Homeland Security Arrests Brit Tourists For ‘Dangerous’ Tweets

[Yurka]

More than 150 people held in Guantanimo Bay were ultimately found to be completely innocent. And many of them are still there.

As I recall it was 150 innocent or low-level operatives. Who knows which ones remain there.

It's not about questioning. It's what comes after that, once we've given the government leeway to invade our privacy and suspend our legal rights.

You say that if there is no real evidence of terrorist ties, then the individual will be released immediately. What if the agent on scene simply doesn't believe them? What if he or she is convinced that this person is guilty, based on a "hunch?" Since we're already erroding the laws that define what qualifies as "real evidence" and define the process someone has to go through in order to hold someone for questioning, then how do you prevent that? How do you prevent that power from being abused and misused?

Peers. Spread the power. Have actual intelligence analysts look over evidence instead of giving power to some meathead who only want's to see certain people suffer.

 

[The Question]

That's a fact?

Yes, it is.

And resources.
There will always be homicides and murders, what the Patriot Act attempts to do is prevent the large scale attacks that can be thwarted and save lives.

Wether or not it attempts to do that isn't the question, that's plain to see. The question is wether or not it succeeds, and if the consequences of it are worth it.

And the answer on both counts is no.

What was 9/11?

It was 19 guys getting on planes, hijaking them, and then crashing them into buildings.

That's it.

It didn't require enormous resources. It was low budget. It was guerilla.

Now, yes, if we'd have been able to track their records more closely we probably could have stopped them from boarding the planes. But as was said before, Timothy McVeigh had no criminal record. On paper, he was just like everyone else, and even if we'd had the Patriot Act in the mid 90s that still wouldn't have stopped him. Violent criminals of any kind will always find ways to circumvent our security. All anyone would have to do to pull off another 9/11 is have no criminal record, have never shown any public or traceable symapthy for any radical group, and manage to sneak a small simple weapon past TSA. It wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't be impossible either. And the Patriot Act wouldn't be able to stop it at all.

Cracking down on the civil liberties or American citizens isn't going to stop terrorist, especially not foreign terrorist. It's just going to force them to find new holes in our system. And every system has holes.

Also, Al-Quaeda is significantly less of a threat to us than it was before and on 9/11, but it isn't because of the Patriot Act. It's because our military has broken up their command structure and arrested or killed many of it's members over the past 10 years. Almost entirely overseas.

 

[SuperFerret]

I dunno guys, I've been to the alternate realities where the government didn't have as much control and we're all dead. Except for the one where we're all rabbits.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Was there one alternate reality where I'm fused where E-Man is fused with Kane and you have an actual robot eating sandwiches?

 

[Yurka]

Yes, it is.

That's a ridiculous assumption. Who knows what would have happened had the Patriot act not been implemented.

Wether or not it attempts to do that isn't the question, that's plain to see. The question is wether or not it succeeds, and if the consequences of it are worth it.

And the answer on both counts is no.

See above.

What was 9/11?

It was 19 guys getting on planes, hijaking them, and then crashing them into buildings.

That's it.

It didn't require enormous resources. It was low budget. It was guerilla.

Except for their ability to enter the country (somehow), travel freely (somehow). I get your point but there were certainly ways they could have been detected.

Now, yes, if we'd have been able to track their records more closely we probably could have stopped them from boarding the planes. But as was said before, Timothy McVeigh had no criminal record. On paper, he was just like everyone else, and even if we'd had the Patriot Act in the mid 90s that still wouldn't have stopped him. Violent criminals of any kind will always find ways to circumvent our security. All anyone would have to do to pull off another 9/11 is have no criminal record, have never shown any public or traceable symapthy for any radical group, and manage to sneak a small simple weapon past TSA. It wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't be impossible either. And the Patriot Act wouldn't be able to stop it at all.

Again, who's to say what would have happened had the Patriot act been implemented before McVeigh? It might have led to a phone call regarding him purchasing certain flagged materials...

Cracking down on the civil liberties or American citizens isn't going to stop terrorist, especially not foreign terrorist. It's just going to force them to find new holes in our system. And every system has holes.

