Abhi,

If one were to drop into this debate completely oblivous to reality and read your comments - "We have to remember that grand juries will usually indict anyone with a pulse." - one would think that not a single Muslim living in America is involved [directly or supportive] in any terror related stuff. And it is all a big conspiracy.

Abhi,
Here meet Tunku

If one were to drop into this debate completely oblivous to reality and read your comments - "We have to remember that grand juries will usually indict anyone with a pulse." - one would think that not a single Muslim living in America is involved [directly or supportive] in any terror related stuff. And it is all a big conspiracy.

Actually, one wouldn't think that at all if one were reasonable. Right after the grand jury bit, abhi said that he assumes this will turn out to be more than the "taking pictures while brown phenomenon" and, later on, he quotes the family members and wonders whether, deep down, they think he might be guilty of whatever he has been indicted for. And if you knew much about the criminal justice system you'd know that grand juries will, in fact, indict pretty much anyone with a pulse. There is a very low threshold of proof required for a grand jury indictment, grand juries typically hear from no one other than the prosecutor (who is typically not required to present any exculpatory evidence or even evidence that casts doubt on his claims), and the prosecutor is allowed to present evidence that would not be admissible at trial. You may have heard the old saying "the prosecution can get a jury to indict a ham sandwich." (An unfortunate choice of meat in this context.)

I think everyone needs to be really cautious in drawing any conclusions about this on the basis of the fact that the U.S. government under the Bush Administration has established a terrible human rights record on terror-related prosecutions, detentions, deportations, and that they're being charged with "material support," rather than actual complicity in any type of action.

Which is to say, I don't know much about them or really any thing about what they did, and so I withhold judgement.

Abhi,

If one were to drop into this debate completely oblivous to reality and read your comments - "We have to remember that grand juries will usually indict anyone with a pulse."

NotPC,
I think it is clear that you are dropping into this debate completely oblivious to reality.

>>U.S. government under the Bush Administration has established a terrible human rights record

Terrible - compared to whom/what?

M. Nam

Terrible - compared to whom/what?

Terrible enough to justify withholding judgment until more facts are known. Anything more about how terrible compared to whom/what is entirely irrelevant to this conversation.

Terrible enough to justify withholding judgment until more facts are known.

I would think this would be applicable anytime. Not just to the Bush government. Just because someone has a 'good record' would not give them a pass from the above statement. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, whoever. Witholding a concrete position until facts are known is good practice for anytime/anyplace.

>>how terrible compared to whom/what is entirely irrelevant to this conversation.

Some basic guidelines on the usage of English language in sentences...

When using adjectives like "terrible" or "excellent" to pass judgement, one has to be prepared to justify it based on something comparable.

So - if someone says: "The economy of Britain is terrible", they need to be prepared to answer the question: "Terrible compared to what?". When compared to the US or Singapore, the economy of Britain may be terrible, but when compared with Bangladesh or Namibia, it may be excellent.

Similiarly, when someone says the Human rights record of US under Bush is terrible, it begs the question: Terrible compared to what? Saudi Arabia? Britain? Russia? China?

But then you get stupid answers, like "Terrible compared to New Zealand or Iceland" - countries that have not seen any terrorism. And then sometimes you get smarty-pants answers like: "Terrible when compared to Carter or Clinton administration." And to them I say: "Allright wiseass. Sometime during our lifetime if there is a major terror attack on US under a Democratic administration (hope there isn't), let's see what kind of Human rights record they adhere to."

M. Nam

Gujudude -- as a lawyer who cares about things like the legal process, I absolutely agree. But there is also a broad issue of credibility, and the Bush administration has less when it comes to what they say when they arrest suspected terrorists. In general, you look at the source making the allegtations and then judge their credibility. To give an extreme example, if I saw an article that said that CAIR had conducted an investigation into the facts and decided the guy was guilty, I'd be a lot more inclined to think he was even though I wouldn't know any more of the facts myself.

>>how terrible compared to whom/what is entirely irrelevant to this conversation.

Some basic guidelines on the usage of English language in sentences...

When using adjectives like "terrible" or "excellent" to pass judgement, one has to be prepared to justify it based on something comparable.

So - if someone says: "The economy of Britain is terrible", they need to be prepared to answer the question: "Terrible compared to what?". When compared to the US or Singapore, the economy of Britain may be terrible, but when compared with Bangladesh or Namibia, it may be excellent.

[Further irrelevant stuff snipped]

Thanks for the lesson on "usage of English language in sentences," BTW. I've always wished I could go back to school ....

DTK: I see your point, however, there is something that really doesn't sit well when we 'the public' starts to give our judgement based upon credibility (or lack of) of the sources. We have a system in place to do that for us, and applying the appropriate pressure for facts rather than a decision would be more productive.

Sources feed information into the decision loop. With our attention driven culture today, far too many people jump on the guilty/innocent bandwagon. The cart gets ahead of the horse.

Also, it goes into how people perceive the source when you're trying to sell something in public. CAIR in certain groups as zero credibility just as in others it has absolute credibility. Same goes with the Bush administration.

Now, only if people had the same passion for facts as they do in determining guilt/innocence, we'd be a far more rational group. Then again, we're humans, not vulcans.

When using adjectives like "terrible" or "excellent" to pass judgement, one has to be prepared to justify it based on something comparable.

Okay, how about "very, very bad." Is that okay? I didn't realize the semantics were as important as the content of what the Bush Administration has done, which we all should be quite aware of by now (Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, enormous numbers of detentions and deportations using immigration law as a substitute for the establishment of a criminal case, etc.), and what that means in terms of how we perceive this event.

there is something that really doesn't sit well when we 'the public' starts to give our judgement based upon credibility (or lack of) of the sources. We have a system in place to do that for us, and applying the appropriate pressure for facts rather than a decision would be more productive.

