parados wrote:Terrorism exists. Terrorism will always exist. As long as terrorism exists we can't say we won.
Terrorism existed before 9/11 for hundreds of years and we did just fine without the executive needing powers beyond the legal ones. There is no evidence that those powers will or have prevented a single terrorist attack.
Risk management means you need to actually examine the risks. There is no way to examine the reward of not requiring warrants since we have no evidence of them ever stopping a single terrorist attack. We do have evidence of Presidents abusing their power in using the spying capabilities of the FBI, CIA and NSA.
To say we need the ability for a President to abuse his power as long as we have terrorism is to say a President is given license to abuse his power forever. I don't buy it.
Don't buy it, but have a better understanding of the situation.
Terrorism, indeed, existed before 9/11, but let's face it, as far as the majority of Americans are concerned it was of little import.
There may never be another 9/11. 9/11 may have been the perfect storm for al-Qaida and with or without extraordinary security measures by the US, they may never again be able to pull off such an event.
Do we want to bet on it?
If you agree with Drewdad that 9/11 didn't change the world, wait until there is another 9/11.
Imagine the sentiment of the American people if the Sears Tower in Chicago is felled, the Golden Gate Bridge is brought down, or the White House destroyed. Imagine it if instead of 3,000 people being killed, 30,000 are killed, or 50,000, or 100,000?
Risk management is a fairly simple concept.
First one needs to identify all possible threats.
Secondly one needs to assess the extent of loss that is likely if any one of these threats comes to pass.
Thirdly, one must determine the likelihood of any of these threat being realized.
Fourthly, one needs to identify all the measure available that will eliminate or mitigate the various threats.
Fifthly, one needs to quantify the cost of such measures.
Finally, one must determine how the cost of risk reduction measures match up to the probably and cost of a realized threat.
If a threat has a 1 in 100,000 chance of occurring, but the loss from such a threat realized is astronomical, and the cost to prevent it is relatively cheap, the prudent course of action is to spend the modest amount of money to prevent the highly unlikely event.
If the threat has a 1 in 100 chance of occurring, the loss from such a threat realized is astronomical, but the cost to prevent it is quite dear, it's not so easy a decision to make.
Risk management, however is a thankless job. One might make a perfectly logical decision that the cost of prevention exceeds the cost of the threat realized, however if the threat is, in fact, realized, there will be no shortage of gadflies second guessing the decision makers.
Too many people, unfortunately, insist on having it both ways: They don't want to incur the cost of preventing a threat that may never actually be realized, but if it does, they want to blame the powers that be for not doing more to prevent it.
The notion that we must have all the facts, demonstrable evidence, and long track records of the impact of events to conduct risk management, is wrong.
No one can be certain that the various plans to rebuild the New Orleans levees will prove to be effective protection agains future hurricanes. The plans that exist to protect the city from a category 5 hurricane are by no means fool proof.
Furthermore, we are a republic. We, as citizens, do not require proof that unwarranted surveillance can and has foiled terrorist plots. The government says they have. You get to trust them or not. You don't get to learn of all the classified information that may support their conclusion.
That prior Administrations have abused executive power is not proof that this one will. It is certainly a worthy consideration when assessing the risks we face, but it is no more assured than another 9/11.
I know I'm not arguing that we need the President to abuse his power as long as there is a threat of terrorist attacks, and I doubt anyone else is. To frame one's argument in such terms is of little value in the public debate.
