A couple of days ago, over at Collective Sigh, Andante wrote about the Madrid bombings and their effect on the election in Spain:
Perhaps the message of the Spanish election is not a win for al Queda or a repudiation of the right-center policies, but a rejection of politicians who don the triumphalist armor, and attempt to manipulate events in their own favor.The voters certainly did not embrace al Queda or cave to it's demands - they rejected Aznar's alliance with George Bush and the war in Iraq and Aznar's apparently politically motivated attempts to pin the blame for the latest terrorist attack on ETA.
I think that Andante's take on the affair is definately worth noting. Events in the world these days, particularly when you start flinging the T-word around, become a lot more complex and nuanced than people would believe. The extremes on both sides tend to condense things down to quick sound bites. The right claims that terrorists are attacking us because they hate us for our freedoms; the left makes conspirational claims tying events like this to American special operations.
Both of these claims are, of course, idiotic, and examples of One True Cause-ism, which is a popular pastime among those who would prefer to spend time not thinking.
So are these bombings a victory for al-Qaeda, or ETA, whichever is responsible? Are they a victory for anyone at all? I have my ideas, but they're a bit unconventional.
There's a theory based out of Latin American terrorism ideologies of the sixties and seventies, and most recently (to me) noted in the Canadian press in a blistering rebuttal to Edward Luttwak (a brilliant military historian if a lousy political scientist), which implies that terrorist organizations want these militant governments, these Bushes and Aznars and Sharons, in office. The rationale is not to drive them out of one's home - in this case, Iraq and the Middle East in general - although that would be a pleasant upside.
Osama and his buddies are far from stupid, and no doubt know that they can't drive a hyperpower out of anyplace with a relatively small guerilla band. So what do you do? You provoke - both sides. The major terrorist attacks since 1998, cumulating in the September 2001 attacks, have infuriated the United States, which of course could not simply bolt from the Middle East over them. The result was in fact a tighter clampdown on affairs, the climax of which was not one but two wars which have not only created tremendous outrage in the Muslim and Arab world, but also at home in Europe and in the streets of the United States itself.
The result of this is that the United States - which, in my opinion, was at least partly justified in some of its actions under Bush's maladministration, although I'm hard-pressed to think of anything past the casus belli for the Afghan war - is finding itself spread thinner across the ground, with a shrinking pool of relevant allies (check the mighty members of the Coalition of the Willing sometime) and one of the more polarized political societies at home in years or decades. On top of all this, the territories occupied by Coalition troops, and those states bordering on them, are growing increasingly tense and violent.
Additional provocation - say, a major attack in Britain, or Canada, or again in the United States - would certainly earn an even more forceful response from the West. But what would the impact of this be? The new-and-yet-old theory on this sort of thing implies that provoking the target to greater acts of force is a good thing...
...because the West is, in return, provoking the very same people it is claiming to be liberating.
So we're stuck in a feedback loop here, in which there are two feasible options: one, military domination over most or all of the Muslim world (which is only marginally feasible), or (more likely) largescale multinational efforts against American foreign policy, driven by an Arab street which had finally had enough. Once things are pushed far enough, al-Qaeda will not be wanting for recruits, even doomed ones in the war that would imply.
However, to keep this sort of thing up, the power base of the enemy needs to be kept strong as well. You have to keep your own guys belittled, angry and oppressed, because you need that tension building up. Defeats for the Coalition or the West in general - say, a massive bombing spree in Madrid which brings down a major government and forces its withdrawal from Iraq, inspiring other countries like Italy to consider the same - would certainly come across as a significant victory for the pro-independence crowd.
Many of the extremists in the world - both those firing on Coalition vehicles and the more out-there antiwar protestors in the west - will see this as a defeat for the Coalition, therefore a victory for themselves. There will be joy and celebration, and that precious tension will be reduced. The Coalition will stay there, but its opponents will be merely optimistic, not necessarily driven by infuriated desperation.
And that, my friends, is a defeat for al-Qaeda. With the loss of Spanish support for the war, the ability of these more long-term terrorist plans to provoke their own people by proxy are being reduced. The best thing Osama and his fellows could hope for would be an even more nationalist Spanish government, riding upon the Martyrs of Madrid, stepping up the intensity of their actions in Iraq as the other Coalition nations goad their newly-blooded partner on.