Also, Al-Quaeda is significantly less of a threat to us than it was before and on 9/11, but it isn't because of the Patriot Act. It's because our military has broken up their command structure and arrested or killed many of it's members over the past 10 years. Almost entirely overseas.

I agree they'll always find holes. That's why our system needs to keep evolving to try to catch them, and Al-Qaeda's not the point. Terrorists in general are. And the prevention of future massive terror attacks by whatever means necessary.

 

[The Question]

As I recall it was 150 innocent or low-level operatives. Who knows which ones remain there.

Everything I've been reading (and I have the articles in front of me right now) says 150 completely innocent. In any event, that uncertainty is the problem. We can't hold the government accountable for innocent people being imprisoned without trial and we can't even be certain if they're released them or not.

Peers. Spread the power. Have actual intelligence analysts look over evidence instead of giving power to some meathead who only want's to see certain people suffer.

1: How does that prevent abuse and misuse of power? Government agencies are very insular. Many of them, such as the FBI, CIA, Military, and most Police Departments, cultivate a culture and sense of brotherhood among their members. Historically, we have seen that this insular, sub cultural nature has led to operatives of these agencies covering up for the mistakes and crimes of their "brothers." The My Lai Massacar, for example, was covered up by military officials, who reported it as a heroic battle against vietcong forces and hid all the evidence that it was, in fact, a group of bored and/or shell shocked soldiers brutally slaughtering a villaige of civillians. It only came to light when a solider who had tried to prevent the massacar went to the media, and even then the military trials that followed only ended up convicting the platoon leader, who only served three years under house arrest.

And of course all of the cases of police officers commiting or being negligent in their duties and receiving no punishment whatsoever. One that comes to mind is two Chicago officers who intentionally ignored a 9/11 call about a home invasion because they wanted to go on patrol for traffic violations, as there's more money for them in that. This resulted in the deaths of the entire family and the perpetrators getting away. Those officers are still on the force.

My point is that this sort of thing happen in government agencies, and they happen more when those agencies are given more autonomy and are held to less accountability for their actions. Simply "giving it to inteligence analysts" doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prevent an agent or a group of agents making the wrong decision or serving their own self interests when it is possible if not likely that their peers or superiors might cover up for them.

2: There's still a command structure in these agencies. There are still people who make the final call as to what happens to these people who are detained for questioning. What if that person's wrong? What if that person's corrupt or petty or a meathead?

And before you say "the person above them will put a stop to it," I have to ask, how can we trust that? How can we trust that their superiors or peers will find out, or will care, or won't be implicit in this sort of thing? Are we to assume that everyone working in these agencies is at the peak of skill and moral fiber? On what basis? There have been numerous corrupt or incompitent officials in our and every government over the course of human history.

3: You're neglecting another cultural aspect of government agencies. What about political rhetoric? What about institutionalized racism? These are things that are real and cloud people's judgement severely, and are very much alive in our government. Arabs and Arab-Americans are automatically suspected over other people simply because of the color of their skin. Anarchists, communists, radical atheists, and Muslims are automatically considered to be more likely to be tied to some kind of criminal or terrorist behavior simply because the ideologies they ascribe to go against the cultural norm. These things can color people's opinions, even intelligence analysts and seasoned agents, and can be considered as "evidence" that someone might be a terrorist. Heck, statistically, there's some basis for that.

Here's a scenario:

There is a man. He is an Arab. He is a Mulsim. He is politically radical. He has, over the course of his life, made several loud, open, and public statements against the American government. He doesn't like the way it is run. He doesn't like the way it is organized. He doesn't like how it treats people or how it uses it's power and he has been very vocal about that very regularly. Let's even say that he comes from a low income background and grew up in a neighborhood with a high crime rate. Now, let's say that over the course of his life, he has attended several rallies, and political discussion groups, and protests, and the like. And he has met people. Formed acquaintances. Maybe even made friends.

Now, let's say that one of the friends this man made at one of these rallies or discussion groups fell in with a terrorist cell. And now, this man has been picked up and detained for questioning because his friend mentioned his name.

He's an Arab. He's a Muslim. He's a political radical. He's from a low income background and grew up in a violent place. He has ties to a known terrorist. he fits the profile.

He's completely innocent.

