Hello George Orwell?

[jackhammer91406]

I ususally follow a moderate course rather than either extreme of conservative or liberal. The current polictical environment of extremes has polarized us as a nation. Last night I was made uneasy hearing a report about a little known aspect of the Homeland Security act and this morning the op ed pages had more on this subject. Apparently with little or no discussion or publicity, a $200 million program is being developed through the Pentagon for something called Total Information Awareness. This program will consolidate all available data on all computers public and private to develop dossiers on every American. Now, I realize the knee jerk reaction is justified because ultimately all of our freedoms will be affected. It is our very nature as a free and open society that makes some measure of this concept necessary. The enemy is already "in country' and something has to be done. But here's what worries me about the method and details:

1) The program allows for collection of credit, medical, banking, telephone, internet usage, travel, purchase transactions on line and off, and virtually every other piece of data, and places all of this disparate information into one collective, at the pentagon. Shouldn't this be done through the justice department? Does anyone remember, uh, their grandparents (!) talking about one of Eisenhower's last speeches warning of the dangers of the Miltary Industrial complex?

2) The man promoting this and slated to head this is none other than Ret. Adm. and former Natl. Security advisor John Poindexter. This is the guy who headed up the Iran Contra operation and while convicted on five felony counts of lying to congress, destroying documents and obstructing Congress, his sentence was onverturned on a technicality. Is this the right guy for this?

3) With so many personal freedoms at stake, shouldn't there be more public discussion? The impact of the recent elections has apparently dampened any desire to openly debate this. Surely as Americans, we can ask that all of our elected officials take a hard and careful look at this proposal.

My biggest fear is that this whole thing will slip under the radar of the majority of our fellow citizens.

Okay I am ready for the blowback and firestorm of posts calling me unAmerican or whatever.

jackhammer91406

[Guest 7Zach]

Agree with you, and am surprised that not more discussion. Lieberman, who is a sponsor of the terrorism bill, said friday that the new office of awareness (whatever it is called - funny, the symbol is the one on the dollar bill - pyramid with the eye over it)is not part of the bill per se. said he had privacy concerns, but as far as the homeland bill, has an office of privacy with strong safeguards. i don't believe it either -

i too don't know the balancing required, and if as people keep predicting, there is a bigger terrorist attack, all bets are off on what congress, both parties, will let the gov do.

[trilingual]

Well, they'll have to lump William Safire in with the unAmerican, because he's the columnist who blew the whistle on this in a big way on the op-ed page of the NY Times. And Safire is no bleeding heart.

[Rick Munroe]

>My biggest fear is that this whole thing will slip under the

>radar of the majority of our fellow citizens.

 

Political apathy is a big problem today...unlike a decade ago (remember MTV's Rock the Vote?), most young people care more about what color doo-rag Eminem has on his head this week than what's going on in the government.

 

Here's William Safire's Op-Ed column, for anyone who missed it:

 

[big]You Are a Suspect[/big]

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

 

WASHINGTON — If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you:

 

Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."

 

To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen.

 

This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.

 

Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua.

 

A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, "The buck stops here," arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing.

 

This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the "Information Awareness Office" in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the "data-mining" power to snoop on every public and private act of every American.

 

Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter's assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight.

 

He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such necessary differentiation as bureaucratic "stovepiping." And he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans.

 

When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person's medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president.

 

This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O'Harrow of The Washington Post, have revealed the extent of Poindexter's operation, but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Political awareness can overcome "Total Information Awareness," the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear.

 

The Latin motto over Poindexter"s new Pentagon office reads "Scientia Est Potentia" — "knowledge is power." Exactly: the government's infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. "We're just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy," this brilliant mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before.

[ad rian]

>My biggest fear is that this whole thing will slip under the

>radar of the majority of our fellow citizens.

>Okay I am ready for the blowback and firestorm of posts

>calling me unAmerican or whatever.

>jackhammer91406

 

 

You are absolutely spot on! And the real problem is that since 9/11 it has become politically incorrect to critiue American foreign policy. It is very hard to have a rational debate about striking the appropriate balance between civil liberties and the war on terrorism, if one is not allowed to put on the table fundamental questions of foreign policy. For my money, I would abandon Israel and the oil oligachs and I bet that recruitment for Islamo-fascism will decline. I don't care for Islamic or Jewish militaristic theocracies, however of course that is a position that is verboten in the American media and campaign finance circles. As for blowback, it's at time like these that the corageous must dare to find their voice here and everywhere!

