jerseyfinn
Senior
OK, I'm just floating out an idea here.
A jury convicts Padilla of terrorist threats. But he's convicted on "lesser" charges and not the dirty bomb plot which lands him in jail. This is partly because intelligence agencies would have been forced to reveal too much about their methodology and sources in an open court, thus compromising on-going surveillance and ops.
Let's forget the anti-Bush BS and look at the real problem facing ANY government trying to deal with today's terrorists. On one hand, you could argue that today's terrorism is nothing new in human history. There have been dissenting folks who take extremist views and act upon these views in nasty ways and governments have dealt with them over time. Hence government efforts to seek extraordinary powers are most usually met with refusal by public and government institutions ( there are however exceptions, such as Lincoln suspending habeus corpus during the Civil War ).
So today's radical Islamists are in many ways, no different than past terrorists. Yet that it is not quite so.
I suggest that there is something rather unique about today's terrorism which extends beyond the usual rhetoric employed by al Qaeda or public opponents to expanding government powers. While today's terrorism is indeed an international problem requiring a response from all governments, we neglect to admit that today's terrorists are more sophisticated ( and lethal ) than previous terrorists. Though much of their methodology mirrors the past ( bombings, kidnapping, using proxies to cause mayhem and discord ), today's terrorists melt into the matrix of nations while also seeking to utilize the tools of nation states to build dirty bombs or to develop biological weapons. It's the reality of today's world and the technology which characterizes it.
So how then is any government to respond to this sort of threat? What I'm suggesting is that we've grown cozy and comfortable with our Constitutional parchment which outlines our liberties, but as a living document it also provides for governements to adapt to the world and times in which it lives. How does any government assure its citizens that a dirty bomb won't go off in a city? The answer is that it can not. But does this then mean that governments are powerless and should do nothing to try to intervene?
I'm not arguing that nothing is too good for "We the People" and that government should have a free hand to do as it pleases. But given the technology terrorists have at their finger tips, their ability to melt into the public matrix, and the immediacy by which London, Paris, or New York could have a device set off by the bad guys, just what can the People do to give themselves and their government a fighting chance to interdict these malevolant terrorists ( or call "get lucky" )?
I think the Padilla case is a warning to all of us that given today's lethal technology, and the immediacy of the Internet and wireless communications, that we can not afford to live in the past and assume that paper writs and court orders will always be expedient enough for governments to surveil and interdict terrorism. But we do indeed cross into potentially dangerous territory when we separate today's terrorists from yesterday's Red Brigades. History is knocking on the door telling us to wake up and have a national dialog which takes into account the realities of today's verydangerous world. The Padilla case tells us we need to do so now and not later.
Barry
A jury convicts Padilla of terrorist threats. But he's convicted on "lesser" charges and not the dirty bomb plot which lands him in jail. This is partly because intelligence agencies would have been forced to reveal too much about their methodology and sources in an open court, thus compromising on-going surveillance and ops.
Let's forget the anti-Bush BS and look at the real problem facing ANY government trying to deal with today's terrorists. On one hand, you could argue that today's terrorism is nothing new in human history. There have been dissenting folks who take extremist views and act upon these views in nasty ways and governments have dealt with them over time. Hence government efforts to seek extraordinary powers are most usually met with refusal by public and government institutions ( there are however exceptions, such as Lincoln suspending habeus corpus during the Civil War ).
So today's radical Islamists are in many ways, no different than past terrorists. Yet that it is not quite so.
I suggest that there is something rather unique about today's terrorism which extends beyond the usual rhetoric employed by al Qaeda or public opponents to expanding government powers. While today's terrorism is indeed an international problem requiring a response from all governments, we neglect to admit that today's terrorists are more sophisticated ( and lethal ) than previous terrorists. Though much of their methodology mirrors the past ( bombings, kidnapping, using proxies to cause mayhem and discord ), today's terrorists melt into the matrix of nations while also seeking to utilize the tools of nation states to build dirty bombs or to develop biological weapons. It's the reality of today's world and the technology which characterizes it.
So how then is any government to respond to this sort of threat? What I'm suggesting is that we've grown cozy and comfortable with our Constitutional parchment which outlines our liberties, but as a living document it also provides for governements to adapt to the world and times in which it lives. How does any government assure its citizens that a dirty bomb won't go off in a city? The answer is that it can not. But does this then mean that governments are powerless and should do nothing to try to intervene?
I'm not arguing that nothing is too good for "We the People" and that government should have a free hand to do as it pleases. But given the technology terrorists have at their finger tips, their ability to melt into the public matrix, and the immediacy by which London, Paris, or New York could have a device set off by the bad guys, just what can the People do to give themselves and their government a fighting chance to interdict these malevolant terrorists ( or call "get lucky" )?
I think the Padilla case is a warning to all of us that given today's lethal technology, and the immediacy of the Internet and wireless communications, that we can not afford to live in the past and assume that paper writs and court orders will always be expedient enough for governments to surveil and interdict terrorism. But we do indeed cross into potentially dangerous territory when we separate today's terrorists from yesterday's Red Brigades. History is knocking on the door telling us to wake up and have a national dialog which takes into account the realities of today's verydangerous world. The Padilla case tells us we need to do so now and not later.
Barry
. Where would Garfield get his vicarious thrills if he's not able to feel up an old granny?