This is, of course, also a defeat for the United States, who has lost their sixth-largest Coalition partner and is now spread a bit thinner on the ground, to say nothing of dealing with the diplomatic and domestic turmoil set off by the bombings and the election they helped shift.
So perhaps everyone lost out in this affair. Most certainly the unfortunate people in Madrid, many of whom will be recovering from their wounds for some time to come, did. But I believe that this attack backfired in most concievable ways. While it hurt American policy, it also hurt the long-term goals which are part and parcel of some of the deeply-rooted and surprisingly sophisticated ideologies of terrorist organizations aroudn the world.
Fortunately, I want both parties in this fight to be blunted. I need neither an American empire more explicit than this one is, nor a Huntingtonian Kulturkrieg hurled up between Islam and the West. My own wants for the future are a bit difficult to put into words, as - like most peoples' wishes - they're a bit more complex than sound-byte material.
Either way, the stalemate just got that much deeper, and anyone declaring victory out of this mess needs to look a bit further than their own noses.
Posted by zibblsnrt at March 17, 2004 08:41 AM
You've said it much better than I did....it's a self-defeating spiral of violence, and much to complex for those who can only think in terms of "victory" and "defeat".
Posted by: andante at March 17, 2004 08:55 PMIt's a victory for the terrorists, certainly. The spanish willingly gave them what they wanted in the hope that it would appease them.
Imagine how the planet would be now if the english in the battle britain had responsed this way.
Posted by: Andrew Wyatt at March 17, 2004 09:07 PM>>Many of the extremists in the world - both those firing on Coalition vehicles and the more out-there antiwar protestors in the west - will see this as a defeat for the Coalition, therefore a victory for themselves. There will be joy and celebration, and that precious tension will be reduced. The Coalition will stay there, but its opponents will be merely optimistic, not necessarily driven by infuriated desperation.
And that, my friends, is a defeat for al-Qaeda. With the loss of Spanish support for the war, the ability of these more long-term terrorist plans to provoke their own people by proxy are being reduced.
Under this this rationale, you could theoretically reduce ALL of this hatred against the west by pulling everyone out completely.
Yeah right, how many Westerners were in Afghanistan while the Taliban and Al Qaida were ruling? Not much hatred for Westerners, huh? Appeasement doesn't work. It never has. Not with Hitler and WW2, or ever. Just because you give the enemy everything they want doesn't stop them from attacking you.
Absolute victory IS possible to achieve. And you don't have to do it by imposing overbearing military conquest on the problem countries either; just look at Germany and Japan post WW2. Yes, it took years, but several countries are willing to hang in there in Afghanistan and Iraq for years; noone expected the Iraq problem to be magically solved within 1 year.
Sunday's Spanish elections is V.S. day for the terrorists - Victory over Spain. The terrorists changed the outcome of an election, and the Spanish government surrendered. Fortunately for us history guys, WW2 continued even after countries like France surrendered, and the rest of us will keep on fighting until we win.
Posted by: Kevin Siska at March 17, 2004 09:45 PMAppeasement did not work with Hitler and it will not work with terrorists.
Example:
A bully threatens to hit you for lunch money. You refuse. He hits you. You give in and give it to him. What will stop him from doing the same thing tomorrow, next week or next month?
Appeasing terrorists will only feed their 'modus operandi' and justify their violence against civilians.
It may not be popular to fight the good fight - but where do we draw the line?
Posted by: Sieged at March 17, 2004 09:56 PMWhy do analysts from the US claim that the Spanish voted the old government out to "appease" the terrorists? Isn't it possible that the truth is, as the people actually doing the voting explained, that they voted against a blantantly manipulative government that lead the country into a deeply unpopular war? From what I've read, the polls actually had the Party Popular (who lost) losing the election narrowly _before_ the attack, so it's hard to argue that the terrorists changed the result from the PP losing to the PP losing.
Posted by: Laird Popkin at March 17, 2004 09:58 PMThe Spanish didn't vote Socialist to "appease" the terrorists but because the Popular Party had loudly and decisively blamed the wrong guys for the bombing. It would be like the English party in power blaming Russia for the Battle of Britain and keeping it up after the first reports of planes with German markings reach the public. People would start to wonder if they were at all competent.
The problem is that the terrorists will think that the election result was their doing, and will be encouraged to repeat the experiment. The implied alternative in the comments I'm replying to is to pretend that an act of terrorism automatically disqualifies the opposing party to the current government. In my eye, allowing terrorism to so greatly change a nation's course truly is letting the terrorists win.
