We all know America is a relatively free country (despite the Patriot Act) but this extract makes you think:
“Kagan’s concept of ‘anti-Americanism’, while conventional, also merits reflection. In such pronouncements, the term anti-american and its variants (‘hating America’ and the like) are regularly employed to defame critics of state policy who may admire and respect the country, its culture and its achievements, indeed think it is the greatest place on earth. Nevertheless, they ‘hate America’ on the tacit assumption that the society and its people are to be identified with state power. This usage is drawn directly from the lexicon of totalitarianism. In the Former Russian empire, dissidents were guilty of ‘anti-Sovietism’. Perhaps critics of Brazils military dictatorship were labeled ‘anti-Brazilian.’ Among people with some commitment to freedom and democracy, such attitudes are inconceivable. It would only arouse ridicule in Rome or Milan if a critic of Berlusconi’s policies were condemned as ‘anti-Italian,’ though perhaps it would have passed in Mussolini’s day.”
From page 45 of ‘Hegemony or Survival’ by Noam Chomsky, published by Penguin books. So why not think before calling somebody unpatriotic or anti-American next time, because it is supposed to be a free country.
“In the Former Russian empire, dissidents were guilty of ‘anti-Sovietism’. Perhaps critics of Brazils military dictatorship were labeled ‘anti-Brazilian.’”
A ridiculous comparison by Chomsky. In both his examples, dissent wasn’t met with others shouting you down in a open forum of ideas or boycotting your next movie - it was met with a one-time trip to the gulag. Chomsky exaggerates in hopes of painting a desperate picture that the US clamps down on dissent in murderous fashion. Simply not so - dissent is high fashion and entertainment in the US, not a capital crime. The parallel is useless and irresponsible.
“Among people with some commitment to freedom and democracy, such attitudes are inconceivable…”
Again, not so. Look at the treatment of Europeans opposed to assimiliation into the EU. Being labelled anti-EU is an ordinary phenomenon in countries considering whether or not to join the EU.
And the most important point of all - no one cares. Until the government punishes you for being ‘anti-American’, it’s not an issue of oppression.
And, btw, the Patriot Act doesn’t make you less free. If it does, explain exactly how your freedom has been disrupted by its enactment.
“So why not think before calling somebody unpatriotic or anti-American next time, because it is supposed to be a free country.”
Free speech isn’t designed to protect someone from getting their precious feelings hurt. Because it is a free country, the exact opposite is true - you can criticize freely, including criticizing the critic.
Sorry Thunder but you are missing the point.
Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at MIT. His comments refer to the use of language, not law.
And the most important point of all - no one cares. Until the government punishes you for being ‘anti-American’, it’s not an issue of oppression.
There is more than one way to be coerced into behaving. Perhaps not being given access to information any more when you are a reporter. Perhaps having your wife publicly mentioned when she is a CIA operative.
Oh, those aren’t written in law, but if they did actually happen to you, they are in effect the administration punishing you for having an opposing viewpoint.
With respect to language, his analysis of the use of this phrase is right on the money. The purpose of the usage is to put the labelled person on notice. It creates a “justification” for action against the person labelled.
However, I have to agree, of course things have not gotten out of hand in the US. We can disagree whether it ever could. I will point out that sometimes things are much more fragile than they seem. Hence the “agitation” during the last election.
I would guess that if two or three more 9/11 style attacks had gotten through that the US would not be the same place it is today. I’d imagine tougher laws than the Patriot Act would have been passed. I’d imagine that foreign study and travel would be further curtailed. I’d imagine another war might already have been entered.
Of course it is conjecture, but you are poised for further movement depending on the actions of outside parties. The administration using language to classify some thinking and speaking folks as “anti-americans” is a reckless thing.
It isn’t about where you are right now, it is about whether or not you weaken the boundaries between where you are and where you do not want to be.
Thunderbolt, the Patriot act hasn’t actually limited my personal freedom, basically because I live in England, of course while I was living in America i had finger prints and a photo taken at customs every time I entered the country, which may not sound like a big deal, but I’d rather your government didn’t gather and record unuseful and personal information on me. The fact that while there I could have had my apartment raided secretly without a warrent, I could have been jailed without access to a lawyer and my family and the fact that I could have been jailed with no reason given really threatened my freedom. Luckily, despite speaking out against Bush my CIA (in training)roomate chose not to report me to the police. Sadly some have not been so lucky. I mean it is idiotic that Habeus Corpus has been suspended for this ‘war time’ government. This is no more and no less a time of war than most other periods, just this time the US is doing its thing out in the open, as opposed to sending covert operatives to intervene accross the world.
