It comes down to this, what approaches should be done to prevent another 9/11?

[still_one]

[bunnies]

1. Keep out friggin noses out of the middle east?

[RGinNJ]

5. Yep!

[LWolf]

15. That's it.

[Cali_Democrat]

36. +1000. n/t

[quinnox]

2. Not sure, but a police state shouldn't be an option

I can think of several nations in history that regularly spied on all their citizens, and none of them were good examples to follow.

[XemaSab]

3. Also, if we're willing to accept thousands of dead people as a "fair price" for the second amendment

why are we not willing to accept a relative handful of dead people as a "fair price" for the fourth amendment?

Trying to stop all terrorism forever is literally impossible. Some jackass is always going to find a way.

So why should we give up our freedoms and BUCKETS of tax money to prevent a few people from dying?

We accept mass shootings as a part of life in 2013, so why not occasional bombings?

[mike_c]

9. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nail, meet Ms. Hammer.

[Nay]

24. zakly, XemaSab. Funny how that never occurs to all these 'patriots.'

[nashville_brook]

27. daaaaang. spot on.

[pscot]

46. Killer argument!

[indepat]

54. Thousands are gladly sacrificed at the hands of guns, 'cause guns are our culture and big

brother's hands are almost completely tied, making meaningful regulation of guns, even assault weapons, virtually impossible. But with the loss of someone at the hands of an occasional foreign terraist under a Democratic president, the cries of soft on terra and weak on national defense would be continuously screamed and streamed by the MSM and the Repukes, making Dems cringe, fearful they'd soil their pants is so labeled. Interestingly, the Bush-Cheney administration was neither labeled soft on terra, weak on national defense, nor derelict in duty in failing to thwart 9-11 notwithstanding the August 6 intelligence briefing warning of an imminent terrorist attack. One would think there were a double standard at work.

[librechik]

4. get the hell out of the middle east and be fair to the rest of the world

instead of acting like we own them.

[kentuck]

6. If you get another August 6 memo?

Don't ignore it.

[still_one]

13. That aug 6 memo was the result of spying

[Solly Mack]

21. There was no Patriot Act or Protect America Act or FISA Amendments Act either.

I guess they didn't need any of that to get the August 6th memo.

[still_one]

23. True

[villager]

30. Yes -- and not blanket spying on All Americans. See? They don't really need to do it.

n/t

[still_one]

34. Maybe not, however, looking at our history I would not be so sure. As one example Nixon used

blanket spying, and just based on my impressions, legal or not, I have no doubt others have been involved in similar activities.

The FBI has folders of information on people from j Edgar Hoover days

[villager]

40. Well there was no "digital landscape" for them to capture and sift through then, of course

But I'd agree that unConstitutional info-gathering and spying has been going on since the beginnings of the MIC, if not before (i.e., the Pinkertons).

But how sad this administration could stand so little differentiated from Nixon's, on this matter.

[mike_c]

7. the solution to future 9/11s lies in revising our evil and exploitative foreign policy...

...not in creating a police and surveillance state in the U.S.

[datasuspect]

8. pay attention to reports entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US"

and stuff.

or try to correct the legacy of colonialism.

[still_one]

11. You do realize how they obtained that "bin laden determined to strike us?" It did not just happen

On its own

[frylock]

31. did they use the patriot act?

[still_one]

33. No, but it was also invasive of privacy

[treestar]

39. FISA was in the 70s

Are there no objections to it?

[treestar]

38. good point

The methods used to get that information are probably violations of rights and dismantling of the Constitution, too! Some people are just not practical in their zeal to be the victims of an imaginary American Big Brother State run by Obama.

[dkf]

10. They are pulling in too much data to focus properly.

Look at the Bostob situation. They had a proper lead and stuck him on a list of 40,000 where he disappeared.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Burning down the village in order to save it isn't working.

[MrSlayer]

14. I'd rather have ten 9/11s than submit to this police state bullshit.

Of course, this police state bullshit was the entire point of 9/11. There is no turning back. We have failed Ben Franklin utterly.

[EOTE]

17. Seriously.

Funny how we don't freak the fuck out when thousands die from gun violence. Or smoking. Or drinking. Or poor health care. But when we receive some blowback from some brown people, it's goodbye civil liberties.

[MrSlayer]

19. I don't believe the official story at all.

But yeah, they were the scapegoats.

[EOTE]

20. Neither do I.

But even if you accept the official story at face value, we're talking incredible incompetence at minimum. It's amazing how convoluted and unbelievable a story they crafted, yet they all still come out looking like incompetent assholes.

[treestar]

37. It's not that bad

Good grief, 9 more 911s would be horrible. Put in that perspective, who cares about data mining?

[MrSlayer]

44. Me.

I like the idea behind the 4th amendment.

You are the kind of person Ben Franklin told of. I'd risk those thirty thousand people so the other 300 million have actual freedom. I'd die for it personally. It matters that much.

