I'm liking this thread.

 

I think we all have to decide how far we're willing to abdicate personal liberty and privacy in the face of a war on terrorism.

I'm inclined to say, woah! Change NOTHING. Personal liberty is what freedom is all about. On the other hand, it seems like there are pragmatic exceptions to this that help rein in terrorists.

Tough call. Big decisions.

 

And we've got assclowns making those decisions!

 

I have more political slant humor

 

The other decision is do you want to take societal ethics into battle with you? (I'm not speaking as an advocate of NOT taking ethics but it's an iteresting point)

I once heard a pretty thought provoking comment; if you try to fight a war of principles, on those principles, you will lose.

It's along the lines of 'if you fight for good and stay behaving good while fighting, you will lose.' War is a dirty business, you can't keep you hands clean while doing it.

 

Ends justifying the means, John?

 

In the immortal words of a silly Welshie I know...

RUMBLED!!

 

I was actually having this same debate/discussion at dinner last night. I was just too lazy to type out that example when I got home.

As for the answer...the dirty one is that a solution would be to treat the war on terrorism like we treat the war on internet hackers. Hire a hacker to defend against/catch a hacker. Hire a terrorist to defend against/catch a terrorist.

I'm not necessarily advocating this course of action, but we need to stop thinking like a traditional military/government and start thinking/acting unconventionally.

Terrorists are NOT going to attack our strengths. They will exploit a weakness...either physically or psychologically.

The reason Special Forces has been so effective in Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, in Iraq is that they DO operate unconventionally. They are a highly trained, highly capable SMALL force that can adapt rapidly to changing situations and are trained to think outside the box and given the latitude to act on what they come up with.

 

Yep, these are the essential questions that bound the issue for us. We could, in fact, do WHATEVER it takes to catch/defeat terrorists and I believe we have the resources to do it...at least to a great extent. However, the flip side is that the process of utilizing all of those resources would also DRASTICALLY impede the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Bacon" philosophy that I believe this nation is founded on.

The doors at the borders would have to be slammed shut. The FBI, CIA and others would have to be given free reign to do what they do.

This process would essentially change the face of the game to terrorists holding us physically/emotionally hostage or making us defensive to our own country having a similar impact on us.

 

In a way I suppose that is what it means. It ain't pretty but war isn't either. We've gotten beyond the idea that war is glamourous (a la signing up for the "Great War" in the 19teens) but still have this notion it should be fought with ethics.

Perhaps it should or perhaps that too is an outdated notion.

I'd hate to get to the point where society accepts torture and poison gas but how far do we go to protect the society we have?

Horrible questions with nothing but horrible answers. War is horrible.