Printable View
Mainly that Japanese expansionism was well known to the American people prior to Pearl Harbor, probably much better known than what Al-Qaeda's intentions were prior to 9/11. Few believed it was a bolt out of the blue. It's just that they were expecting somewhere else to be attacked and that a formal declaration of war would be made first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
But that's yet another American-Centric view of what was happeing in the far east prior to WW2. From the Japanses point of view they were protecting their interests, primarily in Manchuria, and as a result, found themselves drawn in to the constant civil wars that kept erupting in China. The Western powers, including the US and the UK were busy feeding those civil wars to further their own ends. Japan very much saw themselves as resisting the already extant Western expanionism throughout the far east. War between Japan and the Western Powers was inevitable because we were all meddling in the same region for the same reasons.
Japan launched a pre-emptive strike on the US because it was their only hope of victory in a coming confilict which was inevitable. Was a pre-emptive strike justifiable in those circumstances? I'm sure most people would say no, but events of the last decade muddies that morality somewhat.
Admiral Yamamoto didn't think so but he carried it out because that's what he was told to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Lol "Protect their interests"Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
"Pre-emptive strike"
Are you a right-wing Japanese?
It was a war over oil, don't ya know? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
Yea seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by bgmacaw
God forbid the United States act on her morals and refuse to sell oil to Japan when it was going around conquering, raping and pillaging.
I think the idea for Japan was to cripple the U.S. naval fleet so it had free reign to take over the Phillipines or Indonesia to get control of those oil fields since U.S. had stopped selling them oil.
Because they believed the U.S. would have intervened if they went farther than China.
Good thing they missed the four carriers that were out of port that day.
OK, here goes:D
Japanese interests in China really began in 1895 when they defeated the then ruling Manchu forces in Manchuria and Korea. Her gains were ratified by the treaty of Shiomneski but were then overturned by the interventions of France, Russia and Germany.
Russia, as the other player for whom these events were taking place 'on their doorstep' then sought to further their own sphere of control over Manchuria and Korea, leading directly to the Russo Japanese War, which Japan won, thus re-consolidating her own sphere of control over the area and putting her in the position of sponsor to the Manchu dynasty she'd formerly been in conflict with. A position which was tacitly acknowledged by the Western Powers who were more interested in the richer South.
Meanwhile, the Western powers, who wanted the manchu dynasty to remain in power but also wanted to keep it weak to ensure their own political dominance, maintained a series of seriously imbalanced military and trade treaties which, most historians would agree, undermined the dynasty to such an extent that it collapsed in 1911. A nominal republic was inaugerated in 1912 but it was weak and never truly governed China. All sides continued to machinate in the politics of the region, further undermining the republic.
World War 1 saw the Western powers influnce wane in the region (they were busy elsewhere) and Japan sought to once again consolidate her influence in the North with the '21 demands'. A series of demands against the republic which were probably more one sided that those the Western Powers had perviously attempted to exert. International pressure eventually forced Japan to back off from her position.
Following World War 1, China errupted into a series of civil wars known as the warlord period. Western powers, Russia and Japan again got involved, choosing various clans to back. Japan's support, throughout the period, remained consistently behind the remnants of the Manchu dynasty in the North, now under Chang Tso-Lin. Chang's capacity to govern in the North declined during the period, leaving the Japanese army to increasinly adopt the role of defence in the North. Note that, during this period, Japan did not seek to extend it's sphere of conrtrol, merely to retain what it already had.
In 1921 Sun Yat-Sen emerges on the scene leading the Kuomintang Canton. With Soviet support they spent the period up to 1926 consolidating their position in the South before launching the Northern Expedition against the various warlords. The Kuomintang expanded rapidly northwards until 1927 when the threat of their communist allies attempting to sieze power prompted them to turn on the communists. Conflict continued between the Kuomintang and the warlords but their rapid advances ended. In 1928 the now Western backed Kuomintang set themselves up in Nanking as the National Governement of China.
