June 10, 2002

5:54 PM

More pedestrians died in traffic accidents in the US in the year 2000 than all of the people who died in the terrorist attacks on 9/11. 10 times the number of people killed in 9/11 attacks died due to motor vehicle attacks that same year. And yet some say the US government is on a course that will take away many of our civil rights in order to protect us from the boogie-monster terrorists. OF COURSE, the terrorist attacks were a horrible nightmare, and of course we want our police forces to prevent even worse attacks in the future, but before we start thinking about creating a Brave New Police State, maybe now is a good time to have a little perspective.
posted by crunchland (66 comments total)

er... motor vehicle accidents, not attacks.
posted by crunchland at 5:59 PM on June 10, 2002

Wow, 1980 was dangerous! Almost every stat on that page was 60-100% higher in 1980 than 1999 or 2000. Thank goodness the government put in place better safety regulations.
posted by smackfu at 6:11 PM on June 10, 2002

And in other non-news, more Europeans were killed by the Black Plague than by Hitler.

What are you getting at? That traffic accidents are equivalent to murder? And-yet again- you present the ridiculous "WE'RE LIVING IN A POLICE STATE! MY PRECIOUS FREEDOMS ARE BEING SHUNTED!" meme. What evidence of oppression can you present to us? The sheer fact that you are able to make such a vague, poorly constructed post with nothing to back up your little assertion besides a link to a German data table about traffic accidents two years ago reassures me that the first amendment protections for all speech, juvenile or otherwise, are quite intact. I'd be more worried about repercussions from the Attorney General of Metafilter deleting your post for breaking the guidelines on several counts.

If you want to make posts like this, get your own weblog.

Ignoratio elenchi.
posted by evanizer at 6:13 PM on June 10, 2002

Scathing, evanizer. Nice.
posted by dopamine at 6:21 PM on June 10, 2002

Actually, I'd be quite willing to call a whole bunch of traffic accidents are nothing more or less than murder.

Drunk drivers, for starters, are no less than outright murderers.

Many -- nay, most -- traffic "accidents" aren't accidental at all: they were wholly predictable, wholly preventable, and are wholly the fault of some lazy, stupid, or careless driver. Prosecute 'em as murderers, I say.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:31 PM on June 10, 2002

It's pretty hard to get any perspective at all what with all the yelling. I have an idea! Let's all hate each other for thinking differently. Let's get to the point that the very sound of other's voices, looks on other's faces makes us so nauseous we puke and dry heave until our anuses hang from our teeth. And then we'll see the real enemies for who they are. Us. Us, because we can't even manage to be civil on an internet message board.
posted by crasspastor at 6:37 PM on June 10, 2002

Truly, crunchland has made this hard to discuss. And evanzier has made it even harder (but in an oh so elegant way). But it is true that people are much more worried about things that have no chance of happening than they are worried about things that have a high probability (relatively) of occuring.

It drives economists crazy. Because it shows that the Fundamental PremiseTM of economics, that "people are generally rational", is well, totally bogus.

I don't know what to do about it -- and I suspect neither does crunchland. nor evanzier.

But it is worth pointing out because it sure is effecting the way we run our country these days. And we need to be sure that we're at least paying attention when government officials make what appear to be reasonable decisions, which actually prove to be totally irrational.

Makes me think of an argument I heard about September 11. The death of those 3,000 people, which is pretty bad for them, and for their families and friends, needs to be, by economic theory weighed against the freedoms, both individual and collective, that all the 259.99 million of us who were not killed have had in the last era. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the goods outweigh the bads, but we have to at least look at the "goods" brought about by a free and open society, where we don't (or didn't) arrest citizens for traveling around the U.S.
posted by zpousman at 6:40 PM on June 10, 2002

i just saw attack of the clones at mcclurg and thought it was pretty good. like it made me think about how jar-jar just handed over the republic to chancellor palpatine. insidious... or should i say darth insidious!

