[IP] more on Who they're spying on
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ross Stapleton-Gray <ross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 8, 2006 2:26:52 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Who they're spying on
At 10:57 AM 6/8/2006, Hiawatha Bray wrote:
It doesn't make the slightest difference who's in the White House, or
who's in control of Congress. Fanatic Islamic terrorists will keep
right on
trying to kill us, as they are trying to murder Canadians,
Indonesians,
Frenchmen, Filipinos, Spaniards, Sudanese, Somalis, and pretty much
anyone else who rejects their vision of the world.
Step back, Hiawatha, and ask yourself if the threat of "fanatic
Islamic terrorists" could possibly justify the immense expenditure of
public wealth, and surrender of civil liberties, that we've already
seen. And try to put a realistic value on this threat. My wife and
I just spent two days in Yosemite, staying at a little B&B some 40
miles or so outside the park, near Miraposa... pretty much as far
from anywhere as you might want to get. And there was a Homeland
Security-promotional steel sign tacked up on a tree along the dirt
road to the B&B, and an "Osama bin Laden - wanted dead or alive"
poster in a little gas station. I think it's a measure of the
extreme hysteria that we (and when I mean we, I mean our elected
leaders) have managed to whip up. There's a vastly greater threat to
these folks from deer ticks.
The Clinton era gave us a
series of brutal islamic terror attacks on US interests, including the
first WTC bombing. And when Bush is gone, Muslim fanatics will
continue
trying to kill Americans. No matter who you vote for, the problem
isn't
going away. So we'd better think seriously about the best ways to
defend our country.
I think various list contributors have suggested that spending
hundreds of billions to effectively *incline* more people to dislike
us (not to mention weaken our social and economic status, hence
leverage, in the world) ain't the way to do it. The problem isn't
going away, because current U.S. policies are exacerbating it.
We're up against murderers who use sophisticated covert tactics,
designed to let them hide their activities and intentions until
they strike.
They rely upon the free institutions of liberal societies to help
them in
this. Therefore, many of their activities cannot be prevented by
traditional law enforcement techniques, which are rightly
constrained by rules that set
firm limits on police power.
Wait, wait... why should law enforcement techniques be constrained by
rules? Why do you hate law and order so much? The threat to my
wellbeing from criminal violence vastly exceeds that from
terrorism... why should we handcuff the police, when they could by
"new tactics beyond those normally used by police organizations,"
more readily identify and "neutralize" said criminals?
Fighting such people, therefore, requires the use of new tactics
beyond
those normally used by police organizations. Yet these tactics can
also
erode the liberty and privacy rights which we take for granted. How
do we strike the right balance?
I don't think we ought to have changed a thing, re use of the
military and law enforcement. There are lots of tools on the shelf;
the current administration picked those most attractive to its
interests (and many on the "not really legal" shelf), which include
enhancing the ability of the U.S. to act unilaterally internationally
at any cost, which I think we'll be regretting for decades.
I'd have thought that a listserv like this one, crammed with serious
thinkers, might address the matter seriously. If the members believe
that the current approach is all wrong, they could do us all a lot
of good by
laying out an alternative plan. I hoped my post would inspire just
such a discussion.
An alternative, better plan, would have been to (1) not invade Iraq,
which has cost us hundreds of billions already; and (2) made more
friends and allies among foreign governments, which would have done
vastly more to incline foreign populations to reject, rather than
harbor, individuals and organizations whose existence would make
*their* lives less stable, productive and pleasant. Imagine if we'd
instead spent $100B on Fulbright scholarships to students from
Islamic countries, microloans a la Grameen Bank, and Arabic (and
Chinese) language instruction in U.S. schools.
And I really don't think we need police powers beyond those we've
used to successfully break the back of the Mafia in the U.S.;
spending *more* on police, sure. Though I'd think we'd get more bang
from the buck directing the new resources at youth gangs,
incarceration reform (e.g., ensuring that prisons are more corrective
than breeding pools for permanent criminals), and pre-emptive
education. Some 3,000 or so individuals died on 9/11 (in the
attacks, in the U.S... I daresay many more died worldwide of
preventable diseases on the same day, and every day since)...
spending hundreds of billions to "up armor" the U.S. against a repeat
of that (and ignoring many better ways to reduce the efficacy of
terrorists) is just really, really bad math, and public policy.
Ross
----
Ross Stapleton-Gray, Ph.D.
Stapleton-Gray & Associates, Inc.
http://www.stapleton-gray.com
http://www.sortingdoor.com
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/