2003.02.14: Thoughts and links on war and security
Tom Friedman is doing some good thinking in his article A War for Oil? I don't agree with him everywhere, but he has some keen analysis and observation going on there.
And to re-iterate my position: I tentatively support war against Saddam, but I do not support our Administration's reasons (neither the stated reasons, nor the suspected reasons) for going to war.
Oh, and this article starts off too extreme...until you finish reading the artile and realize that "too extreme" is "just about right". I don't like the idea of anyone (including the government) having "total information awareness". I downright hate the idea of anyone having "total information awareness" without public oversight. And the plan of designating US citizens as "enemy combatants" in order to circumvent constitutional rights is brilliant in the "evil genius" kind of way.
Surely there must be a way to increase security without heading towards totalitarianism (i.e. ubiquitous surveillance, the power to imprison without due process, and no public oversight). I understand the totalitarianism is the easiest way to achieve security. I know that I'm asking the police/FBI/NSA/etc to do the nearly impossible. But I never promised that their job would be easy, did I?
The best that I can come up with (and this isn't all that great) is to have ubiquitous surveillance, and totally public oversight. All information collected is released to the public. Nothing is held back. All actions taken, and the reasons for them, are also made public. The gap between collection of information and its release to the public is short: long enough for the law enforcement agents to use it without giving their quarry a heads up, but not long enough to allow those in power to abuse it too badly. Say a week. Make everything accountable to the public. That way an agent can't decide that his ex is a terrorist and throw her in jail for a week without repercussions.
It would suck. There would be security at the cost of privacy. But it doesn't lead to totalitarianism because there is accountability. Public oversight.
Of course, given the way the administration is going, even that won't happen any time soon.
syndromes says:
Hmm. My libertarian tendencies are adamantly anti-big brother. My only real concern is if it is doable, or just a utopian ideal for which the realistic implementation of would fall far short of the intent.
I don't know if i'm so pro-whatever that i'd be willing to "go down with the ship" so to speak on it. I mean, if being hardcore personal rights meant that we got taken over by red-china for example, would succumbing to (temporary?) totalitarianism just be the lesser of two evils? *shrug*
It's a difficult situation.
More directly related to Iraq, I questioned going to war originally. But most people would agree that *if* Sadam has nukes, he *will* try to attack the US with them at some point. Do we wait for him to nuke a city before we react? I wish I had a more definitive view... If so many lives weren't at stake, i'd be much more willing to let him invade or directly attack the US, giving us "just" grounds to retaliate if needed. But watching someone else take the bullet, open the chamber, cock the hammer, and point the gun at you... Are you supposed to just sit there and let them actually shoot you before you take action?
I'm rambling, but as you can see, i'm quite confuzed :) All in all, I say we go in and take him out.
According to a lot of Art Bell remote viewers/psychics, this is all the beginning of the 3rd great war in which red-china invades the US, the capitol of our country gets moved to Denver in the process, and not until 2040 or 2050 do we come out the other end of this. It's interesting listening, if not a tad scary.
Sorry for ranting, but this war shit freaks the crap outta me :/
syndromes says:
Whoa, re-reading that I sound like 80x more of a freak than I am.
I'm not one of those crazy militia-men that lives in Tennessee or wherever, I swear :)
(and i still can't spell worth a damn)
Add A New Comment