i agree that the money spent on homeland security could ironically make the 'homeland' or whatever less secure. like i understand it's politically expedient and that a lot of (good?) stuff can get passed under the rubric of security, but i also think it might be better spent specifically on healthcare, education, R&D, traffic safety etc. because it arguably would have a greater impact on providing for the general welfare.

i mean obviously the common defense isn't working too well, but i think it's far from clear that throwing money at it and creating a new cabinet level position is the solution. it is a pretty good sign of expanding government a la johnsonian great society programs (except of course its homeland security this time) though.

ostensibly it may make people feel safer that SOMETHING IS BEING DONE and WE ARE CAPTURING TERRORISTS. but from a civic standpoint, like you point out, it might not be all that great if we're locking people up indefinately without due process, or from an economic standpoint the cost is too high (deficit spending, crowding out, etc). if it's not balanced correctly society, overall, will suffer.

also is it bogey or boogie? just wonderin' :)
posted by kliuless at 6:46 PM on June 10, 2002

It's not about civility, crass. I do apologise if i sounded a bit harsh, but I'm just tired of everyone crying wolf about civil liberties. It's lazy thinking and it's using this site in a way that it isn't intended. The link is to a boring table of data about traffic accidents. crunchland then goes on to compare (admittedly terrible) traffic-related deaths to the wholesale murder of thousands of people on September 11, the disruption of the entire life of our nation and the destruction of billions of dollars in property by a murderous group of extra-national religious fuckwits. I find that comparison disingenuous and offensive. Then he goes on to make a speech about some perceived threat to civil liberties, accusations of a forming police state, and then exhorts us to have perspective? Sorry, but this does not compute. If the link was to one or more well-reasoned articles making a thorough attempt to make this point, I'd still argue with the premise of the articles, but it would be a valid post following the guidelines and spirit of this place. Using Metafilter to basically make a thin opinion post is just not cool.
posted by evanizer at 6:47 PM on June 10, 2002

It seems kind of strange to compare traffic related deaths with the 9/11 deaths. I mean, it's not like we get to choose one or the other. Those 3000 deaths happened in addition to the traffic related deaths. To compare the figures on a purely numerical basis just seems odd to me.
posted by Kafkaesque at 6:50 PM on June 10, 2002

Well, bogey man is the british version as far as I know. Bogeys are also boogers and those funny blips on radar that are, in fact, aliens come to scope out your insides for perfectly good reasons.
posted by Kafkaesque at 6:51 PM on June 10, 2002

Hmm...let's examine this more closely, shall we?

Population of US: 280 million
Pedestrian Fatalities (2000): 4739
Ratio: 1 in every 59084

Population of GB: 59 million - source
Pedestrian Fatalities (2000): 889
Ratio: 1 in every 66366

Population of Canada: 31 million - source
Pedestrian Fatalities (2000): 417
Ratio: 1 in every 74340

Population of France: 60.4 million - source
Pedestrian Fatalities (2000): 932
Ratio: 1 in every 64806

Population of Spain: 40 million - source
Pedestrian Fatalities: 898
Ratio: 1 in every 44543

Note to self: crunchland is an alarmist. Ignore him.
posted by BlueTrain at 6:58 PM on June 10, 2002

It's pretty hard to get any perspective at all what with all the yelling. I have an idea! Let's all hate each other for thinking differently...And then we'll see the real enemies for who they are. Us. Us, because we can't even manage to be civil on an internet message board.

Thank you for that insight.

Childish and inappropriate conflict seen on a daily basis here in this little odd corner of cyberspace...the inability to take a few minutes longer on our journeys in order to be more careful about pedestrians and other drivers...the selfishness and greed of our daily lives...dropping bombs on civilians...flying jetliners into skyscrapers.

These are acts of people. Warfare begins in each heart. Perhaps an awareness of its presence, so much like the warning pains brought on by the secret clot deep in our chest, will one day bring an end to the killing on our highways, in the skies over New York and Israel and Afghanistan and India and Pakistan and Palestine, and in our own hearts.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:00 PM on June 10, 2002

What is the estimate on yearly deaths from smoking?
posted by Postroad at 7:00 PM on June 10, 2002

Hmm...let's examine this more closely, shall we?