[Justice]

I agree with you 100%. Scary stuff. Very scary. When I first read about this, all I could think about were the East German secret police (the Stasi (sp?)) that used to maintain files on every resident of the former East Germany. (Actually such a system existed in very country in the "Iron Curtin". It exists in China today.) They kept tabs on all aspects of society. This sounds just like that system. Only worse. It's far too easy to keep track of what we're doing. ;(

[Guest jaws]

As the jungles encroach our cities and a police state encroaches our constitution I wonder what schemes have actually slipped under the radar that we citizens don't know about. Someday those who wrote the Total Information Awareness scheme and those who advocate such, will wake up in a complete police state(if not a concentration camp) and cry out with an indignant "but this is not what I meant" when in reality, philosophically, it is exactly what they meant. Watching the Bush regime espouse the virtues of freedom while enslaving the American citizenry is nauseating. I fear that it is only going to get worse. I recommend a book called "The Ominous Parallels" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff.

[woodlawn]

Only one of the people posting here has actually said what he would do in regard to the problem of terrorism, ad rian. His solution is to do exactly what Bin Laden wants, which is to get out of the Mideast and stop supporting Israel. Surrender is certainly one way of ending a conflict.

 

To the others who criticize the current administration's approach to locating terrorists in the U.S. before they act, which is the purpose of TIA, what is your alternative method for accomplishing this?

[ad rian]

>Only one of the people posting here has actually said what he

>would do in regard to the problem of terrorism, ad rian. His

>solution is to do exactly what Bin Laden wants, which is to

>get out of the Mideast and stop supporting Israel. Surrender

>is certainly one way of ending a conflict.

 

I am disappointed that you characterize this as "surrender". Rather I think we should reflect on why a secular cosmopolitan pluralistic democracy is supporting militaristic theocracies. I would have us embrace the idea of a secular democratic multi-racial Palestine with Israel as a state or provinnce or federal state with Jordan and Lebanon or as part of a unitary state. We need to realize that our bankrupt support for the racist Zionoist state is precisely what allows us to keep in power Arab oil oligarchs wo use this as a defense. A war on terrorism is incoherent just as would be a war on tanks. We need to fight for a principle. Why not start with secular, pluralistic democracy? That would be no surrender other than to our deeper values and virtues!

[ad rian]

RE: From Bad to Worse!

 

Justice Department wins expanded wiretapping authority

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Curt Anderson

 

Nov. 18, 2002 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department has broad discretion in the use of wiretaps and other surveillance techniques to track suspected terrorists and spies, a federal appeals court panel ruled Monday.

 

In a 56-page opinion overturning a May decision by the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the three-judge panel said the expanded wiretap guidelines sought by Attorney General John Ashcroft under the new USA Patriot Act law do not violate the Constitution.

 

The special panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the lower court to issue a new ruling giving the government the powers it seeks. The spy court's restrictions, according to the ruling, "are not required by (the law) or the Constitution."

 

The American Civil Liberties Union and several other groups had argued that Ashcroft's proposed guidelines would unfairly restrict free speech and due process protections by giving the government far greater ability to listen to telephone conversations and read e-mail.

 

"We're disappointed with the decision, which suggests that (the spy court) exists only to rubber-stamp government decisions," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU staff attorney.

 

It was not immediately clear whether the ACLU or other groups will appeal the case to the Supreme Court. The government has sole right of appeal under the law, but attorneys were exploring other ways of getting the case to the high court.

 

The intelligence court , created in 1978, is charged with overseeing sensitive law enforcement surveillance by the U.S. government. Its May 17 ruling was the first-ever substantial defeat for the government on a surveillance issue, and its unprecedented, declassified public opinion issued in August documented abuses of surveillance warrants in 75 instances during both the Bush and Clinton administrations.

 

The Justice Department had argued before the appeals panel that the spy court had "wholly exceeded" its authority and that Congress clearly approved of the greater surveillance authority when it passed the Patriot Act a month after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

 

The changes permit wiretaps when collecting information about foreign spies or terrorists is "a significant purpose," rather than "the purpose," of an investigation. Critics at the time said they feared the government might use the change as a loophole to employ espionage wiretaps in common criminal investigations.