When a source establishes a repeated pattern of deception on a topic, than I think it makes sense to give them less trust in evaluating what it pitches as a fact. I wouldn't believe the Chinese government on persecution of religious minorities in China, nor would I feel comfortable believing close to anything that the Bush Administration says about terrorism, Iraq, or Social Security. At the end of the day, yes, "facts" need to be the measure of whether you come to believe these two men are guilty or innocent--but honestly, are you going to get to see the documents and hear all of the relevant testimony? Is the press? Is the defendent?

One way to "[apply] the appropriate pressure" is to take the initial step of not believing them anymore until they meet a much higher standard of proof than a remotely neutral party making the same claim. It's what we do with untrustworthy people in our personal lives and I would advocate doing the same towards current U.S. officials talking about terrorism.

From our News Tab we got word that late on Thursday the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Atlanta unsealed and indictment against a Pakistani American student at Georgia Tech,

Unrelated to the topic, I came to know of this website because of a discussion involving the question of "South Asian" rather than the "Indian" identiy in US. So the reason behind calling this person a "Pakistani American" instead of a fellow "south asian" shows the bias of the blogger??.. :-))

I guess in cases involving "terrorism", "pakistani" identiy takes precedence over the "south asian" one..

Oops.. spelling mistake. read "identity" instead of "identiy"..

When a source establishes a repeated pattern of deception on a topic, than I think it makes sense to give them less trust in evaluating what it pitches as a fact. I wouldn't believe the Chinese government on persecution of religious minorities in China, nor would I feel comfortable believing close to anything that the Bush Administration says about terrorism, Iraq, or Social Security. At the end of the day, yes, "facts" need to be the measure of whether you come to believe these two men are guilty or innocent--but honestly, are you going to get to see the documents and hear all of the relevant testimony? Is the press? Is the defendent?

When the Bush administration pitches something, I don't simply gobble it up, nor do I dismiss it. When Clinton pitched stuff, I didn't gobble it up. I'm advocating a more even approach. There are too many agendas in competition with each other. I like to sift through various sources from a multitude of backgrounds before making a decision. By the way, not believing ANYTHING the Bush administration says on the topics you listed would make you blind. The information is there. The spin put on it with the desired response may not sit well with you, which is ok, but when you dust off the spin, information is there. What you do with it is another matter altogether.

Fundamentally, everything is taken with a grain of salt. When people get into the habit of taking the word or any organization as the holy grail, people get spun around.

Yes, being burned many times does make information harder to digest from said source. But would you rather close your eyes and dismiss it as a boy crying wolf again, or take it in and let it settle. I am not arguing exceptions to the case here where one is talking in extremes. Rather, the middle ground, where the most wonderful lies are told by spinning facts just enough.

Again, I'd rather stake my position as a 'swing vote'. One can't dismiss it, nor can one guarantee it. I want to make people work to convince me.

I really like this post by Abhi. Doesn't jump to any conclusion as of yet. The press, in print, television, internet, etc. has more information out there than ever before. We are getting relevant information we need, where in the past it wasn't possible. Probably the reason why everything seemed so clean, because it was whitewashed.

The problem with Guantanamo Bay isn't that those men are innocent, or guilty. Its that we don't know. THAT is the core of the problem. Disposition whatever you have. Simply arresting people and putting them away is not sufficient. Disposition it.

So, this kid could be innocent, could be guilty. What I would like to see is the information be vetted by our 'check and balance', in this case a judicial system.

Terrible compared to what?". When compared to the US or Singapore, the economy of Britain may be terrible, but when compared with Bangladesh or Namibia, it may be excellent

Terrible compared to what it ought to be -- that's the only comparison that matters. For example, Ivan the Terrible was terrible, not compared to Stalin, but compared to what Ivan ought to be. Killing you own son is terrible, not because your neightbour didn't kill his son, but because objectively, one ought not to kill one's children.

MoorNam's attitudes are terrible -- compared to what the ideal MoorNam ought to be. See, it's easy!

I can imagine this being the type of ordinary family that any of us could come from.

I guess in cases involving "terrorism", "pakistani" identiy takes precedence over the "south asian" one..

oh come on Ponniyin! Sounds to me like you just want to ruffle a few feathers and turn this into the whole South Asian/Indian/Pakistani..etc. discussion (that everybody knows and loves!).

Me thinks you're reading too much into Abhi's post, and what you're saying it totally irrelevant to the topic.

Terrible - compared to whom/what?

Unrelated to the topic, I came to know of this website because of a discussion involving the question of "South Asian" rather than the "Indian" identiy in US. So the reason behind calling this person a "Pakistani American" instead of a fellow "south asian" shows the bias of the blogger??.. :-)) I guess in cases involving "terrorism", "pakistani" identiy takes precedence over the "south asian" one..

The South Asian post you are still harping on came from a different blogger. How is it relevant here?

Update:

A US citizen of Bangladeshi origin was picked up from the capital by a joint team of government intelligence agents, handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and sent back to the US, according to a CNN report.

The US federal sources confirmed the incident to CNN. Deputy Commissioner (North) [DC] of Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) Obaidul Haque said he knows about such an incident and an abduction case filed in that connection but he does not know whether the 'abducted person' was deported to the US.

When The Daily Star asked the DC whether intelligence officers had picked up the person he said he does not know about it, the case is under investigation and only after the investigation he will be able to comment on it.

The South Asian post you are still harping on came from a different blogger. How is it relevant here?