Population of US: 280 million
Pedestrian Fatalities (2000): 4739
Ratio: 1 in every 59084


Hmmm...let's examine this more closely, shall we?

Population of US: 280 million
Fatalities in WTC Attack (2001): ~3000

Calculate that ratio, will ya? And let us know how many "alarmists" we should ignore based on that ratio, will ya?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:04 PM on June 10, 2002

I agreed with your post up until the police state stuff, crunchland. I had similar feelings about the number of premature deaths due to smoking (440,000 per year, Postroad). I interned with a public health non-profit here in Chicago, and we tried (someone unsuccessfully) to use the wake of 9/11 to raise awareness about other health concerns... the lack of funding in the public health sector, smoking and obesity deaths, etc. But evanizer's point is right, the first part of the post is fine, but it turns into something else entirely when you go from "Traffic Deaths vs. 9/11 Deaths" to "Police State due to 9/11."

And ease up a bit, evanizer. Posts like that only put people on the defensive, keep people from listening to one another, and continue lazy thinking.
posted by gramcracker at 7:05 PM on June 10, 2002

I'm just tired of everyone crying wolf about civil liberties.

Since Hitler was already mentioned by someone in this thread, perhaps that person could review for us the minor restrictions to civil liberties that German militarism and concerns with "outside threats to the Motherland" ( or was that "the Homeland"?) brought about. It shouldn't be too hard to research that and give us a nice brief report...

~chuckle~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:11 PM on June 10, 2002

3,000 additional deaths from environmental exposure to tobacco.
posted by rhyax at 7:17 PM on June 10, 2002

the disruption of the entire life of our nation and the destruction of billions of dollars in property by a murderous group of extra-national religious fuckwits.
the disruption of the entire life of our nation is being perpetrated not by terrorists, but by bush-cheney-ashcroft-etc. of course, its the billions of dollars of property destruction thats got you by the short hairs.
Using Metafilter to basically make a thin opinion post is just not cool.
stfu evanizer, you fascist fop. you do it with every one of your posts.
posted by quonsar at 7:19 PM on June 10, 2002

Did all those people in traffic accidents happen on the same fucking day in a matter of hours? No, don't think so. Look, civil liberties are amazingly important but Chicken-Littleing it won't help anyone's cause.
posted by owillis at 7:33 PM on June 10, 2002

I thought this study had been discussed before, but a quick search of old threads didn't turn it up.
posted by gimonca at 7:34 PM on June 10, 2002

Deaths count double when they happen all at once. Triple if they happen on TV.
posted by jjg at 7:37 PM on June 10, 2002

I think this entire thread misses the point. We suffered 3K dead on 9/11, but current efforts are aimed at preventing millions of deaths due to nuclear or biological attack. So it's silly to imply that the government is only trying to prevent a specific future act designed to murder exactly 3000 more people.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:39 PM on June 10, 2002

Well, I think the point is that if sept 11th happened every week or something, it would be a lot worse.

Also, lots of documents, infestructure and stuff was destroyed with the WTC. Just the cost of cleanup and stuff is staggaring.
posted by delmoi at 7:43 PM on June 10, 2002

Agreed, PV. The traffic accident analogy brings to mind the argument that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, a stitch in time saves nine," etc.

Unfortunately, pre 9-11 it wasn't politically expedient to implement serious world-wide regulation and monitoring of nuclear materials, or clean up the INS. It was politically expedient to pretend that "we don't know anything about secret bio-warfare programs," "only environmental crazies are worried about radiation," "gosh, how could all those people sneak in here and wash dishes so cheap? Boggles the mind."

That's why we're in this fix of implementing rather drastic measures in a hurry.