And yet he can be held by the government, possibly for the rest of his life, because he might be a terrorist, and there's no way he can prove he can't.

That's not acceptable.

4: I think you're also missing how this can be used as a tool for nefarious purposes. Another scenario:

Let's say there is a vocal and influential political radical who strongly opses our government. His continued freedom is inconvenient for the government. He makes them look bad, he turns public opinion against them. With this kind of power they can pick him up and detain him for questioning as long as they like, and thus neatly get him out of the way.

And who would be able to stop them? Since they didn't have to go through any due process, if the civillian population isn't involved in the form of a jury trial, then nothing can stop them, really. And it's not like they'd let him go because there's no real evidence, because they don't want to let him go. They're just say there was evidence. And then not tell us what it was because it's classified. There would really be nothing anyone could do about it.

And it's not like you can say "the government wouldn't do that," because really, how do you know? Especially with the turnover rate of our elected officials, how do you know an administration wouldn't make this a matter of policy?

There may not be solid proof that this has happened already (of course, there wouldn't be), but the problem is that it can happen. That door has been opened.

 

[The Question]

That's a ridiculous assumption. Who knows what would have happened had the Patriot act not been implemented.

To an extent I suppose that is a fair point. But, really, you can look at the number of failed or prevented attacked since 9/11 that we know about and look at wether the act had a hand in stopping them and certainly make a strong educated guess.

Except for their ability to enter the country (somehow), travel freely (somehow). I get your point but there were certainly ways they could have been detected.

Get a passport. Use public transportation. Neither of these things are out of the ordinary. Their would raise flags.

I have no criminal record. I have a passport. If I wanted to pull off a 9/11 like attack in, say, the UK, all I would have to do is get there and manage to sneak a weapon past airport security. That part right there is the only part that's difficult. If the government had a greater ability to follow people's trails, all a terrorist organization has to do is send out operatives who don't have trails that look any different than anyone else's. It takes some planning, but it's not that hard to do.

Again, who's to say what would have happened had the Patriot act been implemented before McVeigh? It might have led to a phone call regarding him purchasing certain flagged materials...

McVeigh stole a lot of the materials to make the bomb, and what he bought he bought seperately. And none of those item, by themselves, are anything suspicious. The Patriot Act would not have stopped him.

I agree they'll always find holes. That's why our system needs to keep evolving to try to catch them, and Al-Qaeda's not the point. Terrorists in general are. And the prevention of future massive terror attacks by whatever means necessary.

Do you know where you find the most terrorists?

Opressive regimes. Countries where civil liberties and due process are stripped away in the name of security.

Are we really preventing terror attacks by creating an environment where more American citizens are going to want to become terrorists?

 

[Hotwire]

Also, what The Question just described isn't very different from what Senator Joe McCarthy actually did!

 

[xisaacx]

So for people saying this is an overreaction, what if they DO ignore a tweet thinking "its a joke" and then something bad happens, or someone bombs some place...then you all will be complaining OH why didnt anyone do anything. Yeah this is America, but threats against it especially AFTER 9/11 are going to be taken serious. Threats in general are taken serious you know why? CAUSE YOU NEVER NOW WHO MEANS IT. How many stories do you read about, where you have former employees or kids who say im going to come and shoot up so and so, people take it as a joke and then what do you have? School shootings, Work shootings. You may not take a threat serious but Id rather be alive then dead.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'd rather be alive than dead too, but I'd bet that you could do whatever you'd want to Marilyn Monroe's corpse and I'd wind up mostly fine.

 

[Yurka]

Everything I've been reading (and I have the articles in front of me right now) says 150 completely innocent. In any event, that uncertainty is the problem. We can't hold the government accountable for innocent people being imprisoned without trial and we can't even be certain if they're released them or not.

I can't find the original article I read months ago as it was on wikileaks. Sorry.

1: How does that prevent abuse and misuse of power? Government agencies are very insular. Many of them, such as the FBI, CIA, Military, and most Police Departments, cultivate a culture and sense of brotherhood among their members. Historically, we have seen that this insular, sub cultural nature has led to operatives of these agencies covering up for the mistakes and crimes of their "brothers." The My Lai Massacar, for example, was covered up by military officials, who reported it as a heroic battle against vietcong forces and hid all the evidence that it was, in fact, a group of bored and/or shell shocked soldiers brutally slaughtering a villaige of civillians. It only came to light when a solider who had tried to prevent the massacar went to the media, and even then the military trials that followed only ended up convicting the platoon leader, who only served three years under house arrest.