I din't know about that blog. But I was talking about this and the dicussion in sulekha

Ponniyin Selvan,
For your sake I am not going to engage with you in this topic. I can assure you that if you learned about this from Sulekha then whatever debate you are aware of has been completely misrepresented and skewered beyond reason. There is a good reason that our discussions don't resemble anything like those on Sulekha. I am not going to subject our readers to this crap once again. Thanks.

Abhi,

Ponniyin Selvan,
For your sake I am not going to engage with you in this topic. I can assure you that if you learned about this from Sulekha then whatever debate you are aware of has been completely misrepresented and skewered beyond reason. There is a good reason that our discussions don't resemble anything like those on Sulekha. I am not going to subject our readers to this crap once again. Thanks.

Ok, Thanks

>>Terrible compared to what it ought to be -- that's the only comparison that matters.

Let's say the average timing for a 100 Meter sprint is 6.7 seconds. World record. And I am training a person for Olympics. After months of practice, she clocks in 5.2 secs - while having a fever.

Me: You're terrible.
She: Terrible!!? Compared to whom?
Me: Terrible compared to what you ought to clock - that's the only comparison that matters.

Now, that's going to encourage her. At least according to Ikram.

M. Nam

100 Meter sprint is 6.7 seconds. World record.

Sorry to be picky but no one has ran 100m under 9 seconds. I think it is close to impossible humanly to do so. (That is without designer drugs :-) )

Sometime during our lifetime if there is a major terror attack on US under a Democratic administration (hope there isn't),
Actually MoorNam there were two. First was the 1993 bombing of the twin towers in NYC, the second was the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahama.

All, disregard my last comment. I was just trying to show off, that I love athletics.

Get back to substantive discussion.

I am assuming that this will turn out to be more than just part of the “taking pictures while brown” phenomenon

From the details of the unsealed indictment document I think so...

FBI: Georgia men talked of U.S. terror plan

From Henry Schuster
CNN

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Two Atlanta-area men in federal custody as part of a terrorism probe discussed possible locations for a U.S. attack, including military bases and oil refineries, according court documents unsealed Friday.Link

Actually MoorNam there were two. First was the 1993 bombing of the twin towers in NYC, the second was the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahama.

Suvendra,
Oklahoma just doesn't count. I think only attacks by Muslims can be counted as real terrorism.

DTK: I see your point, however, there is something that really doesn't sit well when we 'the public' starts to give our judgement based upon credibility (or lack of) of the sources. We have a system in place to do that for us, and applying the appropriate pressure for facts rather than a decision would be more productive.

Sources feed information into the decision loop. With our attention driven culture today, far too many people jump on the guilty/innocent bandwagon. The cart gets ahead of the horse.

Also, it goes into how people perceive the source when you're trying to sell something in public. CAIR in certain groups as zero credibility just as in others it has absolute credibility. Same goes with the Bush administration.

Now, only if people had the same passion for facts as they do in determining guilt/innocence, we'd be a far more rational group. Then again, we're humans, not vulcans.

Gujudude -- I don't disagree with any of that. As a lawyer, I certainly agree that way too many people jump to hasty conclusions instead of waiting for the legal process to run its course. And as a graduate of Duke University following this incredibly messy lacrosse/rape allegation, I'm quite tired of the painful spectacle of seeing so many people making all sorts of guilt/innocence decisions based on preconceived notions that have next to nothing to do with what actually happened between the accused and the accuser.

Also, the "system in place" that you refer to is what some might call the legal system in general, or "due process," and it is why many of us detest the Bush administration's "we decide whether people we don't like get a real trial or not" policy.

Actually MoorNam there were two. First was the 1993 bombing of the twin towers in NYC, the second was the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahama.

There would have been one more, if it weren't for some observant customs officers:

Ahmed Ressam aka "The Millennium Bomber" was convicted and given a prison sentence of 22 years in a plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve 1999. ... On December 14, 1999, he crossed the border at Port Angeles, Washington. Upon noticing that he appeared nervous, customs officers inspected him more closely and asked for further identification. Ressam panicked and attempted to flee. Customs officials then found nitroglycerin and four timing devices concealed in a spare tire well of his automobile.Link

Suvendra writes:
>>First was the 1993 bombing of the twin towers in NYC,

Does not count as major. Number of deaths too low.

>>the second was the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahama

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to point this out. You should have seen the way Clinton administration went hammer and tongs against Christian Right oraganisations (as it should have). Anyone remotely even suspected of having links with Aryan Nations, White supremacist, Xtian supremacist groups, Anarchists, End-Of-World Cultists were subject to phonetaps, audits, surveillance and in addition, the attention of media (against as it should have.) Many innocents had their civil rights violated , but because they were White and Protestant (read: Big Bad Majority) - nobody cared. Nobody categorized Clinton's human rights record as "terrible" - even after he bombed aspirin factories in Sudan to divert attention from his scandals under the guise of fighting terrorism.

So when someone calls this administration terrible, I am tempted to sound like a broken record: Compared to who?

M. Nam

So when someone calls this administration terrible, I am tempted to sound like a broken record: Compared to who?

Right, I think the administration has to take Binladen / Zawahiri seriously. If they say a plan is in the works for attacking mainland US with WMD, they really mean it.. I don't know if anyone here imagined what life would be if such an attack takes place..

I said:

The problem with Guantanamo Bay isn't that those men are innocent, or guilty. Its that we don't know. THAT is the core of the problem. Disposition whatever you have. Simply arresting people and putting them away is not sufficient. Disposition it.

So, this kid could be innocent, could be guilty. What I would like to see is the information be vetted by our 'check and balance', in this case a judicial system.

