Five Years On - September 11 and the impact on the modern world (Official 9/11 Anniversary thread)

Source

September 11th 2001

America's longest war
Aug 31st 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

A nation once joined together in shock and vulnerability is now riven by failure and recrimination

[image=http://www.economist.com/images/20060902/3506SA8.jpg]

ON THE morning of September 12th 2001, Americans woke up to a changed country. They had seen the twin towers of the World Trade Centre reduced to rubble, the Pentagon aflame and a field in Pennsylvania transformed into a graveyard. Almost 3,000 people had been killed and twice as many injured, in the bloodiest day on American soil since the battle of Antietam in 1862. They had seen their president?the most powerful man in the world?flitting from pillar to post. And they had seen the face of a new enemy. Before September 11th few people even in the administration had heard of al-Qaeda. After that day there was no getting away from the images of Osama bin Laden and his agent, Mohammed Atta.

That September 11th changed America dramatically is hardly open to debate: George Bush's presidency has been about little else since then. But some of the changes have been unexpected. Who would have guessed, as a shocked country rallied round the flag, that five years later partisan divisions would be deeper than ever? Who would have guessed, as the president pledged that ?the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon,? that five years later Mr bin Laden would still be at liberty and America would be bogged down in Iraq?

The immediate result of September 11th was a surge in national unity. The country was draped in flags. Wal-Mart sold 116,000 of them on September 11th and 250,000 the day after. The mood killed partisan politics. Congressman Dick Armey, a firebrand conservative, put an arm around Maxine Waters, a firebrand congresswoman on the left. Mr Bush embraced Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, on the Senate floor. Conservatives denounced Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, two evangelical broadcasters, for entertaining the notion that September 11th was God's punishment of ?the pagans, and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and lesbians?. Leftists excoriated Susan Sontag for implying that the assault was payback for America's crimes.

[image=http://www.economist.com/images/20060902/3506SA4.jpg]

The attacks brought an abrupt end to the ?holiday from history? that followed the fall of the Soviet Union. They also brought an abrupt end to America's sense of invulnerability: for all its military might and oceanic moats, the country was wide open to attack from fanatics living in caves in Afghanistan.

All this produced a mood of soul-searching. A Newsweek cover article asked, ?Why do they hate us?? and books on Islam topped the bestseller lists. It also produced something more visceral: a desire for revenge. Three days after the attacks the congregation in the National Cathedral in Washington, DC, concluded a memorial service for those who had died with the ?Battle Hymn of the Republic?.

The administration capitalised on the more vengeful mood to produce a wide-ranging response. On September 11th Mr Bush concluded that America was at war. That day, too, he stated that he would make no distinction between terrorists and those who harboured them. This rapidly became the ?Bush doctrine?. America would not wait for the next attack: it would take the war to the enemy. That did not mean al-Qaeda alone. Any state sponsoring terrorists or supplying them with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would be dealt with, even before the threat was fully developed. And America would not simply treat symptoms. It would tackle the causes of Islamic terrorism.

Strong, but vulnerable

[image=http://www.economist.com/images/20060902/3506SA1.jpg]

The doctrine drew on two contradictory beliefs: that America was mighty enough to reorder the world and that it was vulnerable to still worse attacks. Vice-Preside

 

The point about Bush being the worst President ever is noted, without a doubt, he is going to be hard to knock off the top of that list, but all records can be broken, for the worlds sake lets hope it's not in our lifetime.

 

In 1996 Clinton tried to get anti-terrorism legislation passed. The Republicans shot it down. It was legislation for wiretapping. It differs from the current Bush wiretapping in two ways. 1. Clinton actually went to have it made legal where Bush just went ahead and did it without permission from anyone. 2. The Clinton wiretap was a setup system so that the time between warrents and wiretaps was less where Bush just goes ahead and does it without a warrent.

Had this legislation gone through I wonder if 9/11 would have been prevented. But then again the current admin had plenty of warnings including a lecture meeting by the CIA called(Roughly) "The possibility of terrorists crashing airliners into buildings".

I was at work with the radio on. The first plane hit. Then the second plane hit. I said to someone in the next cubicle, "This is not an accident." It was unreal hearing that the buildings had fallen, then going home to see it on tv that they were gone. Boy, was I behind Bush. At least on this. His policies left me bewildered, but attacking the bad guys that did this? It was on. "Wanted dead or alive." Oh yeah! Go get 'em! Then, a halfhanded segway to Iraq. I remember the first speech. I was still on his side. What? WMD's you say? Well then, ok. I was one of those that were fooled.