To all those making World War II comparisons, I'd like to hear why you aren't condemning the Popular Party for "appeasement" of Bush, who in acting as the aggressor and ignoring international agreements better fit the mold of Hitler in last year's war than Saddam did.
And to Kevin Siska: Rumsfeld and Cheney expected the Iraq problem to not exist and refused to listen to the State and Defense staff (Warrick, Shinseki, et al) who actually foresaw problems. For the first several months, they were saying that there were no problems and that the Iraqis were cheering US troops in the streets.
Posted by: Warrior Tang at March 17, 2004 10:23 PMyou've changed my mind Tang, you're right. Bush is acting as the aggressor..... just like FDR in WW2.
Posted by: marco at March 17, 2004 10:44 PMMarco, I hope you're aware that FDR was an isolationist and the US was the last of the major powers to join the party? If you want to keep going at questionable World War 2 analogies, I could point out how the Baghdad bombing and attempted assassination of Saddam a day before Bush's deadline and an hour before any declaration of hostilities was a suprise attack not unlike what finally dragged the US into that war.
You're probably stupid enough to cite September 11 in reply to this as if it were related to Iraq, so I'll head that off. Either that or you're just trolling, in which case I ask you to either contribute reasoned argument to the discussion or go back to k5.
Posted by: Warrior Tang at March 17, 2004 11:18 PM> they can't drive a hyperpower out of anyplace
The trick will be to turn the hyperpower against itself - that's how great empires end. A bunch of disaffected ex-English colonists drove the loyal brits out of America. Also, don't forget US experiences in Somalia, Iran and Vietnam. I don't think the conditions and timing are right, but if the west keeps propping up Saudi to siphon oil, and throwing the T-word around, then who knows? Especially if the US is perceived of as inflaming the Middle East situation.
> The rationale is not to drive them out of one's >home - in this case, Iraq and the Middle East in >general - although that would be a pleasant upside.
i think this may be far too gross a generalization. the middle east is fairly vast and to call it the home of terrorism is somewhat unfair
Posted by: ali asad lotia at March 18, 2004 05:26 AMIt's a victory for the terrorists, certainly. The spanish willingly gave them what they wanted in the hope that it would appease them.
Yeah, damn those cowardly Spaniards for dying in explosions! They should've been powerful and immortal like us unbending Americans!
Posted by: the Fourth Man at March 18, 2004 09:14 AMFollowing up on my snark:
What, exactly, did Spain "appease" with?
Pull their troops out of Iraq? Newsflash, geniuses: They haven't pulled out yet. You lot are howling like the Spanish troops are all on planes for home, and they're still there for at least another three months minimum. Funny, that.
Letting the terrorists get away with it? Guess what, guys? Spanish police are making arrests left and right! So much for getting away.
So where's the appeasement? Tell me, O Wise Ones.
Posted by: the Fourth Man at March 18, 2004 09:18 AM>>Letting the terrorists get away with it? Guess what, guys? Spanish police are making arrests left and right! So much for getting away.
So where's the appeasement? Tell me, O Wise Ones.
The terrorists could care less about a few arrests in Spain in return for 1500 troops pulling out of the war against terrorists in Iraq. First they need countries like Afghanistan and Iraq back, and then they can continue return to developing their training camps, personell forces, and weapon stockpiles.
The terrorists will gladly trade a few agents for a complete pullout.
Posted by: Kevin Siska at March 18, 2004 09:55 AMUpdate: Apparently the TERRORISTS view this as appeasement. They've declared a truce against Spain so that Spain can complete the terms of surrender (obviously they want Spain to withdraw from Iraq). Even if the Spanish don't think that they're appeasing the terrorists through their actions, the terrorists sure love it anyhow.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1079419743596
Posted by: Kevin Siska at March 18, 2004 10:33 AMDon't forget, O Siska, the other part of that charming little missive.
You know, the one where they support Bush over Kerry, because Kerry would assimilate their potential recruit pool?
Funny how you don't mention that one, isn't it?
Posted by: the Fourth Man at March 18, 2004 11:06 AMThere isn't that much I can say here that won't be redundant with Tang or #4, really. I would've commented sooner, but Reality reared its ugly head and I got to miss the best of the Slashdotting.