JohnGullick,
We would rather not have had 3000 of our citizens murdered!
[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Thunderbolt, the Patriot act hasn’t actually limited my personal freedom, basically because I live in England, of course while I was living in America i had finger prints and a photo taken at customs every time I entered the country, which may not sound like a big deal, but I’d rather your government didn’t gather and record unuseful and personal information on me. The fact that while there I could have had my apartment raided secretly without a warrent, I could have been jailed without access to a lawyer and my family and the fact that I could have been jailed with no reason given really threatened my freedom. Luckily, despite speaking out against Bush my CIA (in training)roomate chose not to report me to the police. Sadly some have not been so lucky. I mean it is idiotic that Habeus Corpus has been suspended for this ‘war time’ government. This is no more and no less a time of war than most other periods, just this time the US is doing its thing out in the open, as opposed to sending covert operatives to intervene accross the world.[/quote]
Mr Gullick,
Having been to your fine country numerous times, I suggest you stop your bitching. The customs and immigration people in Britain are much stricter than those in the U.S. YOU DONT WANT YOUR FINGER PRINTS TAKEN…dont come. Its really that simple. I dont want my god damn picture on CCTV everywhere I go, but that doesnt stop her majesty from videoing me in every place I go. Its creepy, and big brotherish.
As for the patriot act, I suggest you read a bit more on it, preferably from places other than the Guardian. There is nothing in it that allows search without warrants. What they are allowed to do is search a place without notifying the person. They stil have to get a bench issued search warrant. There are numerous oother inaccuracies and misunderstandings in your assumptions about the act, but I have to be off to work now. I will try and post a respectable article on the patriot act in a bit.
biltritewave
What you say is complete crap. I am a British citizen living in the US. I travel back and forward frequently. I have never, ever, ever been treated as badly or rudely by customs/immigration people as in the US. You feel like a criminal when you get photographed at customs, and when they search your bag every damn time you enter the country.
Vis a vis the Patriot act: here’s a story that shoots down your ‘its not so bad theory.’ My parents have a residence in Florida. Dad went to the local library to check out a Chomsky and Paul Krugman book. The librarian addressed him, telling him that he would have to fill out a form giving name, Social Sec. number, phone number, address, and a photocopy of his drivers license, because these books were on the government ‘checklist.’
I am a PhD student in Boston Mass, and I have had multiple warnings from librarians about what books students should be careful with, regarding the watchlists. This is for my course readings.
Now, my Dad grew up for the first 10 years of his life in Nazi Germany. Multiple members of his–and my mothers families were arrested by the Gestapo. So when my father tells me that he’s worried about some issues in this country, I’m going to listen.
Now I’ll be the first to admit that this country isn’t 1930’s Germany. But I find it disconcerting that some Americans cannot take honest debate about their President’s policies without believing the person making criticisms is anti-american.
“Being anti-American means hating America for what it is, NOT what is does.” If you want the article that this quote came from, let me know.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
We would rather not have had 3000 of our citizens murdered![/quote]
Then maybe Clinton shouldn’t have cut the balls off our intelligence programs.
Democrats kept yelling about “we have enough defense, we have enough defense” and then Clinton came along and started flushing defense and intelligence programs down the toilet to save money. Everybody cheered. (Except people like me, who were in the industry.)
Then 9/11 comes along, and everyone glares at Bush and says “look what you did”. That’s not fair. We told you what was happening, and you didn’t care. We told you it was dangerous, and you didn’t care. And as early as 1996, I was saying that the American people would not take our defensive needs seriously until there was a major terrorist attack on American soil. Which is exactly what we got, and NOW you take it seriously – but only seriously enough to buy duct tape and bottled water, you pathetic self-involved little pricks.
Do we really need to say “I told you so”? Too late, I just did. The defense of this country needs to be in the hands of people who live in a different world than you do. Of COURSE we’re scary; we have to be. It’s scary over there. You don’t want to go over there. We go over there so you don’t have to. So shut up and fucking appreciate it for once.
fabs,
I can only state to you and other “foreign” travelers that until your own homeland is attacked and civilians are killed you have no idea how we feel!
