Whether wiretapping everyone is the right way to combat terrorism or not, is a stupid argument. Sorry.
What we ought to be saying is: "Wiretapping is too soft on terrorists."
Just round the bastards up since you know where they are, obviously, or you couldn't be wiretapping them. I'm so tired of this soft treatment BS.
Terrorists can't take pictures on bridges, or in the Port Authority bus terminal. Terrorists have to take their shoes off at the airport and go without the liquids and gels of daily life in flight. Terrorists have to sacrifice their freedom for the appearance of security, or so the blanket of mistrust makes it seem.
Poppycock. That's not doing enough to combat terrorists; they really ought to be apprehended immediately. This would serve two purposes; it would prevent further attacks and help quiet the geese who live in fear of terror.
With all due respect to the conservatives in power, this is not something to be "conservative" about. All of this talk of a long, long war is so depressing, so resigned, so demeaning to those on the front lines. This is not the time to be reluctant warriors. If you don't believe you can win the war rapidly or maybe even in our lifetimes, then you don't have the spirit or presumably the skills for the fight.
There is a genuine problem, that's Exhibit A: Attacks. Exhibit B: The Conservatism of Fear; ineffective and otherwise destructive to the very freedom it ostensibly wants to protect. Unfortunately people get caught debating the merits of B, which neither addresses A or offers an alternative to B.
Luckily, there is a solution. Note, "terrorism" is not listed as the problem, nor is the "terrorist" designation. That's because that terminology is too mincingly feelings-based. Forget about the word "terror," because feelings are not the problem. Forget about "isms" and "ists" too, because beliefs are not the problem. All this yackety yack about what people think, feel... Blagh. Pansy talk.
If a mechanic says he can't fix your car in the foreseeable future, but would like you to pay him to try to for an indefinitely long period of time, balk.
To get to the solution you have to define the problem precisely. The problem is attacks that cause human or material harm to Americans, America, or Greater America (franchises worldwide). That's still a big problem but it is a precise problem at least. There is a desire to qualify that with some terms about the motivation, means, or support of said attackers but those really just make the problem imprecise.
Preventing such attacks may seem like a big job but it is possible. You may not believe that yet, but it is possible. If you don't believe it's possible then you don't have the heart for the fight either. Although you may yet.
One prevents attacks one hundred percent of the time if one is not a target. We can't achieve that though, not because it is theoretically impossible, but because it is too difficult, too complex. One prevents attacks if one has total omniscience beforehand and has omnipotent responses. But that is in fact impossible.
Now if those were the only two options, presumably it would make the most sense to move toward the one that is at least theoretically possible. Rather than the one that increases and multiplies the bullseyes, in a vain attempt to defend them. If that were what we were stuck with, it would be worth arguing it, albeit only on the "far" "left" amongst ourselves really.
But there is a third way. It may be a hard sell in this day and age as it does not involve "winning" with its sought-after accompanying agony of defeat. It's not appeasement to be sure, but neither is it revenge. It is justice. God, I love justice.
justice
is rendering to every one that which is his due. It has been distinguished from
equity in this respect, that while justice means merely the doing what positive
law demands, equity means the doing of what is fair and right in every separate
case.
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
Justice is not a passive state or a moral absolute, really. It is law that people recognize as according them their due, which is enforced where necessary but is mostly adhered to, and in one respect adhered to all the time. People do not attack a state of justice that they recognize. This isn't about respecting their feelings; it's about controlling people which is not, always, a bad aim.
None of us can respect the feelings of all the people all of the time, nor should we. What we need to do is get out of the business of trying to control feelings, which is impossible and only makes matters worse. We can't triumph over other people's feelings. What we need to do is simpler: Control the whole person... Not all of their actions but just those that pertain to violence against America; innocents, military, material.
To do that, you have to get these people into a sphere of justice with America. That does not mean equity. It means much the same thing as George W. Bush or his speechwriters mean. But which not focusing like a laser beam on getting Bin Laden doesn't communicate. And which seeming to flail around in broadly over-defining "terror" to include any non-governmental action that may inspire false fear also wrecks. And which suggesting that Al Qaeda is being spied upon rather than taken out, buries.
Do the opposite of those things and you are on the right road. But as the fact that the success in bringing the first WTC plotters to justice indicates, this is a two-way street. It is not enough to simply protect yourself against others because the others keep coming and as OK City shows, they come for all kinds of reasons from all kinds of places. They need to be stopped.
I'm a hardliner on attackers; no appeasement. But I am interested in stopping attackers from coming into exisitence in the first place. That means engaging every group large or small, foreign or domestic, in a system of justice that they are a part of to begin with, and are not outside of. That need not entail giving them an inch, or even respect in some cases, but they have to be a part of it. What, then, is a person's "due?"
-Family.
-Subsistence and the opportunity of prosperity.
-And maybe a hobby, everybody needs one.
Wrap a person up in that, and you've got them? Not quite. What remains is that the group that person is most closely associated with or most sympathetic too, has to be moved into the sphere of justice with America. We managed that with Japan and Germany without any hitches I've ever heard of. But those countries both had it coming, and knew it, regarding the war. That doesn't work unless both criteria are met.
It has to be a peaceful process. Domestically that means making sure militias, Davidian-types, Japanese Sun Cult-types, and SDS-types don't fall off the map and become so closeted, so disenfranchised, they feel like an entity apart. We need to do that in our politics. We behave ourselves but I do worry about what just a few bad apples among the far right might do if and when they go back to feeling disenfranchised after feeling so included (and yet so opposed to half the country).
Abroad it's harder but the process begins with being more of a boon than a hardship to everyone, and talking to everyone... Not just heads of state, but to any demographic that is giving the US the stinkeye.
The US and its sphere of justice has to be a very big tent indeed. The best defense is not a good offense, but is having all the players left in circulation on your own team. The bastards who attacked my city(s) on September 11th aren't invited. But the people who have not yet done wrong should be, even if they need to be brought in somewhat forcibly at times.
It's not an instantaneous solution, and it's not a solution that has an end-date either. But it isn't a "war." And unlike a war, it has a point at which it is won so long as it endures.