Lieberman's Bill

[Orogun01]

The more I think about it the more I come back to this critical difficulty with evidence. The quality of evidence taken in a warzone is (realistically) probably never going to satisfy a civilian jury. However, if we assume that there are terrorists out there somewhere how do we propose tackling them? Do we not tackle them? Do we simply permit any agent of a foreign power who is not in uniform to murder our citizens with complete impugnity?

The best way to combat terrorism is, IMO with intelligence. There is no way that a big army can find a small group of terrorists that bicker more amongst themselves and are not a united entity. To put it in an analogy, you do not kill flies with a shotgun.

Thus I believe that the information that can be extracted out of terrorists is our biggest weapon in the war and this bill helps with that.

[Gorth]

I wonder if you would think the same way when they come and pick you up in the night, because one of your neighbours reported that there has been a light on in your garage at night the last five days and you get stripped of your citizenship, locked up in a non-disclosed location with no contact to the outside world for an indeterminate period of time.

[~Di]

Horrible idea, absolutely horrible. First, IIRC there is no constitutional provision for stripping anyone of citizenship (except if fraudulently obtained) unless said citizen was convicted of treason. So right there, we have a constitutional challenge.

 

Then there are the consequences. Say a natural-born citizen was tried and convicted of terrorism, then had his citizenship revoked. Let's also presume that eventually he gets out of prison. Then what? Is he officially an illegal "alien"? Do we deport him? Where to? Is he given "persona non-grata" status and forced to leave the country? Again, where to? On another forum a poster pointed out that this law could create "Mehran Nasseri's all over the US". (Nasseri was the guy who lived at DeGulle Airport for years; they made a movie about him.)

 

Or when he leaves prison, do they now scoop up this non-citizen convicted terrorist and throw him into Gitmo.

 

The potential for abuse and ramifications of this law would be disastrous, never mind the constitutional amendment that would be required.

[Orogun01]

@Gorth: you are exaggerating the issue, this in no way gives them power to seize someone illegally. If there is proof of connection to terrorism and terrorist groups, then it's a military matter. I hardly see a light in the garage as proof of anything.

 

@~Di: the problem that you refer to is actually quite true. Methinks that biggoted McCain thinks that only aliens are terrorists.

[Walsingham]

The more I think about it the more I come back to this critical difficulty with evidence. The quality of evidence taken in a warzone is (realistically) probably never going to satisfy a civilian jury. However, if we assume that there are terrorists out there somewhere how do we propose tackling them? Do we not tackle them? Do we simply permit any agent of a foreign power who is not in uniform to murder our citizens with complete impugnity?

The best way to combat terrorism is, IMO with intelligence. There is no way that a big army can find a small group of terrorists that bicker more amongst themselves and are not a united entity. To put it in an analogy, you do not kill flies with a shotgun.

Thus I believe that the information that can be extracted out of terrorists is our biggest weapon in the war and this bill helps with that.

 

You are correct that intelligence is the key to counter-terrorism. But using blanket dictatorial measures - while efficient on paperwork - undermines the public resolve to continue the fight. It splits support even more than woolly 'liberal' thinking already does.

 

Again, i can understand the use of 'lax' evidence in cases where an individual is apprehended in a warzone. perhaps teh only proof required there is that they were taken in an appropriate location, combined with - I dunno - chemical forensics. Stuff that would normally only qualify as circumstantial.

 

But reducing the evidential burden in cases involving US citizens sounds like mentalism.

 

Or have I got confused?

[Orogun01]

You are correct that intelligence is the key to counter-terrorism. But using blanket dictatorial measures - while efficient on paperwork - undermines the public resolve to continue the fight. It splits support even more than woolly 'liberal' thinking already does.

 

Again, i can understand the use of 'lax' evidence in cases where an individual is apprehended in a warzone. perhaps teh only proof required there is that they were taken in an appropriate location, combined with - I dunno - chemical forensics. Stuff that would normally only qualify as circumstantial.

 

But reducing the evidential burden in cases involving US citizens sounds like mentalism.

 

Or have I got confused?