9/11 will be remembered for many things. Among them, as an excuse to invade a country which was a policy before 9/11 as reported by former Bush admin employees.

 

I do still remember that day 5 years ago, and moreso, how slowly I found out. That morning, I was at school (high school at the time), and so as events unfolded, the only way we were finding out was by people coming in to school late. I think it was a good half hour or 45 minutes before finding out that it wasn't just a small plane that had hit the world trade center but was a commercial airliner. With all flights grounded, it was very odd to be outside since there's usually a plane or two in the air somewhere, since I live just outside Los Angeles.
To me, it wasn't simply that it had happened, but the scale with which it did that effected me. The scope of it, the number of people that died, and the number of people that were directly effected, was such a large number, and it was done so prominantly.

As for its effects, personally, I think it was probably a very key element in me becoming increasingly interested in politics and world events.
On a larger scale, I do think that it has created an additional fear... not that people are paranoid, per se... but that the U.S. doesn't have an invulnerability it seemed to have before. It changed how the rest of the world was viewed, and how one thought about interaction between the u.s. and the rest of the world.

As for the rest of the world... well, from the American standpoint, it has effected how I view the rest of the world. I don't think its possible to be liked by everyone. Given a large enough group, its very possible to get people that hate you, as well. And thats from purely neutral interaction. The U.S. has, however, taken sides on issues elsewhere in the world. With that there is a repercussion. I don't think that the simple element of taking a side in a fight elsewhere is wrong, and there have been plenty of times where I think it would have been wrong to try to be neutral. The first Gulf War, for example, I view as having only one side that could be supported and wasn't something that one could simply be neutral about. That said, when the U.S. chooses to support one side, clearly there will be people that disagree with it.
In that sense, I don't think it would be possible for the U.S. to be entirely without criticism in the world. I expect and accept that the U.S. will be criticised, often very harshly. However, anger with the U.S. can go somewhere beside legitimate criticism, and that is the now very prominant threat of terrorism. There's no justification whatsoever for terrorism, and I think that for too long it was a problem that wasn't dealt with because it didn't happen to directly threaten Americans within the U.S.

As such, I don't have an issue simply with the premise that the U.S. would act overseas to protect itself from further threats. The terrorist groups are trying to impose their own morality and ideology on others or they will kill them. I find it very hard to sit by and just let that happen. It opens the door to another Holocaust, or another Rwanda. To bring in Spiderman "with great power comes great responsibility". I think that, as a global power, the U.S. can't just let oppression go on and act as though we shouldn't do anything because it doesn't effect us. We can't fix everything, but we can try to do something.
Removing the Taliban, which had been destroying conflicting cultures in Afghanistan, and removing Saddam, who was tormenting his own people (even though I've issues with the execution of the war in Iraq) is a step in the right direction for both of those countries, imo. Its not the last step, and there are definitly many to go, but that doesn't mean its a step that shouldn't have been taken.

I also don't think that it has to, neccessarily, be military action involved, but I do think that at this point, with a strong military and the knowledge that that military can and will be put to use if neccessary, I think that it makes for a very good 'stick' in dealing with some countries, and that then diplomatic solutions, offered either by the U.S. or by other countries working with the U.S., serve as the corresponding 'carrot'. I

 

Well, VLM, this isn't to speak about Clinton's term, really - if anything, Clinton's relationship with Saudi Arabia was just fuel to that fire.

No, these seeds were sown before Clinton and reaped by a population completely unawares of what was really happening.

What is your opinion of the core of the Bush Doctrine ideal, VLM?

E_S

 

September 11th changed my outlook on a great many things.

I'm in the Navy and was actually at SOBC (Submarine Officer Basic Course) in Groton at the time of the attacks. I was studying for an exam that day. When the first plane hit, our instructor told us about it and we were all laughing about how stupid a pilot would have to be to accidentally crash into the WTC. We all went out and gathered around a 50 inch TV and watched the news. Naturally, we all watched in shock as the second plane hit. It was at that point that we realized that the country was under attack. I lost a friend in the Pentagon that day.

To say that we were enraged would be an understatement. What was worse, none of us were in positions to really do anything about it. In time that would change. Every time I went out on a mission in support of the GWOT, I thought about September 11th. When I was going on a deployment, I reminded myself that the purpose of the deployment was to help make sure that something like that never happened to our country again. I was playing my part to ensure that this was the case. It's how I explained it to my son.

