[IP] more on Who they're spying on

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ross Stapleton-Gray <ross@stapleton-gray.com>
Date: June 8, 2006 2:26:52 PM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Who they're spying on

At 10:57 AM 6/8/2006, Hiawatha Bray wrote:
> It doesn't make the slightest difference who's in the White House, or
> who's in control of Congress.  Fanatic Islamic terrorists will keep  
> right on
> trying to kill us, as they are trying to murder Canadians,  
> Indonesians,
> Frenchmen, Filipinos, Spaniards, Sudanese, Somalis, and pretty much
> anyone else who rejects their vision of the world.

Step back, Hiawatha, and ask yourself if the threat of "fanatic  
Islamic terrorists" could possibly justify the immense expenditure of  
public wealth, and surrender of civil liberties, that we've already  
seen.  And try to put a realistic value on this threat.  My wife and  
I just spent two days in Yosemite, staying at a little B&B some 40  
miles or so outside the park, near Miraposa... pretty much as far  
from anywhere as you might want to get.  And there was a Homeland  
Security-promotional steel sign tacked up on a tree along the dirt  
road to the B&B, and an "Osama bin Laden - wanted dead or alive"  
poster in a little gas station.  I think it's a measure of the  
extreme hysteria that we (and when I mean we, I mean our elected  
leaders) have managed to whip up.  There's a vastly greater threat to  
these folks from deer ticks.

> The Clinton era gave us a
> series of brutal islamic terror attacks on US interests, including the
> first WTC bombing.  And when Bush is gone, Muslim fanatics will  
> continue
> trying to kill Americans.  No matter who you vote for, the problem  
> isn't
> going away.  So we'd better think seriously about the best ways to
> defend our country.

I think various list contributors have suggested that spending  
hundreds of billions to effectively *incline* more people to dislike  
us (not to mention weaken our social and economic status, hence  
leverage, in the world) ain't the way to do it.  The problem isn't  
going away, because current U.S. policies are exacerbating it.

> We're up against murderers who use sophisticated covert tactics,
> designed to let them hide their activities and intentions until  
> they strike.
> They rely upon the free institutions of liberal societies to help  
> them in
> this. Therefore, many of their activities cannot be prevented by
> traditional law enforcement techniques, which are rightly  
> constrained by rules that set
> firm limits on police power.

Wait, wait... why should law enforcement techniques be constrained by  
rules?  Why do you hate law and order so much?  The threat to my  
wellbeing from criminal violence vastly exceeds that from  
terrorism... why should we handcuff the police, when they could by  
"new tactics beyond those normally used by police organizations,"  
more readily identify and "neutralize" said criminals?

> Fighting such people, therefore, requires the use of new tactics  
> beyond
> those normally used by police organizations.  Yet these tactics can  
> also
> erode the liberty and privacy rights which we take for granted.  How
> do we strike the right balance?

I don't think we ought to have changed a thing, re use of the  
military and law enforcement.  There are lots of tools on the shelf;  
the current administration picked those most attractive to its  
interests (and many on the "not really legal" shelf), which include  
enhancing the ability of the U.S. to act unilaterally internationally  
at any cost, which I think we'll be regretting for decades.

> I'd have thought that a listserv like this one, crammed with serious
> thinkers, might address the matter seriously.  If the members believe
> that the current approach is all wrong, they could do us all a lot  
> of good by
> laying out an alternative plan.  I hoped my post would inspire just
> such a discussion.

An alternative, better plan, would have been to (1) not invade Iraq,  
which has cost us hundreds of billions already; and (2) made more  
friends and allies among foreign governments, which would have done  
vastly more to incline foreign populations to reject, rather than  
harbor, individuals and organizations whose existence would make  
*their* lives less stable, productive and pleasant.  Imagine if we'd  
instead spent $100B on Fulbright scholarships to students from  
Islamic countries, microloans a la Grameen Bank, and Arabic (and  
Chinese) language instruction in U.S. schools.

And I really don't think we need police powers beyond those we've  
used to successfully break the back of the Mafia in the U.S.;  
spending *more* on police, sure.  Though I'd think we'd get more bang  
from the buck directing the new resources at youth gangs,  
incarceration reform (e.g., ensuring that prisons are more corrective  
than breeding pools for permanent criminals), and pre-emptive  
education.  Some 3,000 or so individuals died on 9/11 (in the  
attacks, in the U.S... I daresay many more died worldwide of  
preventable diseases on the same day, and every day since)...  
spending hundreds of billions to "up armor" the U.S. against a repeat  
of that (and ignoring many better ways to reduce the efficacy of  
terrorists) is just really, really bad math, and public policy.

Ross





----
Ross Stapleton-Gray, Ph.D.
Stapleton-Gray & Associates, Inc.
http://www.stapleton-gray.com
http://www.sortingdoor.com





-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/