 

The spy court had concluded that Ashcroft's proposed rules under that law were "not reasonably designed" to safeguard the privacy of Americans.

 

But the three-judge panel overturned that, saying the new law's provisions on surveillance "certainly come close" to meeting minimal constitutional standards regarding searches and seizures. The government's proposed use of the Patriot Act, the judges concluded, "is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/11/18/wiretap/print.html

[jackhammer91406]

>To the others who criticize the current administration's

>approach to locating terrorists in the U.S. before they act,

>which is the purpose of TIA, what is your alternative method

>for accomplishing this?

 

Since I started this thread I felt I needed to repsond to this post. I started out clearly by saying I was a moderate. To classify what I wrote as criticism is EXACTLY the polarizing type polemic that is paralyzing our country. I asked for discussion of this act before enactment not the trashing of it. I said in my post that it is clear something needs to be done since the terrorists are already "in country". Now if you can pull back from the politics and discuss rationally, hey let's do it. I mentioned the choice of Poindexter. Almost anyone else would be preferrable. That doesn't ransack the package or criticize the administration. Don't over react. This is not a we/they, republican/democrat, liberal/conservative problem. IT IS AN AMERICAN PROBLEM. WE are all Americans and can discuss freely without using labels or talking party line.

Jack

[BewareofNick]

Oh look, ad rian is talking hatefully about Israel again. What are the odds?

 

Here's a question for you (since you are a Catholic priest, I am assuming you have some knowledge of the Bible):

 

Doesn't the Bible say that the Jews are God's Chosen people? Is Israel not the Promised Land? Wasn't Israel stolen from the Jews? Isn't its existence merely restoring that which was wrongfully taken?

 

When Israel was created in 1948, the UN presented a plan that included a Palestinian state AND declared Jerusalem an international city, neither part of Israel or Palestine. Instead of accepting the plan (because Jerusalem was not put as part of palestine) the palestinians went to war and lost. Had they accepted what was generally considered by all the parties at the time (except the Palestinians) as a fair and equitable solution, there would be no Middle Eastern problem.

 

Palestine could have existed for the past 54 years, but instead THEY CHOSE this path of war that they are now on.

[woodlawn]

>Since I started this thread I felt I needed to repsond to

>this post. I started out clearly by saying I was a moderate.

>To classify what I wrote as criticism is EXACTLY the

>polarizing type polemic that is paralyzing our country. I

>asked for discussion of this act before enactment not the

>trashing of it.

 

You are free to characterize your political views as 'moderate' if you wish, but 'moderate,' like 'tall,' is a comparative term and is meaningless without a comparative context. You are 'moderate' as compared to whom?

 

You started a thread about the TIA project and you chose as the title "Hello George Orwell." It seems disingenuous of you to complain when that is interpreted as a criticism of the project.

 

> I said in my post that it is clear something

>needs to be done since the terrorists are already "in

>country".

 

That's what you said. And I asked what you think should be done, if not the TIA project. So far you haven't answered the question, you've just been critical of the manner in which I asked it.

 

 

>Now if you can pull back from the politics and

>discuss rationally, hey let's do it.

 

I posed a question that seems perfectly rational to me: in light of your reservations about the TIA project, what do you propose as an alternative? If you don't want to answer the question then don't, but please do realize that making accusations against me is not a substitute for an answer.

[woodlawn]

>I am disappointed that you characterize this as "surrender".

 

Nevertheless, if you are proposing that we cease to support Israel as a Jewish state and that we cease to support allied governments in the Mideast, then you are proposing exactly what Bin Laden would like to see happen.

 

>Rather I think we should reflect on why a secular cosmopolitan

>pluralistic democracy is supporting militaristic theocracies.

 

It's because that is the sort of government that exists in the region. If we need allies in the region we must choose among the governments that actually exist there. The choices are pretty limited.

 

>I would have us embrace the idea of a secular democratic

>multi-racial Palestine with Israel as a state or provinnce or

>federal state with Jordan and Lebanon or as part of a unitary

>state. We need to realize that our bankrupt support for the

>racist Zionoist state is precisely what allows us to keep in

>power Arab oil oligarchs wo use this as a defense.

