This in conjuction with several new reported cases in new locations such as Deleware... Letters are pretty anonymous. If I put one in the mail tomorrow, and so did my neighbor, there'd be absolutely no way to tell who sent what. When there are millions of pieces a day, the problem seems impossible without some form of identification. It seems like the government is grasping at straws and praying the worst isn't happening. While a generous reading of Ashcroft's statement could imply that he has progress, but simply none he cares "to report," I find it doubtful that he'd issue any kind of statement in such a case unless think he'd make his meaning clear. Is our extremely "free and open" society still compatible with satisfactory law enforcement? Our history of rights has always made it harder for authorities to get their man, but up till now, it had always seemed an acceptable sacrifice to me. Yes, when my bike was stolen, they weren't able to search the house of the person who stole it (it was a case where everyone "knew" who did it, but there was no true evidence). Well, that sucks... but I'm sure glad I have privacy rights. Now... I'm starting to think we might be forced to sacrifice some of those rights if we want any degree of effective protection. Imagine, for instance, an ID scan every time you sent a letter. That would require a national ID card and would track your personal correspondence (if not the content perhaps). Yet such a system might provide progress in our search. Even if ID's were stolen, knowing who'd they had been stolen from would be very helpful. And you force people to take more risks and hopefully make mistakes. Or what about relaxation of search-and-seizure laws? If someone fits the profile of a terrorist to a T, live within in 5 miles of a mail box used to mail anthrax, and recently checked out a book on "advanced biological compounds"... should they be subject to a search? Under current law, they're not. Should that change? I'm sure there are many other ways in which civil liberties obstruct more effective anti-terrorism techniques. In many cases, I would be opposed to liberties being abridged. In others, I would be supportive. I used those two specific examples because I would support a national ID card and a mail tracking system. I would be opposed to searches based on profiling. Any opinions? Is there ANY point at which you'd be willing to forfeit certain rights? Or is it better to die with dignity than live without a single line of the Consititution?
I'm not in favor of abridging civil liberties in the attempt to prevent isolated or even collective acts of terrorism. Thousands of Americans have given their lives in war to protect the liberties we hold dear. Should we let the cowardly acts of a few terrorists cause us to sacrifice those liberties now? To that end, I would definitely not advocate a retraction of the search-and-seizure protections of the constitution (luckily, such an amendment would never pass). The national ID/mail card, on the other hand, wouldn't really violate any existing laws or protections that I am aware of. But it seems like it would be a beauracratic nightmare that still might not prevent attacks like we've been seeing.
I'm not sure "securing" things like mail would do any good. The terrorists probably chose this method because it was easy. If it weren't easy, they'd pick another strategy -- I'm sure there are hundreds of ways to do it. It would just be a costly exercise in futility, in my opinion. We can spend $100 billion to protect the mail system, and the terrorists will spend 5 minutes and $0 to pick another another method.
Because simply allowing it to continue is an unacceptable solution. And national ID cards, incidentally, that could be scanned electronically would probably be useful for other terrorist prevention techniques as well. I think you have to build an "anti-terrorist" infrastructure, and then confront each method as they appear. Yes, I agree: if you shut down the mail as a method, they'll find another. But the possibilities are, in the end, finite. And you have to shut them down one by one until it becomes too difficult to continue. We're going to end up outspending the terrorists. That's inevitable, since it takes a lot more effort to STOP someone from doing something. Ultimate success may be impossible, but you can certainly cut down the # of opportunities.
<B>But the possibilities are, in the end, finite. And you have to shut them down one by one until it becomes too difficult to continue. </B> Actually, the possibilities are pretty much endless. Unless you lock everyone in their houses and place guards on the doors to ensure they cannot leave and interact with others, there will always be ways to infect people. For example: (1) Infected currency (2) Infecting food in stores (3) Cropdusters (4) Ventilation systems (5) Infecting Public Parks There's simply no way to stop all of these, unless you plan to eliminate currency, scan people when entering the grocery store, place guards everywhere, eliminate crop dusting, remove air conditioning in public buildings, and closing down all public parks, etc. For every method you stop, there will be another one out there. Instead of wasting billions of dollars on a worthless exercise that will have no real results, use it to fight and kill the majority of terrorists and eliminate individuals/governments with access to this kind of technology. We supposedly know everyone who has these kinds of abilities -- eliminate them all (or in the case of friends, demand that they get rid of all bio-programs, etc). On a longer-term scale, this also involves working to eliminate as much of the hatred towards America as possible through policy changes, propaganda, and whatever else is necessary. Is that foolproof? Absolutely not... But you're going to get a lot further by dealing with the root causes (the people) than the symptoms (the method).