The "Bush Doctrine" makes sense to me. Fight them over there so we won't fight them here. In principle, I like that. I've never had an issue with seeking out and attacking terrorists wherever they are and that would include taking on nations that we think support terrorists. It is war.

So where I have parted company with the administration is not on principle but on execution. Some of that is military tactics that I won't get into here. In essence, however, the issue is who to target and where the appropriate battlefronts are. I never thought that Iraq was an appropriate battlefront, even when I thought they had WMD. I believed that Saddam, while a despot, had too recently been soundly defeated to realistically want to engage us. At the same time, I was worried that I might be wrong and in any case, it wasn't my decision to make. POTUS made the call with the support of Congress and I go where I'm ordered and I do so willingly.

I don't like the way things turned out in Iraq. I think most people feel that way. I often feel, though, that a lot of politicians are crying about the spilled milk rather than coming up with concrete ways to clean it up. Many of the same people who supported the war in Iraq now use its failures as a means to regain political power and that seems disingenuous, at best, to me. It turns out that, in the beginning, the Iraq War had nothing to do with the GWOT. That's irrelevant now, from my point of view. It has everything to do with the GWOT now.

Many people would like us to believe that the President went into Iraq knowing full well that there were no WMD and that Iraq posed no real threat to the US. I don't believe that. Many people believe that the President has expanded Executive powers because he's power-hungry and cares nothing for civil liberties. I don't believe that either. I believe the President is doing what he thinks is right. For some time, Congress agreed with his every decision. That was the problem. There was no check, no balance. The President became a slave to his own success. When people opposed him within his own administration, those people were replaced. There is no greater danger to a successful command than when no one is willing to tell the guy in charge when he's screwing up.

But to get back on point, 9/11 changed me in one important way. I no longer think only of how high my taxes are going to be, or how much health benefits or social security are going to change. I don't just think about education. Now, I think about what we can do (not just militarily) to make sure 9/11 never happens again.

 

What is your opinion of the core of the Bush Doctrine ideal, VLM?

I will give a longer aswer sometime in a day or two when I have a bit more time and thought put into it. I'm sure "it sucks" will not be good enough.

 

Totally agree about how the main thing is that the Iraq War now is a part of the war on terrorism now, regardless of if it was a part of the war on terrorism when it began.

Off topic slightly... since you said you're a submarine officer, how would the subs be involved in the war on terror? if you can answer that, i mean. I've a friend that headed off for the Navy back in February and has... I think 6 more weeks of training left if I've kept track right, and is then going to be serving on a submarine

 

First off, good on your friend for making a superb career choice!

As for how submarines are involved in the GWOT in two major ways and one, less frequent, way. The two major ways are direct support and battlespace preparation. Direct support basically means being a Tommahawk missile launch platform for coordinated Tommahawk strikes against terrorist targets. Battlespace preparation basically means spying. A submarine can go places other Naval vessels can't, stake out the territory and report back what we find before real engagements begin. That's all I'm willing to say about that. The less frequent way is in the area of Special Operations--read SEALS. That's all I'm willing to say about that, too.

Hope that helps.

 

Does help, and the usage makes sense, I'd just not thought of it terribly much prior.
And completely understand that there'd be a lot of "and thats all i can say"s on it. Didn't want to get into a "Please say important secret military workings on the internet"

 

I thought I'd put more into this, but I'm really flippin' tired. So, here's what you get.

This idea of fighting them in Iraq is a weak argument based on lies.

1. Bush said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet the fight with Al-queda was taken there. Why? If Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 then why invade his country? Well, Saddam had WMD's as far as Bush knew based on our Intelligence from various sorces you might try and tell me.
A. Since none have been found Bush has been asked about going in without there being WMD's. It's on tape, on record, spoken publically, "Even if I knew he had no WMD's I would have gone in anyway." I just wish I knew which news channel caught that comment. He made it while walking across the grass to the White House from a helicoptor. I also wondered why no one made a big deal about the comment, and even posted about it here.
B. The inspectors that went in before the invasion told Bush they found no evidence of WMD's, and have come out since then saying how the Bush admin nitpicked the info he wanted.

2. I don't know off hand what has been spent on Iraq. Half a billion? Something like that. Imagine spending half a billion on the CIA and covert ops and sending them after Al-Queda. There would be no Al-Queda. Aphganistan is falling apart, this is where Osama went, he is still on the loose. We hear that there are terrorist cells here in the U.S. and it's just a matter of time before they strike. Really? Then why did we waste all this money invading Iraq if terrorists have cells here? Why did we invade Iraq wih our southern border unsecure?