Frankly, I don't understand why there's not more pressure to reduce emergency room wait times and institute universal health coverage before there's some sort of epidemic, even if it's just a natural flu outbreak. I'd also like to see some sort of provision for the election of congressional alternates in case of disaster or illness.
~~~~

This isn't Hitler's Germany, f&m. As a former German major, here's the basics:

"The rapidity of the transformation that swept over Germany between Hitler's takeover of power on 30 January 1933 and its crucial consolidation and extension at the beginning of August 1934, after Reich President Hindenburg's death and following close on the major crisis of the 'Röhm afffair', was astounding for contemporaries and is scarcely less astonishing in retrospect... Within a month, civil liberties — as protected under the Weimar Constitution — had been extinguished. Within two months, with most active political opponents either imprisoned or fleeing the country, the Reichtag surrendered its powers, giving Hitler control of the legislature. Within four months the once powerful trade unions were dissolved. In less than six months, all opposition parties had been suppressed or gone into voluntary liquidation, leaving the NSDAP as the only remaining party. In January 1934, the sovereignty of the Lander — already in reality smashed the previous March — was formally abolished. Then, in the summer, the growing thread from within Hitler's own movement was ruthlessly eliminated in the 'Night of the Long Knives' on 30 June 1934 ..."

There's a book that explains how Hitler made up his line of jive. It's tough reading.
posted by sheauga at 7:44 PM on June 10, 2002

correction: ~ here *are* the basics~

Don't invoke Godwin, just tell me: do you really think the current situation is looking like what that German historian described above? Because if you do, it's not too late to do something about it. I don't think things are anywhere near that bad. Racial and religious tolerance are the order of the day, and freedom is still an official priority here.
posted by sheauga at 7:58 PM on June 10, 2002

dumbest...

post...

ever.
posted by twiggy at 8:00 PM on June 10, 2002

Methinks 9/11 has replaced the Vietnam War for when people want to make "you may think that's bad but it not really all that bad when compared to [fill in the blank]" kinds of points.
posted by Cyrano at 8:06 PM on June 10, 2002

[fill in the blank]
Bags I Dresden
posted by Catch at 8:29 PM on June 10, 2002

I'm with twiggy on this one. Cyrano makes a fine point as well.
posted by revbrian at 8:30 PM on June 10, 2002

evanizer - disagree with the tone of crunchland's post all you want, but don't go all Ari on us and jump in fifteen minutes after he submits it suggesting that it be deleted by the admin. Perhaps we should adopt the Fark custom of 'ironic' or 'sad' posts, and add a 'on the side of the terrorists' tag. Also, by "ignorance of refutation", what did you mean?

Bonus points for the 'fuckwit' drop, though. If you want to keep on with that sort of thing, I suggest referencing pancakes, or pointing out double-posts.
posted by GriffX at 8:31 PM on June 10, 2002

So the choice is do something about pedestrian fatalities, EXCLUSIVE OR do something about terrorism? I didn't know we had to decide it would be one or the other.
posted by dhartung at 8:33 PM on June 10, 2002

Wow, even the other lefties are calling foldy on his chortling bullshit now. Great comment, sheauga.
posted by darukaru at 8:49 PM on June 10, 2002

Jeezus, what a hornet's nest I accidentally stirred up! Not my intention at all. I was only trying to put into perspective that the "mundane" deaths of pedestrian doesn't cause Our Government to put all else on the back burners, and declare a War on Motor Vehicles.

dumbest... post... ever.

Wow. A badge of honor, (at least until tomorrow's Dumbest Post Ever).

In any case, I emailed Matt. He can delete it if he wishes. Until then, humblest of apologies to apoplectic opposition.
posted by crunchland at 8:50 PM on June 10, 2002

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the goods outweigh the bads

You wouldn't?!? Well, *I* sure as hell will!!! Better 10 million deaths than to veer away from the principles this country was founded on that made it utterly unique in history, to become just another failure, another corrupt ruin ruled by a power-mad elite.

And it may come to that ("that" may equally refer to either thought above, apply it as you like). Get tough, people. You think people haven't sacrificed and endured a lot more than THIS to preserve this nation? How many of you would have the moral conviction, and the guts, to fight your neighbors and your brothers to keep it together, seeing more casualties than at any other time in our history? 1865 was NOT that long ago.