Between the establishment of the National Govenment and the tightening of resources bought on by the onset of the great depression in 1929, THIS is the moment that Japan decided to become agressive in order to maintain their interests in the region. You should consider that, by this point, the Japanese regarded Korea, Manchuria and Mongolia as natural parts or their empire. They believed they were theirs in exactly the same way as, for example, the English viewed India. Further, their military was already acting as the de-facto military force of the Manchu dynasty.
They militarily occupied Manchuria in 1932 and declared it as a free nation (Manchukou), installing the last emperor of China and successor to the Manchu dynasty, Pu-Yi, as it's head of state. Over the next 5 years they continued to exert political pressure to the Chinese areas south of the great wall until, in 1937 they launched a full scale invasion of China and kicked off the Sino-Japanese war.
None of which off-topic lecturing excuses the position of agression Japan adopted in the 30's (and most certainly does not excuse the atrocities they carried out as part of that agression) but should serve to illustrate several points:-
1. The history of Japanese involvelment in China did not begin in 1937
2. Japanese agression was borne out of a desire to maintain their influene in the region and if you condemn that kind of "agressive-defence" (which I do) you must also condemn the British, the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Sassanids, the Sachanids, the Catholic Church, the Islamic religion, Israel, Egypt, Syria and, yes, the good ol' USA who have all, at one time or another, pursued a foreign occupation or invasion under the premise of "If we don't do it today they'll attack us tomorrow".
3. There at least two sides to every story and
4. While history may be taught by the winners it's written by all and that which the winners may teach will ony become prevailing doctrine if we stop reading what the losers wrote.
So there:p
edit>Indeed he didn't, and he wasn't the only one. The Emperor himself was opposed to it but he was too politically weak to control the military.Quote:
Admiral Yamamoto
Ah, but the Pearl Harbor attack was because of the oil embargo by U.S. right? And US embargo'ed oil against Japan because they didn't like the Axis powers?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Japan entering into the Tripartite Pact in 1940 in an attempt to keep the US out of the war and to discourage further sanctions against Japan. In response, Roosevelt added more items to the embargo list and further toughened the US stance toward Japan. The Japanese needed raw materials, primarily oil, rubber and steel/iron, to continue their campaign in China. To obtain this they decided that they needed to seize Indochina and the Philippines (then a US possession). They knew the US would retaliate if their possessions were attacked so the decision was made to cripple the US fleet at Pearl Harbor with the hope of obtaining a quick, negotiated settlement in favor of Japan.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
Looks like they screwed up severly. They missed the major carriers in the attack, and they gave Roosevelt the political power to fight the Axis powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by bgmacaw
It was a gamble, and they lost....for a generation or so.
One of the odd results of Japanese imperialism occured on D-Day when allied troops captured a few german soldiers who spoke no language anybody could understand. After passing them around, it was discovered that they were Korean. They had been conscripted into the Japanese army, and were captured in the fighting on the cinese-russian border. They were then impressed into the Soviet army, and sent to fight the Germans, where they were again captured. The Germans pressed them into their army in turn, so they ended up in Normandy where they were captured by the Americans...who sent them home.
Therefore, you could say that there went a few soldiers who had not fought for at least three different countries.
Partly. But Japanese contemporary sources usually cite the act that America had recently passed undertaking to build a fleet equal to the size of the next two largest fleets. The name escapes me but I think it was called the two oceans act or something like that (I'll check it when I get home). I think this was in contravention of the treaties governing military sizes signed by all parties at the end of WW1 but I'd need to check that to be sure.Quote:
Ah, but the Pearl Harbor attack was because of the oil embargo by U.S. right?
Anyway, this would have given them a superiority of 5:1 over Japan in the Pacific. Japanese strategists reckoned they could maintain a defence of their interests in the face of 3:1 odds but 5:1 would have been out of the question. Since some form of conflict with the US (even if only diplomatic or economic) seemed inevitable this left them with little choice other than to launch a pre-emptive strike before the US could bring that naval force into being. Well, that or capitulation before they'd even started.