The majority of the comments show a common and somewhat damaged mindset about the entire long-term concept of the 'war.' Notions of appeasement and comparisons with World War II aside - both are hardly valid to this - folks seem to only be looking at this in a timescale of days or weeks, not years or generations. On the short term, yeah, we got our asses kicked. On the longer term, I think some of the senior terrorist planners - the guys who are actually thinking about what's going on a couple years down the road - are pulling hairs out.
To get pressure to the point where the US can be expelled from the Middle East will need a cornered-animal mentality. The worst thing for that is a sense of victory.
Now, to specific commenters:
Andrew - What I've said about appeasement applies here. Comparing the "War" on Terrorism to the Second World War makes about as much sense as comparing WWII to the War on Drugs, or the Cold War. It just doesn't work.
Marco - Same to you. Show me said headlines and I'll consider seeing 'em as real...
Kevin - Same to you. And no, absolute military victory isn't possible in this case, not without getting all Hungtintonian on the population and really making it a war on Islam, which will make what the US is up against now look like a walk in the park. You're also using classic black-and-white logic and rejecting any kinda nuance in this.
There are lines between Continuing On To Absolute Victory and Conceding Absolute Defeat, and the terrorists are quite open to the west doing either. The latter is obvious, and the former ties right in with what I'm talking about.
Do you think The Terrorists, apparent monolith that they are, hate us for our freedoms?
Sieged - Standard response to you as well. I draw the line at the Afghan war, which I do view as just; the Iraq one has nothing to do with the war on terrorism - or it didn't until we dragged it into the theatre.
Laird - Everything I've seen had the incumbent party just barely on the winning side before the election. However, the bombing turned the Iraq war into The Issue, which is gonna jerk the results around. Compare it with what happened in Taiwan today, where to my knowlege Chen was set to have a comfortable win...
basingwerk - Either turning it against itself or turning the areas under its hegemony against it will work. Remember, the British Empire finally fell in its entirety because of a combination of anti-imperialist settlement and the fact that it simply burned itself out over the twentieth century..
Ali - I apologize, I wasn't being clear there. I meant the home, alternately of Arabs or Muslims in general depending on the mindset - not of terrorism itself. Most of the modern terrorist groups evolved out of pan-Arab or pan-Islamic organizations in the fifties and sixties, which wanted all Western powers out of all countries they saw as part of their home overall.
Anon. - Your pizza's late. I ain't paying.
Kevin again - Wow, I wasn't aware THE TERRORISTS were a single monolithic organization. I'm sure al-Qaeda is responsible for today's antiwar protests? Incidentally, the URL you've given has slipped into FT's subscription-only zone, so it's no longer visible.
Posted by: Zibblsnrt at March 20, 2004 06:36 PM>>Incidentally, the URL you've given has slipped into FT's subscription-only zone, so it's no longer visible.
Okay, well you can either do a Google search with the keywords "Spain" and "truce" right now, or here's another link:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.qaida18mar18,0,5793935.story?coll=bal-iraq-headlines
And a snippet:
"CAIRO, Egypt - The Islamic militant group that claimed responsibility for last week's Madrid train bombings has called a truce with Spain to give the new government time to withdraw troops from Iraq, a London-based Arabic-language newspaper said yesterday.
The daily Al Hayat said it received a statement from the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, which had said earlier that it orchestrated the bombings to punish Spain for supporting the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The blasts killed 201 people."
I'm sure you get the idea.
>>You're also using classic black-and-white logic and rejecting any kinda nuance in this.
Personally I DO believe in black-and-white logic, especially when it comes to morality. I think that it IS possible to make decisions based on right and wrong, good and evil, fact and fiction. If my conclusions can only be criticized for leading to good and right morality, so be it.
>>There are lines between Continuing On To Absolute Victory and Conceding Absolute Defeat
I'm unable to think of any lasting peace that resulted from something other than Absolute Victory and Defeat. WW2 was an absolute victory, and peace ensued with both Japan and West Germany. The Cold War was a Shade of Grey, and spawned countless conflicts and lesser wars, leading to many many deaths, until the Communists were defeated by the collapse of East Germany and the Soviet Union. Vietnam ended with the U.S. pulling its forces out, and the North was able to take over the entire country, expelling freedom and democracy entirely. The 1991 Gulf War didn't result in a lasting peace; Bill Clinton launched airstrikes and cruise missiles constantly into Iraq. Kosovo is flaring up again. Isreal & Palestine was never solved, and the bloodshed continues to this day. I dread what will eventually and inevitably happen someday between China and Taiwan. About the only stalemate that I can think of is North Korea. A small army is stationed between their boarders, just to hold back one of the poorest nations on earth from invading South Korea. Not that this is going to be a stalemate forever or a lasting peace; the North Korea issue continues to this day, with the North violating International Nuclear agreements and developing their own atomic weapons, much to the dismay of everyone in the civilized world. Such a high price to pay for an unresolved issue.