The patriots (I don't say "true," because there is no other kind) are not those seeking to make a buck or grasp at power over this situation; it is those who will stand to defend our ideals, our values, our freedoms, against all threats, external OR internal.
posted by rushmc at 8:53 PM on June 10, 2002

OS X is the greatest! Windows is cheaper! Linux to the death!

Oh sorry, wrong room.
posted by billder at 9:01 PM on June 10, 2002

but I'm just tired of everyone crying wolf about civil liberties.

I agree with you that this post could have been a lot stronger, evanizer, but this is lazy thinking. Re-read the story: the wolf DID come eventually. Don't you think it's better to err on the side of excessive vigilance than to look the other way and let unprincipled individuals (they do exist) subvert our system? Many of the things the government is saying and/or doing are at the least suspect and therefore bear watching. Some of them may not bother you; some may. The point is, barring one grand, egregious, undeniable crime, what one looks for is a pattern of wrongful motives and intent. It's simple self-protection. Certainly one has to guard against seeing evil (and evildoers) where it doesn't exist, but it is as bad a sin to turn a blind eye on it where it does because it doesn't fit with one's preconceived notions or what one WANTS to believe.

I think you do your Metafilter peers a disservice in assuming that some are cranks with chips on their shoulders looking for axes to grind. Some may be. But who does it benefit to leap to that conclusion any time someone suggests a criticism? Better we all work together, wherever we may fall on the political spectrum, to realistically assess threat levels to the best of our collective ability than to sit here namecalling and pissing all over one another.
posted by rushmc at 9:03 PM on June 10, 2002

OK- I didn't call anyone any names (besides the terrorists). I was just voicing opposition to the fact that there is no reason to constantly cry "1984". We seem to do that every other post here lately. My problem with it here is that the first and second part of crunch's post don't follow. If one is going to call attention to abuses of our rights with a post to the main Mefi page, by all means do so- but only if you have something to link to. I just don't want to see the site devolve into opinion posts with weak justifying links.

It's the old ad nauseam fallacy- the more one screams about a subject, the less anyone listens. When the subject is something important like basic constitutional rights, I don't want to see the subject become a "dissenter's" cliche. As a libertarian, I think a vigorous debate and dissent against overzealous governmental incursion on our rights is necessary. I just don't usually see a specific incidence of abuse when people make casual accusation of erosion of liberties here on the 'Filter.

I also hope Metafilter is a place where intelligent disagreement is encouraged. I don't appreciate being called a fascist (although it's expected from certain people) just because I post my disagreements here. We all do it and should expect a healthy repartee. But not puerile insults.

Anyway, sorry for 'multi-posting'. I hope you don't take my criticisms personally, crunchland.
posted by evanizer at 9:43 PM on June 10, 2002

No, no. Just a little scorched around the edges is all.
posted by crunchland at 10:09 PM on June 10, 2002

My platform for president of this thread:

Try to prevent traffic deaths.

Try to prevent terrorism.

Try not to confuse the two.
posted by chaz at 10:38 PM on June 10, 2002

3,000 additional deaths from environmental exposure to tobacco.

Hmmm.. I thought it was 6 total. Damn Star magazine.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 10:42 PM on June 10, 2002

I think that this post has exactly *nothing* to do with terrorism. But that was the point obviously.

And it's also not an either/or thing, respond to terrorism or end pedestrian deaths. It couldn't have been better put than what jjg said:

Deaths count double when they happen all at once. Triple if they happen on TV.

Except I'll add, "Priceless if they give a mandateless administration warrant to impinge on civil liberties --the kind that don't effect the rich or corporations or those who can afford to defend them themselves".

Wanna talk Chicken Little?

Try, the "inevitability" that terrorists will attempt to use radioactive materials as a weapon, engage in "walk-in" suicide bombings, there will be more, you can count on it, lethal terrorist attacks in the USofA.

