Rendered at 20:56:01 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
segmondy 4 hours ago [-]
Osama Bin Laden won. Before most people realized what the Patriot Act really was, I downloaded the paper and read it in it's entirety. I did a report on it. How I wish we only had what it was suggesting. The world is much worse off since then, My teacher did say some of my argument was slippery slope and would never happen. Ha!
gizmo686 2 hours ago [-]
What strategic objective did Bin Laden achieve?
If we look at his stated reason for the attack [0], it is hard to reconcile post 9/11 history with a claim of his victory.
lol, me too. I still have the paper i wrote from 20+ years ago on this subject.
FLeXMurphy 4 hours ago [-]
A CIA plant won? Say more.
wslh 3 hours ago [-]
> Osama Bin Laden won.
While I understand that the assertion "Osama bin Laden won" can trigger a lot of arguments, if we narrow the claim to: 9/11 => profound and lasting changes to the entire world, then I think it's essentially correct.
cactacea 5 hours ago [-]
> The Supreme Court is the only institution in our system capable of standing up for the rule of law, fundamental rights, and the separation of powers. Just because it is doing a bad job does not mean we should weaken its powers further.
Dred Scott. Plessy. Bush v Gore. Citizens United. The court has worked against our values just as frequently as it has upheld them throughout the history of this country. Fundamental reform is required if we are to avoid these sort of nonsense decisions in the future.
upupupandaway 2 hours ago [-]
> Fundamental reform is required if we are to avoid these sort of nonsense decisions in the future.
"Fundamental reform is required if we are to avoid decisions that I disagree with in the future."
sihnsionio 23 minutes ago [-]
The fact that there is disagreement does not imply there is no truth of the matter. You could claim that I merely disagree with the notion that 1+1=17, but nevertheless I would be justified in insisting that a teacher teaching this "fact" should be fired.
The modern Supreme Court majority contradicts itself from one day to the next. See how they claim it's legal to fire officials of independent agencies like the FTC without cause, but illegal to fire officials of the Federal Reserve without cause, despite the Fed being an independent agency like the FTC. The decision is nonsense, and any organization that makes decisions like this is broken.
cactacea 17 minutes ago [-]
> The modern Supreme Court majority contradicts itself from one day to the next. See how they claim it's legal to fire officials of independent agencies like the FTC without cause, but illegal to fire officials of the Federal Reserve without cause, despite the Fed being an independent agency like the FTC. The decision is nonsense, and any organization that makes decisions like this is broken.
Bingo
cactacea 1 hours ago [-]
So I am to understand that you agree with the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions? Bold strategy you're taking there.
rafterydj 2 hours ago [-]
Why is it that the derisive "oh you just disagree" statement usually speaks to a missing "...and therefore aren't serious"?
What are you actually saying constructively here, if anything at all? I, for one, happen to agree that fundamental reform is clearly necessary. What that looks like exactly is where I'm sure the problems lie.
upupupandaway 56 minutes ago [-]
>What are you actually saying constructively here, if anything at all?
That the vast majority of people that "want reform" actually just want a Supreme Court whose majority always sides with them.
cactacea 17 minutes ago [-]
> That the vast majority of people that "want reform" actually just want a Supreme Court whose majority always sides with them.
That you immediately go here in response to what are universally understood these days as incorrectly decided cases (Plessy in particular) shows incredibly bad faith on your part. Good day to you sir.
Assuming my residence due to my nationality? Bad idea. Incredibly, in this day and age, people may be born in one country and live in another! Who would have thought, eh?
cactacea 24 minutes ago [-]
If you're not a US citizen then your opinion on my country's court system is completely irrelevant to me. Residence has nothing to do with it.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; the Afghanistan war gave control back to the Taliban. SEAL Team 6 got Bin Laden, but what about the other terrorists like him out there?
JojoFatsani 5 hours ago [-]
If there was no 9/11, there would be no carte blanche from congress to Bush to send the military off on whatever crusade.
jandrese 4 hours ago [-]
I do wonder if George W. would have figured out some reason to topple Iraq. He had a grudge against the Saddam regime from before he was elected. That war felt inevitable once the Supreme Court got involved in the election.
I also wonder how history would have played out if we had President Gore.
netsharc 13 minutes ago [-]
I remember reading that Clinton's team was very concerned about Al Qaeda, but the Bush team ignored their warnings. It might have been very different with Al Gore in command.
> In his strongest public statement, to 60 Minutes, [Richard] Clarke said Bush “ignored” the terrorist threat before 9/11. To the commission he testified, more soberly, that, for the Administration, it was an “important issue but not an urgent issue.” Clearly, the Clinton White House worried more. Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger remembers telling his successor, Rice, during the transition that, for the Bush team, “the No. 1 issue that you’re going to be dealing with is terrorism generally and al-Qaeda specifically.”
> The record of the Bush Administration’s first half-year suggests its members didn’t buy it. They were more focused on Russia, China and especially missile defense. In his book Bush at War, Bob Woodward quotes Bush himself saying of Osama bin Laden, “There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point, but I knew he was a menace … But I didn’t feel that sense of urgency.”
