Privacy and the State

[ahinton]

The modern definition of terrorism refers to criminal or illegal acts of violence at randomly chosen targets, in an effort to raise fear. It is practiced by extremist groups with a limited political base or parties on the weaker side in asymmetric warfare. Terror on the other hand is practiced by governments and law enforcement officials, usually within the legal framework of the state.

Well, there's holes in that one, it would seem.

To begin with, "terrorism" and "terror" are here protrayed as two different things and, however similar they may be or seem to be in practice, they're supposedly different purely on account of the former being committed by people and groups without government sponsorship whereas the latter is committed by and/or on behalf of governments; tell that one to the victims.

Next, a "definition" that includes a phrase such as "randomly chosen targets" undermines itself by reason of seeking to rest on such a contradiction in terms; if a "target" is indeed "chosen", how can that choice be deemed "random"?

Since Richard Barrett's choice of reading matter is almost certainly something of which you have scant knowledge (if indeed any at all beyond those sources which he quotes here from time to time), you would be wise to refrain from trying to tell him what he should and should not read.

[ahinton]

a) It is somewhat bizarre that you, of all members, are now pointing to the 'chair' of the US Senate Intelligence Committee to support your case! I've already mentioned the 'for naive public consumption' aspect. I'd have thought we might have agreed on that at least, especially when considering the source of the comments.

What's "bizarre" about that? Just because it might, even recently, have seemed less than likely that the chair of that committee would speak out as she has done, it is surely clear that her view and that of Richard Barrett and indeed anyone else who cares about such issues coincide.

b) 'Random' in the sense that the victims are chosen at random, in tube stations, shopping-centres etc. Haven't you noticed that this has been happening all over the world for many years now? Doesn't even the Guardian report such things?

But how "random" is that? Maximum effect, maximum damage, mayhem, killing and maiming is usually the order of the day for the commission of such acts and if that's "random" then I'm an Englishman!

[scottycelt]

... you would be wise to refrain from trying to tell him (Richard Barrett) what he should and should not read.

Not only are you Mr Barrett's ever-faithful batman you also would appear to be his 'heavy minder' as well ... ?

[scottycelt]

... I'm an Englishman!

I've strongly suspected that all along ...

[ahinton]

Not only are you Mr Barrett's ever-faithful batman you also would appear to be his 'heavy minder' as well ... ?

If only you were to read, listen and give due and thoughtful consideration to a decent - though not necessarily "random"(!) - selection of material on the subject under consideration here, you might (I say only "might", not "would") derive a more balanced view of it instead of substituting such a rational approach by peppering your habitually expressed complacency with the trotting out of baseless and puerile assertions such as the one above, wearisome reiterations of which increasingly resemble a recent Philip Glass "symphony" with every new instance thereof...

[ahinton]

I've strongly suspected that all along ...

I have to admire your consistency in never letting provable facts get in the way of unfounded suspicions, scotty!

[Richard Barrett]

a) It is somewhat bizarre that you, of all members, are now pointing to the 'chair' of the US Senate Intelligence Committee to support your case! I've already mentioned the 'for naive public consumption' aspect. I'd have thought we might have agreed on that at least, especially when considering the source of the comments.

Ms Feinstein has previously been very supportive of the widespread phone-tapping carried out by the NSA; it's only when it's done to foreign heads of state that she (ostensibly) disapproves. So it would be quite appropriate to doubt her word. Surely it would also be appropriate to doubt her word when she says that mass surveillance is a necessary part of the "war on terror."

My question about randomness was motivated by the fact that terrorism doesn't happen for no reason, and, as I've said before, by thinking that it might be better to address the reasons for it than to create a surveillance state. The fact that this is not done leads one to the strong suspicion that tackling terrorism is not the motive.

[ahinton]

My question about randomness was motivated by the fact that terrorism doesn't happen for no reason, and, as I've said before, by thinking that it might be better to address the reasons for it than to create a surveillance state. The fact that this is not done leads one to the strong suspicion that tackling terrorism is not the motive.

And the fact that no credible effort has yet been made (as though it even could) to explain and justify the widespread phone tapping in Europe of which NSA stands accused (and of which now even the "but no one told me about this" US President seems now at least to appear to be sitting up and taking notice) surely goes a long way towards converting such suspicion into fact; the next question has therefore to be "OK, so what is the motive?"...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Since Richard Barrett's choice of reading matter is almost certainly something of which you have scant knowledge (if indeed any at all beyond those sources which he quotes here from time to time), you would be wise to refrain from trying to tell him what he should and should not read.

It's rather that barrett has claimed elsewhere to read far, far more widely read than Scotty, Pee or myself (albeit his apparent reading on the second world war seems rather odd). And yet he doesn't even understand the concept of random terror.

Still, your lengthy response gave the usual amusement; you're consistent in that at least.

[ahinton]

It's rather that barrett

Richard Barrett to you.

has claimed elsewhere to read far, far more widely read than Scotty, Pee or myself

I am unaware that he has ever made particular claims for the extent of his reading, but he certainly is widely read and has thought about what he reads a good deal more than some peoiple here think about what they read, if certain knee-jerk responses are anything by which to go.

And yet he doesn't even understand the concept of random terror.

In that he is not alone, but I've already given a view on that.

Still, your lengthy response gave the usual amusement; you're consistent in that at least.

Whilst I have neither an idea nor a care what "aumsement " anything that I write might give to anyone, your claim that it is in any sense "usual" can define only your own personal response unless, like some people do here on occasion, you are seeking to speak for others as well.

I do try to be consistent, although I also try not to let that stand in the way of my learning something useful.