I'm a big fan of going after the root causes, as you all have heard endlessly . But I'm also a big proponent of the national ID card. Make it electronic, with a central database, and require it to do anything that you normally use a license for. Such would be hard to duplicate (since there's a central database) and wouldn't violate privacy anymore than do regular drivers licenses.
Haven come on Why don't you tattoo a bar code on my fore head? ID cards really scare me. I think the gov knows enough about me as it is. To be quite honest, I don't think the gov will ever find the Anthrax culprit. I hope I'm wrong.
With all due respect to those who have had to suffer with the problem and the families of those who have died, the flu kills THOUSANDS more every year than anthrax will probably kill as a result of terrorism. Murder from our own citizens is a FAR greater risk than terrorism. So are drunk driving, heart disease (which is heavily linked to how we eat) and lung cancer, all of which are highly preventable with lifestyle changes. It was terrible that several thousand had to lose their lives and others will likely lose theirs to terrorism, but I think you are overstating it a bit. We are a far greater danger to ourselves than terrorist are to us.
<B>I'm a big fan of going after the root causes, as you all have heard endlessly . </B> Yeah, I figured you'd like that part. <B>But I'm also a big proponent of the national ID card. </B> I have no problem with a national ID card of a sort -- as long as it replaced my Driver's license so I don't need two cards. I was more referring to the idea of scanning each piece of mail with your ID, etc. I don't think that's really going to do anything except be a big pain in the ass.
There is only one way to prevent terrorism: kill or permanently jail the terrorists. In order to do that we will have to "surrender some liberties", as everyone calls it. Although any government intrusion at all would be considered by a libertarian to be a violation of their civil liberties, most sane people wouldn't mind what has been proposed. The National ID card is a great start. The only reason not to want these would be that you're doing something that you shouldn't be doing in the first place. 72 hour detention without charges is not that big of a price to pay, as only a select few would ever be inconvenienced by it. Background checks are pretty non-intrusive. In this particular case, since every single operative fits the same racial profile, racial profiling makes sense. I have always been against putting troops on the borders, but I think it's necessary now. Crack down on illegal immigration, and actually check out every legal immigrant. The bottom line is that if you've done nothing wrong, then you've got nothing but a minor inconvenience to worry about. If you'd rather someone be murdered than have to undergo a minor inconvenience, then you are a selfish, callous prick. There is no other way to catch the terrorists. I keep hearing everyone talk about how more people die of the flu every year, heart disease, smoking, blah, blah, blah. We can and should address those issues as well, but to compare those with the current problem is like comparing a prostitute to a rape victim. This is war. We have been violated, we are not doing this to ourselves. I wonder just how restrained everyone would feel if they caused a Chernobyl at the reactor near Houston? These guys absolutely must be caught before they have a chance to do something worse than the WTC. All this talk about dying for your rights, dying with dignity is horses*it. Dignity matters not to a corpse, and the only right dead men have is to remain silent.
Well, I guess we'll have to rely more heavily on email and online communications! ...of course, the government can read all of that that they want....
The NSA has "read" every word everyone has ever sent over a modem. They just haven't actually read it all. Sleep well.
You know, I think that kind of reasoning can be used to justify way too much. Imagine if that sort of thinking was used in the war on drugs. It'd be even worse. Hmmm... long hair, dreads, hemp backpack... let's search his apartment (that's not me, btw )! Incidentally, Carnivore and those satellites (Epsilon, right?... I forget the superspy sounding name) just comb email/calls/etc for certain words, right? And you know Shanna, the more I think about it, the more I disagree. 1 - How necessary is cash? I use a debit card for 99.9% of my transactions. I buy coffee with my cash, and that's about it. 2 - (a) smaller scale (b) easier to test for 3 - Cropdusters can be detected easily by the AWAC's currently flying above us. 4 - Smaller scale, and we're SIX months away from a detection system. 5 - It's outdoors, and therefore, not as effective. All those things are pretty easily solved. I can't think of anything that's utterly impossible.