3. Invade a country to lure terrorists there. Nice way to make pawns of civilians there. This idea of making a battleground is ridiculous, we have lost thousands of soldiers yet Osama still lives. I believe a figure for civilian casulties is numbered in the tens of thousands, yet osama lives. We invaded a country to lure people to a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

This is why I call 9/11 a legacy of an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, now in the President's own words as of a week and a half ago.

 

And I think most of the blame for Iraq should be placed on Dr Wolfowitz's shoulders (plus, in my biased opinion, war crimes charges) - he was arguing for war in Iraq before 9/11, and on 12th Sept 2001.

What about the way it's shaped Western countries? People have accused - baselessly - countries like France and Germany of not taking the post-9/11 world seriously enough (mostly 'cause of their objection to Iraq) yet both of them have strong, efficient, tough anti-terrorism forces. France, in particular, has CT capabilities which seem pseudo-Soviet; so I wonder if you were to track Western cooperation on terrorism if you'd see a divergence on the US line at the point of Iraq...

E_S

 

It's odd looking back and relizing that France and Germany were right about Iraq and inspections there, though I wonder if France's opinion of right and wrong was influenced by some deal they had with Iraq concerning oil, the details of which escape me. I find it odd too that Bush identified an "Axis of Evil", invaded a country, then probably sat back wondering why North Korea and Iran sought nuclear weapons. I don't want them having nuclear weapons, but if I were them I'd have done the same thing.

The following comes from a study done by the Dems, there seems to be no dispute over the numbers just yet:

Iraq: The number of average weekly attacks has risen steadily and the estimated number of insurgents in Iraq has gone from 5,000 in 2003 to more than 20,000 in April 2006. Meanwhile, the quality of life for many Iraqis has plummeted, as fewer Iraqis today have access to electricity and safe drinking water than before the war. The original cost estimates for the war were about $50 billion to $60 billion; today, it's estimated to cost 10 to 20 times that amount.

Afghanistan: The number of Taliban attacks has skyrocketed, from 22 in 2001-2003, to 251 in 2004-2006. Meanwhile, the country's opium production has hit record highs, which only profits the Taliban and Afghani insurgents seeking to overthrow the government the United States put in place several years ago.

Iran and North Korea: Data show that Iran's nuclear program has made significant progress during President Bush's term in office, while North Korea's nuclear capabilities have skyrocketed.

China: China's holdings of the US debt in 2006 exceeds $328 billion, an increase of over 546% since 2001.

 

North Korea had nuclear weapons in its possession before 2003.

Back in 1989, Jane's Defense first reported that North Korea could probably develop nuclear weapons in about 5 years time. In June, 1990, Satellite images detailed a facility that could be used to process nuclear fuel.

North Korea then signed an agreement with the US in late 1991, and with the IAEA in 1992. However, by 1993, North Korea was violating both agreements.

Iran first acquired nuclear technology back in the late 80's, and documents discovered linked the AQ Khan network to Iran as late as 1996.

The point is that both North Korea and Iran started acquiring nuclear weapons before 2001, and the decision to do so was not dependent on the invasion of Iraq or the WTC attacks.

 

Yeah, I was about to point to the somewhat dishonest false hoc correlation between the nuclear programmes of NK and Iran and Bush's presidency, like he somehow made their programmes advance tenfold or something.

I have to say, for my part, I do appreciate the theory of the so-called Bush Doctrine, but I think VLM has an interesting point in if the money spent on the Iraq war had been spent on the CIA - improved HUMINT capacity, the odd wetwork - the war on terror might be a vastly different beast to date.

Mr44, what's your feeling on the "Bush Doctrine", as it's referred to? Do you think the Administration's approach in their first term, contrasted with their second term, was a stronger or weaker position to take?

E_S

 

In 1998 North korea launched a missle in the Pacific.

In 1999 North Korea was given a disarm proposal.

The same year North Korea stops long range missle tests. Days afterward Clinto eased off economic sanctions.

Some time after that, before Bush, there was an agreement to build at least one nuclear power plant for North Korea. There were delays.

North Korea says they will restart their own nuclear power plans if the delays continue.

Relations between North Korea and the US are non-existant at this point, and North Korea says they will restart missle tests if relations between the two countries are not restarted.

From there Bush calls them a part of the Axis of Evil, and North Korea resumed their missle development and nuclear power development as a result.