I don't see where the Shades of Grey have succeeded. I don't see where anything short of Absolute Victory has solved the problem on a long term basis. Terrorism, too, must be solved on a permanent, long-term, Total Victory basis if we are going to attempt to stamp it out once and for all.
>>Do you think The Terrorists, apparent monolith that they are, hate us for our freedoms?
Yes! They hate freedom. They hate democracy. They can't control people if there is freedom and democracy. They can't impose their "religious" laws and force women into burkas if there's freedom. They can't cut the ears and tounges off of political dissidents if there's freedom. They'll never build their presidential palaces, or massive armies, or statues of themselves if there's freedom. To these terrorists... Freedom is the ultimate enemy.
>>Wow, I wasn't aware THE TERRORISTS were a single monolithic organization. I'm sure al-Qaeda is responsible for today's antiwar protests?
While it's not monolithic, they definitely have their connections between each other. Even moreso now than before 9/11, these terrorists are becoming more and more interconnected. But most importantly, their goals and motives are the same: they hate freedom, they hate democracy, they want to defeat the West, and impose their own brand of (in Islamic terrorists' case) fundamental Islamic law/despotism onto as many people as they can possibly control.
As such, I don't particularly care to differentiate between them. A terrorist in Isreal wants to kill people; a terrorist in Spain wants to kill people; a terrorist in Iraq wants to kill people; the terrorists anywhere and everywhere want to kill and main until their opponents surrender, so that they can carve out their own little fiefdom from which they rule and grow and corrupt yet more of the civilized world.
Posted by: Kevin Siska at March 21, 2004 02:25 PMThey can't control people if there is freedom and democracy.
They can't impose their "religious" laws and force women into burkas if there's freedom.
They can't cut the ears and tounges off of political dissidents if there's freedom.
Sebastin: try staying on the topic of Terrorists and the Spanish response.
Really quick tho, you are part of the moral equivalency problem. Quotes like this from the first link:
""We haven't seen abuses in our community here, but we feel the threat. Muslims everywhere have to be very careful, even though we don't do anything wrong. This used to be a free country. Now, it's the same as every other oppressed place," said Badat, a former motel owner from Voorhees."
There is no oppression of freedom in the United States, despite the Patriot Act or anything else. No human rights abuses, noone being jailed for being a political dissident, and noone being jailed for their religion. I find it outrageous that you can criticize the US when there's so many other countries where abuses exist, and you try to compare us to them. If it didn't contradict our principles of freedom, people like you ought to be forced to live in China or North Korea or Cuba or Saudi Arabia for a year or two, just to see what REAL lack of freedoms are like, to set your head straight. The United States is not lacking in freedom.
Posted by: Kevin Siska at March 21, 2004 07:57 PMThe very existence of the Patriot Act in the US - the fact that its existence was responded to by anything other than outrage, protests and gunfire - is proof of political oppression in the United States.
The current administration coined the concept of First Amendment Zones for Chrissakes. They declared that there are spots in which the First Amendment does not apply, on public and private property. You know, picking and choosing where one of your most fundamental rights apply? Last I heard that counts as a revocation of freedom.
There are politicians right now who are trying to regress to criminalizing, segregating, or persecuting people for being black or gay, who belong to a religion other than Christianity, or who express opinions outside of a narrow range on the left. Hell, twelve Congressmen recently proposed to eliminate judicial review so they could make it easier to roll back civil rights rulings. Try being openly Muslim in the United States today, I dare ya.
If you truly believe that the United States is a country of absolute freedom beyond that of the rest of the world's nations, then all you're saying to me is that you haven't personally been bitten in the ass by the reality of its system yet. Your house is truly made of glass, and you'd be wise to take a look at something other than Freerepublic or FOX News before claiming to have an informed opinion of what's going on out there.
First, they came for the Jews...
Posted by: Zibblsnrt at March 21, 2004 08:29 PM>>The current administration coined the concept of First Amendment Zones for Chrissakes. They declared that there are spots in which the First Amendment does not apply, on public and private property.