DTK said:

Also, the "system in place" that you refer to is what some might call the legal system in general, or "due process," and it is why many of us detest the Bush administration's "we decide whether people we don't like get a real trial or not" policy.

I think we agree on the core issue here. The system needs to do its job. The executive branch needs to execute (arrest, make a case), however, decision of who is a guilty party should be left to the judicial system.

I don't know if anyone here imagined what life would be if such an attack takes place..

That's just it. Many of us have imagined it and wondered how it would be much different than what our own government would do after it has seized more and more power from the people and unto themselves. That road, although longer, leads to the same end.

I will cite once again the quote that some attribute to Ben Franklin:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Gujudude -- I'd missed your Guantanamo quote. We are definitely in agreement for the most part. Thanks for the nice, intelligent discussion.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

I doubt if Ben Franklin would have realised how easy it will be in the future for a group of few fanatics to raze down whole cities in a moment with little or no cost..

This is a tough battle (war on terror / war against religious extremism, however you name it) and there are no easy solutions..

>>what our own government would do after it has seized more and more power from the people and unto themselves

This is an interesting perspective. Are you implying that Big Govt is bad for the security of the people, and that this function should be decentralised? Because that's the position of NRA as well, and hence their assertion that everyone needs to carry a gun to protect themselves.

>>Ben Franklin:"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

He lived in times when someone needed to attack they had to go on a horseback for three weeks. If he had envisaged a time when someone sitting in a cave in Afghanistan could have someone else in Atlanta drive to Chicago to give a package to someone else which would be placed in a public place, so that the person in Afghanistan could trigger a blast during rush hour - then Benjamin Franklin would have had completely different ideas about security.

M. Nam

Nobody categorized Clinton's human rights record as "terrible" - even after he bombed aspirin factories in Sudan to divert attention from his scandals under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Clinton was described as having his "brains caught in his zipper", a fact echoed by the then FBI director Louis Freeh:

As FBI Director, Freeh rarely sat down one-on-one with reporters. But now he’s written a book, My FBI, and speaks out for the first time about his years as director, and his toxic relationship with Bill Clinton.

Here’s how he wrote about the former president:

“The problem was with Bill Clinton, the scandals and rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out.”

Freeh says he was preoccupied for eight years with multiple investigations, including Whitewater, Jennifer Flowers and the Monica Lewinsky affair.

And here is what Freeh said about Clinton's approach to fighting Al Qaeda and terrorism:

Freeh had another reason for wanting to outlast Clinton. It was the 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. servicemen died and more than 370 were wounded.

President Clinton had sent the FBI to investigate and promised Americans that those responsible would pay. “The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished. Let me say it again: we will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished,” the president said.

But Freeh says the President failed to keep his promise.

The FBI wanted access to the suspects the Saudis had arrested but then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar said the only way to get access to prisoners would be if the president personally asked the crown prince for access.

Freeh says Clinton did not help him. He writes in his book:

“Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudi’s reluctance to cooperate, and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library.” Link

I think we agree on the core issue here. The system needs to do its job. The executive branch needs to execute (arrest, make a case), however, decision of who is a guilty party should be left to the judicial system.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

A presidents job as CIC during war is to consider how many folks they should kill at

what price and whats the benefit. The US does a much better job when it detainments people w/o trial than any other power in the world Imagine what the other side would have done. Would they even bother detaining if they could. The only time they are detained is if they have some cash value with which they could bargain people with. Is arresting and trying these fellows better than just using UAV and blowing up their neighborhood? The issues are prettymuch who do you trust to do this job w/ the least amount of carnage. The current US administration has done a good job considering the context and the scope of the problems.

What you describe is a different issue. If I am detained, I'd rather in US federal custody than anywhere else. I'll probably catch flak for this, but I'm not all that concerned about the 'humanitarian' issue of Guantanamo. I know Abu Gharaib is not systemic. A strong undercurrent exists with several of these organizations that keep an unhealthy focus (devoting too many resources) on the mistakes of the United States (which I stand by are not systemic) rather than several other humanitarian issues of far larger magnitude in the world.

Back to prisoners, if on the battlefield a guy fires a bullet at our troops, he will be lit up like a christmas tree. I have no issues with that. But what do you do when you arrest the guy for information? Once you bring him into OUR custody, we run the liability of taking care of it in accordance with our own rules.

Selectively enfocring and then disregarding rules only serves to further problems. Look at immigration. Selectively, those laws were not applied until local communities affected by resource drains (southwest) started to bring the issue up. Fundamentally, the law, 20 years ago, should have been applied to businesses. They are the ones driving the migration. With 11 million here, its already too late to really enforce our law in en mass. It needs to be changed just match up with what reality is.

If the rule is on the book, follow it. If the rule doesn't work, change it. But don't selectively apply/disregard it. It only serves to water down our incredible 2 Century old republic.

I know Abu Gharaib is not systemic.

Oh !!! How convinient. Lyndie England just dreamt it all up.

So when someone calls this administration terrible, I am tempted to sound like a broken record: Compared to who?

Many people have already answered this question in a variety of ways that you're disinclined to accept. The answers boil down to the following: assessments don't need to be made in comparison to existing real world examples of other countries engaged in human rights violations or to past precedent; they can be made to an independent standard or an ideal.