Absolutely. They even cut off the attack early because they were concerned that American air force re-enforcements would arrive and get a chance to damage the Japanese fleet. Had they pressed on they probably could have finished the job. As it was they failed to fully achieve their military objective and shot themselves royally in the foot on the political and diplomatic front.Quote:
Looks like they screwed up severly.
edit> It was the Two Ocean Naval Expansion Act and I got my figures totally wrong :rolleyes:. Japan had a ratio of 7:10 against America. They reckoned 5:10 would be enough to maintain a defence and the act would have shifted the ratio to 3:10. It was in contravention of the Washington Naval treaty which limited America's navy to a ratio of 5:3 over Japan's (actually 525, 000 tons to Japans 315,000). Japan had already renounced the treaty in 36, though.
I was very interested in the discussion at the beginning of this thread as to there not being any further terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.
As was stated earlier, one has to wonder what the objective of the attacks on September 11th really where in the first place (and whether subsequent attacks would be of any use to Al-Quieda).
I can only assume it was to raise awareness of Al-Quiedas agenda (something which it certainly has done). I'm not sure what else they hoped to achieve... certainly I doubt they expected the twin towers to actually collapse, from their point of view, I suspect they got really lucky.
So, killing infidels can't be the main reason, sorry to sound insensitive, but killing a few thousand people is hardly going to create a massive dent in a population of 300 million.
Is it to inspire terror in the US people... well, I would argue that they have succesfully done that, but to what end? We are dealing with smart people, they know that the US people are not going to say "Okay, you win, we'll all convert over to Extremist Muslim beliefs" (and make no mistake, these are not fundamentalist Muslims, but extremist Muslims, there is a big difference). So what was their motive in creating this atmosphere of fear... I fail to see any purpose in that approach.
Normally terrorists are fighting for change within their own lands, such as driving out what they see as invaders (Kurds), or hoping to annex their land from a larger state (Basque, Northern Ireland). Neither of those seem to be applicable to Al-Quieda.
So, then there is the economic impact. This has no doubt been massive (not including the cost of the war in Iraq), and the US is a stated enemy of Al-Quieda, so maybe it's a simple as that. Maybe it is to hurt the US financially so that it thinks twice about meddling with middle eastern politics. However even given that they got the (from their point of view) best possible outcome to their plan (collapse of the WTC), this still isn't enough to cripple the powerhouse that the US economy is...
So, what was the motive....
I can only assume it was the first point (to raise awereness of Al-Quieda) and to let the world know that they are to be taken seriously. They have certainly achieved that, so what would further attacks on the US actually gain them... nothing as far as I can see. Yet, still these people try to carry out attacks on different countries (Spain, Britain etc.), what are the reasons for these? What do they hope to achieve?
Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology By Lee HarrisQuote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
Quote:
The terror attack of 9-11 was not designed to make us alter our policy, but was crafted for its effect on the terrorists themselves: It was a spectacular piece of theater. The targets were chosen by al Qaeda not through military calculation — in contrast, for example, to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor — but entirely because they stood as symbols of American power universally recognized by the Arab street. They were gigantic props in a grandiose spectacle in which the collective fantasy of radical Islam was brought vividly to life: A mere handful of Muslims, men whose will was absolutely pure, as proven by their martyrdom, brought down the haughty towers erected by the Great Satan. What better proof could there possibly be that God was on the side of radical Islam and that the end of the reign of the Great Satan was at hand?
Wow! Thanks for that, that is a very interesting article which actually answers a lot of the questions I have about this. I'm not sure if he is 100% correct, but it certainly sounds like the most plausible explanation for the motives behind 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by bgmacaw
I have always felt strongly that we will never defeat Al-Quida until we fully understand what drives them. I used to get very frustrated when people would roll out the "They did it because they're jealous of us" mantra. But that article actually provides some real/plausible answers. Thank you for an excellent post.
That was a good link.
Little surprise that Bush saw this, the neo-con agenda in Iraq was a similar fantasy: The belief that Saddam could be overthrown and Iraq would become a shining example of democracy as an example for totalitarian states in the region.Quote:
Rather than interpreting 9-11 as if it were a Clausewitzian act of war, Bush instinctively saw it for what it was: the acting out of demented fantasy.
I think Bush's main idea on Iraq was, "Uh, yeah Dick, let's do that." :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
If you read some more recent writings by Lee Harris he does cover neo-con mistakes. Remember that piece I linked to was written in early 2002.
