paucity of evidence, I do believe vauge refernces have been made to "surveilance programs" being central in stoping the recent plot in the UK. Make of that what you will.
The bigger concern is that public opinion will be shaped more by political partisanedship than by reasoned necessity. If the definition of reasonablness in "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," must change because, instead of a man siezing a musket and killing his neighbor; international terrorists from Uzwhereistan can kill hundreds or thousands, if not millions on the other side of the globe with nukes, bioweapons, or simply airliners and fertilizer and a disreguard for their own lives, we must have a political debate without trying to score political points on one another. Any restriction on our freedoms is an Anathema to Americans, and it should be, but we must Remember that
Franklin said They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Emphasis mine.
Apologies to Non-Americans, but keeping MY own rights straight is a full time job, you guys have to look out for yourselves on this one!
However, I have a sneaking sucpicion that Union Jane may have been hoping to stir up a discussion, or at least get someone to do the work for her. How many times have we said bomb an terrorist here? And the G-men havn't ***Aaaa---|** <<//Connection*Lost*>>
Kage, if the litmus test you want to apply is what is conscionable, rather than even what is Prescribed by Law, I don't know how you could mold this into any sensable public policy.
As to the broader question if unconscionable (and even illegal) surveilance measures are used to stop terrorists, thats tricky. If there are illegal and unconscionable they are unlikely to be disclosed, either to prevent legal challenges or public outcry or both. Beyond that, if they were effective because of their covert status, revealing them would be counterproductive. Dispite the paucity of evidence, I do believe vauge refernces have been made to "surveilance programs" being central in stoping the recent plot in the UK. Make of that what you will.
The bigger concern is that public opinion will be shaped more by political partisanedship than by reasoned necessity. If the definition of reasonablness in "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," must change because, instead of a man siezing a musket and killing his neighbor; international terrorists from Uzwhereistan can kill hundreds or thousands, if not millions on the other side of the globe with nukes, bioweapons, or simply airliners and fertilizer and a disreguard for their own lives, we must have a political debate without trying to score political points on one another. Any restriction on our freedoms is an Anathema to Americans, and it should be, but we must Remember that
Franklin said They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Emphasis mine.
Apologies to Non-Americans, but keeping MY own rights straight is a full time job, you guys have to look out for yourselves on this one!
However, I have a sneaking sucpicion that Union Jane may have been hoping to stir up a discussion, or at least get someone to do the work for her. How many times have we said bomb an terrorist here? And the G-men havn't ***Aaaa---|** <<//Connection*Lost*>>
Blast you James and your better source citing!
| QUOTE (James McMurray) | ||||
That's an interesting statement that isn't backed up by any definitions I have seen. Criminals come in all stripes. Those looking for a quick buck are by far the most common, but certainly not the only kind.
Most forms of violence are crimes (at least in America, I can'tspeak for the world). Certainly almost all (I can't hink of any that wouldn't be) types of violence used by terrorists to spread terror are crimes. Thus a terrorist action on American soil is most definitely also a criminal action. |
Sorry that Should have been Criminal Enterprises, as in organized crime, drug cartels, etc. Individual criminal motivations are as you suggest mind bogglingly diverse.
As for the second staement about terrorists, acts of terrorism committed by foreign nationals that occur in America could be considered criminal acts but they could also be considered hostile acts against America by a foreign power too. International Terrorists create a variety of problems in classification, and when classified as criminals needless barriers are put up to thwarting their aims.
Law enforcement and the American Criminal Justice system is primarily reactive, it is good at solving crimes and uses punishment as a deterrent (well to some degree, it doesn't do that all that well any more but that's a different subject) it is not terribly good at being proactive. This makes it an ineffective tool against an operational doctrine that is designed to strike once in spectacular fashion using disposable operatives while the planners work from overseas outside the reach of Law Enforcement.
I generally agree with your point, the laws need to be revised to recognize this difficulty. This is very difficult to do in the US political system, particularly as polarized as the electorate is now. As a govermental system the republic is fairly inefficient, which is both it's greatest asset and biggest weakness.
| QUOTE (stevebugge) |
| Law enforcement and the American Criminal Justice system is primarily reactive, it is good at solving crimes and uses punishment as a deterrent (well to some degree, it doesn't do that all that well any more but that's a different subject) it is not terribly good at being proactive. This makes it an ineffective tool against an operational doctrine that is designed to strike once in spectacular fashion using disposable operatives while the planners work from overseas outside the reach of Law Enforcement. |
Which is why, IMO, new laws like the PATRIOT Act are necessary. Note I said like. The act as written can help a lot, but it needs fine tuning and some other helper laws.
Unfortunately in today's political arena most things are either great or worthless, with no in betweens. If one side says it's great the other side says it's worthless without even bothering to think about it. It seems likely to me that either the act is going to remain unchanged or it will go away, because getting a bunch of bipartisan vote counters to actually sit down and agree on something these days is like walking a camel through the eye of a needle.