A more appropriate question than this annoying insistence on how to use the word "terrible" would be "What exactly do you have an issue with that the Bush Administration has done?" The content of the objections could then be listed, and individuals could make up their own minds as to whether or not they felt it was "terrible" or "good" or "very, very, bad" or "protofascist" or "fundamentally unjust" or "anti-Muslim" any number of other adjectives that can be assessed without a comparison to Nazi Germany or the USSR or the United Kingdom or the Government of Kazakhstan or the Clinton Administration in order to make sense. Here's why the method I'm suggesting is preferable to yours:

GGK at #42 employs your method of argumentation:

The US does a much better job when it detainments people w/o trial than any other power in the world

It's only who does it better and who does it worse. In fact, if one has half an ounce of respect for human rights, detention without trial should probably be rejected outright as an option. Like nuclear first strikes. Torturing people for fun. etc.

Oh !!! How convinient. Lyndie England just dreamt it all up.

Oh!!! How convinient. GujuDude just dreamt up another valuable comment from RC. Oh wait, you did say something....

See, that doesn't really add much to the discussion now, does it?

Lyndie England didn't dream anything up, she was there, saw it, and engaged in it. Systemic implies that ALL US forces use the same measures everywhere.

Systemic implies that ALL US forces use the same measures everywhere.

Unless you were living under a rock, you would have read one of the million different reports that came out showing the systematic manner in which Abu Gharaib style torture was employed. Endorsed famously by Alberto "torture is Ok" Gonzalez.

Here is one from the Physicians for Human Rights :
"Break Them Down: The Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by US Forces"

In fact, if one has half an ounce of respect for human rights, detention without trial should probably be rejected outright as an option. Like nuclear first strikes. Torturing people for fun. etc

I know Abu Gharaib is not systemic.

Oh !!! How convinient. Lyndie England just dreamt it all up

I doubt if Ben Franklin would have realised how easy it will be in the future for a group of few fanatics to raze down whole cities in a moment with little or no cost.

and

He lived in times when someone needed to attack they had to go on a horseback for three weeks.

are totally silly. In Franklin's time, America was full of people loyal to a dominant naval power which shortly after his death sacked Washington, D.C. and burned down the White House. The British king was making the exact same arguments about security vs. freedom that you guys are.

Franklin was articulating a vision of America despite the ability of an enemy to destroy cities-- the military and counter-intel strength to defend a free land, the whole point of the American Revolution, not the King George method of disappearing people without charges or trial.

Manish,

Do you want to live in those times.

18th Century had a different context, present has a different one.

Irrespective of what Benjamin Frankin said for a significant time justice flowed from the barrel of gun (especially on frontiers).

Anyway as Scott Adams says

1. Slavery – excellent source of poontang 2. Women voting? That’s crazy talk! 3. People who don’t own land suck 4. A good way to change tax policy is through violence

and

“Though the transaction was quickly sealed, there were those who objected to the purchase on the grounds that the Constitution did not provide for purchasing territory. However, Jefferson temporarily set aside his idealism to tell his supporters in Congress that "what is practicable must often control what is pure theory." The majority agreed.

Jefferson later admitted that he had stretched his power ‘till it cracked’ in order to buy Louisiana, the largest single land purchase in American history. As a result, generations of Americans for nearly 200 years have been the beneficiaries of Jefferson’s noble vision of America and his efforts at expanding the continent.”

Regards

Do you want to live in those times.

I want to live under the Constitution.

. In Franklin's time, America was full of people loyal to a dominant naval power which shortly after his death sacked Washington, D.C. and burned down the White House. The British king was making the exact same arguments about security vs. freedom that you guys are.

Franklin was articulating a vision of America despite the ability of an enemy to destroy cities-- the military and counter-intel strength to defend a free land, the whole point of the American Revolution, not the King George method of disappearing people without charges or trial.

I think comparing the Brits of 1700s - early 1800s with Al-qaeda is a big stretch. They have had Habeas corpus from 1679.

All these talks about saving the "freedoms" even while a couple of cities are 'nuked' sounds nice to hear.. Is it pragmatic?.

One major terrorist attack, you see the PATRIOT act and its renewal without much of an opposition. I doubt the percentage of "overthrown" arrests by the Bush administration by the Judiciary. They claim a high percentage of success. Even the case trumped up by CAIR, ACLU ended up with the accused pleading guilty. link

Let's take a hypothetic case. Al-qaeda attacks US with WMDs successfully taking out a few cities. And then the govt. introduces draconian measures. Do you support those measures at that time?. If yes, why won't you support the same measures now to prevent the attacks. If no, what is the solution you offer?. I'm against taking out liberties in the name of security. But I'd like to know how you solve this issue. I think to beleive Al-qaeda/ related terrorists have no intention / capacity to inflict harm would be a big mistake.

What you describe is a different issue. If I am detained, I'd rather in US federal custody than anywhere else.

Not if you are being detained for terrorism related charges.

The US government indeed has a terrible record on these cases. The Government is not living up to the standards set in the Bill of Rights and in the laws enacted by the government itself.

The failure rate of the US government in these terror related prosecutions is mind boggling. They usually start with serious terrorism charges, accompanied by a high profile Justice Department press conference and accompanied by hysterical breaking news on Faux etc. with expert comments from Steve Emerson (MSNBC) and the rest.

However a few months later, all the charges are usually dropped, or never brought up (usually), and we are usually left with some minor immigration violations or other minor non terrorism related charges. This has happened over and over again. More times than I care to list them here and for those who are incredulous you can google the 'high profile' arrests and see how they turned out.

My first reaction to these arrests now is presuming incompetence of the Justice Department unless proven otherwise. For anybody who keeps track of these cases, I am not sure if any reasonable person can reach a different conclusion.

You have to wonder about why the Justice Department bungles up so many of these cases. Its always a big embarrassment for the government and it tarnishes the record of the prosecutor and the investigators in such cases.

AMD(55#)

What you describe is a different issue. If I am detained, I'd rather in US federal custody than anywhere else.