Bush wasn't, himself, a neocon, as far as I know, he just surrounded himself with them.
He wanted the President job so that he could get the job he really wanted, Commissioner of Baseball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The whole neo-con thing could cover several books. Overall, I think they had some good ideas, some pie-in-the-sky ideas, and some good implementations and bad implementations just like a lot of other political philosophies.
I disagree, I believe the primary objective was to terrorize America to stay out of Middle East affairs, i.e. supporting the Saudi Arabia and Isralie governments.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
Also being smart in some areas doesn't mean you're smart everywhere.
For example, Marx I'm sure was an educated man who felt compassion for the working class. But he was too stupid to realize that his system of government went against the human nature of competition and made everyone miserable.
So these terrorists probably thought a big attack would scare off America from supporting the Saudis and Israelis.
To all of the people who have strong feelings against wiretaping terrorist's phone call that don't start nor terminiate in the USA, just think if this was your son or if it was you. How would you feel, that Senator Schumer!!!
'WIRE' LAW FAILED LOST GI 10-HOUR DELAY AS FEDS SOUGHT TAP TO TRACK JIMENEZ CAPTORS IN IRAQ
I doubt if anyone here feels strongly against wire-tapping terrorists phone calls, but you are omitting/ignoring a very important point in the argument, which is that wire tapping has to be controlled/authorised otherwise we have given cart-blanche to the government to wiretap everyones phone, and use that information as they see fit. Just deciding that your own personal reasons are good enough is not a very good system. To follow your argument, then we should have no restrictions on the police/government. If they decide that it's important enough, then we should just cow-tow and accept their superior judgement.... :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
One might equally argue that kidnap victims in the US get killed because the police do not have the power to barge into everyones house and search for the victim without a warrant? Or how about all of the escaped criminals (some of whom are murderers) who are free to roam the country committing further crimes because we don't have mandatory travel/work checks with compulsory ID cards...
I know, think of all the crimes that go unsolved because we don't have GPS radio tracking on every person in the country!
Now, if we could trust the people who utilise wire tapping not to abuse the system, then we wouldn't need guidlines, and straight forward wire-tapping in circumstances like the one posted would be accepted by the public. However we cannot trust them (and I am not talking about the government, I'm talking about individuals).
Say for instance I am working on a business opportunity. I can buy item x for $100,000 and sell it to person y for $200,000. I discuss it on the phone, and some cop has wire tapped my phone. There's little to stop him from going out and hijacking my plan, by contacting person y directly and selling item x for $175,000. These of sort of things happen all the time in business, why would any company feel comfortable opening all of their secrets up to cops, their friends and families etc.?
Wire-tapping on people is a gross invasion of that persons right to privacy. If they are living their life outside of the law, then I agree, they have forfieted that right of privacy, however, we need some checks and balances to ensure that this right is not taken away without due course.
To get back to your initial post. If (and it is a bif if - the story is ridiculously emotive and assuming), there had been no dubiety that Abdul had kidnapped the soldiers, then why wouldn't they go arrest Abdul instead of putting a wiretap on him. Likewise, if they know that Abdul is a terrorist, why don't they already have a "legal" wire tap on him. I find it hard to believe that some soldiers get kidnapped, and the first response is to wiretap some local peoples phone lines? Or where they looking to trawl all phone conversations in the area? That in itself is even more disturbing.....
Maybe we could have a register so that people such as yourself could sign away all of your rights and the police would know that they could do what they want to you without recourse. The rest of us would much rather keep our rights (that many have people have fought and died for) thank you very much.
I agree whole heartily, but when the target is a) Not a US citizen and b) is making a telephone calls in a forgein country and c) is involved in committing a crime it should not take more than 3 minutes to get authorization to wire tap this individual,Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
No, re-read my original postQuote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
You already do, it is called a Cell Phone.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
I highly doubt that the government really wants to listen to our conversations.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
Yes it is, so is crashing a plane filled with people into a building filled with people whose only crime was going to work or taking a trip.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
I assume that they didn't know his current location, and the wiretapping was probably a way of locating him quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
[QUOTE=SurfDemon]Maybe we could have a register so that people such as yourself could sign away all of your rights and the police would know that they could do what they want to you without recourse.