So yeah, they had a nuclear program that dates back to the 1960's. It has been started and stopped many times along with missle tests. And now, thanks to the invasion of Iraq and labeling of North Korea as evil, they have resumed their testing.

I cannot point out as much detail with Iran.

EDIT: I thought you might find this interesting:

How 9/11 changed America: In statistics

 

I am extremely skeptical of anyone labeling anyone "the worst," becuase as demonstrated far too often by late night comics, any list of "name the worst presidents" always sounds too coincidentally like "name ANY president."

I wouldnt trust anyone here to name the last ten presidents, let alone grant them undeserved kudos to grant "best" or "worst" on a single one of them.

For the record, the worst was most likely (as named by legitimate historians without naked political bias), Andrew Johnson.

 

I think that the fact that Iraq may have had WMD's was definitely a concern, and letting them get away with all that crap would definitely not have been smart. However, I think the fact that the administration wanted to believe that Saddam was plotting some malicious evil meant that our intelligence was pretty much going to be fixed around that notion. Add that to the fact that we refused to reveal any evidence to the U.N. while making our case for war means that we have a considerable problem here. If this is how we deal with other countries, if we're so willing to take shortcuts in the fight against terrorism, then due process is in danger of being destroyed, and democracy along with it.

 

But Muse, you have not only demonstrated a subjective bias in favour of Mr Bush, you seem unwilling to concede his stewardship has been somehow detrimental to the image, prestige, and ultimately well-being of the United States.

Don't get me wrong, I've made numerous appraisals of his second term policies herei n the Senate, all favourable, so I too shy away from "worst President" labels; but the flipside is that I can see the damage his Administration has (self-) inflicted.

I think it would be dishonest to say that the transformation of America following 9/11 wasn't perhaps a good thing, nor was the leadership necessarily doing the country any favours. And right or wrong, the leader is going to be the public face of it all - the successes, the failures.

E_S

 

I wouldnt trust anyone here to name the last ten presidents, let alone grant them undeserved kudos to grant "best" or "worst" on a single one of them.


please. you vastly underestimate the intellect that still exists here. there are multiple lawyers and doctors who post here, among others.

Bush (cheney) defeated gore (lieberman) and kerry (edwards)
Clinton (Gore) defeated bush hw (quayle) and dole (kemp)
Bush HW (quayle) defeated dukakis (?), lost to clinton (gore)
Reagan (Bush HW) defeated carter (mondale) and mondale (ferraro)
Carter (Mondale) defeated ford (dole), lost to reagan (bush hw)
Ford (Rockefeller, ran with Dole) lost to carter(mondale)
Nixon (agnew, ford) defeated humphrey(?) and McGovern (shriver)
Johnson (Humphrey) defeated goldwater (miller)
Kennedy (johnson) defeated nixon (cabot lodge)
Eisenhower (nixon) defeated adlai stevensen (?)

no outside help, thank you very much. think about that next time you malign people's intellect here.

 

but I think VLM has an interesting point in if the money spent on the Iraq war had been spent on the CIA - improved HUMINT capacity, the odd wetwork - the war on terror might be a vastly different beast to date.

Except you are now delving into a political area that is perhaps unique to the US..

This is more of a rhetorical question, but how exactly do you mean "increased HUMINT capacity?" I think such a suggestion would be obvious, second nature, to the other Western nations where there are different expectations.

You correctly point out that France, for example, has a particularly "robust" intelligence service, which is focused on protecting French interests. The UK has the official secrets act, of which the US has no direct equivalent. And so on, and so on...

But when you say "increase the CIA," do you mean as in the capacity to monitor phone calls originating from specific locations? Politically, it's too scary, as the government might intercept someone's family recipe for potato chip dip.

But then you might mean something that is actually effective, like the Patriot Act, right? Wrong, because politically, people are paranoid that a black helicopter is going to take them away, even if they admit in the same breath that such a feeling is probably irrational.

Oh, but you must mean targeting resources to focus on specific groups who meet a set criteria, right? Wrong, because there are those who worry about the self esteem of the hypothetical group.

See, Americans have a wonderful ability to self-handicap themselves, and then complain when things don't go perfectly, 100% of the time. It's an example of the famous double-edged sword.

But to be blunt, this feeling also works overseas as well. The quote by Lord Goldsmith that was provided in the other thread illustrates this. As we know, Goldsmith condemned the Gitmo facilities as being "unAmerican," while at the same time celebrating the fact that British detention centers were so effective. Operationally, there is no difference between Gitmo and Belmarsh, except for the perception tied to each.