And of course all of the cases of police officers commiting or being negligent in their duties and receiving no punishment whatsoever. One that comes to mind is two Chicago officers who intentionally ignored a 9/11 call about a home invasion because they wanted to go on patrol for traffic violations, as there's more money for them in that. This resulted in the deaths of the entire family and the perpetrators getting away. Those officers are still on the force.

My point is that this sort of thing happen in government agencies, and they happen more when those agencies are given more autonomy and are held to less accountability for their actions. Simply "giving it to inteligence analysts" doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prevent an agent or a group of agents making the wrong decision or serving their own self interests when it is possible if not likely that their peers or superiors might cover up for them.

So you're saying there is a fundamental problem with the people and culture responsible? I said they need to hire competent, professional people to oversee and process evidence, but who knows if that will ever happen. Both sides are hypothetical.

2: There's still a command structure in these agencies. There are still people who make the final call as to what happens to these people who are detained for questioning. What if that person's wrong? What if that person's corrupt or petty or a meathead?

And before you say "the person above them will put a stop to it," I have to ask, how can we trust that? How can we trust that their superiors or peers will find out, or will care, or won't be implicit in this sort of thing? Are we to assume that everyone working in these agencies is at the peak of skill and moral fiber? On what basis? There have been numerous corrupt or incompitent officials in our and every government over the course of human history.

As I said, spread the power. Don't put one individual in a position of power to oversee and have absolute authority over such sensitive decisions as peoples lives. But again, hypothetical, you believe there is a fundamental problem in the command culture and that those individuals could abuse that power. Who knows.

3: You're neglecting another cultural aspect of government agencies. What about political rhetoric? What about institutionalized racism? These are things that are real and cloud people's judgement severely, and are very much alive in our government. Arabs and Arab-Americans are automatically suspected over other people simply because of the color of their skin. Anarchists, communists, radical atheists, and Muslims are automatically considered to be more likely to be tied to some kind of criminal or terrorist behavior simply because the ideologies they ascribe to go against the cultural norm. These things can color people's opinions, even intelligence analysts and seasoned agents, and can be considered as "evidence" that someone might be a terrorist. Heck, statistically, there's some basis for that.

Again. Peers and groups. Have teams of people look over evidence and come to a conclusion together rather than have one person who's brother was killed by a car-bomb make the final say.

Here's a scenario:

There is a man. He is an Arab. He is a Mulsim. He is politically radical. He has, over the course of his life, made several loud, open, and public statements against the American government. He doesn't like the way it is run. He doesn't like the way it is organized. He doesn't like how it treats people or how it uses it's power and he has been very vocal about that very regularly. Let's even say that he comes from a low income background and grew up in a neighborhood with a high crime rate. Now, let's say that over the course of his life, he has attended several rallies, and political discussion groups, and protests, and the like. And he has met people. Formed acquaintances. Maybe even made friends.

Now, let's say that one of the friends this man made at one of these rallies or discussion groups fell in with a terrorist cell. And now, this man has been picked up and detained for questioning because his friend mentioned his name.

He's an Arab. He's a Muslim. He's a political radical. He's from a low income background and grew up in a violent place. He has ties to a known terrorist. he fits the profile.

He's completely innocent.

And yet he can be held by the government, possibly for the rest of his life, because he might be a terrorist, and there's no way he can prove he can't.

That's not acceptable.

But, he may posses information about certain other people in his group of friends that may be of value to national security....

I understand your point, but given the extremity of the situation, I wouldn't oppose the questioning of an individual like the one you described. Permanent detention is a different can of worms.

4: I think you're also missing how this can be used as a tool for nefarious purposes. Another scenario:

Let's say there is a vocal and influential political radical who strongly opses our government. His continued freedom is inconvenient for the government. He makes them look bad, he turns public opinion against them. With this kind of power they can pick him up and detain him for questioning as long as they like, and thus neatly get him out of the way.