Personally, I wish that they were even more careful when allowing citizens of a foreign country to travel into the USA.
I am sorry that it is an inconvenience to you. I in no way take pleasure in this. However, you and others, are going to have to realize that the USA is a different country post 9-11. And it should be!
I certainly hope that the new restrictions do not keep people such as yourself from entering the USA. However, keep in mind that you (and all foreign visitors) have a choice. You can either put up with our new security, or you can choose to stay at home.
Once a terrorist is unwittingly allowed into the country some of our citizens may not have a choice. They will simply be killed. And that would be the real tragedy!
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
Zeb
Considering the state of civil liberties in England I’d say you guys don’t have any grounds to criticise the US. If they tried to impose the British system here it would start a war. Which obviously couldn’t happen in Britain because the Brits gave up the right to bear arms because they trust Tony Blair implicitly. Hitler would have loved to have some of the instruments of governmental control the Brits have so blindly accepted. At least we don’t have biometric cameras on every corner. And we don’t keep DNA records of innocent people either. Plus lets not forget the gang situation in England. A lot of crime victims in England don’t file police complaints because they are afraid the persons mates will come to their house kick down their door, come in and kill them. At least in America we can defend our homes against home invasion. Other than that England is a great place with lots of beautiful girls with big tits who put out, I love it there.
Fabs-
I said nothing about the rudeness of the people at the airport. That has nothing to do with restrictions as was talked about earlier. The fact is that I get a lot more flak going into britain than I do any other country. Maybe its the other way around for you since america is not where you passport is from (assuming), but I would hardly call having your fingerprints taken as a violation of any sort of personal freedom.
I’d love to hear more about this book library shit you are talkign about. The way you describe it is not in anyway the way the law is supposed to be carried out and if it is happening tell them to go fuck themselves. As written the law allows agencies to check the reading lists of people already under investigation. It should have no bearing on you what so ever if you arent a terrorist or a suspected terrorist. Sounds like the yocals that are carrying it out by you are dumb…thats not the fault of the law.
CD you hit the nail on the head there in what you said. That is truly the key to it all. About Bill Clinton. And what he did to our nation’s intelligence. Our defenses. I just got done reading the very eye opening and absolutely shocking book called Intelligence Failure by Richard Bossie. It spells it all out for one. And it is truly why our intelligence and our defenses are so mixed up. None of it is made up. Or filled with any lies. ANd in the book, there are so many things that people just overlook.
Or are not being told.
The fact of the matter is this: Clinton was more concerned about our domestic policy. And the economic agenda. ANd where he went and paid for his programs, and what he wanted to pass, was the intelligence and defense area. Hey the Cold War is over. The USSR the once evil empire is no more. We do not need to build up our defenses.
Or concern ourselves with new weapons. We are not being threatened the way we used to be. With intelligence. Again we don’t have that USSR anymore. Its time we concerned oursleves with our own domeistc issues. And concern oursleves with that. Let the “Good times roll,” once again for Americans.
Let us relive those Roaring 20’s.
And that is what happened. But Al Queda was like a cancer cell that just grew and grew. And without the funding for the intelligence, the politically correcting the intellignece comm. Removing key people who were dissidents. WHo could work and secretly go into Al Queda and other terror netowrks. TO get the right translators in these countries. To not have the FBI concern themselves just with domestic terrorism. And to make rules, (And Congress is to blame for this too), whereas the right hand did not know what the left was doing. And both sides did not share intelligence with one another.
And then you have Sudan, (which I have brought out in a posting, about a Sudanese website), talking about the Clinton policy in regards to Sudan. And how Sudan begged Clinton do not force us to remove Osamma Bin Laden, He go back to Afganistan. You are opening up a hornets nest. Where he cannot be controlled or under servillance. And the pressure was so immense from the Clinton admin. they had to do it. ANd look what happened there.
And yet the signs were all there. But the Intelligence was in such chaos and disarray, that as so many said, Each had the dots, but neither side (FBI and CIA) worked together to connect the dots. Because of the atittude Pres. CLinton had for the Intelligence and the Defense.
Mean the proof of the pudding is just watch that video from the Dulles Airport. These 5 hijackers, going through security. Being stopped, and scanned by the wands. And just being let go onto that plane.
