Centerfield

This is a good reminder of how difficult it is to fight terrorism via criminal investigations and prosecutions rather than as a war. And also why the Patriot Act, which cut back on artificial barriers between foreign intelligence and criminal investigations, is so important.

As for the impact on Moussaui's case, as a logical matter, this really shouldn't have much impact. The fact that one or two agents were convinced he was lying does not change the fact that the Justice Department as a whole were hindered from further investigating, and maybe stopping, the 9/11 attacks because of those lies. If Moussaui had told the truth and allowed access to his computer, etc., then the suspicions and fears of agent Samit would have been confirmed, and drastic measures could have been taken on the basis of the confirmed information, rather than mere suspicions.

Boy, do I disagree with that.
Just because some timid bureaucrat stifles an investigation is no reason to subvert civil liberties. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

And what civil liberties, pray tell, are being thrown out with the Patriot Act, Bob? Please be precise.

I know you're a lawyer Pat. There is no way I can "tit for tat" you when it comes to the law. You have a better knowledge base for legal issues, but that doesn't change some fundamental issues.

Like:
I don't want to live in a police state!
Crimes that happen on US soil should be handled as police matters, not as military.
We managed to fight a cold war for 50 years without the patriot act.

You're conservative and I'm not. We are not going to see the world the same way.

Pat,

I think there is a role for military action in fighting terrorism, but I'm not convinced that it's as difficult to use traditional law enforcement as you seem to think. Europe has done ok for the most part and they have, until 9/11, faced a much more imminent threat of terrorism that we did. Given the amorphous nature of Al Quaeda and other jihadists (which is really who we are fighting against), I have a problem with characterizing this as a "war" except as a metaphor. Even if you assume that Iraq is a legitimate place to fight terrorism (which I don't), surely you don't think it's the only one. So, who else do you fight this war against?

I think it's highly dangerous to characterize this as a "war" except as a metaphor. I'm not going to argue whether the government has actually violated civil liberties or not, but the implication of calling this a war is to give the president broad (he seems to think virtually unlimited) powers that he would not have in "peacetime." Except this war might last for generations. I don't understand, Pat, why you aren't uncomfortable with that even if you think that it's necessary to abridge certain due process considerations. It just seems to me to be a bad precedent to let the president have so much power indefinitely--regardless of who the president is or how one feels about him. Even if you think the current wiretapping was appropriate and within legal bounds, aren't you concerned about the potential for abuse? And if you assume that the war may last generations, this is likely to become a power that presidents assume they have and can use however they want. And presidents have abused this power in the past--see FDR and the Japanese.

I think the government has the right to take extraordinary actions to stop terrorism. But, it seems to me, there have to be some limits. You could make the country much safer, to take an extreme hypothetical, but putting monitors in everyone's house. But wouldn't that be going too far?

Now, I know the argument is that people didn't know how long WW II would last at the time so there was no way of knowing how long the war powers would last. But with WW II, there was clearly an end game--once you defeated Germany and Japan on the battlefield--however long that took--the war would be over and the president would no longer have war powers. And, realistically, I don't think anyone thought the war would last 30 or 40 years.

On the Patriot Act, Bob, it's not a matter of world outlook, but whether the Patriot Act actually does some of the things you think it does. If it doesn't turn us into a police state and in fact gives the police very little in the way of new tools, but rather just gives them a few tools that had previously only been available in mafia investigations and prosecutions, then it just does not do the evil things you and the rest of its critics say.

Take, for example, the "sneak-and-peak" search. Horrors, the police can now get a search warrant, sneak in, search your place, and not tell you about it. I've often heard that one denounced. But you know what? It was already available. The Supreme Court had LONG upheld the constitutionality of "sneak-and-peak" search warrants, without the need for any particular statute. In fact, the Patriot Act put limits on obtaining them which do not otherwise exist. That portion of the Patriot Act limited police power.

Roving wiretaps? That was generally available for mob prosecutions already. Should the cops have more power to investigate the mob than terrorists?

There are some very few, very small provisions in the Patriot Act which are truly debateable as overreach. But the overwhelming majority of its provisions make absolute common sense. The public, and you, are tragically misinformed by a bunch of screaming and posturing by the left and the ACLU, and now I can't even point out where what they say is wrong because you just throw up your hands and refuse to say what parts of the Patriot Act offend you.

As for this comment, "Crimes that happen on US soil should be handled as police matters, not as military," the Patriot Act does not authorize and is not being used to detain Jose Padilla or Yaser Hamdi as enemy combatants without trial. Leaving aside the merits of doing so, and I agree that detaining them as the President has done raises serious constitutional issues, it's got nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

As for the larger picture of combatting terrorism, flying two massive bombs into major buildings, killing 3,000 innocent people on American soil is not a crime but an act of war. We fought terrorism as a crime for several decades, with very little success in stopping it. As others have noted, the general idea behind criminal penalties is to deter potential criminals from commiting the crimes to begin with. If the criminal is willing to take his own life in the course of his crime, then criminal statutes have little deterrent effect.

Marc, the jihadists survived for so long, killing so many innocents along the way, in large part because they had support from national governments (mostly of the Middle East). That was the crucial part of the Bush doctrine, that we will make no distinction between terrorists and the states which harbor them. Afghanistan was the first target, because they harbored the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Iraq was the next target, because they had long harbored other terrorists, and maybe had some understanding with Al Qaeda.

Intense diplomatic pressure, rather than war, was used to force major changes in Pakistan so that it would stop turning a blind eye to the terrorists within its borders. The fear of the U.S. Army in Iraq has forced Syria to keep relatively quiet.

To be an effective, permanent disruptive force, Al Qaeda must have stable bases from which to operate. It must have places where large numbers can come together for training and indoctrination. It must have passports and visas. By taking the war to them, we disrupt those activities and make large scale attacks impossible or at least far more difficult. It took a massive coordinated effort and substantial money to carry out 9/11. The Bush doctrine tells other countries they must be extraordinarily vigilant in their own law enforcement efforts to prevent their countries from being used as a base for such training. Will we stop every single lone suicide bomber? No. Will we stop 9/11s and Madrids and Londons? Eventually.

And Marc I agree that their are limits, and substantial limits, on Presidential power. And I'm a huge fan of civil liberties. It's just that I don't agree with many critics who claim that the wiretaps, for example, are encroachments on our civil liberties. I also disapprove of those who make no distinction between actual abuses and potential for abuse. Many good tools have the potential for abuse, but we use them every day all the same. The fact that something has the potential for abuse is no argument at all against it.