Why the threat of terror is still so real.

[??????????]

Check this out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08plot.html?th

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[raggage]

Check this out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08plot.html?th

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. The threat is still real, if over-hyped.

[??????????]

Check this out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08plot.html?th

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. The threat is still real, if over-hyped.

So what is overhyped in your opinion?

[Niles Caulder]

It's important to remember that a common ploy of apprehended Al Qeada collaborators is to "confess" a phoney plot in order to get America to react to it, wasting time and resources that costs millions--and all it costs them is words.  The intelligence community has to really work hard to extract what's credible.  Tough job, and that if you're successful no one knows you even did it.

[??????????]

It's important to remember that a common ploy of apprehended Al Qeada collaborators is to "confess" a phoney plot in order to get America to react to it, wasting time and resources that costs millions--and all it costs them is words.  The intelligence community has to really work hard to extract what's credible.  Tough job, and that if you're successful no one knows you even did it.

I think we should have tougher methods to remove true information from terrorists. Water dunking is a good technique.

[Niles Caulder]

I think we should have tougher methods to remove true information from terrorists. Water dunking is a good technique.

Would you be content with American POWs being treated in the same fashion?

[??????????]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Here's how it is over-hyped:

(Story from Thursday's Hotline):
     From a release, Rep. Katherine Harris (R) told a crowd at a GOP fundraiser 8/2 that the U.S. has "literally defeated 100 (potential) terrorist attacks on this country" in the past 3 years.

Harris also said she recently talked to the mayor of Carmel, IN, who told her about a man of "Middle Eastern heritage" who had planned to blow up the "area's entire power-grid." But Harris "apparently made the Indiana story up completely" since "Carmel's mayor says there was no plot to blow up his city's grid" and local police chief said he didn't know where that information came from. When asked about the thwarted attacks, Harris said it was "classified" information.

A staff member at the House Permanent Select Cmte. on Intelligence says, "it's impossible to say how many attacks have been stopped." In addition, LaSalle Univ. prof. Ed Turzanski said that making such statements without providing specific details to back them up "only serves to erode public confidence" in the credibility of government.

DCCC Chair Bob Matsui: "By her own admission, Katherine Harris 'said too much' in terms of classified information at the Republican fundraiser. Her conduct here raises a serious question: did Ms. Harris inappropriately reveal classified information, or is her imagination getting the best of her in her effort to exploit terrorism for maximum partisan political advantage? Either way, she clearly has some explaining to do."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What I find funny is they people claim Clinton was so terrible at fighting terrorism, yet they claim to have thwarted 100s of attacks since 9/11.

Well they Clinton must've thwarted a hell of a lot of attacks too, since if 100s have been planned since 9/11, there must've been loads planned during his administration. And loads and loads didn't happen.

for the record, I don't think Clinton or Bush deserve any credit for thwarted terrorist attacks during their administrations, the FBI pretty much does it alone without any direct influence from the president.

[Niles Caulder]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

[??????????]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

[John Dibble]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

[Citizen James]

What I find funny is they people claim Clinton was so terrible at fighting terrorism, yet they claim to have thwarted 100s of attacks since 9/11.

Well they Clinton must've thwarted a hell of a lot of attacks too, since if 100s have been planned since 9/11, there must've been loads planned during his administration. And loads and loads didn't happen.

for the record, I don't think Clinton or Bush deserve any credit for thwarted terrorist attacks during their administrations, the FBI pretty much does it alone without any direct influence from the president.

Well, there was the millenium bomb plot.  A few places were closed as a precaution, but the attacks themselves were apperently thwarted.

[??????????]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.

[John Dibble]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.

Well, of course if we see them firing at soldiers it's pretty much automatically guilty, I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about those who are not captured on the field of battle, ones that are arrested under suspicion of collaborating with the enemy, but have yet to be proven to be.

[??????????]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.

Well, of course if we see them firing at soldiers it's pretty much automatically guilty, I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about those who are not captured on the field of battle, ones that are arrested under suspicion of collaborating with the enemy, but have yet to be proven to be.

How would you get information out of them? I have no problem with slapping them around a little bit or depriving them of sleep to get answers.

[John Dibble]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.

Well, of course if we see them firing at soldiers it's pretty much automatically guilty, I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about those who are not captured on the field of battle, ones that are arrested under suspicion of collaborating with the enemy, but have yet to be proven to be.