Not if you are being detained for terrorism related charges.

I don't think you would like to go in Indian Police custody.
Don't know about other counteries though.

Regards

Manish (53#),

I agree, I am just wary of mistaking quotes and rhetoric as a basis for policy.
I also concede that issue of Law and Law enforcement in general (much less that pertaining to US) is not my area of expertise.

Regards

I don't think you would like to go in Indian Police custody.

State prisons in the US are pretty horrific too.

AMD (58#)

I have heard that, but what I am saying is that in India, you do not want to cross cops.

Regards

I have heard that, but what I am saying is that in India, you do not want to cross cops

Gaurav: I see what you are saying, but I would not use India as a measuring stick. Comparing the US with a country like India sets the bar so low that almost any institution in the US will look great when compared to the insitutions in India.

Also, I dont know how much you know about state prisons in the US, but the situation in state prisons in pretty sad.

AMD (60#)

Ofcourse I was setting it low! it was just for purpose of rhetoric,basically I was replying to this

What you describe is a different issue. If I am detained, I'd rather in US federal custody than anywhere else.

Not if you are being detained for terrorism related charges.

(Which I assume was also more or less rhetoric )

But I do agree that Since American system fares better than India and Indian system fare better than China is not an excuse to overlook or explain away violations by law enforcement.
Ultimately democracy requires unceasing vigilance.

Regards

then the govt. introduces draconian measures. Do you support those measures at that time?

The entire U.S. airspace was shut down the morning of 9/11. Do you support extending that measure indefinitely?

Our policy is set by tyrants for political gain by playing to cowards in suburbs not even affected by terrorism, and it's mooting the entire point of this country's founding. We've turned into England circa 1700's.

And this argument is a total strawman. We don't deter nukes in cities by throwing gardeners in jail for years at a time and then exporting them to Egypt to be tortured. Law enforcement needs no more powers, it needs more precision.

I think comparing the Brits of 1700s - early 1800s with Al-qaeda is a big stretch.

They're entirely different phenomena, but presumably, on this blog, we could acknowledge that British colonialism had some extremely negative qualities?

Manish writes:
>>I want to live under the Constitution

So do we. If the Bush Admin had subverted the Constitution, then the Democrats and big-Media would have fried and eaten them for breakfast. If anything, this administration has been most closely watched by the opposition since the dawn of America.

>>Our policy is set by tyrants for political gain by playing to cowards in suburbs not even affected by terrorism

See, this is where the Democrats erred in the last election (and paid the price). Their contention was that terrorism was a problem largely confined to large cities, especially on the two coasts(blue states). Middle America (red states), they believed should not have to care much because of low density of population. The problem was that they focussed solely on human deaths from terrorism. They forgot that we live in a closely linked, globalised world, where events reverbate around in internet time.

When 911 happened, 3000 people died in NYC. But the economic effects hit all of America and the rest of the world. Plumbers and electricians in Indiana who had invested in the stock market lost their shirts when the market tanked after 911 (until 2003). Home Depots in Ohio cut their workforce in half. Walmarts in Louisiana cut employee benefits. Software engineers in Bangalore were willing to take paycuts to keep their jobs. In fact, New York city bounced back very quickly (by mid-2002), but for the rest of America to recover from 911 related economic downturn took much longer (mid 2003). Every time Al-Zawahiri makes a threat on Al-Jazeera, the subway riders of New York feel apprehensive, but due to increased security they live. However, oil prices shoot up and middle America ends up paying $3 for gasoline. Gold shoots up, the dollar falls. Credit spreads tighten. Interest rates go up. People of all kinds, all over the world, are effected.

If God forbid, a WMD attack takes place in any city in America, surely hundreds of thousands will die. But the economy will go down so fast that at least 100 million people in America and upto half-a-billion people in the world will see severe economic hardship for years.

We live in an inter-dependant world. There's no such thing as suburbs, cities when it comes to terrorism.

M. Nam

To be honest with you guys, I think the only way to defuse Islamic terrorism at the core level is for mosques and Muslim religious leaders worldwide to issue a huge, united, joint "fatwa" against Al-Qaeda and declare them (and any of their supporters, both "actual" and "armchair") to be heretics and blasphemers. I know some Islamic religious authorities have already done so (I can't remember exactly which groups, though), but it needs to be done on a massive scale and in a united voice. Non-Muslims would have no credibility in these matters from the perspective of the jihadists (and their motives would be regarded as suspect), so the Ummah and its associated religious heirarchy needs to take this measure themselves.

Discredit Al-Qaeda's jihadist ideology as fundamentally incompatible with Islam, and you cut off the problem at the root.

To be honest with you guys, I think the only way to defuse Islamic terrorism at the core level is for mosques and Muslim religious leaders worldwide to issue a huge, united, joint "fatwa" against Al-Qaeda and declare them (and any of their supporters, both "actual" and "armchair") to be heretics and blasphemers.

Not much hope of that happening when it is in the mosques around the world this message of hate is being preached:

In a Berlin mosque, a television crew secretly recorded the sermon of a Turkish imam who described the Germans as godless and railed against their alleged stench. In London, hate preacher Abu Hamza al-Masri called upon the faithful to murder female tourists in his native Egypt, saying: "If a woman, even a Muslim woman, is naked and you have no way of covering her up, it is legitimate to kill her." Link

Discredit Al-Qaeda's jihadist ideology as fundamentally incompatible with Islam, and you cut off the problem at the root.