And no, I don't mean some mountain named needle that happens to have a hole in it.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) | ||
Which is why, IMO, new laws like the PATRIOT Act are necessary. Note I said like. The act as written can help a lot, but it needs fine tuning and some other helper laws. Unfortunately in today's political arena most things are either great or worthless, with no in betweens. If one side says it's great the other side says it's worthless without even bothering to think about it. It seems likely to me that either the act is going to remain unchanged or it will go away, because getting a bunch of bipartisan vote counters to actually sit down and agree on something these days is like walking a camel through the eye of a needle. And no, I don't mean some mountain named needle that happens to have a hole in it. |
Basically my conclusion too.
| QUOTE (Deamon_Knight) |
| Kage, if the litmus test you want to apply is what is conscionable, rather than even what is Prescribed by Law, I don't know how you could mold this into any sensable public policy. |
Duh buh wha? We clearly have totally different philosophies on the purpose of law.
| QUOTE |
| Dispite the paucity of evidence, I do believe vauge refernces have been made to "surveilance programs" being central in stoping the recent plot in the UK. Make of that what you will. |
Ah yes, the one that involved performing a procedure that's highly dangerous in laboratory conditions with an ice bath on hand for required cooling while on an airplane? Until further information comes out, that one's getting filed next to Jean Charles de Menezes, the not-coat wearing, not-turnstile-jumping, not-away-running threat to all humanity.
| QUOTE |
| Sorry, I thought you had probably seen my stance on gun control elsewhere on this board as it's come up a few times. For the record I'd love gun control if it had a chance of working, but since it can't keep the guns away from criminals it does more harm than good. |
That is true. Keep in mind, though, that I am of the firm belief that the Second Amendment exists to protect the most basic right of all people, the right to attempt the overthrow (by violence or other means) of their government—as such, gun control is an insignificant issue next to the much more important issues of SAM and SSM control, preventing local resistance from legally acquiring the capability to mount a serious defense or offense against the United States military. As such, it doesn't really stand out in my mind when someone is just "against gun control" (not that there's anything wrong with that position, mind you).
~J
Doesn't everyone agree that a lot of institutions had the 9/11 terrorists in their sights, but couldn't do anything because they didn't have something like the Patriot Act to do something about it? If that situation happened again, you have two scenarios:
1) with the Patriot Act, the attack is prevented.
2) the Patriot Act gets removed, and the attack happens.
I really don't realistically see the Patriot Act interfering much with ordinary citizen lives, and certainly not anywhere near the damage that terrorists have already done around the world. From a humanistic, idealistic approach, you may be able to find it wrong, but in the real world it saves many more lives than it interferes with.
1) with the Patriot Act, the attack is prevented.
2) the Patriot Act gets removed, and the attack happens.
I really don't realistically see the Patriot Act interfering much with ordinary citizen lives, and certainly not anywhere near the damage that terrorists have already done around the world. From a humanistic, idealistic approach, you may be able to find it wrong, but in the real world it saves many more lives than it interferes with.
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Ummm, no. But thatnks for being silly. Law enforcement personnel, using laws (including surveillance laws) capture terrorists. |
I was being a little silly, I admit, but not for that reason. If you read the following sentences I think you will find that I was refering to how, the way I see it, the laws are being changed in a way that is disturbingly looking like the introduction of martial law—all because the law as written is (was) not helping to capture terrorists.
Now I'm not from America, but the tendencies to restrict liberties and stiffen laws spread over the entire western world. That might be required to some degree, because of the hostile situation, but I'm truely frightened by the eagerness governments show in grabing this opportunity to expand their power and control.
| QUOTE (Deamon Knight) |
| Well said Steve. However, when it comes to the Freedom Fighter v. Terrorist cliche, its really simple. The former obeys the the Laws of Land Warfare, the latter does not. I do not reacall George Washington targeting Loyalist civillians becuase the British Army was tough. |
True, but look at a modern war instead. Israel's actions in Libanon for example. Or the USA in one of their recent invations. There may still be some false pretence of playing by the rules, but if you look at the statistics of who actually dies in these wars, I think you will find that regular people in countries invaded by a legitimate nation is no better off than people in a land targeted by terrorists.
| QUOTE (Smokeskin) |
| Doesn't everyone agree that a lot of institutions had the 9/11 terrorists in their sights, but couldn't do anything because they didn't have something like the Patriot Act to do something about it? If that situation happened again, you have two scenarios: 1) with the Patriot Act, the attack is prevented. 2) the Patriot Act gets removed, and the attack happens. |
Everyone does not agree.
There is only one provision of the USA PATRIOT act that deals with the sharing of information between law enforcement officers and that provision (504) is rather limited in scope. As written, it wouldn't have been effective in preventing those attacks at all.
There are some good provisions in there, but most of it is nonsensical bloat and some of it couldn't possibly serve any legitimate purpose.
