The President can't just declare war on his own and the people do have a bit more sway in their jurisdiction's representatives. So the people do have more say in our national decisions than you imply. Not to say people should always be held accountable for every move their country makes. Not like we all agree with the choices our leaders make, but that's democracy for you.
Consider this though: does there exist a Presidential candidate who doesn't enter the Middle East after 9/11? To a point you can dictate the actions of the position of POTUS by electing someone who is likely to act in the way you would prefer, but sometimes their hand is forced and there isn't another option but to retaliate.
That's not really the point though. My point is it's not entirely up to the POTUS. That's why we have different branches of government. It shouldn't matter if the POTUS wants to do something or is even pushed to it, what matters is how Congress reacts and that depends highly on how individuals vote. Congressional races especially in the House, aren't the same big money races as the Presidency so it's much more likely that a true representative of that population is elected.
That is the opposite of my point. Is there a presidential candidate in 2012 who would rule out war with Iran over the nothing America has to justify such saber rattling? Hell, neither one has publicly taken nukes off the table, how is a peacenik to vote?
As referenced at that link, Latif was the subject of a very complex case regarding his detention. He also, according to wikipedia, attempted suicide last year. He recently had his latest habeas appeal turned down by the Supreme Court.
Judges Sir John Thomas and Mr Justice Ousley said in their ruling that there was an "overwhelming public interest in the functioning of the extradition system" and that there was "no appeal from our decision".
Of the long legal battle to send the men - whose extradition requests were submitted between 1998 and 2006 - to the US, Sir John told the court: "It is unacceptable that extradition proceedings should take more than a relatively short time, to be measured in months not years.
"It is not just to anyone that proceedings such as these should last between 14 and eight years."
There was no doubt each man had, over the years, "either taken or had the opportunity to take every conceivable point to prevent his extradition to the United States", he added.
Researchers at Cornell University suggest that people switching from air to road transportation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks led to an increase of 242 driving fatalities per month—which means that a lot more people died on the roads as an indirect result of 9/11 than died from being on the planes that terrible day. They also suggest that enhanced domestic baggage screening alone reduced passenger volume by about 5 percent in the five years after 9/11, and the substitution of driving for flying by those seeking to avoid security hassles over that period resulted in more than 100 road fatalities.
That right there? That's proof that the terrorists did more than knock down a building, they changed a country's behaviour. Fear is some powerful shit, man, it makes people do crazy things like drive instead of fly and spend a half trillion dollars on tiger repellent rocks.
I've said it pretty much since the attack happened: the terrorists won the war on terror 11 years ago, America was just to unwilling to realize it. The point of terrorism is to instill fear: it worked. Game, set, match. Terrorists win.
Not being able to bring a stick of deodorant on a plane because some yahoo tried--and failed--to use something vaguely in that same shaped container as a bomb is proof of that.
Well, the US did kill an awful lot of them and their families, I don't know that one could declare a clear "winner" at all. Hence the scare quotes on the thread title...
And once again, I don't everyone who gets upset and stops flying. I fly a ton and don't have any problems. Whether you think the rules or stupid or not, just follow them when packing and it's super simple. Even when I fly out of busy airports like Phoenix Sky Harbor, it's still just not an issue.
One thing that always makes me laugh is when I am at an airport going through security and someone says how "horrible", "fascist", or "draconian" it is. When I was in Baghdad we once had to pick-up some Aljazeera reporters up from the civilian side of the Baghdad International Airport. To get in the doors you had to get though a gauntlet of guards with AK-47s and attack dogs. Once inside you got a search that makes a prison rape look like a disney movie. I know there are differences between the two countries but when people say how horrible ours is all I can think is "Trust me. It can be much worse"
So next time someone says that, you should retort "I think you should ask me what airport security was like when I was in Baghdad. Then tell me again how draconian this is." Just to see what they do.
I just can't understand when people make that argument. I like to follow the Gus Sorola school of thought regarding air travel, everybody knows the rules they have to follow and if they cause a problem by not following them, then it's entirely their fault for any delays and not the airports. If you follow the rules and haven't done anything wrong then you shouldn't have to worry. If however, you regularly carry a stock of plastic explosive in your rectum, I think you have bigger issues than being stopped by a security guard.
Yes, you're right. Incidents such as this are entirely this girls fault and has nothing to do with the sheer stupidity of the TSA. How dare this disabled 12-year-old have a problem with the idiot TSA singling her out for an hour. After all, she could have been smuggling explosives under her fingernails.
There are always going to be instances where an employee does something wrong or is improperly trained, but that doesn't mean the whole system is at fault. Typically if you just follow the rules there aren't any problems. There will be exceptions, but it's not the norm.
and if the rules are an obscene violation of personal rights against unwarranted searches, and if those rules are demonstrably worthless in the prevention of anything but in-flight personal grooming, can we say there is something wrong with the system then?
Yes, but they aren't are they? We're talking about the difference between rules that really aren't that invansive and then the cases where the agents go beyond what is necessary. That's not what they're supposed to do, so yes that is wrong.
Why should they be exempt from suspicion? Do you really think someone who is going to blow up a plane is going to be foiled by disability or worry about the moral issues of using children? If you put yourself in the place of the security personnel then they are responsible for the lives of the millions of people who fly every day. Admittedly they could use some common sense sometimes, but its a few embarrassing incidents that delay a few people in their journey for an hour, weighed against the safety, or at least peace of mind of the rest of us. Unless of course you are that paranoid about your personal rights then perhaps you should find another form of travel.
if full body scans and random cavity searches don't seem invasive to you, I definitely want to go your staff Christmas party, but I'm not sure it's proper policy for a free society that claims to respect rights of person.
Never ever seen a random cavity search and no the full body scans don't bother me much. The people who complain the most are the people who fly the least, it seems. I don't give a fuck, I just need to get to where I'm going. I'm get sick of listening to people bitch when I'm at the airport or the jerks who hold everyone up because they insisted on bringing their gallon-sized shampoo.
And there are no random cavity searches, it's all overexaggeration or rumor. I have not been able to find a single real account of it.
