Posted on 09/28/2001 1:36:14 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
Is the aim of this war to "control dissent and sustain dictatorship by nurturing popular fear and hatred". I don't see much evidence of that. President Bush did not lash out blindly at imagined enemies. Instead, he seems to be moving forward at a prudent pace. Nor did he incite the public to fear or hatred. President and Mrs Bush made a point of discouraging ethnic hostility against Arab Americans and American Muslims.
The writer is too quick to criticise. He should wait to see how things work out.
Friday, 28 September, 2001
BBC News
Bush toughening laws to fight terrorism
By BBC News Online's Alfred Hermida
Hackers could be labelled as dangerous terrorists under new legislation being proposed by the Bush administration, civil liberties groups have warned.
A relatively harmless online prankster should not face a potential life sentence in prison
The Anti-Terrorism Act adds computer hacking to the list of federal terrorism offences, with penalties of up to life imprisonment.
"Treating low-level computer crimes as terrorist acts is not an appropriate response to recent events," said Shari Steele, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based cyber civil liberties group.
The new bill, which would expand law enforcement's freedom to catch and punish terrorists, was put forward by US Attorney General John Ashcroft following the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington. As well as making hacking a terrorist offence, it would create penalties of up to life imprisonment, adding broad pre-conviction seizure powers and serious criminal threats to those who help or shelter individuals suspected of causing minimal damage to networked computers.
"A relatively harmless online prankster should not face a potential life sentence in prison," said the EFF's Shari Steele.
The bill also eliminates the statute of limitations for terrorist crimes and will apply retroactively.
This could affect past hackers and virus writers, who might have otherwise received just a warning or a relatively minor penalty.
Civil liberties groups are concerned that the legislation is being rushed through, without adequate debate on its impact on both security and personal freedoms.
"Congress must take every reasonable step it can to protect our nation against future attacks," said Laura W Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"The civil liberties we value so much as a society are at stake. We urge you to go slowly," she said.
Officials and academics have warned that cyber attacks could be a dangerous part of warfare against the US.
The potential exists for much more devastating cyber attacks following any US-led retaliation to the 11 September terrorist attacks on America
"The vast majority of previous politically related cyber attacks have been nuisance attacks, and it is extremely likely that such attacks will follow any US-led military action," said a recent report by the US-based Institute for Security Technology Studies.
It added that, "the potential exists for much more devastating cyber attacks following any US-led retaliation to the 11 September terrorist attacks on America. Such an attack could significantly debilitate US and allied information networks".
Backers of the Anti-Terrorism Act argue the bill is not aimed at teenage hackers. The clause is one of the many points of the legislation currently under discussion between the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Bush administration.
_____________________________________________________
In other words, he sits home all day watching Oprah and waiting to be offended. Probably lives on welfare in his mother's house.
Long enough to judge how well the administration is dealing with the problem. It would depend on future events.
And, if nothing changes, what then?
I've noticed that always something changes, though waiting may test one's patience.
No right or wrong answer, just wondering of your opinion.
If I thought Bush was handling this wrong I'd say so. But it's really too early for me to judge.
Jacob Levich (jlevich@earthlink.net) is a writer, editor, and activist living in Queens, New York Tells you about all you need to know. Just another peace-loving Communist.
Ever actually READ 1984, bonehead? I didn't think so.
Okay, you asked:
"WAR IS PEACE. A reckless war…"
There's no evidence that it's reckless.
"… will likely bring about a deadly cycle of retaliation"
Unproven speculation.
"…is being sold to us as the means to guarantee our safety…"
I'm not aware of anyone mentioning "guarantees"
" Meanwhile, we've been instructed to accept the permanent war as a fact of daily life."
I'm not aware of anyone on office claiming it will be "permanent"
"As the inevitable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas."
We have a history of killing less "innocents" than any other nation in retaliation for aggression. I have not doubt that will continue as a goal.
" FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. "Freedom itself is under attack," Bush said, and he's right. Americans are about to lose many of their most cherished liberties in a frenzy of paranoid legislation."
A certain amout of civil discipline must absolutely be practiced by a nation in pursuit of military objectives.
"The government proposes to tap our phones, read our email and seize our credit card records without court order. It seeks authority to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial. It proposes to use foreign agents to spy on American citizens. To save freedom, the warmongers intend to destroy it. "
Exaggerated and one sided. "The government" has yet to decide on their extent or duration.
"IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. America's "new war" against terrorism will be fought with unprecedented secrecy, including heavy press restrictions not seen for years, the Pentagon has advised. "
Of course, there hasn't been a war "for years".
" Meanwhile, the sorry history of American imperialism -- collaboration with terrorists, bloody proxy wars against civilians, forcible replacement of democratic governments with corrupt dictatorships -- is strictly off-limits to mainstream media. "
I have know idea what the author's referring to. He can write about any of that as much as he wishes.
" Lest it weaken our resolve, we are not to be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying crimes of September 11.
Perhaps he's just upset that no one wants to read or publish his misunderstanding of the reasons.
The author writes like a college freshmen. He's a pushover to defeat, and I can't believe that anyone earns a living composing crap like that.
No one considered it worth wasting time on. I had a moment. See my thread just above this.
Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.
OK KG9, I will not shoot at you, but to the author of this email I say:
I like cheese.
I don’t think we don't share the same definition of "evil". You sound like a nut case.
When an FSE calls for checkpoints for DUI, seat belts, drugs, it's not a violation of our civil rights but "for our own good." Yet when a conservative asks us to be patient in a time of crisis and be willing to sacrifice, they are accused of being Orwellian!
I can take flaming, but please, everyone, if you are about to flame me, I beg you to at least spare me the irony of calling me a Leftist, or a Liberal, or anything that belongs in that zoo. I merely object to the open-ended nature of America's reaction. I don't look forward to the ugly results.
Okay, no flames. But what's a good alternative. "A war on these 18 terrorist organizations and any more that we come across in the process"? "A war on the 7 most terrorist friendly states"?
The nation needs a jungle, trite as it is, to jell our actions in the minds of a TV numbed populace. I think that by the time your point's clear to every couch potato, the worst of the terrorist organizations will have been on the run for so long that they'll probably never recover and some sense of victory will be clear.
I think that the issues surrounding the term, "war on terrorism" are simply representative of the ambiguity of the endeavor itself. The president's challenge is to keep us focused enough to persevere.
As the inevitable slaughter of innocents unfolds overseas, we are to "live our lives and hug our children."
including heavy press restrictions not seen for years.....we are not to be allowed to understand the reasons underlying the horrifying crimes of September 11.
What 'slaughter of the innocents' does he mean, and what does the author propose we do instead, if not 'live our lives'?
Press restrictions, ensuring that the 'press' can't explain to us the underlying reasons for this crime? (There are none.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.