How would you get information out of them? I have no problem with slapping them around a little bit or depriving them of sleep to get answers.

And, if they are suspected, but actually innocent?

[??????????]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.

Well, of course if we see them firing at soldiers it's pretty much automatically guilty, I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about those who are not captured on the field of battle, ones that are arrested under suspicion of collaborating with the enemy, but have yet to be proven to be.

How would you get information out of them? I have no problem with slapping them around a little bit or depriving them of sleep to get answers.

And, if they are suspected, but actually innocent?

We apologize but we have to do what we have to do to win.

[John Dibble]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.

Well, of course if we see them firing at soldiers it's pretty much automatically guilty, I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about those who are not captured on the field of battle, ones that are arrested under suspicion of collaborating with the enemy, but have yet to be proven to be.

How would you get information out of them? I have no problem with slapping them around a little bit or depriving them of sleep to get answers.

And, if they are suspected, but actually innocent?

We apologize but we have to do what we have to do to win.

I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with an apology if you were tortured unjustly...

[raggage]

Check this out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08plot.html?th

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. The threat is still real, if over-hyped.

So what is overhyped in your opinion?

The terror alerts. I'm sick of getting an alert every two hours. Especially these 'blanket warnings'

It's fine when there is specific info, but right now the govt is just scaremongering.

[opebo]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.

Well, of course if we see them firing at soldiers it's pretty much automatically guilty, I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about those who are not captured on the field of battle, ones that are arrested under suspicion of collaborating with the enemy, but have yet to be proven to be.

How would you get information out of them? I have no problem with slapping them around a little bit or depriving them of sleep to get answers.

And, if they are suspected, but actually innocent?

We apologize but we have to do what we have to do to win.

I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with an apology if you were tortured unjustly...

Torture and arbitrary killings are a necessary part of every war.

[??????????]

Check this out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/08/politics/08plot.html?th

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. The threat is still real, if over-hyped.

So what is overhyped in your opinion?

The terror alerts. I'm sick of getting an alert every two hours. Especially these 'blanket warnings'

It's fine when there is specific info, but right now the govt is just scaremongering.

I don't remember being warned every 2 hours. They just captured a very credible animal who gave us detailed information on Al Qeada targets. I guess that info is vague, huh?

[John Dibble]

I would not be happy about it but I know nothing myself or any politician could do would stop it.

I disagree.  There are adversaries who understand the consequences of violating internationally recognized standards of prisoner treatment.  So long as the U.S. stands by those standards, many are intimidated into doing the same.  Not all, but many.  If we abandon those standards, we submit our fighting men and women to an old hell of war that we don't endure right now.  I just don't think it's worth it...and besides, the effectiveness of torture for the sake of information extraction is highly overestimated.

I would lean against it against organized armies but I think against thug terrorists they have no want to follow international law. We need to be brutal with them as they only understand violence.

Just remember, we need to prove them guilty of the crime before anything like that could be done. Asking them to confess before guilt is proven is fine, but torture, if necessary to be used, is reserved for the guilty.

If they fire one round at our soldiers I'd consider them automatically guilty. We can no win this war through the courts. These "people" only understand one thing, violence.

Well, of course if we see them firing at soldiers it's pretty much automatically guilty, I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about those who are not captured on the field of battle, ones that are arrested under suspicion of collaborating with the enemy, but have yet to be proven to be.

How would you get information out of them? I have no problem with slapping them around a little bit or depriving them of sleep to get answers.

And, if they are suspected, but actually innocent?

We apologize but we have to do what we have to do to win.

I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with an apology if you were tortured unjustly...

Torture and arbitrary killings are a necessary part of every war.

Tell me exactly why it is 'necessary'. I just don't get it. Why is it an absolute necessity for every war? We have the power to win a war without it. I'm not saying we should never do it(admittedly there are situations where torture would be needed), but torturing people who are innocent just because we suspect them(but can't prove our suspicions) of something sounds tyrannical to me, and there are alternative ways to gather information from the enemy.

And, just to ask, would you accept a mere apology for being tortured unjustly(you, being innnocent, but suspected, yet not proven guilty)? I doubt I would - I would either join the enemy, or if the enemy is scum I would start my own resistance. If I was merely arrested and confined, as well as being told why I was being arrested, I would be fine with it, but torture without proof will not get us anywhere. Torture tactics don't exactly make the enemy any more willing to surrender to you. I realize that war is a brutal, bloody struggle between foes, but torture is not always necessary.