So what about those who have already been detained for over two weeks without charges? Is that ok simply because a select few are affected? Oh wait, only a select few have been affected by anthrax... The exact same statements are used to justify the war on drugs. I guess the following are just examples of "minor inconvenience", eh? * Willie Jones is the black owner of a landscaping service who paid for an airline ticket in cash. This "suspicious" behavior caused the ticket agent to alert Nashville police. (1) A search of Jones and his luggage yielded no drugs. However, he did have a wallet containing $9,600 in cash on which a police dog detected traces of drugs (apparently true of 97% of all currency now in circulation). The cash was promptly seized despite protestations that it was intended for the purchase of shrubbery from growers. No arrest was made. However, the seizure nearly drove Jones out of business. He is unable to purchase the $960 bond necessary to mount a challenge. (2) * Jacksonville University professor Craig Klein's new $24,000 sailboat was subjected to a fruitless drug search by U.S. Customs Service Agents. In their 7-hour search, the boat was damaged beyond repair. The engine was chopped up with a fire axe, the fuel tank was ruptured and 30 holes were drilled in the hull. Mr. Klein sold the ship for scrap. (3) * Billy and Karon Munnerlyn owned and operated an air charter service. In October 1989, Mr. Munnerlyn was hired to fly Albert Wright from Little Rock, Arkansas to Ontario, California. DEA agents seized Mr. Wright's luggage and found $2.7 million inside. Both he and Mr. Munnerlyn were arrested. Though the charges against Mr. Munnerlyn were quickly dropped for lack of evidence, the government refused to release the airplane (The charges against Mr. Wright, a convicted cocaine dealer, were eventually dropped as well.). Mr. Munnerlyn spent over $85,000 in legal fees trying to get his plane back. Though a Los Angeles jury awarded him the return of his airplane -- he had no knowledge that he was transporting drug money -- a U.S. District Judge reversed the jury's verdict. Munnerlyn was forced to declare bankruptcy and is now forced to drive a truck for a living. He eventually spent $7,000 to buy his plane back. However, the DEA caused about $100,000 of damage. The agency is not liable for the damage, and there is no way (4) that Mr. Munnerlyn can raise the money to re-start his business. * A 61-year old California man, Donald Scott, was shot dead in front of his wife when 30 local, state, and federal agents attempted to serve him with a search warrant enabling them to inspect his 200-acre ranch in Malibu for cultivated mar1juana. He had brandished a handgun during the confusion of the early morning raid. The Ventura County District Attorney's office found that: Upon receiving information from the informant, [Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy] Spencer originally thought that thousands of mar1juana plants might be growing at the ranch. Efforts to confirm the presence of mar1juana were unsuccessful. He was unable to see mar1juana from the top of the waterfall and the Border Patrol did not see any plants during two attempts to do so. [DEA Special] Agent Stowell claimed to see only a relatively few plants, based solely on their color, but was unwilling to be the basis for a search warrant without corroboration. It is inherently unlikely that Agent Stowell could see mar1juana plants suspended under trees in a densely vegetated area through naked-eye observations from 1000 feet. His failure to take photographs is unexplained, and when the warrant was executed, no evidence of cultivation was found. Based on all of the evidence, it is the District Attorney's conclusion that there was never mar1juana being cultivated on the property as reported by Stowell. Real property used to cultivate mar1juana may be forfeited under federal law. "It is the District Attorney's opinion that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch [adjacent to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area] for the government." (5) * Police found five hundred mar1juana plants growing on a retiree's 37-acre farm. Delmar Puryear, who had retired with a disability and could not farm, insisted that he knew nothing about the plants. A jury apparently believed him, finding him innocent of state criminal charges. Despite this acquittal, the federal government refused to drop its efforts to seize the farm until Puryear agreed to pay $12,500. (6) * Michael Sandsness owned two gardening supply stores in Eugene and Portland, Oregon. Among the items sold were metal halide grow lights, which are used for growing indoor plants. The grow lights can be used to grow mar1juana, but it is not illegal in itself to sell them. Because some mar1juana gardens which were raided by the DEA had the lights, the agency began setting up a case to seize the business. The DEA began sending undercover agents to the stores who tried without success to get employees to give advice on growing mar1juana. Finally, agents engaged in a conversation with an employee, and asked him for advice on the amount of heat or noise generated by the lights, making oblique comments suggesting they would want to avoid detection and making a comment about High Times magazine but never actually mentioning mar1juana. The employee then sold the agents grow