Jai,

Any ideology/system fails when it runs out of money/ funding? That is the only true and tested way. Any other way is just diversionary tactics while you drain them of their money. I am not saying thing original - even for Islamist terrorism, there were serious of articles in NYT on trying dry the funding. It is quite complicated because of the banking system (hawala) and powerful underwriters. Fatwa and all is like writing comments on SM - nice but of no real significane unless grand Ayatollahs from Iran are involved.

Examples: Fall of the Iron curtain, Leftist movements in Western Europe in 70s (Red Brigade), Anarchists in early 20th century.

Another example: In the end Germany ran out of oil and gas, and raw materials in WW II even though their arms (planes, tanks) and armies were superior.

Correction: there were series of articles in NYT on trying to dry the

To be honest with you guys, I think the only way to defuse Islamic terrorism at the core level is for mosques and Muslim religious leaders worldwide to issue a huge, united, joint "fatwa" against Al-Qaeda and declare them (and any of their supporters, both "actual" and "armchair") to be heretics and blasphemers
..
Discredit Al-Qaeda's jihadist ideology as fundamentally incompatible with Islam, and you cut off the problem at the root.

You are on a very shaky ground if you follow that method. Al-qaeda is quoting from Quran and Hadiths, Spare some time to go through those references and they are perfectly valid.. If you read the statements of Bin-laden (or is it Zawahiri??) he compares the Iraq invasion to the sack of Baghdad (by Hulagu Khan in 1258 A.D ??).. These guys have a long history going back to 6th century.. You can't beat them on religion.. There is no use in doing that.. Why do you want to legitimise such stuff. What if tommorrow Organistaion of Islamic Countries declares "global jihad" as a valid tool, do you accept that?.

When 911 happened, 3000 people died in NYC. But the economic effects hit all of America and the rest of the world. Plumbers and electricians in Indiana who had invested in the stock market lost their shirts when the market tanked after 911 (until 2003).

Actually the US economy in general was in a recession already in 2001. Stock market fell due to the "irrational exuberence" of the dot com bubble. Economist now say that the US economic recession began in March 2001

Home Depots in Ohio cut their workforce in half. Walmarts in Louisiana cut employee benefits.

Home Depot's stock actually went up until mid 2002. I am not sure why/how 9/11 can affect HD. After the dot com bubble the next "irrational exuberance" happened in the housing market which is still going on. HD was a direct benifitiory of the housing BOOM (which is almost unprecedented).
I dont know enough about WalMart.

Software engineers in Bangalore were willing to take paycuts to keep their jobs.

Kush T,

nice but of no real significane unless grand Ayatollahs from Iran are involved.

Exactly. So get them involved. Which, probably, they won't do unless they perceive a direct threat to their power base (or Iran as a whole) from Al-Qaeda.

With regards to your other comments re: finances -- perhaps the problem requires a multi-pronged approach ? One can all these steps (and any others deemed constructive) simultaneously ?

Ponniyin Selvan,

You are on a very shaky ground if you follow that method. Al-qaeda is quoting from Quran and Hadiths,

Which is why the problem, ideally, should be solved "internally" rather than by the rest of us. If what you are saying is true, then any organised attempt by non-Muslims to attack these concepts will be interpreted as an attack on Islam as a whole, and would therefore risk uniting neutral and "friendly" Muslims everywhere with their jihadist co-religionists, as happened with the recent Danish cartoon controversy.

There are, of course, certain historical precedents for certain non-Muslim religious groups to attack and debunk the aforementioned problematic Islamic tenets (as any student of the last 500 years of North Indian history would know), but the issue is regarding who is prepared to step up to the plate in our present-day scenario and consequently face the onslaught which it would probably risk triggering. These things require serious guts, not to mention the fact that they can rapidly escalate into extremely dangerous situations, with severe consequences for any groups concerned (along with their allies and nearest-and-dearest).

Not for the faint-hearted ;)

One more economic fact.
Right after the sep.11 2001 terrorist attack, prices of GOLD has steadily gone UP.
GOLD precious metal (at NYMEX) in March 2001 : $265.00
GOLD precious metal (at NYMEX) in March 2003 : $365.00
GOLD precious metal (at NYMEX) in April 2006 : $620.00

The theory here is as usual, GOLD a hedge against inflation and safe investment in times of political turmoil.

Not for the faint-hearted ;)

Jai,

A few minutes ago, I got a dossier, and the United Nations wants proudly to announce that we want to appoint you as the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs for UN, something akin to Karen Hughes' position in current US administration to undertake the battle against Islamist Jihad.

You knowledge of Mughal Empire was the deal clincher. However, we need to ask one thing: Are you in secretly in love with Ekta Kapoor. No problema, but we still need to be clear in our dossier for you. We can even help you on the regard.

You can come out of annonymity to accept our offer. Please do consider us. Hope you will find our offer a worthy challenge.

With deep regards,

Kofi Annon

Which is why the problem, ideally, should be solved "internally" rather than by the rest of us.

I could care less what some one does in their private homes/cultural organization religious or
otherwise and i expect the same.
Its them who in issues covered in (a) demand special treatment and make it an external issue
or ofcourse pick a fight and make it external issue.

Kush T aka Kofi Annan,

I am afraid I am going to have to decline your offer, unless I can be a suave undercover agent like James Bond and/or have a hot, leggy female sidekick who can beat the crap out of anyone and looks good in multiple disguises (like Jennifer Garner in Alias).

My disparaging comments about Star Plus serials should have indicated that I am not a big fan of Ms Ekta Kapoor, unless you think this was all an ingenious double-bluff where I deflect suspicions about my volcanic desire for her by constantly objecting to her work......

Anyway, fix me up with Angelina Jolie or Monica Bellucci, and we can talk. Or Celina Jaitley if she's available. Hubba hubba.