 

We agreed to the founding of Israel as a Jewish state and we support it as a Jewish state because there is no other country on earth in which Jews do not need to depend on members of other religions in order to protect their rights. How many countries are there in which Christians are the majority? In which Muslims are the majority? And how many in which Jews are the majority?

 

> A war on

>terrorism is incoherent just as would be a war on tanks. We

>need to fight for a principle.

 

How about the principle that people who deliberately commit acts of violence against purely civilian targets in order to create terror should be stopped?

 

>Why not start with secular,

>pluralistic democracy? That would be no surrender other than

>to our deeper values and virtues!

 

And what if most people in the Mideast do not want a secular, pluralistic democracy? What if they think that the principles of separation of church and state and religious tolerance are wrong? Do we impose our ideas on them nevertheless? Suppose Saudi Arabia held an election and Bin Laden won? What then?

[ad rian]

>We agreed to the founding of Israel as a Jewish state and we

>support it as a Jewish state because there is no other country

>on earth in which Jews do not need to depend on members of

>other religions in order to protect their rights.

 

So you as an American are prepared to trade your civil liberties here for that? Let's be pragmatic here, if we were fighting for what you say, then we should have created an Israel in defeated Germany. Have we forgotten that Hitler was German not Palestinian? Make no mistake about it, as long as we defend the Israeli occupation we will be at war, and we will be sacrificing our civil liberties.

 

>How about the principle that people who deliberately commit

>acts of violence against purely civilian targets in order to

>create terror should be stopped?

 

Because public international law including the UN Charter has always recognized the right of civilian populations to resist occupation. But again, are you prepared to trade your civil liberties in defense of the "right" of Israel to occupy Palestinian land?

 

>And what if most people in the Mideast do not want a secular,

>pluralistic democracy? What if they think that the principles

>of separation of church and state and religious tolerance are

>wrong? Do we impose our ideas on them nevertheless? Suppose

>Saudi Arabia held an election and Bin Laden won? What then?

 

Well, certainly Palestinian nationalism has historicaly been seculr and democratic. It is our defense of Israel that has led it off into fanatical religious extremes. Ditto for Saudi Arabia. Ditto for Iran. Ditto for Iraq. Ditto for Egypt. At sme point we are going to have to realize that when a secular democracy abandons its deepest principle, we radicalize our foreign opponents. If not, we might as well continue to trade our civil liberties.

[woodlawn]

>So you as an American are prepared to trade your civil

>liberties here for that?

 

As an American I am not prepared to agree that my country's foreign policy should be changed in response to the threats of people like Bin Laden. My country's policy should be changed only if it suits the interests of my country to do so.

 

>Let's be pragmatic here, if we were

>fighting for what you say, then we should have created an

>Israel in defeated Germany. Have we forgotten that Hitler was

>German not Palestinian?

 

You seem to have forgotten that there was already a major movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine long before the Holocaust. The Holocaust merely added a new impetus to that movement.

 

> Make no mistake about it, as long as

>we defend the Israeli occupation we will be at war, and we

>will be sacrificing our civil liberties.

 

If the alternative is to allow terrorists to dictate my actions, then I will make whatever sacrifices may be necessary.

 

>Because public international law including the UN Charter has

>always recognized the right of civilian populations to resist

>occupation. But again, are you prepared to trade your civil

>liberties in defense of the "right" of Israel to occupy

>Palestinian land?

 

I do not know what "Palestinian land" you are referring to. Prior to 1948 most of the arable land in Palestine was owned by Turkish landlords. Is that the land you are talking about?

 

 

>Well, certainly Palestinian nationalism has historicaly been

>seculr and democratic. It is our defense of Israel that has

>led it off into fanatical religious extremes.

 

That is false. The leader of Palestinian resistance to the UN decision to partition Palestine in 1948 was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. He was an unelected Muslim religious leader.

 

> Ditto for Saudi

>Arabia. Ditto for Iran. Ditto for Iraq. Ditto for Egypt.

>At sme point we are going to have to realize that when a

>secular democracy abandons its deepest principle, we

>radicalize our foreign opponents. If not, we might as well

>continue to trade our civil liberties.