 

No sir, you have got it right. The big danger with this bill is that it will end up hurting American citizens, and the problem if a mistake like that is made in a warzone is that support from the natives will fall. That's dangerous, IMO is not only the bill but the whole American approach to terrorism that's wrong.

[Walsingham]

Glad to know I wasn't utterly confused.

 

I think it's dangerous to describe any US behaviour as stemming from a single policy. To do so underestimates the byzantine layers and distances involved. Some US counter-terror policies are fething genius. Some are blindingly stupid. I do think it's a fair opint, however, to observe that this lack of cohesion means that two equally intelligent policies can and do work at cross-purposes. For example attacks on drug cultivation, and softly softly development of rural areas in conflicts like Columbia and Afghan.

[Orogun01]

Glad to know I wasn't utterly confused.

 

I think it's dangerous to describe any US behaviour as stemming from a single policy. To do so underestimates the byzantine layers and distances involved. Some US counter-terror policies are fething genius. Some are blindingly stupid. I do think it's a fair opint, however, to observe that this lack of cohesion means that two equally intelligent policies can and do work at cross-purposes. For example attacks on drug cultivation, and softly softly development of rural areas in conflicts like Columbia and Afghan.

 

Even a broken clock gives the time twice a day, I imagine that some people actually have good ideas on how to fight terrorism. But most of the bills we hear are this "borderline fascist" kind.

 

The kind of collaboration from your example, even though effective presents more legal troubles. Since it remains the problem of who enforces these policies which would require a specialized force and the fact that without a presence on the area the vacuum created would give rise to the next criminal. But I had never considered the drug war as part of the war against terrorism, heroin is big on the middle east and latin america has cocaine and marijuana. Do these actually fund terrorism or is it just average crimes?

[Walsingham]

Illicit drugs are a major earner for most terrorist movements. The days of terrorism being solely funded by 'contributions' from the population are long gone. The money can come directly as with the Shining Path, indirectly through putting such a high tax on villages that drugs are the only way to make the cash as with the Talibs, or very indirectly through taxing dealers to operate through their controlled areas as with the IRA.

 

I really think it's an exaggeration to say that US policy is only right 'twice a day', even if it's picturesque to do so. If you read articles written by US Army officers they are often to a very high academic standard. They are frequently nuanced, especially as experience of countering terror overtakes half a century of defending the World against the Soviets. But you have to recognise that the mix of abilities, and understanding, coupled with the mass mix of agencies and commands leads to the confusion I mentioned before.

 

Enoch should back m up on this, if he's reading.

[Orogun01]

Illicit drugs are a major earner for most terrorist movements. The days of terrorism being solely funded by 'contributions' from the population are long gone. The money can come directly as with the Shining Path, indirectly through putting such a high tax on villages that drugs are the only way to make the cash as with the Talibs, or very indirectly through taxing dealers to operate through their controlled areas as with the IRA.

This has been a question in my mind for a while; I'm not sure that I'll get an answer. With all the effort and manpower needed to deal drugs, how is it possible that they are able to turn a profit? Plus there is the fact that these groups are separated and were fighting amongst themselves until yesterday. It seems that what holds them together are the figureheads that financially back terrorism. If an army walks on it's stomach, starve them out.

I really think it's an exaggeration to say that US policy is only right 'twice a day', even if it's picturesque to do so. If you read articles written by US Army officers they are often to a very high academic standard. They are frequently nuanced, especially as experience of countering terror overtakes half a century of defending the World against the Soviets. But you have to recognise that the mix of abilities, and understanding, coupled with the mass mix of agencies and commands leads to the confusion I mentioned before.

 

Enoch should back m up on this, if he's reading.

Sorry, I tend to be a little artsy with my descriptions.

 

From what I gather from your previous 2 posts, the kind of agency cooperation required would hinder any progress. That's why I suggested a new force that is able to address the problem properly. Could be a splinter cell from one of the already existing agencies; but whose main purpose is to actively strike against terrorism. I say this because most of the counter-terrorism groups are preventive measures against terrorists attacks and are not seeking the threat out.