Consider this little gem.
| QUOTE (360a) |
| If the President determines that a particular foreign country has taken or has committed to take actions that contribute to efforts of the United States to respond to, deter, or prevent acts of international terrorism, the Secretary may, consistent with other applicable provisions of law, instruct the United States Executive Director of each international financial institution to use the voice and vote of the Executive Director to support any loan or other utilization of the funds of respective institutions for such country, or any public or private entity within such country. |
But, what concerns most people is the expanded ability for federal agents to issue National Security Letters with very few restrictions. National Security Letters allow agents to bypass most constitutional and judicial safeguards and the PATRIOT act pretty much gave federal agencies the ability to use them with impunity in any investigation (previously, they were limited to cases involving terrorism and international espionage).
| QUOTE |
| I really don't realistically see the Patriot Act interfering much with ordinary citizen lives, and certainly not anywhere near the damage that terrorists have already done around the world. From a humanistic, idealistic approach, you may be able to find it wrong, but in the real world it saves many more lives than it interferes with. |
Damage done by terrorists is insiginificant. It always has been. It is just more obvious and emotionally changed than many other issues. It is difficult to hate an eartquake or a flood and car crashes, while far more deadly than terrorism in aggregate, are easy to overlook.
I would also like to note that the attacks on teh Pentagon and the World Trade Center also could have been prevented if the passengers and crew of the aircraft were not complacent. It is the sense of complacency that is most dangerous. No prophylactic is perfect and when potential avenues of attack are infinite any defence will falter. Providing people with the means and the will to protect theselves is far more effective than mass survailence.
| QUOTE (mintcar) |
| True, but look at a modern war instead. Israel's actions in Libanon for example. Or the USA in one of their recent invations. There may still be some false pretence of playing by the rules, but if you look at the statistics of who actually dies in these wars, I think you will find that regular people in countries invaded by a legitimate nation is no better off than people in a land targeted by terrorists. |
What you call a "false pretense of playing by the rules," people who know a little more might call "fighting with one hand behind our back, and getting our soldiers killed instead of their civilians." While I'll admit Israel might not mean it quite as much as the US does, we're jumping through ridiculous hoops over there, drawing out a conflict and increasing the danger to our boys in order to minimalize civilian casualties. You can call it a "false pretense" if you want, and insist those civilians are no better off because of it -- but the simple fact is if we'd been trying to kill them, an awful lot more of them would be dead.
| QUOTE (mintcar) |
| True, but look at a modern war instead. Israel's actions in Libanon for example. Or the USA in one of their recent invations. There may still be some false pretence of playing by the rules, but if you look at the statistics of who actually dies in these wars, I think you will find that regular people in countries invaded by a legitimate nation is no better off than people in a land targeted by terrorists. |
That is just plain untrue. Do you have any idea of what sort of casualties would be inflicted if the Israeli or US military wasn't holding back their punches? Or deliberately tried to inflict civilian casualties?
If they instead of bothering with precision munitions from aircraft just opened up with artillery? Or used sustained artillery shelling of areas with enemies in them, even if there was civilians there? If they didn't warn the civilian population prior to bombardments (which also alerts the enemy of course)? All of those tactics are a lot more effective than what they're doing now.
Israeli, US and other NATO forces fight with great care for civilian life, making them less effective and putting their own soldiers at risk because of it.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| Damage done by terrorists is insiginificant. It always has been. It is just more obvious and emotionally changed than many other issues. It is difficult to hate an eartquake or a flood and car crashes, while far more deadly than terrorism in aggregate, are easy to overlook. I would also like to note that the attacks on teh Pentagon and the World Trade Center also could have been prevented if the passengers and crew of the aircraft were not complacent. It is the sense of complacency that is most dangerous. No prophylactic is perfect and when potential avenues of attack are infinite any defence will falter. Providing people with the means and the will to protect theselves is far more effective than mass survailence. |
You consider 9/11 insignificant? In terms of lives lost and economic loss? What is significant in your eyes then?
By that standard, any of the legislation passed to prevent terrorism is truly insignificant, invalidating your whole opposition to it.
I really, truly think that intelligence agencies and law enforcement should be the ones who prevent terrorism. Saying that the people who were on those planes should have prevented it is quite untasteful. Very few have any combat training, most people have never even been in a fight, and basic physical prowess is also lacking often. So when on a plane, suddenly a group of men spring into action, attacking with knives, killing several crew members, covering the front section of the plane with several cans of teargas, locking themselves in the pilot cabin, most people react with shock and fear and don't dare to do anything. They have no idea that they're going to crash the plane into something, that never happened before. Most hijackings end up on the ground and the passengers get out alive - assuming this would happen, instead of trying to attempt a probably futile attack that would get many more killed, was the sensible thing. And finally, the last plane, when the passengers heard what happened to the other 3, they did fight back.
I really object to your idea that the complacency of the passengers of those planes is most dangerous. Especially since you seem to be using it as an excuse for your opinion that the government should be complacement about the threat to begin with.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.