 

Your statements about the countries listed above are all patently false. The rise of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with any policy of the United States or Israel. To suggest that the 1979 revolution in Iran was in some way caused by our support for Israel is equally fanciful. Iraq and Egypt have both had secular governments for decades. In Iraq, Islamism has long since been crushed by Hussein's regime and is no longer a political factor. In Egypt, the militant activities of the Muslim Brotherhood arose as a response to the economic and social failures of the Arab nationalist government of Nasser and his successors. I remind you that until the late 1970s that government was an ally of the Soviet Union. Please stick to facts.

[jackhammer91406]

Okay

Woodlawn,

I'll go back to my original post.

Tried this a minute ago and it didn't show up, so if it is here twice, sorry, it's not meant for emphasis.

1) Should this (needed) program be under the Justice dept. instead of Pentagon? A fair question since the Justice dept. collects most of the original data anyway and is primarily responsible for protecting our civil rights . (notice I am only asking for a change in oversight, not trashing the program)

2) I think Ret. Admiral Poindexter is the wrong guy for the job. (so far I think it's still legal to express that opinion and not be labled a critic).

3) Shouldn't there be more debate (as in Congress) about such an important change in our basic civil liberties?

As for a standard to measure moderation, I would say I am probably more moderate than you and that is not a good or bad thing. No Judgements.

The title "Hello George Orwell" ? Provocative? Yes, designed to stimulate debate. You must admit having an agency set up who's sole function is to monitor every single citizen has certain similarities to his work.

I am delighted to have responses to this post of any kind and while it may seem I am complaining about certain responses, I am merely trying to clarify what my thoughts are rather than let them be misrepresented.

Jack

[woodlawn]

>1) Should this (needed) program be under the Justice dept.

>instead of Pentagon? A fair question since the Justice dept.

>collects most of the original data anyway and is primarily

>responsible for protecting our civil rights . (notice I am

>only asking for a change in oversight, not trashing the

>program)

 

Why would involving the Justice Department make the collection of personal data without the permission of its owners less intrusive than if the same data is collected by a different agency?

 

>2) I think Ret. Admiral Poindexter is the wrong guy for the

>job. (so far I think it's still legal to express that opinion

>and not be labled a critic).

 

Saying that DOD picked the wrong man to head up this $200 million project certainly sounds like a criticism to me. Perhaps you should look up the word 'criticism' in your dictionary.

 

>3) Shouldn't there be more debate (as in Congress) about such

>an important change in our basic civil liberties?

 

What makes you think there won't be? The TIA project is a long way from becoming operational.

 

>As for a standard to measure moderation, I would say I am

>probably more moderate than you and that is not a good or bad

>thing. No Judgements.

 

You are in no position to make any comparison of your political views to mine, since you know virtually nothing about mine.

 

>The title "Hello George Orwell" ? Provocative? Yes, designed

>to stimulate debate. You must admit having an agency set up

>who's sole function is to monitor every single citizen has

>certain similarities to his work.

 

What I admit is that the term you used for the thread title has very negative connotations and that it is extremely disingenuous of you to complain if people conclude that your intention is to criticize the TIA project. Extremely disingenuous, to say the least.

 

 

>I am delighted to have responses to this post of any kind and

>while it may seem I am complaining about certain responses,

 

It certainly does. When you accuse me of making a statement that is 'polarizing' or 'polemical' and is not 'rational' that sounds very much like a complaint to me. I don't think anyone who understands English would take it as a positive comment.

 

>I

>am merely trying to clarify what my thoughts are rather than

>let them be misrepresented.

 

If you don't want to be accused of criticizing methods used by our government it would be better to avoid comparing them to the nightmare world envisioned by Orwell.

[jackhammer91406]

Sounds like a veiled threat to me. Tell me, do you work for the administration? Should I be packing my bags?

To the rest of the guys on this board, I swore I was neve gonna get drawn into one of these back and forth kind of deals. Ooops. sorry

Jack

[ad rian]

>As an American I am not prepared to agree that my country's

>foreign policy should be changed in response to the threats of

>people like Bin Laden. My country's policy should be changed

>only if it suits the interests of my country to do so.

 

But are you prepared to sacrifice your civil liberties rather than to change your foreign policy? Might maintaining your civil liberties not be seen as in your own nationalinterest?