[Walsingham]

Your interest does you credit, but you just need to think about the mechanics. A kilo of heroin base can cost as little as $100 at source (sometimes lower). When that kilo finally hits London or New York it is worth many thousands of pounds. As a material it grows almost anywhere, requires almost no special handling, and has a long shelf life. It's also not hard to smuggle drugs when you consider the huge quantities of legal merchandise and people crossing state boundaries. This is one reason why extreme violence is employed to retain control over the supply chain. Once you get it into the consumer country you run via middle men who operate dealing franchises. The really risky and cut-throat end isn't even part of most organised crime any more. Why bother when you have a limitless supply of mooks literally dying to get a slice?

 

You ask who is financing terrorism? *shrugs* We are. That is every supermodel and producer. Every banker. Every junkie lifting wallets and mobile phones.

 

Interdiction doesn't just fail, it simply can't help but fail. So yes, we need to choke terrorism from its finances and there are only two ways to do that:

 

1. Reduce demand

2. Reduce profitability

 

We can do a lot more to make drug taking morally unacceptable. I have several friends in Brighton, which is a holiday town which has a big 'anti war' sentiment expressed through rallies and whatnot. But they shovel away the drugs like there is no tomorrow. The town is a 24/7 Live Aid festival for murder, rape, and torture.

 

If you look at the factors which make drugs profitable the number one factor is the fact that supply is illicit. This stifles competition and keeps the prices and profits artificially high.

 

Bit off topic, slightly, but I think it's basically relevant.

[Gorth]

This is one reason why extreme violence is employed to retain control over the supply chain.

Which is why those gangs are so eager to kill anybody who threatens their share of the transport market in Mexico. Street Prices were at the time of this article $175K (for what you paid $300 in the source country). The trafficking can employ a lot couriers and hitmen and still make some string puller filthy rich.

[Walsingham]

A further point: discussing organised crime is appropriate in a discussion of terrorism. All three main organised criminal traditions mafia/camorra/'ndrangheta, the triads, and yakuza were all 'freedom fighters' when they started out. Gradually the violence, the code of silence, and illicit income evolves into organised crime and little else.

[Orogun01]

Your interest does you credit, but you just need to think about the mechanics. A kilo of heroin base can cost as little as $100 at source (sometimes lower). When that kilo finally hits London or New York it is worth many thousands of pounds. As a material it grows almost anywhere, requires almost no special handling, and has a long shelf life. It's also not hard to smuggle drugs when you consider the huge quantities of legal merchandise and people crossing state boundaries. This is one reason why extreme violence is employed to retain control over the supply chain. Once you get it into the consumer country you run via middle men who operate dealing franchises. The really risky and cut-throat end isn't even part of most organised crime any more. Why bother when you have a limitless supply of mooks literally dying to get a slice?

 

You ask who is financing terrorism? *shrugs* We are. That is every supermodel and producer. Every banker. Every junkie lifting wallets and mobile phones.

 

Interdiction doesn't just fail, it simply can't help but fail. So yes, we need to choke terrorism from its finances and there are only two ways to do that:

 

1. Reduce demand

2. Reduce profitability

 

We can do a lot more to make drug taking morally unacceptable. I have several friends in Brighton, which is a holiday town which has a big 'anti war' sentiment expressed through rallies and whatnot. But they shovel away the drugs like there is no tomorrow. The town is a 24/7 Live Aid festival for murder, rape, and torture.

 

If you look at the factors which make drugs profitable the number one factor is the fact that supply is illicit. This stifles competition and keeps the prices and profits artificially high.

 

Bit off topic, slightly, but I think it's basically relevant.

One day you I will ask you how do you know all that

 

From what you say it seems that the same guy profiting from drug is the one establishing terrorists groups to maintain politics on his pocket. The warlords; IIRC, profited from the weapons trade. Did they exchange that for drugs?

Anyway, the drug trade is to big to kill. I say go for the product, no product no problem. The aftermath is ensuring a favorable presence on the are, there is always eager to go up on the chain. It may not be moral or legal, but it's more effective to control the level of productions than to exterminate them completely since that would leave an open market for whomever comes with the next big thing.