> Clarke’s strongest argument in this dispute is the pace with which the Administration considered the plan he proposed on Jan. 25, 2001 for combatting al-Qaeda. The program had evolved during the Clinton years, as al-Qaeda bombed U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and then the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in 2000. The Bush team put the proposal through an April meeting of senior officials, took their time with it over the summer and finally brought it to Bush’s Cabinet-level security and foreign policy chiefs, who approved it, just a week before 9/11. None of that suggests it was a national-security priority.
2 hours ago [-]
dh2022 3 hours ago [-]
If we had President Gore we would have done a lot more and a lot earlier re: climate change. Probably the biggest missed opportunity in our lifetime.
onlypassingthru 3 hours ago [-]
The grudge was for trying to assassinate his father. IIRC, one of the soldiers attending Saddam's hanging at Camp Justice got a call on his cell phone moments before the execution and gave the phone to Saddam. Who do you think was on the line?
dh2022 3 hours ago [-]
Would you mind sharing some sources re: Saddam answering a call moments before being hanged? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence…
onlypassingthru 2 hours ago [-]
There's at least one cell phone video from the execution.[0] This video was offensive to the US administration for many reasons, so any immediate reporting of it and other unsavory behavior at the hanging was quickly squashed in the US media. But again, IIRC from 20 years ago, the videographer wasn't the only one using a cell phone at the event.
Invading Iraq was always part of the neocon agenda. 9/11 provided a useful pretext, but it was always going to happen.
rchaud 2 hours ago [-]
Well before 9/11, US troops were intervening in Somalia, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Iraq, Haiti, Panama, Libya, Lebanon and Grenada.
triceratops 4 hours ago [-]
> the Afghanistan war gave control back to the Taliban
I'm very confused. Who was in control before?
jandrese 4 hours ago [-]
The provisional government that was hopelessly corrupt and incompetent, although it is arguable that they were ever in charge in any practical sense. That government was a good example of how not to do nation building.
triceratops 3 hours ago [-]
Right but that government got put in charge after the US-led invasion and war. Before the war the Taliban was already in power.
jameshilliard 5 hours ago [-]
> the Afghanistan war gave control back to the Taliban
At least the Taliban tends to be relatively isolationist.
> what about the other terrorists like him out there?
A lot of them are funded by Iran.
alphawhisky 5 hours ago [-]
The other terrorists like him out there use US tax money to blow up Palestinians.
If we look at his stated reason for the attack [0], it is hard to reconcile post 9/11 history with a claim of his victory.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040615081002/http://observer.g...
While I understand that the assertion "Osama bin Laden won" can trigger a lot of arguments, if we narrow the claim to: 9/11 => profound and lasting changes to the entire world, then I think it's essentially correct.
Dred Scott. Plessy. Bush v Gore. Citizens United. The court has worked against our values just as frequently as it has upheld them throughout the history of this country. Fundamental reform is required if we are to avoid these sort of nonsense decisions in the future.
"Fundamental reform is required if we are to avoid decisions that I disagree with in the future."
The modern Supreme Court majority contradicts itself from one day to the next. See how they claim it's legal to fire officials of independent agencies like the FTC without cause, but illegal to fire officials of the Federal Reserve without cause, despite the Fed being an independent agency like the FTC. The decision is nonsense, and any organization that makes decisions like this is broken.
Bingo
What are you actually saying constructively here, if anything at all? I, for one, happen to agree that fundamental reform is clearly necessary. What that looks like exactly is where I'm sure the problems lie.
That the vast majority of people that "want reform" actually just want a Supreme Court whose majority always sides with them.
That you immediately go here in response to what are universally understood these days as incorrectly decided cases (Plessy in particular) shows incredibly bad faith on your part. Good day to you sir.
I also wonder how history would have played out if we had President Gore.
But this article portrays it differently: https://time.com/archive/6738066/the-truth-of-the-matter/
> In his strongest public statement, to 60 Minutes, [Richard] Clarke said Bush “ignored” the terrorist threat before 9/11. To the commission he testified, more soberly, that, for the Administration, it was an “important issue but not an urgent issue.” Clearly, the Clinton White House worried more. Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger remembers telling his successor, Rice, during the transition that, for the Bush team, “the No. 1 issue that you’re going to be dealing with is terrorism generally and al-Qaeda specifically.”
> The record of the Bush Administration’s first half-year suggests its members didn’t buy it. They were more focused on Russia, China and especially missile defense. In his book Bush at War, Bob Woodward quotes Bush himself saying of Osama bin Laden, “There was a significant difference in my attitude after September 11. I was not on point, but I knew he was a menace … But I didn’t feel that sense of urgency.”
> Clarke’s strongest argument in this dispute is the pace with which the Administration considered the plan he proposed on Jan. 25, 2001 for combatting al-Qaeda. The program had evolved during the Clinton years, as al-Qaeda bombed U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and then the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in 2000. The Bush team put the proposal through an April meeting of senior officials, took their time with it over the summer and finally brought it to Bush’s Cabinet-level security and foreign policy chiefs, who approved it, just a week before 9/11. None of that suggests it was a national-security priority.
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/world/middleeast/01sunnis...
I'm very confused. Who was in control before?
At least the Taliban tends to be relatively isolationist.
> what about the other terrorists like him out there?
A lot of them are funded by Iran.