It becomes a matter of self-fulfilling prophecy does it not, once those "in the know" begin predicting 100% chances of really scary things happening to us? On one hand they have succeeded, their expertise intact, trusted ever more so now, that they got it right that thousands of us again will, poof, go up in blood curdled smoke. And if they stop an attack before it happens, they'll make damned sure to crow about it and the media will champion them as our heroic leaders and agencies, tirelessly defending our unique American freedoms.

Well I'll say, tongue in cheek, that it's a hell of a lot easier to defend freedoms when there aren't as many. But, what of the costs of fear (indeed a meme of fear not too unlike: "WE'RE LIVING IN A POLICE STATE! MY PRECIOUS FREEDOMS ARE BEING SHUNTED!")? Who gains when there is a tickling prick of fear in each and every one of our minds? What kind of totalitarian state must be eventually implemented if terrorism persists? What does happen when the next "planned" attack happens? Does the fear grow or does it stay the same? How many more Patriot Acts will be necessary to make it so we're all exactly as patriotic and patriotic in all the right ways to appease those that there is no more discernable dissent?

You wanna live right? You don't wanna die do you? Come with me. Here's the world we have planned out for you. Not the idea I know you had in mind. But this will work. You will be safe.
posted by crasspastor at 10:48 PM on June 10, 2002

THANK YOU BILLDER =)
posted by Satapher at 11:20 PM on June 10, 2002

There's pedestrians in the US?
posted by ArkIlloid at 11:26 PM on June 10, 2002

Not per say. We prefer to call them unarmored motorists.
posted by Cyrano at 11:45 PM on June 10, 2002

Keep the faith, evanizer. I'm still waiting for anyone to point out to me one single instance of "loss of rights," as opposed to simple inconvenience.
posted by davidmsc at 3:36 AM on June 11, 2002

My dentist had a poster above The Chair that when you were reclined so he could best work on your mouth one could read "If you ignore your teeth they'll go away".

One could point out the loss of rights of hundreds of Middle Eastern descent detainees post 9/11. But that would be too easy. It's the hypothetical that I'm worried about. It's the fight for the assurance that our rights will be there tomorrow. Not that we had them yesterday and it appears we have them today, but tomorrow.
posted by crasspastor at 3:56 AM on June 11, 2002

It doesn't matter whether more people died from traffic accidents than from 9/11, because the traffic deaths are going to happen anyway. (More people died from growing old in Texas than died from traffic accidents and terrorism combined, but we're not about to outlaw growing old in Texas, even though all those deaths were preventable - they could have moved to Oklahoma!)

Everybody dies of something, after all. We still have an obligation to protect ourselves.
posted by anser at 8:10 AM on June 11, 2002

Or course we need to defend ourselves. But at what price?

Are we obliged to turn our Department of Defense into a Department of War, and hunt down "axis of evil" leaders who don't bow to our might?

Are we obliged to collect american citizens, turn them into "enemy combatants" in a war that hasn't been declared, and threaten to hold them indefinitely, in spite of the 6th amendment?

Are we obliged to loosen the restrictions on the gathering of evidence against possible dissidents?

(And all of these actions taken without consulting the Legislative Branch of the government, I might add.)

I just think that there are a lot of people out there who would be more than willing to give up their civil rights for a little bit of security.

Yeah, so shout at me some more. Tell me I'm wrong. Maybe I'm 'chicken little.' The President has his brand of fear, and I've got mine. In the end, I'd really rather be wrong than to be right. That shouldn't mean we can't consider the possibilities.
posted by crunchland at 8:53 AM on June 11, 2002

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaking to reporters while visiting Doha , Qata, said the highest government priority is to get information from Padilla.

"If somebody does something unlawful, illegal against our system of government the first thing we want to do is apprehend them, then try them in a court and then punish them," Rumsfeld said. "In this case, that is not our first interest. We are not interested in trying him at the moment or punishing him at the moment. We are interested in finding out what he knows.
posted by rushmc at 12:33 PM on June 11, 2002

I find that, despite Bush and Ashcroft's obvious capacity of pure conspiratorial evil on a global scale while at the same time being both dumber than boxes of rocks, my civil liberties are perfectly intact.