Actually, this is false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_Zone
First amendment zones were created specifially to ALLOW anyone, especially protesters, a place where they can say whatever they want. They are not a place where free speech is prohibited. The current administration has used them as a place for protesters, while they conduct an event elsewhere. Remember also that the First Admendment doesn't exactly apply to private property. The owner(s) of private property are not required to allow anyone to say whatever they want; only the government is restricted under the First Amendment from prohibiting free speech, but individuals may restrict free speech on their property as they so choose. Such is the case even on private property that is open to the public. For example, you can't invade a movie theatre and stand up and start protesting during the performace. Despite the First Amendment, they can kick you out! If you want to protest, you'll have to go do it outside, on public property (the street). The First Amendment does not give you the right to disrupt an event in the United States.
And this has nothing to do with Patriot Act.
Posted by: Kevin Siska at March 23, 2004 02:13 PMFor starters, I can think of more reliable sources of information than Wikipedia, which is a step or two above Indymedia for anything vaguely political but that's about it. I've glanced through the site enough over the past while for one purpose or another to learn to dismiss its content out of hand.
And yes, the First Amendment Zones are ostensibly an area in which people have the right to practice their free speech rights. Too bad they have that right everywhere in the United States, particularly with regard to protesting the actions of the government. The government does not have the right to say when and where the First Amendment applies, as Said amendment rather explicitly states.
Oh, and FAZs are always set up in public spaces anyway, and not across their entirety. Wherever "President" Bush walks, there is a bubble just big enough to cover what he can see in which the First Amendment does not exist - whether he's on public or private property at the time. No other president has ever acted with such cowardice or fear of public opinion, and few have acted in such a flagrantly treasonous matter by prohibiting peaceful protest as the current critter has.
And I never implied FAZs have anything to do with the Patriot Act. The main connection is that, like the Patriot Act, the concept of government-mandated First Amendment Zones is an abomination in the eyes of the freedoms you claim to support, and are just one of any number of proofs of the declining civil rights situation in the country which you claim is the freest on Earth.
I suppose, in the eyes of some, if the terrorists do hate us for our freedoms, the simplest solution is to do away with freedom one pseudo-reasonable snip at a time. I prefer Franklin's perspective on the issue, myself.
Posted by: Zibblsnrt at March 23, 2004 06:49 PM>>And yes, the First Amendment Zones are ostensibly an area in which people have the right to practice their free speech rights. Too bad they have that right everywhere in the United States, particularly with regard to protesting the actions of the government. The government does not have the right to say when and where the First Amendment applies, as Said amendment rather explicitly states.
Well, I'm glad you can admit your mistake with the first sentence. And you're right that people do have a right to free speech. But no, they don't have the right to express themselves anywhere or anytime. This includes events being held on public property by government officials. Event organizers are allowed to invite supporters, interested but respectful neutral parties and bystanders, and can choose to disallow noisy disrupting protesters. It's much the same as a movie theater can choose set rules and kick you out if you're too loud. The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to disrupt the events of other people.
So event organizers DO have the right to govern the speech that will be conducted at the event. If President Bush steps out of his car and onto an event friendly to him, opponents do not have the right to mob and crash the event. They can organize their own event, or they can even protest in some nearby public area, but they don't have the right to be seen at any particular event.
Moreover, there is also a safety concern, especially in today's age of the rent-a-mob. Courts have upheld that the police can move protesters elsewhere to uphold order and safety. The First Amendment does not override this.
Finally:
>>And I never implied FAZs have anything to do with the Patriot Act. The main connection is that, like the Patriot Act, the concept of government-mandated First Amendment Zones is an abomination in the eyes of the freedoms you claim to support, and are just one of any number of proofs of the declining civil rights situation in the country which you claim is the freest on Earth.
I challenge you to name anyone falsely convicted in the United States, as a result of the Patriot Act. Or anyone jailed for their religious beleifs, their race, or sexuality on account of the Patriot Act. In fact, many of the elements of the Patriot Act that the conspiracy theorists worry about haven't even been used in a single instance. The provision that investigators could search people's library records was one. Certain wacko elements figured that the government was going to constantly keep track of what everyone was reading, until it was revealed last year that it hasn't been used a single time.
So again, I challenge you to name any instance of abuse under the Patriot Act, or any security laws passed since 9-11.
Posted by: Kevin Siska at March 24, 2004 12:50 AM