And as I said so many times, all of this President Bush inherited. And the Intelligence COmm was in suchj dissaray, that it would not take weeks for it to be fixed, but years.
9/11/2001 Changed the world, and changed America. We are totally a different country now. And we have to be very serious about our Nation’s Security. And our intelligence. If it means having civil liberties taken away, so be it. If it is all in the name of protecting our Nation, and our freedom, so be it. And this is exactly what the Patriot Act does…And why it is so so needed, to fight this War on Terrorism. For during Wartime, just like during World War II. We must sacrifice. Give up things. Even have some of our freedoms curtialed. ANd more in the line of itelligence. If we all want to win this war on terror…
Joe
This is another reason why it is so needed this Patiriot Act. This is from Jihadwatch…
Newark NJ A threatening note found aboard a Washington-to-New York Amtrak train prompted police to detain it for an hour and a half Thursday morning while they checked all passengers for identification and examined the overhead luggage racks.
After officers videotaped the passengers and searched the cars with at least one bomb-sniffing dog, the train was declared safe and allowed to leave Newark Penn Station to continue on its way.
Amtrak spokesman Dan Stessel said he did not know the exact contents of the note, but a law enforcement source said it contained “pro-Muslim, anti-Jewish rhetoric.” The note included the phrase, “You’re all sitting ducks,” said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The note was attached to the mirror in a restroom of the train’s cafe car, Stessel said. The passenger who found it notified the train crew, and police were waiting for the train when it reached Newark, its next scheduled stop.
Now this…
Scouting jetliners for new attacks
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Flight crews and air marshals say Middle Eastern men are staking out airports, probing security measures and conducting test runs aboard airplanes for a terrorist attack…
This is why we must get even tougher…
And the ACLU and other Civil Liberites groups, need to stop their attacks on the Patriot Act, or other things enacted during the War on Terrorism.
And why both candidates must say and drive home, our number one priortiy must be our Nations Security and Defense.
Joe
Heres a good article about the Patriot Act, and the book provision with in it.
Who’s Afraid of the Patriot Act?
Bernie Sanders thinks the Patriot Act lets the government spy on you for the books you read. Think again.
by Claudia Winkler
04/28/2004 12:00:00 AM
“THE USA PATRIOT ACT gives the government sweeping authority to monitor what books we read and buy.” When that flat falsehood is being peddled by a national legislator, it’s no wonder bookstores and libraries are circulating petitions to amend this fearful law, and ordinary American readers are signing them, in the earnest hope of rescuing our basic freedoms.
But Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is not alone in publicizing (on his website) this scurrilous rendition of the Patriot Act. The American Civil Liberties Union also propagates a caricature of the law as “setting the FBI loose on the American public.” Here’s a snippet from the ACLU’s analysis of the relevant part of the statute, Section 215:
“For example, the FBI could spy on a person because they don’t like the books she reads, or because they don’t like the websites she visits. They could spy on her because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy.”
To say the Patriot Act authorizes the FBI to spy on people because of their taste in reading is like saying that equipping beat cops with night sticks authorizes the police to bludgeon old ladies who annoy them. Sure, a rogue element at the FBI can run amok. It could before the Patriot Act. It can after the Patriot Act–not by doing what the law authorizes, but by breaking the law.
Judge for yourself. Section 215 is very short. It has to do with record requests “for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” Such an investigation must be authorized by a federal court–the FISA court, specialized in foreign intelligence matters, an entity created by a Democratic Congress and Democratic president in 1978 and manned by normal federal judges assigned by the chief justice for seven-year terms.
Section 215 stipulates that the FBI’s application for a court order “shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation . . . to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”
Just in case neither the FBI nor the authorizing court does its job properly, there is an oversight measure built into Section 215: Every six months, the attorney general must report to Congress how many requests for court orders have been made and how many granted. So far the number of searches of library and bookstore records reported under the Patriot Act: zero.
IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE, of course, that some piece of Section 215, or any other part of the Patriot Act for that matter, has been ill designed, perhaps too broadly tailored. It’s possible, and the question deserves to be examined, and defects repaired. But the good people busy signing petitions–printed in patriotic red, white, and blue–at bookstores aren’t being invited into that conversation. They’re being cynically manipulated by demagogues who spread contempt for government.