And who would be able to stop them? Since they didn't have to go through any due process, if the civillian population isn't involved in the form of a jury trial, then nothing can stop them, really. And it's not like they'd let him go because there's no real evidence, because they don't want to let him go. They're just say there was evidence. And then not tell us what it was because it's classified. There would really be nothing anyone could do about it.

And it's not like you can say "the government wouldn't do that," because really, how do you know? Especially with the turnover rate of our elected officials, how do you know an administration wouldn't make this a matter of policy?

There may not be solid proof that this has happened already (of course, there wouldn't be), but the problem is that it can happen. That door has been opened.

We don't have any political activists to the level of someone like Che for example that would threaten the government, but the potential was there with Occupy W.S. Anyway, I understand the potential, believe me. However, I generally and genuinely think the opportunities for power to be abused in the situations you described are risks that don't nearly match the extreme potential to save countless lives.

To an extent I suppose that is a fair point. But, really, you can look at the number of failed or prevented attacked since 9/11 that we know about and look at wether the act had a hand in stopping them and certainly make a strong educated guess.

Get a passport. Use public transportation. Neither of these things are out of the ordinary. Their would raise flags.

If you were on a watch or no-fly list they would.

I have no criminal record. I have a passport. If I wanted to pull off a 9/11 like attack in, say, the UK, all I would have to do is get there and manage to sneak a weapon past airport security. That part right there is the only part that's difficult. If the government had a greater ability to follow people's trails, all a terrorist organization has to do is send out operatives who don't have trails that look any different than anyone else's. It takes some planning, but it's not that hard to do.

If we we're pre-9/11 I would agree. Now since most flights have increased security, implemented reinforced doors and lock-downs, it would be more difficult to repeat a similar attack. Both sides need to evolve at the same time, and to your point, that's one of the biggest threats against the U.S. today, homegrown "unseen" terrorists.

McVeigh stole a lot of the materials to make the bomb, and what he bought he bought seperately. And none of those item, by themselves, are anything suspicious. The Patriot Act would not have stopped him.

I don't know enough on the subject to argue this.

Do you know where you find the most terrorists?

Opressive regimes. Countries where civil liberties and due process are stripped away in the name of security.

Are we really preventing terror attacks by creating an environment where more American citizens are going to want to become terrorists?

How does something like the Patriot Act have the potential to lead to more American citizens becoming American terrorists? Read my e-mails all you like, it's never going to make me want to walk into a football stadium with a grenade. If might make more politically active if it gets worse, but it would have to take something truly drastic to ever even think about becoming violent, and I highly doubt it will get to that point. The "loss" of civil liberties hasn't effected my lifestyle in anyway whatsoever. Or you're saying this is more a potential threat to the politically active extremists?

 

[The Question]

I can't find the original article I read months ago as it was on wikileaks. Sorry.

I was just reading that same article.

So you're saying there is a fundamental problem with the people and culture responsible? I said they need to hire competent, professional people to oversee and process evidence, but who knows if that will ever happen. Both sides are hypothetical.

It's not hypothetical. That cultural identity within these organizations exists. Their insular nature, their talk of being a brotherhood, of being comrades in arms, the ritualized nature of their swearing in processes an the way that they handle internal interaction between their members, they're completely open and up front about it. Things like My Lai or countless instances of internally unchallanged police brutality are matters of record.

As for hiring competent, professional people, yes, that is a good thing. But we have no assurance that this will happen. We have no reason to trust that the people in charge of hiring are, themselves, competent and professional. And even then, competency and a professional nature aren't enough if the organization has a toxic and/or corrupt culture, and we have no assurance that it will not become the case if it isn't already. We're handing the power to take away people's freedom and rights without any form of due process or involvement of the civillian population to a group of people who's hiring or firing we have no say in without having any way of holding them accountable.

That is what's wrong with the Patriot and and the 2012 NDAA.

As I said, spread the power. Don't put one individual in a position of power to oversee and have absolute authority over such sensitive decisions as peoples lives. But again, hypothetical, you believe there is a fundamental problem in the command culture and that those individuals could abuse that power. Who knows.