I have been inconvenienced on several occasions, though.
posted by UncleFes at 3:20 PM on June 11, 2002

What part of "once they're actually GONE it may be too late to ever get them back" doesn't compute for you, UncleFes? Do you procrastinate over other important things in your life as well, declining to establish any savings because you haven't starved yet? I'm serious, why do some of you find the idea of preventive vigilance and pre-emptive concern over what government officials are currently saying and doing and where it may lead so threatening, absurd, unintelligible, overwraught, illogical, or whatever it is that makes you reject it so violently? Seems to me you are content to gamble that everything will turn out okay in the end, without doing anything personally to ensure that it does.
posted by rushmc at 3:28 PM on June 11, 2002

I'm serious, why do some of you find the idea of preventive vigilance and pre-emptive concern over what government officials are currently saying and doing and where it may lead so threatening, absurd, unintelligible, overwraught, illogical, or whatever it is that makes you reject it so violently?

rushmc, :-)

All you're doing is bitching. All you are doing is whining that liberties MIGHT be taken away from us. Show us evidence. Quit your belly-aching and show MeFi some evidence. LINK SOMETHING. Show us that you're right. Show us that our liberties are slowly being eroded. Otherwise, don't be upset when others are very content with our government's behavior. Put up, or STFU.
posted by BlueTrain at 3:33 PM on June 11, 2002

It may not be possible to show evidence, not because there isn't any, but because it isn't available to the public. It took 40 years to reveal Operation Northwoods and a 17 year legal battle to uncover the FBI's operation against the University of California that we just learned about last Sunday. I'm not saying something comparable must be happening now since there's no way to know. But the current administration is very secretive, the DOJ is openly hostile to the FOIA and there are some scarry precedents of the government and military acting illegally against the citizenry. I think rushmc's call for vigilance is totally appropriate.
posted by homunculus at 4:03 PM on June 11, 2002

okay, I admit, after Fes contributed, I felt the need to amuse myself. A very long while back, Fes filled a room with "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA". That entire thread had me on the floor the entire time. It was funny. Very funny. So I decided to bait rushmc in the same respect. I don't apologize, because rushmc, you annoy the hell out of me (I hate alarmists), but perhaps this will explain my behavior.
posted by BlueTrain at 5:23 PM on June 11, 2002

Yet another attempt to trivialize 911...sigh.
posted by Oxydude at 6:16 PM on June 11, 2002

Another assault on the 6th ammendment.
posted by crunchland at 6:35 PM on June 11, 2002

In fact, I would say it is probable that the preventive vigilance has helped moderate part of the Executive's power grab. They managed to cram the Patriot act through both houses without giving anyone a chance to actually read it. With the growing bi-partisan pressure from congress to examine flaws in federal law enforcement and intelligence that might have led to bungling the investigation of terrorist activities prior to 9/11, the last thing the Administration needs is a CounterIntelPro.

However, what the Administration has done so far is disturbing enough. We have more than 1,000 people in top-secret long-term detention. Simultaneously, a DoJ order restricted the right of politically active American citizens in Federal Prisons the right to communicate with council.

Then there are aspects of the Patriot act which are distrubing such as a very relaxed authorization for wiretaps, and authorization to search property without notice of warrant, and an expanded definition of terrorism that fails to distinguish between direct action protest tactics and mass murder. In at least one case the expanded deployment of Carnivore systems has led to the destruction of possibly important data because the Carnivore system was grabbing data not covered by the warrant.

There are good reasons to be suspicious. The "war on communism" in the 50s and 60s was used to justify federal law enforcement surveilance and subversion of civil rights groups. The government for the last decade has casually refered to environmental groups as terrorist groups. Its a good thing to this administration know they are on a short leash in regards to domestic groups in advance.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:37 PM on June 11, 2002