So, while it should be, it's not as easy as simply saying "let's increase the CIA." All sorts of political and perception-based issues immediately kick in and overshadow all other concerns.

 

Well, I think you know my position on this. I found the revelations by whichever paper is was (WSJ?) that the Bush Admin was sifting financial records to be treasonous, and have often stated that your transparency and rights based culture/legislature is a huge problem we in the Commonwealth don't have.

I mean, contrast what Bob Baer and Richard Tomlinson, ex-CIA and SIS respectively - went through to have their memoirs published. Baer? A CIA pre-read and the blacking out of certain words which are still sensitive. Tomlinson, a year in jail under the Official Secrets Act, plus none of the MI6 operatives in the book are referred to by name.

The simplest fact is the American people do NOT have a right to know everything, and there should be a clear and respected delineation between the public and State domain as far as information is concerned. Don't like that the Bush Admin might have passed through your bank account on the way to track terrorist money? Deal with it, and what you don't know won't hurt you. Having all these rights which people insist on wielding for the mere sake of having rights is the best way to hamstring government operations.

But, I digress.

When I say HUMINT - Bob Baer made the point about the CIA and it's fascination , and it can be expanded to include the Army et al - how does having advanced satellites or UAVs tell you what a terrorist is thinking. Can a soldier in uniform cultivate an asset with access to a terrorist cell, especially given how insular and family-based they are? Can you get a Predator drone, spy satellite or US soldier into a mosque to listen to the messages of hate?

No. The CIA Directorate of Operations field officer is the only one capable of that kind of collection. Of course, it's dangerous work. Field officers in any intelligence agency are required to cut off their past life, start anew. There's rarely anything of value to be learned from embassy cocktail parties in the post-Cold War world, so it's soul-destroying, tough field work where every friend and contact you make it made on the strength of their ability to provide you with product.

But it has to be done, and these guys are the front line int he war on terror, not the bloated US army. It didn't, nor couldn't, protect America from 9/11 or another 9/11. The CIA can.

You just need to ween Americans off the notion of having a right to everything under the sun, and make the CIA less transparent. Don't like it? Move to Canada.

EDIT: And whilst I am being facetious to the people who wail about civil libertees!!1! and fascism!!1! in that last part, the fact is they're spoiled stupid and have had it too long. There's a reason we use "need to know" in government, and it's a damned good reason. Now, my solution is probably unworkable because it asks people to give something up, and that works a treat - but I can't help but feel the openness of American society is hurting you in areas you cannot, should not, and MUST not be open.

Like I said, reporting on counterterrorism policies with regards to financal records? Try and pull that **** here or in Britain, you're censured by the Security service and told if you even breathe a word of this to anyone you're going to jail for some time on national security charges. Does it work? Well, tell me about Australian CT procedures, and how many terrorist attacks we've had.

E_S

 

I would agree that in the current War on Terror there is a legitimate need to create a less open society. On one hand you have the people who quote Franklin with the whole "he who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserves niether" which taken to its most literal meaning would become anarchy, where neither freedom or security could exist.

I just started a US Constitution History and Law class today (which is going to kick my butt) and the professor went into the whole Bush/Guantanamo thing. I think what has happened is that the Bush administration has gone around the Constitution to do the things that probably need to be done. There are probably a lot of things we could do to make us safer that are just not compatible with our history and traditions. That said, we can make our government more secret without compromising our values. Of course any intrusion into privacy will be met with cries of "Teh Hitler is c0ming!!"

 

Two points... first you say France and Germany were right about Iraq.... which I assume to mean about WMDs, however, Chirac had said this in October of 2002:

So at least Chirac was wrong too, he just weren't going to act against Iraq.

Also, after the war in Iraq, Libya came clean with its weapons programs and stopped them, so I'd think its not a guarantee that it would push the programs further, necessarily.

and Ender, no offense, but I don't think Australia is exactly a high profile target there. I mean, Australia was aimed at by the Bali bombings, but Australia lacks that many terribly recognisible targets, and is rather a small country really, compared to, say, England or Spain, with populations more than twice that of Australia. That the ANZAC bridge hasn't been blown up doesn't mean that one guy walking back and forth on it is working, just that no one is aiming for the ANZAC bridge. For example.

 

But you also don't know any better about Australia either, Lowbacca. On that, you gotta trust me.

E_S