We already have this, in most states it is called Parole. A person, terrorist, etc who makes a telephone call from a foreign country to another person in a country other than the USA, doesn't not have an expectation of privacy when the call happens to pass through a telephone switch in the USA, especially when they are discussing a crime.
As would I, but I don't want another building to nearly fall on me again, so that some terrorist can talk to another terrorist about committing a crime either here in the USA or abroad.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
Question about that: How is it a matter for US courts whether we wire tap in a foreign country. Since that is an act of direct espionage against a foreign nation, with all the political implications of such an act, wouldn't this have to be authorized through State or some such? Bascially, if we were to go wire tapping in Russia or China, and they were to find out, what difference would it make if a US warrant had been legally issued?Quote:
I agree whole heartily, but when the target is a) Not a US citizen and b) is making a telephone calls in a forgein country and c) is involved in committing a crime it should not take more than 3 minutes to get authorization to wire tap this individual,
As for me, I would not give up the right of privacy for such a thing. We don't really have freedom now, anyways, but we do have a modicum of privacy. 9/11 wouldn't have been prevented by wiretapping anyone, so the argument is that we give up some of our privacy because an event happened that wouldn't have been prevented by wiretapping. While a person might argue that perhaps some important bit of information could have been obtained by listening to the thousands of calls between foreign nationals in the US, that is largely irrelevant in the case of 9/11 because there was sufficient warning and evidence without the wiretapping, and it was all overlooked.Quote:
As would I, but I don't want another building to nearly fall on me again, so that some terrorist can talk to another terrorist about committing a crime either here in the USA or abroad.
The funny thing about personal privacy laws is how petty they can get. Wire tapping almost certainly falls under the right against unreasonable search (leaving out seizure, which is not pertinent, but is usually added to that phrase). Once you accept that unreasonable search is not an absolute rule, how far does it go? The courts will only make a distinction if the situation is clearly delinneated. Once you make the delinneation so vague that search is permissible whenever the searcher feels that a crime has been committed, you open a very large door. Right now, search can only happen with the permission of a property owner, or upon presenting evidence supporting the expectation that evidence of a specific crime will be found during the search to a judge. By saying that judicial review is not necessary, you may be surprised at how wide an effect that would have. I work for a law enforcement agency, and we are constrained by the rules on search. The impact it would have on us if search rules were loosened would be dramatic. We'd catch many more violators, but we'd do so at the risk of offending MANY more non-violators. Since our crimes are against deer instead of people, it may be easy to say that the average person is better off letting a few crimes go unpunished rather than infringing the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens. The argument becomes more emotional when the crimes are against people. However, it will be people doing the searching, and there are plenty of folks in uniform who do not see right and wrong the way you do.
We should leave the standards for the acceptable invasion of privacy high, and if it means that a few crimes will go unpunished, that's a price we should willingly pay. After all, while you might be killed, or might have a loved one killed by a terrorist, and while that might make you very angry and wanting to strike out at someone, it is not likely. My mother died this spring to nothing more than cancer. Who do I get angry at? Who do I complain to?
Our lives are short. Few get to choose how or when they die, and nobody gets to opt out of death. We only get to choose how we live. Living in fear, or giving up what privacy, freedom, and dignity you have, solely because you are afraid that somebody might shorten your life, will make your life not worth living, and not worth taking.
Nor would I, but remember the people that I am talking about DO NOT have an expectation of privacy unlike you and I when we use the telephone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I disagree whole heartly with you, since you work for a Law Enforcement Agency, you more than anyone should recognize that fact that we have many more freedoms that people in other countries can only dream of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Probably not, but it would have be possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
You are missing the point of my posts, I am not advocating that we give up our freedom, I am advocating that citizens of other countries who make telephone calls which are initiated and terminate in countries other that the USA, lack the protection of the US Constitution especially when these people are talking about committing crimes. It should not make a difference that these calls are routed through a US switch or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The NSA is already doing that remeber the ECHELON Project?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I agree, a thousand guilty man should go free before an inocent man is jailed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Very true, but we must be vigilant against those who would want to harm us and not put our heads in the sand and hope for the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Then you are mistaken. The US is one of the most over-legislated countries in the history of mankind. The US hasn't been a free nation since 1861.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Yes they do, unless they deliberately chose that as an option. And if you heard an automated voice at the beginning of your phone call saying "Before we connect you from Paris to Munich, would you like this call to be a) routed through the US, whereupon it may be recorded by the NSA, or b) not routed through the US" I wonder which people would choose....