We have no assurance that they will spread that power. We have no way of making them spread that power. And as it stands that power is not spread. Innocent people have spent years in Guantanimo Bay for simply being suspects. Individuals and small groups of people have decided that a person should be sent there and no further questions were asked.

Again. Peers and groups. Have teams of people look over evidence and come to a conclusion together rather than have one person who's brother was killed by a car-bomb make the final say.

I'm not talking about one person with a personal hang up. I'm talking about institutionalized bigotry. I'm talking about the idea that "Arab = terrorist." I'm talking about the idea that "Mulsim = terrorist." I'm talking about the idea that "politically radical = terrorist." These ideas are ingrained in our culture. "Politically radical = terrorist" is especially ingrained in the higher levels of our government because politically radical ideas are a threat to the people who work in government because they promote abolishing or completely changing the government.

Peer groups do not solve the problem of ingrained cultural biases.

But, he may posses information about certain other people in his group of friends that may be of value to national security....

I understand your point, but given the extremity of the situation, I wouldn't oppose the questioning of an individual like the one you described. Permanent detention is a different can of worms.

It's not a different can of worms.

Questioning people is fine. But you know what? Authorities could question people before the Patriot Act and before the NDAA.

As the law stands, if a man like that was questioned and offered up no useful information, the government could hold him as long as they liked. No trial, no jury, he could just be held indefinitely until they got what they wanted out of him. Questioning people is fine, the problem is that the government can hold people as long as they want.

And that isn't hypothetical. It has happened.

We don't have any political activists to the level of someone like Che for example that would threaten the government, but the potential was there with Occupy W.S. Anyway, I understand the potential, believe me. However, I generally and genuinely think the opportunities for power to be abused in the situations you described are risks that don't nearly match the extreme potential to save countless lives.

1: In the 70s, the FBI had a 500 page file on a man named Phil Ochs, where he was labeled as "subversive" and "potentially dangerous."

Phil Ochs was a folk singer who hung out at political protests.

Someone doesn't have to be on the level of Che Guavera for the Government to consider them enough of an inconvenience to want to get rid of.

2: What you are saying is that it is okay to give the government the power to squash all political opposition, ignore the Bill or Rights, and potentially errode all real democracy in the United States.

If you were on a watch or no-fly list they would.

Yes, but you miss my point:

There is no way to guarantee that every terrorist will be on a watch or no-fly list. All that requires is to have never done anything to attract the government's attention before the attempted attack. That's not hard at all.

If we we're pre-9/11 I would agree. Now since most flights have increased security, implemented reinforced doors and lock-downs, it would be more difficult to repeat a similar attack. Both sides need to evolve at the same time, and to your point, that's one of the biggest threats against the U.S. today, homegrown "unseen" terrorists.

More difficult, but not impossible. The only obtsacle someone like me would have in this day and age would be sneaking a small weapon on the plane. That would be difficult, but it is not impossible.

How does something like the Patriot Act have the potential to lead to more American citizens becoming American terrorists? Read my e-mails all you like, it's never going to make me want to walk into a football stadium with a grenade. If might make more politically active if it gets worse, but it would have to take something truly drastic to ever even think about becoming violent, and I highly doubt it will get to that point. The "loss" of civil liberties hasn't effected my lifestyle in anyway whatsoever. Or you're saying this is more a potential threat to the politically active extremists?

That's you.

You are not the rest of the country.

You are, presumably, not a member of one of themany southern militia groups driving around the bumper stickers that say "If they come for my guns, I'll give them the bullets."

You are, presumably, not one of Alex Jones' paranoid fanboys.

You are, presumably, not an angry, politically radical 19 year old who grew up in a broken home.

You may not become a terrorist, but not everyone in opressive regimes is. That doesn't mean that things like the Patriot Act or the NDAA don't increase the likelyhood of terrorism. They do. They make people anrgy. They make people feel powerless. And they end up ruining innocent lives. Now, you may say that they save enough lives to make up for that, and that may be true, but that's not going to matter to the kid who's father rotted away in a jail cell for nothing. That's not going to matter to the angry idealist who grew up in a poor neighborhood, has been pushed around all of his life, and now wants to push back. These people are out there, and just because you're not one of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Your life may be fine, but it's not about you. It's about the country.