Says Mark Corallo, chief spokesman for the Department of Justice, “You’re scaring regular Americans into believing that their government is doing things that the government is neither inclined to do nor has the legal authority to do.”
Britain’s longest serving prime minister of modern times, Margaret Thatcher, used words with flair. She once called it “wicked” to suggest that those who opposed some particular Labour party social-uplift measure ipso facto didn’t care about the poor. It is similarly wicked to suggest that those who see a need to provide the government with new investigative tools appropriate to the new security situation therefore are indifferent to the Constitution.
Claudia Winkler is a managing editor at The Weekly Standard.
and another…keep the myths coming, we’ll keep dispelling them.
Dispelling the Myths
Dispelling Some of the Major Myths about the USA PATRIOT Act
Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act ?expands terrorism laws to include ?domestic terrorism? which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy.? They also claim that it includes a ?provision that might allow the actions of peaceful groups that dissent from government policy, such as Greenpeace, to be treated as ?domestic terrorism.?? (ACLU, February 11, 2003; ACLU fundraising letter, cited by Stuart Taylor in ?UnPATRIOTic,? National Journal, August 4, 2003)
Reality: The Patriot Act limits domestic terrorism to conduct that breaks criminal laws, endangering human life. ?Peaceful groups that dissent from government policy? without breaking laws cannot be targeted. Peaceful political discourse and dissent is one of America?s most cherished freedoms, and is not subject to investigation as domestic terrorism. Under the Patriot Act, the definition of ?domestic terrorism? is limited to conduct that (1) violates federal or state criminal law and (2) is dangerous to human life. Therefore, peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy will obviously not come under this definition. (Patriot Act, Section 802)
Myth: The ACLU has claimed that ?Many [people] are unaware that their library habits could become the target of government surveillance. In a free society, such monitoring is odious and unnecessary. . . The secrecy that surrounds section 215 leads us to a society where the ?thought police? can target us for what we choose to read or what Websites we visit.? (ACLU, July 22, 2003)
Reality: The Patriot Act specifically protects Americans? First Amendment rights, and terrorism investigators have no interest in the library habits of ordinary Americans. Historically, terrorists and spies have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten our national security. If terrorists or spies use libraries, we should not allow them to become safe havens for their terrorist or clandestine activities. The Patriot Act ensures that business records ? whether from a library or any other business ? can be obtained in national security investigations with the permission of a federal judge.
Examining business records often provides the key that investigators are looking for to solve a wide range of crimes. Investigators might seek select records from hardware stores or chemical plants, for example, to find out who bought materials to make a bomb, or bank records to see who?s sending money to terrorists. Law enforcement authorities have always been able to obtain business records in criminal cases through grand jury subpoenas, and continue to do so in national security cases where appropriate. In a recent domestic terrorism case, for example, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that a suspect had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying the suspect as the bomber.
In national security cases where use of the grand jury process was not appropriate, investigators previously had limited tools at their disposal to obtain certain business records. Under the Patriot Act, the government can now ask a federal court (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), if needed to aid an investigation, to order production of the same type of records available through grand jury subpoenas. This federal court, however, can issue these orders only after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment.
Congress reviews the government?s use of business records under the Act. Every six months, the Attorney General must ?fully inform? Congress on how it has been implemented. On October 17, 2002, the House Judiciary Committee issued a press release indicating it is satisfied with the Department?s use of section 215: ?The Committee?s review of classified information related to FISA orders for tangible records, such as library records, has not given rise to any concern that the authority is being misused or abused.?
Myth: The ACLU claims that the Patriot Act provision about delayed notification search warrants ?would allow law enforcement agencies to delay giving notice when they conduct a search. . . . This provision would mark a sea change in the way search warrants are executed in the United States.? (ACLU, October 23, 2001)
Reality: Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography. The Patriot Act simply codified the authority law enforcement had already had for decades. This tool is a vital aspect of our strategy of prevention ? detecting and incapacitating terrorists before they are able to strike.
In some cases if criminals are tipped off too early to an investigation, they might flee, destroy evidence, intimidate or kill witnesses, cut off contact with associates, or take other action to evade arrest. Therefore, federal courts in narrow circumstances long have allowed law enforcement to delay for a limited time when the subject is told that a judicially-approved search warrant has been executed. This tool can be used only with a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or serious jeopardy to an investigation. The reasonable delay gives law enforcement time to identify the criminal?s associates, eliminate immediate threats to our communities, and coordinate the arrests of multiple individuals without tipping them off beforehand. In all cases, law enforcement must give notice that property has been searched or seized.