Not to do a complete waffle, but it occurred to me this morning listening to NPR, that if things were getting as bad as I sometimes fear, we wouldn't even know about Nabil Almarabh or Jose Padilla.

By the way, how long was Kevin Mitnick held without seeing a judge or being formally charged?
posted by crunchland at 5:21 AM on June 12, 2002

"If you aid and abet the enemy, whether you're a citizen or not, you're not entitled to the right of due process," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Washington Times)
posted by crunchland at 5:48 AM on June 12, 2002

if things were getting as bad as I sometimes fear, we wouldn't even know about Nabil Almarabh or Jose Padilla.

I disagree, crunchland. I think we know about these individuals NOT because the government is playing by the rules or recognizes our entitlement or the limits on their freedom to act in any manner that they so choose, but because it serves their spin doctors in other areas. Most obviously, in a "Look! It's working, we're catching some and making your lives safer! Imagine what we could do if you'd just allow us MORE leeway!" Look how many more they refuse to tell us anything about.
posted by rushmc at 8:48 AM on June 12, 2002

Don't invoke Godwin, just tell me: do you really think the current situation is looking like what that German historian described above? Because if you do, it's not too late to do something about it. I don't think things are anywhere near that bad. Racial and religious tolerance are the order of the day, and freedom is still an official priority here.

Actually, my friend, I was reacting to someone else's invocation of Godwin....

And no, things are obviously not as bad here as they were in Hitler's Germany. Yet. I was operating under the assumption that we were all interested in keeping it that way.

Apparently, it's "too late to do something about" a lot of things, like the fact that federal detainess post 9-11 are officially nonpersons. Military tribunals will dispense "justice" to some, and we have these odd little expansions of the ability to tap communications. Then there's the routine harassment for unpopular political views in this time of such national crisis...not to mention the drivel coming out of our political leaders mouths equating dissent with terrorism.

But maybe, as you suggest, it's not too late to make sure things don't go any further. They've already gone too far. Hence my comment.

Gaze wistfully at 1934 and earlier, and one can only long for the powerful voices and acts that might have averted the suffering to come.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:26 AM on June 13, 2002

Ignoratio elenchi.

Were you perchance wearing a purple satin smoking jacket when you wrote that?
posted by y2karl at 3:51 PM on June 13, 2002

I had an interesting coversation with my brother this morning. I asked him what he thought about the possible loss of civil liberties in exchange for higher security. Now you have to understand one thing about my brother. He doesn't watch tv. He doesn't surf the web. He gets most of his information about things outside his own existence either from the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.

He said he thought there was going to be a major backlash very soon. I assumed he meant a major backlash over the loss of civil liberties. Quite the contrary. He's convinced that people are going to be very, very upset with the judicial system for hassling the people trying to protect us with trivial matters such as the sixth ammendment. He thinks the pendulum still has quite a ways to go to the right before it'll start swinging back to the center.

He said that if I thought people were going to be outraged about the loss of civil liberties in the face of terrorist attacks, that I live in my own little fringe microcosm.

As an aside, I want to apologize if it seemed like I was trvializing the deaths of September 11th when I started this ill-conceived thread. That wasn't my intention at all. In fact, I wonder why we don't get upset about all those people in traffic accidents. I apologize if I offended anyone.
posted by crunchland at 4:32 PM on June 13, 2002

One can't breathe without offending SOMEONE, crunchland. Unless your intent was to trivialize, you have nothing to apologize for, IMO. And I find it hard to believe that anyone could read such intent into your post unless they were determined to see it there to begin with. Using one issue to illuminate or contrast with another issue is a perfectly valid thing to do.
posted by rushmc at 8:30 PM on June 13, 2002

Well, not that my apology wasn't completely sincere, but I just thought I'd cover my bases in case Ashcroftway wanted to investigateway ubversivessay here on EtafilterMay ...
posted by crunchland at 10:32 PM on June 13, 2002