I fundamentally believe that no government has any right to any of my personal data beyond that which is required for me to vote and pay taxes, and a record of having entered and left the country unless I have broken the law in some way. Until that time, I should be considered innocent and allowed to go about my business.
Using the fear of the bogeyman to whittle away at personal freedoms is what governments have always tried to do, and what generations have spent countless hours trying to find ways to prevent.
I am sorry to say that I strongly disagree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
If you choose option A then you are acquiescing to your phone calls being recorded by the NSA and you have no defense nor privacy issues. I say it again, IMHO, if you are not a citizen of the United States and are initiating a call in a country other than the United States and that same call terminates in a country other than the USA then I say you have no protections under the US Constitution what so ever and you have no expectation of privacy within the United States since you are A) Not a Citizen and B) you are located physically within the US. The is especially true if I have prior knowledge that you are going to discuss committing a crime either against the USA or one of our interests, Sorry, that is my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
I wasn't sure whether I should explain that or not, and opted not to, because it wasn't truly relevant. However, let me explain it further, because I was thinking about this just the other day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
Are we free? Not even close, nor should we want to be. As you might guess from my name, I like to take long walks in the woods. Very long walks in the woods. Months at a time if possible. However, it is not possible anymore. I get up in the morning and go to work each day. If I were to be out of a job for a year, I would be on the street, despite the fact that I have built up a pretty fair retirement portfolio. I have monthly expenses that many of you who live in more expensive areas would think quite small, but then again, you'd think the same of my pay. I am about as free to do what I want as I am to fly without wings. Sure, I could jump off a cliff, and would soar for a few moments, but then.....
Now, lest you think this financial bondage is the only kind, consider civic responsibilities, family responsibilities, legal responsibilities (I mean things like a drivers license, not jail time), and probably many more. When you get right down to it, being single, I probably have more time that I can do nearly what I want with than most married folks, but I still have little time.
In fact, though I am reasonably unfettered in appearance, very little of my life is really optional unless I wanted to shed friends, family, job, income, house, health care, etc. Forty hours a week or more are spent earning the income to allow me to get by in a lifestyle that I have mostly chosen. About half of each weekend, all of my mornings, and three out of five week nights are largely occupied with maintenance chores. I know what I would do if I had no constraints, but that is no more than a dream that I never expect to realize.
Now, you might say that's not what you meant by freedom, but actually there is little else. Freedom is a term used by politicians to make it out that we are better than them. The fact is that if you go to pretty much any other country in the world (except Iraq, parts of Afghanistan, palestine, parts of Israel, and other places where imminent murder is likely), you would find that the people there are exactly as free as Americans. Sure we have a right to free speech, but almost nobody tests its boundaries. We jabber on about inconsequential things like the weather, what we had for dinner, etc. This would be the same conversation in practically any corner of the globe. Furthermore, we don't have absolute freedom of speech. You can't shout "FIRE" in a theatre, you can't incite violence, and depending on where you are, you had best be pretty circumspect about what you say. The same is true for every other country. Perhaps there are more things that they can't say, but 99% of the people will be too busy wondering what they will have for dinner, just like we do.
What other freedoms do we have? Oh yeah, we're generally rich, so we can buy all kinds of toys. We can even buy toys to throw away. Poverty is more common in many other countries, so they can't buy as many things, but that's not exactly a freedom.