Yours sincerely,
Ladies Love Cool Jai aka LLCoolJai.

RC,

Quickly... totally get that the economy was in recession before 911. However, it was just crawling back up and 911 brought it down again. Of course, Enron followed. It was a perfect storm.

And I get the part about gold prices and their link to inflation as well.

However - the point remains. Terrorist acts in cities will reverbate across the country from an economic viewpoint. There's not much debate to that.

Gotta go.

M. Nam

Jai,

Which is why the problem, ideally, should be solved "internally" rather than by the rest of us. If what you are saying is true, then any organised attempt by non-Muslims to attack these concepts will be interpreted as an attack on Islam as a whole, and would therefore risk uniting neutral and "friendly" Muslims everywhere with their jihadist co-religionists, as happened with the recent Danish cartoon controversy

I don't think the rest of the world has "time" and "patience" to wait for enlightenment in Saudi Arabia.. And you expect the Danish society to pander to Arab morals. What next??.. Riots for using the name Muhammad not followed by PBUH (Peace Be Upon Him)..

Terrorist acts in cities will reverbate across the country from an economic viewpoint.

Economic impacts are wildly inflated by a MSM looking to write a particular story that sells papers and a political party looking to deflect blame for an already weak economy. In the stock market, short sellers will sell for any reason at all: a HP earnings report, solar flares, Britney Spears gets the sniffles. Those going long will bid shares up for irrational reasons as well.

But if you look at the real economy, the impacts are limited. Nasdaq and the NYSE were up and running again in less than a week. The financial sector in Lower Manhattan is a very small portion of the GDP. The argument only makes sense if you're arguing tipping point, but then you have to rigorously prove these things, not assert them based on sensationalist media.

In short, there's no causality.

Ponniyin Selvan ,

I don't think the rest of the world has "time" and "patience" to wait for enlightenment in Saudi Arabia..

It's not just a Saudi Arabian problem (although they're certainly the major cause behind the current "export" of their interpretation of Islam), it's a global problem wherever there are sufficiently disgruntled Muslims who have jihadist leanings.

I'm not denying that "external intervention" is an inviable solution if the global Ummah is unable (or unwilling) to solve this problem themselves. As mentioned in the last paragraph of my post #71, it's worth bearing in mind that there will be retaliation (on multiple levels) against any group who is perceived to be attacking Islam's more controversial tenets. This doesn't mean that such steps should not be taken, it just means that one should be fully aware of -- and prepared for -- the consequences.

With regards to your earlier points:

1. If the jihadists really are acting in accordance with the "true" interpretation of Islam, then the religion in its orthdox form deserves to collapse completely (or evolve into something with a greater resemblence to Sufism).
2. However, if the jihadists are wrong, then -- as I mentioned previously -- the global Ummah has a responsibility to take matters into their own hands and solve the issue interally if possible, especially as this is now having worldwide ramifications.

Ponniyin, it's not about anyone 'pandering to Arab morals.' It's a simple fact of humanity, you should tolerate others and not insult what they hold dear. As a Muslim, I don't care if you go get drunk or whatever. It's your life. If you're going to draw prophets, well keep them to yourself and don't spread them around to piss people off. Like I said, it's your life, draw what you want and leave us out of it.

It's your life. If you're going to draw prophets, well keep them to yourself and don't spread them around to piss people off. Like I said, it's your life, draw what you want and leave us out of it.

As a Muslim, I don't care if you go get drunk or whatever. It's your life. If you're going to draw prophets, well keep them to yourself and don't spread them around to piss people off.

A most kind and open minded view... perhaps you could ask the Arab/Muslim media to extend the same privilege to other faiths too ? Or is it another case of "do as I tell/order you, not as I do" ?

A most kind and open minded view... perhaps you could ask the Arab/Muslim media to extend the same privilege to other faiths too ? Or is it another case of "do as I tell/order you, not as I do" ?

Thanks Abhi, for keeping the spotlight on these important issues.

As the muslim media ever said something nice about non-muslim faith. Yet the other side has gone out of it ways to say that islam is are religon of peace and tolerance. I think we all know the answer to that.

PearlJamFan, you are rapidly descending into troll territory. Three of our simian staff have already advocated just banning you. Please check yourself before you wreck yourself.

SulaymanF

Ponniyin, it's not about anyone 'pandering to Arab morals.' It's a simple fact of humanity, you should tolerate others and not insult what they hold dear. As a Muslim, I don't care if you go get drunk or whatever. It's your life. If you're going to draw prophets, well keep them to yourself and don't spread them around to piss people off. Like I said, it's your life, draw what you want and leave us out of it.

I don't think it is a simple fact of humanity to respect to "religious morals" of 7th century.. What do you think about the hateful verses in the holy documents of Quran/Hadiths about polytheists/idolators/kafirs. And the glaring in your face message 5 times a day from the loudspeakers that claims "there is one no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet". Isn't it a simple fact of humanity to tolerate those polytheists/idolators and not to piss them off.. What do you think of the "arab governments" policies not to allow people to even bring magazines containing religious pictures let alone allowing "freedom of worship".?

I would have taken the "politically correct" line of treating all faiths equal etc.. etc.. even a few years back when I was ignorant, not anymore.. You want the European society to pander to these backward religious sentiments of immigrants. These folks have a painful memory of pandering to "religious sentiments" and have fought hard to come out of it..
Read this
...Jean-François, knight de la Barre (1745 - July 1st, 1766) was a French nobleman, famous for having been tortured and burnt at the stake for not having removed his hat before a Catholic procession. In France, he is a symbol of Christian religious intolerance, along with Jean Calas and Pierre-Paul Sirven...