[scottycelt]

Ms Feinstein has previously been very supportive of the widespread phone-tapping carried out by the NSA; it's only when it's done to foreign heads of state that she (ostensibly) disapproves. So it would be quite appropriate to doubt her word. Surely it would also be appropriate to doubt her word when she says that mass surveillance is a necessary part of the "war on terror."

My question about randomness was motivated by the fact that terrorism doesn't happen for no reason, and, as I've said before, by thinking that it might be better to address the reasons for it than to create a surveillance state. The fact that this is not done leads one to the strong suspicion that tackling terrorism is not the motive.

Well, I tend to doubt the word of any politician, anywhere. It's really a question of looking at the facts and coming to an independent judgement which, of course, could be wrong. However, I cannot see what motive apart from combating terrorism there possibly could be for such practices, unless it is simply an attempt to gain political and economic advantage over others. As for the latter, surely all countries seek to do that?

As for the 'reasons' for terrorism, well, naturally terrorism might cease if the terrorists' demands were immediately granted. Are you suggesting that this should be done, and, if not, what other plan would you have to combat terrorism?

[Richard Barrett]

Well, I tend to doubt the word of any politician, anywhere. It's really a question of looking at the facts and coming to an independent judgement which, of course, could be wrong. However, I cannot see what motive apart from combating terrorism there possibly could be for such practices

Other possible reasons have been put forth on this thread. Here is an interesting article on the subject, from which I quote:

Edward Snowden’s disclosures of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) extensive spying on the e-mails and telephone calls of every citizen, in violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, reveal that those in political power see all Americans potentially as the real enemy. Their greatest fear is that an informed public will connect the dots between the criminal exploitations and invasions of other countries and the illegal invasions of every American’s privacy: that “protecting” Americans has become a pretext for detecting, monitoring, intimidating and squashing dissent—as was done to blunt the Occupy Wall Street movement, and labor, liberation, anti-war and other status-quo-threatening movements in the past.

Transparency, the indispensable principle of representative democracy, would be the undoing of many in political power. Thus the extreme, and hypocritical, reactions to Edward Snowden indicate the danger government whistleblowers present, not to “national security” but, to national secrecy that hides the “high crimes and misdemeanors” of the ruling political elite—and their corporate supporters and profiteers.

As for the 'reasons' for terrorism, well, naturally terrorism might cease if the terrorists' demands were immediately granted. Are you suggesting that this should be done, and, if not, what other plan would you have to combat terrorism?

What do you imagine the "terrorists' demands" are?

[ahinton]

Well, I tend to doubt the word of any politician, anywhere. It's really a question of looking at the facts and coming to an independent judgement which, of course, could be wrong. However, I cannot see what motive apart from combating terrorism there possibly could be for such practices, unless it is simply an attempt to gain political and economic advantage over others.

It's good to see your preparedness to admit to the possibility of being wrong, but I rather think that you may have answered your own question here as to what motivation there might be for these activities other than to seek to control and combat terrorism.

As for the 'reasons' for terrorism, well, naturally terrorism might cease if the terrorists' demands were immediately granted. Are you suggesting that this should be done, and, if not, what other plan would you have to combat terrorism?

While we await Richard Barrett's answer to that, it might be as well to return to this inadequate definition mentioned above that seeks to differentiate between "terror" and "terrorism"; if, on its basis, the former is deemed acceptable because it's part of what governments are expected to do whereas the latter isn't because it's deemed to be committed by minorities without the support or endorsement of governments, we could be inviting even more danger by jumping to inappropriate conclusions on this.

[amateur51]

So, according to Scottycelt apparently, George Orwell would have been OK with NSA/GCHQ surveillance, because it's better than living under communism. However, as he has helpfully pointed out, the Soviet regime no longer exists, so that choice doesn't really exist either. Now I rather think that the idea that Orwell, were he alive today, would be anything but appalled by the revelations about all this surveillance, having of course written of their inhumanity in Nineteen Eighty-Four, is somewhat deluded. But maybe Orwell, if he were alive today, would also have been brainwashed into complacency, I wonder if that's what Scottycelt means.

Meanwhile, US senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said this yesterday: It is abundantly clear that a total review of all intelligence programs is necessary so that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee are fully informed as to what is actually being carried out by the intelligence community (...) Unlike NSA's collection of phone records under a court order, it is clear to me that certain surveillance activities have been in effect for more than a decade and that the Senate Intelligence Committee was not satisfactorily informed. (...) With respect to NSA collection of intelligence on leaders of US allies – including France, Spain, Mexico and Germany – let me state unequivocally: I am totally opposed.

On the other hand, David Cameron, instead of addressing the issues, is still hammering away at the messenger: if they [newspapers such as the Guardian] don't demonstrate some social responsibility it would be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act. By which he presumably means he'll put gagging orders on them, although of course news outlets in other countries which are easily accessible in the UK, such as the Washington Post, will go on publishing the disclosures, making Cameron look a bigger fool than he already does.

Ms Feinstein's comments and actions give the lie to PeeMeister's contention that it is only Europeans who are at all concerned by the NSA/GCHQ anti-democratic activities. Once again Edward Snowden has been revealed as a democratic hero, stuck in the Russian embrace until the USA grows up.

[scottycelt]

It's good to see your preparedness to admit to the possibility of being wrong, but I rather think that you may have answered your own question here as to what motivation there might be for these activities other than to seek to control and combat terrorism..

One hardly knows whether to laugh or cry at your first remark but I've plumped for the former ... and I was answering another member's question not my own!.

While we await Richard Barrett's answer to that ....

Well, we might be waiting a long time, but at least you appear to have understood what the term 'terrorists' demands' (whatever these might be) actually means.

Your forum buddy appears to be struggling with the very concept so maybe you can help him out .... ? (no, I'm not 'giving orders', ahinton, it's just a friendly suggestion!)