I found this article in The Guardian from yesterday (December 1, 2013) and thought it was interesting. Essentially, the article is saying that two senators, Feinstein and Rogers, claim that the threat of a terrorist attack in the US from al-Qaida is becoming more likely. But, there claim is supported by, what I think are, vague claims that don't seem to hold much reason for concern. Their reasons included:
- al-Qaida groups had changed their means of communication as a result of leaks about US surveillance programs, making it harder to detect potential plots in the early planning stages.
- there were more terrorist groups than ever, with more sophisticated and hard-to-detect bombs
I could be wrong. What do you all think?
I think this article is worth noting because of how just the threat of terrorism could be used to expand the scope and role of government. I'm not trying to make any unreasonable claims of total government conspiracy, I just think that the information seemed to vague to be a legitimate concern.
Lastly, "...neither lawmaker offered specifics about what led them to their conclusions."
I think that's a completely well founded thought to a certain degree. All institutions and that would naturally include parties/groups within institutions wish to expand their power and influence. The Patriot Act and what followed for better or worse was in my mind opening Pandora's box. A lot people in a lot of different roles have made a living or name from the act. To have it or the institution created from it could be a direct threat to someone's power (influence, role, public support, funding). Naturally some groups will want to defend what they've gained.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to see what the voting block of these two districts are though. As we discussed in class today as to which way a terrorist attack sways public opinion via policy. Is there any correlation to then the possible or stated possible threat of a terrorist attack. Likely I think just more political jargon to appease some voting block.
I think the article gives a little to much weight to the idea that simply changing their communication network will help them mobilize more terrorist plots. To my knowledge when all the NSA spying came out, the only real homeland terrorist plot supposedly disrupted was an attack on the new stock exchange. But my point is it was a single credible threat. On the second point I can understand how more terrorist groups and larger numbers then pre-9/11 could lead to higher frequency of terrorist attacks. Most members of terrorist groups are far more focused on attacks in middle eastern nations then ones on American soil. Most of insurgency groups focused on domestic control then foreign influence. I don't really see any reasons why attacks would increase in frequency in the USA. But I do see Europe suffering in the future do to increasing migrant policy and cultural clashes that are arising do to this migration.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is more likely for a US Embassies to be attacked, than the US, with the heightening of security for getting into the country since 9/11. However, if US is attacked terrorists would probably come through Mexico, which means we should theoretically increase the security of the border. This would be a stretch though, and I believe that terrorists will work to get rid of foreign influence in thier countries before they think about outside attacks.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with you Antonio, I don't see their reasons for concern to be very validated at all. They claim that the al-Qaida are changing, but I think terrorist groups are always in constant change, it is what helps them to remain a threat. I also agree with Marcus, this article puts too much emphasis on al-Qaida changing their communication network. If a specific group found out that people were listening to their conversations, that group is obviously going to want to change their methods of communication. I think that al-Qaida will always remain a threat just as any terrorist group, but I think it becomes too hard in general to ever predict an attack, I could be wrong. In most cases, terrorist groups attack when it is least expected. I do agree with the article when it says that it is getting harder and harder to anticipate these attacks. As it is, it seems an impossible task which is why they try to pick up on the slightest things that are out of the ordinary.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Antonio but I would be careful to conclude that the fact that these Senators' claim is not be supported by evidence means that there isn't a terrorist threat from al-Qaida against America. Of course al-Qaida has had to change their methods of communication, that's the name of the game when it comes to war, maneuver and counter-manuevers. A terrorist attack in my opinion would not be difficult to carry out in America however the severity of the attack due to increased security. Like Patric said, terrorist groups will always remain a threat but the inability to predict when they will attack makes policy making that hinders American's freedoms senseless.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you as we have strengthened our borders, we have an active military role in Al-Qaeda nations, and geopolitical security issues have been more important than ever before. Furthermore, regardless of international and national laws, the US and the NSA have been conducting wire taps since 9/11 on the basis of securing our nation. The sacrifice of the rights of privacy in the interests of security has led to an increase in safety within our borders. Lastly, in response to Stuart, the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 has heightened security on our borders and placed a metaphorical wall up to stop immigration and hopefully, terrorists from entering in from Mexico.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find so disturbing about this is the level of "duh" with regards to both of the "revelations" about our nations potential vulnerability to a terrorist attack. First, even prior to the Snowden/Manning revelations about how surveillance was being conducted globally, Al-Quida leadership knew that cell phone tracking and monitoring was being employed, in fact the DoD had bragged about it in previous releases. Second, if your going to go after the leadership/centralized command structure of an organization driven by religious fervor, it is intuitive that those who remain will continue on, on their own or with those immediately around them, so it's no wonder that you have more and more "splinter" groups coming from the once much larger "Al-Quaida". You have to wonder what the Chair of Senate Intelligence Committee has to gain by increasing fears of a potential terrorist attack... perhaps in the post Snowden world, the certain powers at be fear a increasing distrust of the military industrial complex by the greater population, and see things like this as being crucial to the continued growth and success of the war industry, or perhaps it's just politicians staying relevant by using the one thing that the american public will always (at least my generation) focus on.
ReplyDeleteI think that the statements that Feinstein and Rogers both expressed about terrorism gradually increasing is a valid, and entirely true statement. Although we have not seen any major terrorism attacks in the United States, besides the explosive devices detonated during the Boston marathon, on an international level, terrorism as rapidly increased. