The land of the transparent citizens?

Remove all ads!

Having read about the very notable Patriot Act I wondered a bit about what direction the US are steering to. A Machtergreifung?

A few links on Act I:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter02/cole.html
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter02/martin.html
And some more on Act II:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/HallsOfJustice/hallsofjustice.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0213-09.htm
http://www.infowars.com/print_patriotact2_analysis.htm
Understandably the whole debate is very controversial. What are your thoughts about this? A gvt snooping around in your realm of privacy - unnoticed, uncontrolled and almost unrestricted? Do you think the Bush administration used 9/11 to make a step toward strengtheneing the executive, that means, weakening citizen rights?
Do you think this is justified by the events of 9/11 or does it go further?

[ May 06, 2003, 02:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

There's a bunch of counties that are passing laws, fining anyone in government employment for cooperating with the Patriot Act.

America is built on checks and balances. Tee-Hee!

Don't think it works as arbitrarily as Deus Ex. It makes for good games and stories, as long as you leave out the details.

 

I didn't even bother to read these links since i already know that our personal freedoms are being diminished every day.
And Ragusa have you heard the conspiracy theory that says that CIA and the US administration knew about 9/11 two months before it happened and decided that it would be best to let it happen because this accident would serve best their purposes; We know see their purposes a "liberistic" dictatorship that has it citizens happy but watched all the time and naturally jailed whenever they wish with no need for explanation.
And at least my goverment and as i heard many others have passed anti terrorists laws that resemble in a minor degree that patriot act of US.

 

Kinda makes you want to set out for an oil well somewhere in the pacific, set up a new country with new laws that are'nt so controlling.

 

What a ridiculous thought, a conspiracy theory. Exactly who came up with this ? Mullah Omar perhaps ?

You're saying that the Bush administration "sacrificed" willingly a few thousand of it's citizens so they can have their way in the Middle east. Do you realise how insane that sounds ?

 

An interesting theory.

The sacrifice-idea is not that new: Roosevelt was quite probably informed about japanese attack plans - from communications intelligence he knew about direction of the japanese fleet and that where they headed to was only one possible target - Pearl Harbor. It is very likely that Roosevelt willingly prevented action to alarm Pearl Harbor and US forces in the pacific - he wanted a reason to allow the US to join the war against nazi germany and imperial japan - and without a "landmark" like Pearl Harbor they might have been unwilling.
This is not a conspiracy theory but based on recent historical research.

Maybe the neocon megalomaniacs tried to repeat that trick. They sure had ambitious plans for a new american century (the Statement of Principles isn't really new - from 1997) but a population unwilling to make a major war. Now let's work this theory out a bit:

The republicans didn't much boast this neocon strategic agenda in the election campaign. Bush iirc even spoke about reducing presence overseas - so actually they didn't tell the US people about this path. But then, all gvt's have lied in their election campaigns - Bush Jr. certainly didn't make a difference.
So maybe the neocons just acted in the US (as they saw it) best interest instead - not very democratic (we know best, or: "trust me"). As no one except the neocons greatly cared for foreign policy and geo-strategy anyway that allowed them to quickly dominate this sector of politics in Bush Jr's gvt, and as they had a strong media presence, it allowed them to dominate the media and public opinion as well. It has been a major mistake by the democrats to leave that turf to the neocons.

Just as in WW-II they needed something to stir up america's fighting spirit (an outrageous attack - some may remind the immediate parallels to Pearl Harbor in the media after 9/11) and something to keep the americans in line (fear of terror). Given they had pretty exact knowledge about this planned act of terror that became known as 9/11, they might have seen it as the trigger they always wanted. Maybe they considered 7.000+ US lives a good price for their vision of US dominance.

Even though it lacks proof (yet?) and can be considered a conspiracy theory - that cannot take away the plausibility. After Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor the sacrifice thought isn't at all unthinkable in US policy Pac man.

On the other hand, 9/11 by accident might have served them just as well

[ May 08, 2003, 12:27: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I don't care for American domestic policies. As long our countries don't start to do it here. Everytime Ashcroft is here, and says, how happy is with they way we work together, I get worried. And suspicious. Watching my federal council. And the Germans, always keep an eye on the Germans. At least, Italy is so messed up, even if they had laws like this, wouldn't matter a lot.

Concerning the CIA theory. I think, maybe the CIA had information before. But wasn't able to get what it means. -> In hintsight, oh dam, that would have been important, but we just did not realize the importance, we messed it up. Messing up, not conspiracy. -> Humans make errors and mess things up. Yes, they could have been better. Could have, would have, should have.

But I think, US-Administrations take steps, knowingly that it's quite possible, that Americans have to lose their lifes for it. Just like Maggie Thatcher in the 80's. She messed up the whole Northern-Ireland story and did a lot of harm to her own people. Exactly knowing, that her plans weren't broadly considered as smart. She had just a huge jingoism-complex.

[ May 08, 2003, 12:49: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Definitely. No matter what has eventually allowed 9/11 to happen and despite the conspiracy theories: They don't really make a difference as the US *did* use the opportunity 9/11 gave them to enforce their neocon foreign policy - that alone is bad enough.

They have also used 9/11 to erode citizen rights in the US, another bad aspect. They justify the treatment of prisoners by the US gvt in Guantanamo - terrorists or not - with the argument that they aren't US citicens and that Guantanamo is not US territory. That is a clear expression about what they think about their constitution - they circumnavigate it with a cheap legal trick. We can't torture a US citizen? Well, sure we can't and we don't . But we can take away his citizenship for unamerican activities and send him to Pakistan instead - they'll do that dirt work while we get the results and write the questions .... ... come on!

Knowledge and information about 9/11 that might have even allowed to stop that act of terror would only make them "Greater Jerks".

 

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7748

Admittedly, some of the recently announced or leaked out bits of the plans to improve "public security" have been vague and wide open for (abusive?) interpretation.

IIRC the US gvt is buying info from private information gathering companies - info the US gvt wouldn't be allowed to collect themselves after US laws. I find this habit of delegation to privates (unbound by constitution) questionable.

Transparent citizens? I don't know. Quite probable though. But is the "safety" provided by lack of freedom worth it?

[ May 13, 2003, 00:37: Message edited by: Prozac ]

 

every single one of these ideas are indeed viable.

i personally however, have a hard time believing that G.W.Bush would have allowed 9/11 to happen had he known about it. i don't trust my government, hell, i don't even like it, but you must understand what a traumatic thing this was for the American people. i know, things like this happen everyday all over the world, but they don't happen here, at least we thought they didn't. you're all thinking "those damn sheltered Americans" and you're right. so now think how devastating it was to see on live T.V. an attack on your most "sheltered city" a varitable icon of America itself. would you be terrified, mad, ready to kill, or crying your eyes out? i was. we're all flesh and blood why must this crap continue? there, i just made myself transparent, now you all see right through me.

[ May 17, 2003, 00:26: Message edited by: Greenlion420 ]

 

@ Greeenlion 420

I don't want to argue your point. But don't forget that New York is an international city and there were lots and lots of Europeans under the victims. I don't have an exact number, but I guess 1/3 of the victims were coming from other countries. Now, I don't want to make a fuss about nationality here, just it wasn't only an American thing.

 

It is estimated that some 500+ germans were among the victims, also in the bombing in Djerba were mostly germans *targeted*. About 15 of the 30 western tourists captured by algerian islamists in the algerian desert were germans. Yet still germans don't really feel threatened by Al Quaida at the slightest. I feel that that should change.

Beeing a supporter of the war against terror I simply don't support the US gvt's methods and priorities. Put it that way, after all the lies about Saddam and Al Quaida it became evident that conquering Iraq didn't solve the problem of terror - it didn't prevent the bombing in Riad for example, nor did it contribute to the capture of Bin Laden.

As for the transparent citizen stuff - that's a different story. Of course, stricter security measures are needed to fight those who use the freedoms western societies guarantee against them - however, I feel that the steps the US have made and initiated go yet still a step further, severly restricting liberties. And, eventually, that's what this thread was meant to be about.

 

At Ragusa: I disagree.

Sahara: 4 Swiss (still hostages, maybe already dead)

A link between the Sahara hostages and Al-Queda is very unlikely, in my view. As it seems now, the kidnappers wanted money. What Al Queada does not need, because it has plenty of it, is money. I guess it was just Algerian-terrorism/civil war. Nothing about Al-Queada at all. They usually use bombs versus populated buildings and places. Sahara is very different. It is just a part of the, seemingly neverending, Algerian war aftermath chaos. As long there is no stability in Algeria (and I don't see that in the near future), there is no security.

To end terror, it is necessary to solve the underlying conflict. That means, how much political instability do we import to our countries together with the black gold, which is found under the feet of the Arabs and is controlled by their dictatorships ? Or do we fill are cars with Nigerian blood ?