The fact is that the vast majority of the happiness that comes to a person comes from the small pleasures in life. That first drink from an icy spring after a long stretch when the water was empty. A soft bed at the end of a hard day. The company of good friends and good food. The vast majority of the burdens on a person come also from the small annoyances of life. We can encounter the stifling beauraucracy, we can encounter rude or even abusive treatment at work, at home, or anywhere inbetween. The joys are the same in that they are all relative to other joys we have known, and the sorrows are the same in that they are all relative to other sorrows we have known.
So name those freedoms that make your life so much superior to those of other countries. They don't see America as free, they see America as rich, and believe the riches will buy them ease. It hasn't bought us ease. I still can't get away for more than about a month at a time. Where is my freedom?
I used more words, but you said it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I don't understand. If you initiate a call outside the U.S. to a location outside the U.S. then how can you be physically located within the U.S.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
If I make a call from Australia to Paris I would expect my privacy to be impacted by those two countries, that is I would expect to be protected/judged by those laws together and individually.
I would not expect my privacy to be impacted by every sundry country that may happen to route my call. How would I know what rights I have at any point in the conversation? If I phoned my g/friend in Paris and discussed snogging her (kissing) in the park next time I saw her (highly offensive in muslim countries) should I expect to be locked up if I try to enter an asian country after making a phone call like that? Hell - I hope that call didn't get routed through Asia!
I guess someone will tell me I have no rights at all when making an international call. That is sad if that is the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Gambo
I think you have misunderstood. My point was that if I have no choice about whether or not my call is routed through the US, then I believe I should have some rights.
Constitution or otherwise, to flagrantly abuse the privacy of those who aren't even US citizens by weaselling that "they aren't protected by the Constitution" shows a complete lack of respect for the rest of the world. Maybe that's not a problem, but there can't be much surprise if the rest of the world does not show much respect in return.
And, to be honest, I suspect that it is this sort of approach by politicians that has played a significant role in determining the current international standing of the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penagate
Because some cell phone calls are routed through a US Switch sometimes so US courts think they can excert jurisdiction over these call the neither are intiatiated nor terminated within the US by non US Citizens. My point is that US Courts should have no authority over these types of calls.
I agree, you should have some rights but I don't think the a US Court should be giving you rights to the types of phone calls I described.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
Whether it is the right thing to do or not is debatable, but my point is that US Courts don't have standing to grant you rights that you are not otherwise be entitled to. There are lots of laws that we all think are violative of our privacy in all countries but unfortunately these are the laws of sovereign nations and while you and I are within these countries we have to obey them or risk prosecution.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
I'd call it spying, and if you get caught at that at the diplomatic level, there are serious consequences. Why should the US government be able to spy on me because I'm a private individual and not another sovereign nation?
...but I am not in the US so why should I be affected by US law simply because our technology is now global in nature. I have no doubt that there are US calls being routed through the UK on there way to somwhere else but that shouldn't give my government and/or police free reign to listen in on them, particularly as my government do not hold this right over their own citizens (without judicial aproval).Quote:
while you and I are within these countries
I do agree that it should not be up to the Judiciary to grant rights but that's a smoke-screen to the real issue. The real issue is that, if the US government wants to pass legislation that allows any body to listen in on calls which originate and terminate outside US juristiction, particularly without approval of a judicial body, then I disagree with them as they are removing my rights.
Let’s say there are IRA terrorists based inside the US plotting to attack London. They make a call to their terrorist cohorts inside Ireland with a call routed through the UK. The IRA has just recently called for the destruction of the UK and has recently carried out attacks that have destroyed Big Ben and the Tower of London.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Do you think it is the right of the British government to attempt to intercept this call to attempt to possibly prevent a future attack on London, or do you feel intercepting such a call would violate the privacy rights of these terrorists so any attempt to do so should not be carried out?
X
If they could know in advance that these were the terrorists that they would be listening to, then they would have no difficulty getting a warrant to listen to them. That scenario is not a concern under anybodyies laws. The problem arises when they start fishing blindly on the offhand chance that they get lucky and happen to find a terrorist. The vast majority of the people they would be listening to would not be terrorists. If you assume that they will therefore, close their ears, then you would not have an issue. However, the laws on wiretapping are there because the temptation to abuse that power has been too great in the past, and it is reasonable to expect that it would be too great in the future.