The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized ?that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant.? In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was ?frivolous.? Dalia v. U.S., 441 U.S. 238 (1979)
John,
If you don’t like it stay out of our country. These are the rules and I am really not all that broke up about what you go through to get in or stay in my country
Okay, I am in no way minimizing the impact of an attack on the US homeland, it was a horrible day.
However, you should realize that many other countries have indeed suffered terrorist attacks on their own lands for many years. This US is not the only country to have been a target of this.
This thread has turned into a “rally around the flag” and “repel boarders” exercise. Peace out, the British are one of the few countries that are ardent supporters of the US these days.
You are busy attacking people who are your staunchest allies!
I don’t know how to say this, but if every several years a terrorist attack hits your country, my country or other allied countries, then we will be doing fairly well.
It is a difficult question to say how many freedoms should be squeezed to protect a life. Folks on this site say life is about chances, tough luck if you lose your job and things get dicey, you just have to live with it.
In the big picture, with respect to the size and vitality of a country (the US or otherwise), a terrorist attack every few years is not an emergency (the country itself is not in jeopardy if you see what I am saying). I certainly don’t wish this on anyone, but I don’t think we need to be hysterical either.
There should still be room for and time for criticism of policy and administration. Of course, if you want to, you can cry about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket all because of Clinton too.
All this discussion shows the importance of the second amendment. The right to bear arms is the ultimate guarantor of our freedoms. In Britain there is no such guarantee. All the British have is blind faith in their government, a government against which British subjects have had to take up arms in the past. 6 years ago Tony Blair hyped people up (not the last time he would do this) about the threat of gun ownership and outlawed gun ownership. Every year since the number of crimes committed with guns has doubled. What the British people don’t understand is that by unilaterally disarming the law abiding citizenry they have given criminals an incentive to aquire guns. The incentive is this, if they use a gun to rob a law abiding citizen they don’t have to worry about getting shot. In Britain they have a label to deamonize advocates of gun ownership the term is “gun culture” what is never mentioned is is their “antigun culture”. The antigun nuts are the ones in charge now. They got their way and violent crime of all sorts has just taken off. In Britain every high school aged kid has been accosted at some time with a knife. In the US we have a saying “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight”. In Britain thugs don’t have to worry about getting shot so they are a lot more brazen. In Britain you can’t go into the city alone after dark with out having to worry about getting assaulted a roving gang of thugs. In Britain if one of your Talibani neighbors (there is a lot of them there, which explains US customs) were to go on his own personal jihad with an AK47 (some of them do have them) there is nothing you can do but ring 999 and wait for a special armed police unit who when they arrived on the scene would park a safe distance away and wait for their supervisor to send a signal to their cars gunsafe that would allow them access to thier guns. In a gunfight where milliseconds can make the difference between life and death the British waste minutes. But hey at least Tony Blair has armed guards they know whose life is most important. With all the infringements on freedom in Britain and lack of civilian contol over government excesses, the British have no grounds to criticise the US.
First off yes America had 3000 citizens killed in 9/11, buts that’s not the reason it has gone into Iraq and thats not the reason for years of covert operations against millions of innocents over the years. As for civil libierties I’m lucky enough to live in the most liberal country in the world, we gave up the right to bear arms when we decided the police should keep law and order, not vigilantes. I’ve never had any worries about being attacked by gangs. When I lived in downtown Atlanta however it was a different story. We aren’t a country of people who live in fear, and we don’t implicitly trust Tony Blair, he’s currently fighting against pressure to resign as I write this. When we criticise our leader we aren’t labelled unpatriotic here. I was not in the Twin Towers, I have however been evacutated from a local shopping mall 4 times growing up under IRA terror threats (the mall in question at the time was the biggest in Europe). I also saw my uncle put in hospital by an IRA bomb in London. Don’t think we don’t understand terrorism over, the US backed IRA was doing it to us for years. Yes I know it was our own idiot imperialists who got us into that position, but the US needs to learn that its imperial conquests will meet resistance, such as Bin Laden.