And Swiss don't feel threatend by terrorism. But there are very likely to be victims of terrorism. Now, we nearly have everywhere losses to terrorism. The last one in Saudi-Arabia, Bali, Sahara, always some Swiss targeted too. But Swiss don't feel threatend, because they normally only bystanders. We don't have influence on the world, because were tiny. And because we're tiny, we look at things from another perspective. Terrorism is criminal. It breeds in instable countries. Help countries get stable. Stop being hypocrit about Swiss-relations to other countries. Let the Police follow terrorist (criminals). That's their job. And stay cool. Trees don't grow into the sky. Even terrorists will not swarm in unbelievable masses.

But what really is pissing me off now, is that nice G8 meeting, right next to our border. Well, thanks. Why can't those fools not meet in Mongolia or Sibira or on lost Island in the pacific, far away from human populations ? A stupid big fuss for 8 fools. Tax-money-wasting at it's finest, and Geneva will be stormed by demonstraters from nearly everywhere. Stupid fools !!!!

[ May 16, 2003, 23:03: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

@ Yago, you're absolutly correct, forgive me.

9/11 was a worldwide fiasco. i'm an american so my viewpoint is a little americanized.

my heart goes out to all who felt the pain of 9/11.


also @ Ragusa, you're right screw U.S. policy and government. it must be replaced, can we call you? are you up for the job?

 

Yago,
in a today's article "Der politische Dialog steht noch aus" on algeria and the hostages the FAZ sais, that, according to algerian anit-terror-specialists, the GSPC (the group that kidnapped the tourists) is led by "afgans", people who fought in afganistan against the russians. One of them, named "Slim, the afgan" (no joke) is said to have contacts to Bin-Laden; he's now leading his own group.

A link is not so unlikely as both, Al Quaida and the algerian groups are islamists, sharing beliefs - and probably combat experience in afganistan. A link between these groups is significantly more likely that a connection between Iraq and Al Quaida.
This should not be musinderstood. It doesn't mean that they themselves belong to Al Quaida or are led by them even - the islamist terror is a loose network of common interests and mutual support. Not more, not less.

And when terrorists or bandits want money they usually buy arms - so to say the only wanted money is no counterargument against their violent intentions. The algerian islamists of GIA are probably the most cruel in the arab world - they became famous for their nightly massacres in villages and remorseless bombings in cities. This civil war cost 120.000 peoples lives.

 

At Ragusa

I don't disagree with you on the cruellty of Algerian terrorism. But still, the link between the hostage-taking and Al-Queda seems to me still very weak. I don't say, they are not islamist and I don't say, some of them didn't belong to those who were fighting in Afghanistan back in the eighties. (Weren't they called freedom fighters, back in those days ?)

I just don't think it is likely, that that's an Al-Queada operation. I guess, it is something completly Algerian. Domestic terrorism, which has taken a new turn versus Sahara tourists, completly unconnected to somethin else, but maybe stimulated by the 3. gulf war. And the Algerian goverment is a band of ........ (trying not to swear too much). And I wonder, how the involved nations (Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Switzerland) react, when the Algerian army messed it up and the remaining hostages are dead. I hope that is not the case.

Iraq - Al-Queada. Nearly every link in the whole wide world is more likely.

Still, in my opinion, (mainly feed by Tages-Anzeiger, NZZ and DRS), the Algerian more or less domestic group theory prevails. I may not be right. But I think so.

Edit: Link to the story today:

http://www.tagi.ch/dyn/news/ausland/279081.html

Translation (Short): A freed Austrian said, that they wanted money for weapons. The link to AL-Queda constists only in mentioning a dubious personality, who lost it's eye in the Afghan war. A group should be behind the hostage-taking, which didn't focus on foreigners or civilians before and was never active in the Sahara before. No hard evidience to all that. The Algerian Goverment remains silent. A lot of questions will propably never be answered.

[ May 16, 2003, 23:53: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

It clearly is a different style than Al Quida's. No media-attractive mass murder, just some hostage taking.
The algerian islamists are under severe pressure. As some of the german hostages later told they were forced to do extensive night marches "until the boots were in rags" to quickly change places. It is said the algerian military has managed to kill some 15.000 islamists in the last years and their most influential fraction is called "eradicateurs".

They enjoy US support, so they received Beech 1900 turboprops equipped with potent HISAR radars, that should have significantly boosted their ability to watch their extensive deserts.

For the algerian islamist taking hostages and demanding money might be the only way to gain money after domestic support, as a result of the islamist butchery, more and more disappeared.

 

cool, quote it in german, i didn't want to read it anyway

 

BBC report with the same story above, but without speculations about, why the Algerian-Goverment-claims an Al-Queda link, while the freed hostages, till now, did not suggest the same.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3030683.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3020131.stm

The above report is a follow-up report to the report mentioned by the BBC.

 

thank you Yago, sorry for my one track language skills