This leads me to another point. The story of Lakhdar Boumediene:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/my-guantanamo-nightmare.html

You absolutely should read the whole article, but I'll still give the cliff notes.

Lakhdar Boumediene is a Bosnian citizen. In 2001 he was taken in for questioning by American agents in Bosnia. They refused to let him leave and ordered the Bosnian government to arrest him and five others on charges of terrorism. The Bosnian government conducted a full investigation and found no evidence linking them to any crimes. They then ordered the Americans to release them.

As soon as they were released, American agents captured them and sent them to Guantanimo Bay. Lakhdar Boumediene was in Gitmo for seven years. Most of his letters to his family weren't sent. His children grew up without him. His family fell into poverty. He went on a hunger strike for two years to protest his treatment and his captors forced a feeding tube down his throat just to keep him alive.

He was finally freed by a Supreme Court ruling in 2009 and quickly moved to France with his family. There, he has faced the stigma of having been in Gitmo and has had a difficult time finding work.

I normally hate this kind of argument, it's not based on logic and based entirely on emotion, but I think it really shows the flaws in our current justice system. So, I ask you:

Could you look Lakhdar Boumediene in the eye and tell him that what he went through was necessary? Could you look him in the eye and tell him that he had to suffer as he did, to miss his children growing up, to suffer humiliation, to be stripped of freedom and dignity, and to return home to a family in poverty, so you could have some peace of mind when you're on a plane?

 

[Marvolo]

Americans on American soil have been safe, which is the purpose for these various acts and tactics.

That's meaningless since there is no hard facts that we wouldn't have been safe without them. The only "facts" are coming from the people spying on us. That's rather convenient. The American people should have direct access to all info regarding averted threats and attacks. After they are averted we should know what we were saved from. Set up a website listing it. Even then I would have a hard time believing it wasnt BS propaganda.

These tactics and spying techniques should be at the approval of the public. If the people dont want it this government does not possess the authority to force it upon us. Nothing in the documents this country is built on gives them that right. But we keep letting the government believe they are our parents and tell us what's best for us. Newsflash the government SERVES us. They live and die by our approval. If we think we are safe to fly without being assaulted prior to boarding that is our decision and so on. We've given this government an inch and they are taking a mile!

 

[Destructus86]

Hence, tactics need to evolve and be implemented to prevent cases like that happening again, as I said before.



That's a fact?



And resources.
There will always be homicides and murders, what the Patriot Act attempts to do is prevent the large scale attacks that can be thwarted and save lives.

It's your time of thinking that will ultimately erase even more of our rights.

 

[enterthemadness]

In a nut shell, if we let the government police us, spy on us to keep us safe, we don't deserve to be free. If we don't have our Liberty, what is the point?

 

[NHawk19]

It could have been a bomb, every potential threat should be investigated. If that means, hiring more security agents, so be it, hell it would create some jobs!

In this case my point was that it was in fact investigated and found to be harmless, but that was not communicated to the following shift.

It was to illustrate how the right hand doesnt know what the left one is doing when it comes to the government.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'd rather live in a world where I have a 0.0001 chance of being attacked by a terrorist than live in a police state.

The average person has microscopic chances of dying in a terrorist attack yet 300 million Americans lost their civil liberties to combat terrorism and hundreds of thousands of civilians died in foreign wars to stop terrorism.

It's tragically stupid.

 

[zanos]

That's a ridiculous assumption. Who knows what would have happened had the Patriot act not been implemented.



See above.



Except for their ability to enter the country (somehow), travel freely (somehow). I get your point but there were certainly ways they could have been detected.



Again, who's to say what would have happened had the Patriot act been implemented before McVeigh? It might have led to a phone call regarding him purchasing certain flagged materials...



I agree they'll always find holes. That's why our system needs to keep evolving to try to catch them, and Al-Qaeda's not the point. Terrorists in general are. And the prevention of future massive terror attacks by whatever means necessary.

The Bush administration had tons of warnings of the attacks before they happened. One of the hijackers was even specifically named. Warnings within the government as well as those from France, Egypt, etc. were ignored. A terror plot was detected and even a specific hijacker was flagged weeks before the attacks actually took place. What more could the Patriot have accomplished? It's about as redundant as the TSA.