[treestar]

48. How is this metadata collection harming your freedom?

It is a matter of balance. When that poster said he would rather have 9 more 911s, that said something. Just over this metadata collection?

We always give up some freedom for security - we have cops, we stop at red lights. I'd like the freedom to go through them but give that up so as not to get killed in a T-bone accident. It is a matter of degree.

[EOTE]

16. Not scratch your ass when you receive a PDB titled "Known terrorist determined to strike U.S."? nt

[bullwinkle428]

18. The proper things WERE done to prevent 9/11!! Those at the top just

chose to ignore the information!

[B2G]

22. I thought the war on terror was over.

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. AQ is just a "shell of what it once was" and is "back on it's heels". That's what I was told. n/t

[BlueCheese]

25. 9/11 was terrible, of course.

But there are worse things-- losing our freedoms, for example.

Not to be too coldhearted about it, but far more people die in traffic fatalities and gun violence annually than died on 9/11. To give away our most precious freedoms to prevent another 9/11 is overpaying by far.

[Rex]

26. Keep democratic leadership in office.

nt.

[Eddie Haskell]

28. How about a free press?

Then we might put the real perps behind bars.

[leveymg]

29. 90% of the acts of mass terrorism since '93 have been by "our terrorists" here under CIA programs

There's a better way to target terrorists.

Don't allow them into the US, even the ones the CIA considers to be useful "freedom fighters": e.g., the Mujahadin (WTC '93 bombers), al-Qaeda double agents (the 9/11 attack cell); the numerous and sundry al-Qaeda operatives attracted by Anwar al-Awlaki, and most recently Chechen "freedom fighters" (the Tsarnaev brothers.)

We really have to more closely control the CIA's own operatives, because these account for 90% of all the fatal mass casualty terrorist attacks inside the US during the last several decades.

[piedmont]

32. NONE that abridge our rights! We pay for our freedom day by day with

the risk that our own blood will be shed.

[treestar]

35. If they want nothing, then I say they accept every terrorist attack that happens

And quit blaming the government.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

43. Do you support the President's domestic surveillance program on its own citizens?

It sounds as though you do. I want to hear it directly though. Do you support the President's spy program against his own citizens?

[treestar]

47. Have you ever blamed a terrorist attack on the government?

The President does not have a spy program against his own citizens. The US government does, and Presidents change. This is not a spy program but collecting metadata. Do you support all terrorist attacks against the US happening without any attempt at interference?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

49. Do you support the President's domestic surveillance program, or don't you?

He owns it. Do you support him in this or not? I can do this all day until you're ready to answer the question.

[treestar]

50. I don't have to support something that does not exist

The domestic "spy program" was passed by Congress. You are making it up like the President - the current one- invented it.

I did not like the Patriot Act when it passed, as I did not think it would really help much and was a trade off of liberty for safety. But I don't think all efforts at safety are horrible.

So you will never again blame the government for a terrorist attack and think it would be fine if it had no way to do anything about it, and would accept the attacks without saying the government should have done something?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

51. He didn't "invent" it. He does own it.

He could have stopped it at any time. He did not.

Once again, are you in favor of Barack Obama's domestic spying program against US citizens, or do you disapprove? Now is the time to scare up some courage and see what you're made of. I await your reply.

[DirkGently]

41. Not throwing the "Here comes Bin Laden" memo in the trash?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

42. You get specific warrants for specific cause, period.

Insert scary al qaeda story here--nope, still don't give a fuck. You don't spy on the American people in blanket fashion. No way.

Fuck the Stasi.
Fuck the NKVD.
And fuck anyone and everyone who would enable that kind of thing in the United States.

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. +++

[marmar]

45. Do you REALLY think this hyper surveillance state has anything to do with protecting Americans?

I've got some swampland for sale.......

[woo me with science]

52. Terra! Terra!

Last edited Fri Jun 7, 2013, 07:44 PM - Edit history (3)

No, it doesn't "come down to" that. It "comes down to" our Constitutional protections and ostensibly free society.

You guys need new material.

[AndyA]

53. Don't allow the SCOTUS to appoint any more idiots

9/11 could have been prevented, if Bush had taken responsible actions based on the briefing he had prior to the attack.

Instead, he did nothing. (Except went on vacation.)

I think more law enforcement is the answer. The planned attacks since 9/11 have largely been prevented by agencies already in place. Give them the budget and the manpower that they need to do their jobs effectively.

Also, instead of nation building everywhere else, we need to do some here at home. Repair our infrastructure to make it less susceptible to an attack, shore up areas of concern that haven't been touched in decades--basically, fix things here.

[1-Old-Man]

56. Outlaw US Corporations from raping the planet

[tiny elvis]

58. do not lower your eyes and hope for the best when

criminals overthrow the gov

http://thecommons4change.blogspot.com/2006/09/al-franken-operation-ignore.html

lihop is mihop

[nebenaube]

59. Spy on politicians... n/t