 

>You seem to have forgotten that there was already a major

>movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine long

>before the Holocaust. The Holocaust merely added a new

>impetus to that movement.

 

Hmmh, are you aware of the Jewish population of Palestine in 1948 vis a vis the Muslim and Christian populations?

 

>I do not know what "Palestinian land" you are referring to.

>Prior to 1948 most of the arable land in Palestine was owned

>by Turkish landlords. Is that the land you are talking about?

 

Yes, there were Ottoman occupiers too, and yes it is they who began to sell land to the early European Zionist movements over the objections of the local Palestinian populations. Incidentally, this should give pause to those who see Turkey's participation in any future occupation of Iraq as a good thing. Rest assured, we will pay for that down the line too. You see, one has to be strategic as well as tactical.

 

>Your statements about the countries listed above are all

>patently false. The rise of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia had

>nothing to do with any policy of the United States or Israel.

>To suggest that the 1979 revolution in Iran was in some way

>caused by our support for Israel is equally fanciful. Iraq

>and Egypt have both had secular governments for decades. In

>Iraq, Islamism has long since been crushed by Hussein's regime

>and is no longer a political factor. In Egypt, the militant

>activities of the Muslim Brotherhood arose as a response to

>the economic and social failures of the Arab nationalist

>government of Nasser and his successors. I remind you that

>until the late 1970s that government was an ally of the Soviet

>Union. Please stick to facts.

 

I don't doubt that you believe all this, as do most American Jews. The problem is that few in that region share your belief about this, and it is from that region that the threat that leads us to the present sacrifice of our civil liberties emerges. I would suggest to you that if wew were not supporting Israel, the opposition to the oil oligarchs that now veers off to militant Islam would veer off in a more democratic opposition to those governments. Recall the Shah's close relations with Israel.

 

At least you are honest and I respect that. You are prepared to sacrifice American civiul liberties for a foreign power. I disagree.

[woodlawn]

>But are you prepared to sacrifice your civil liberties rather

>than to change your foreign policy? Might maintaining your

>civil liberties not be seen as in your own nationalinterest?

 

Surrendering to threats is never in a nation's long term interest. And that is what you are proposing. No matter how you dress it up, that is what you are proposing.

 

>Hmmh, are you aware of the Jewish population of Palestine in

>1948 vis a vis the Muslim and Christian populations?

 

Yes. Are you aware of a man named Theodore Herzl?

 

>Yes, there were Ottoman occupiers too, and yes it is they who

>began to sell land to the early European Zionist movements

>over the objections of the local Palestinian populations.

 

So the 'Palestinian land' you keep talking about is really land that was owned by people other than the Palestinians? In that case, 'Palestinian land' seems like the wrong term to describe it.

 

>Incidentally, this should give pause to those who see Turkey's

>participation in any future occupation of Iraq as a good

>thing.

 

I keep having to remind you of facts that you want to ignore. Another such fact is that almost everyone in Turkey is opposed to a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

 

>>Your statements about the countries listed above are all

>>patently false.

 

>I don't doubt that you believe all this, as do most American

>Jews.

 

I believe it because it is a fact. I certainly have not seen you present any evidence to the contrary, and I really don't think you can. No one is stopping you.

 

>The problem is that few in that region share your

>belief about this, and it is from that region that the threat

>that leads us to the present sacrifice of our civil liberties

>emerges. I would suggest to you that if wew were not

>supporting Israel, the opposition to the oil oligarchs that

>now veers off to militant Islam would veer off in a more

>democratic opposition to those governments. Recall the Shah's

>close relations with Israel.

 

You are quite wrong. As evidence, I will point out that most elements of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt have already renounced violence in favor of peaceful political activity, despite the fact that our support for Israel has not diminished.

 

>At least you are honest and I respect that. You are prepared

>to sacrifice American civiul liberties for a foreign power. I

>disagree.

 

You may be willing to knuckle under to threats of violence rather than fight. I am not. Israel is our ally. If we are prepared to abandon an ally because of a threat of violence, then who will want to be our ally?

 

I am beginning to think that BON is right in characterizing you as someone who simply wants to blame everything on Israel.