lights. The DEA then raided the stores, seizing inventory and bank accounts. Agents approached the landlord of one of the stores and told him that if he did not evict the tenant, the building would be seized. The landlord reluctantly evicted them. While the forfeiture case was pending, the business was destroyed. Sandsness was forced to sell the inventory not seized in order to pay off creditors. (7) Note: The usenet post I got this from OEMs not have the references cited but I have specifically seen the seized-airplane story in a book that cited the newspaper. I am confident that these are not maid up stories and were in newspapers. And even if you doubt some of these particular examples because I do not have the citations, just do a web search for "abuse drug seizure" or somesuch. These problems occur because there are fallible people in charge of police, FBI, etc. Sometimes they make innocent mistakes and sometimes they purposefully abuse the system. These are not minor inconveniences. In your first paragraph you state "Although any government intrusion at all would be considered by a libertarian to be a violation of their civil liberties, most sane people wouldn't mind what has been proposed." I don't see how any sane person could say stories like this are OK. You can say the war on terrorism isn't this extreme but all history points to the fact that it will become this way, largely because of the idea that if you aren't guilty you won't be harmed. That is simply not true. One of the principles of this country is the presumption of innocence. This is irrevocably altered by plans such as you advocate. The same people who advocate national ID's are those who seem to forget about the widespread abuse by workers at the IRS who were caught looking at others' tax returns. And even if there are no intentional abuses, you think a big fat juicy database like that won't be a target for crackers? Sure it'll be tough to get in and mess with stuff but no system is 100% secure. Treeman, I don't think people have a distrust of the government for no reason. There are examples upon examples of abuse by those in power. If our government had always been squeaky clean I would be more inclined to trust it. But this is the same government that gave schoolchildren radiated milk to see the effects, that refused treatment for syphilis to black men in order to chart the progress of the disease, that has shown a dramatic disregard for life to those not in power. I hope you read the whole thing (I know I tend to skim most long posts) and look forward to your reply...
Not to be too picky but there is a significant difference between debit cards and credit cards or cash. Liability from lost or stolen credit cards is limited by federal regulations to $50. Debit cards have a liability cap of $500 if reported after 2 days, however. Now many banks have lower liability but credit cards are more tightly regulated and thus safer to use than debit cards. Banks are also typically quicker to respond to compaints about credit cards than debit cards since it's the bank's money at stake with credit cards. Now debit cards certainly are convenient and I use mine frequently. However, some people prefer not to take those chances with debit card fraud (and it does happen).
Yes, Dylan... but if bills start getting infected with anthrax, I think more people might be willing to risk the debit card !
Jeff- I agree that presently we represent a much greater threat to ourselves than terrorists do....however, with the right technology that little ratio could change real quickly. 30K people died of the flu last year...unfortunately, I could think of scenarios where terrorists wipe out 30K people in about a minute. Having said that...ID cards seem useless to me. There is no reason to create a new bureacracy to try to give us the illusion that the govt can "insure" our lives. As Shanna said, if it gets hard, terrorists will find new and easier ways to mess with our lives. Nevertheless, our borders, in my opinion, should never look the same again.
I'm totally with you, Max. I think I was just trying to point out that sometimes we overreact and ignore some of the most pressing issues staring us in the face. Are the lives lost every year to drunk drivers any less important than those lost in the terrorist acts? To answer treeman about the nuclear attack near Houston, I am not trying to draw a comparision based on importance only trying to demonstrate that we have problems of our own that still are not being addressed. I agree that we should protect ourselves from foreign terrorists, but I just believe that we shouldn't draw a distinction between them and those who would wreak havoc among us. If we do that, we are essentially saying it is ok for our people to behave like idiots but not the rest of the world. I don't really care if they issue ID cards thought I think those steeped in "end times" philosophy might have a coronary. I think the major issue is drawing the line between what we think is "right" and what we think is "wrong." If having an ID card means people can be harrassed for their ideology even if their methods are completely innocent, I think we are crossing a line into something far more worrisome. I always hear the "if you don't do anything wrong, you shouldn't have to worry." The problem isn't doing "wrong" but the definition of what constitutes "wrong" to begin with.