[woodlawn]

>Sounds like a veiled threat to me. Tell me, do you work for

>the administration? Should I be packing my bags?

 

If you can't stand to hear opinions that are different from yours, you certainly shouldn't be spending time on a message board, at least not this one. If you are looking for a board on which everyone is going to proclaim their admiration for every word you write, you are definitely in the wrong place.

 

>To the rest of the guys on this board, I swore I was neve

>gonna get drawn into one of these back and forth kind of

>deals. Ooops. sorry

 

First you say you want a discussion or debate on this issue and that you welcome any response at all to your posts. Then you say you swore you would not get involved in such a thing. If you didn't want a discussion on a controversial topic then why did you start one? Your behavior makes no sense.

[ad rian]

>Surrendering to threats is never in a nation's long term

>interest. And that is what you are proposing. No matter how

>you dress it up, that is what you are proposing.

 

No, I think that is always in the interest of a country founded on secular democratic values to defend those values sui generis. That was as true before Septembrer 11th and remains true now. That is why talk of surrender is inapposite.

 

>Yes. Are you aware of a man named Theodore Herzl?

 

Yes, was he a Palestinian or a European? And if you are aware of the demographics as late as 1948 in Palestine, wy do you defend apartheid? With which American value is that consistent?

 

>So the 'Palestinian land' you keep talking about is really

>land that was owned by people other than the Palestinians? In

>that case, 'Palestinian land' seems like the wrong term to

>describe it.

 

No, because the Ottoman occupation was no more legitimate than that of the British or the Israeli. The one constant is that the Palestinians have resisted all such occupiers. I suppose that following logic you would argue that Germany owned Nanibia, that white South Africans owned South Africa, that America owned Japan and Germany? Thankfully, the UN Charter (dratfed in substantial part by US diplomats and scholoars) itself as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (drafted in part by Eleanor Roosevelt) rejects that view of the world.

 

>I keep having to remind you of facts that you want to ignore.

> Another such fact is that almost everyone in Turkey is

>opposed to a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

 

Yes, that is my point, but read the leaked Administraion plans for an occupation of Iraq. They involve Turkey as a part of that, and that is why the U.S. is pressuring the EU to speed up Turkish admission to the EU as a quid pro quo.

 

>You may be willing to knuckle under to threats of violence

>rather than fight. I am not. Israel is our ally. If we are

>prepared to abandon an ally because of a threat of violence,

>then who will want to be our ally?

 

Israel is no ally of mine. I support no militaristic theocracies.

 

>I am beginning to think that BON is right in characterizing

>you as someone who simply wants to blame everything on Israel.

 

Well, that's your right, but with the greatest of respect as one who travels all over the world regularly, let me tell you that this is the only country where informed and educated people think that Israel is not at the core of the problems in the Middle East. Even Tny Blair disagrees with you. Does that not give you pause? Again, I would not sacrifice my civil liberties or those of my neighbours for the defense of any militaristic theocracy.

[jackhammer91406]

You're right, my behavior makes no sense. It's the meds. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Seriously, I really don't expect praise nor do I expect everyone to agree with my views and I do welcome debate. I was surprised at the tone of the debate. I was hoping for something that explored the subject without making it political. I know you feel I made it political from the get go. Since that wasn't my intention, I apologize for not speaking my views in a more neutral way. I am not interested in getting people all angry, there's enough of that. I guess I thought that this was something that deserved attention. regarding your political views, you're right again, I have no business assuming anything about them or you. If I have left anything out, consider this a blanket mea culpa. I have learned another important lesson. In a community this vast, there are a multitude of points of view. Thanks for expressing yours.

Jack

[ad rian]

>Seriously, I really

>don't expect praise nor do I expect everyone to agree with my

>views and I do welcome debate. I was surprised at the tone of

>the debate. I was hoping for something that explored the

>subject without making it political. I know you feel I made

>it political from the get go.

 

I think your post was very important particularly for an on-line community discussing gay escorts. What is surprising is that more people here are not outraged. We are standing on a very slippery slope. The tactics used to shut you up here are exactly those that we have seen since the President's "You are either with us or against us speech". I submit that you can discuss this isue without being partisan or polemical, but you must be political. We must find a way to have a rational discourse about the appropriate goals of foreign policy and the balance between that and our commitment to civil liberties.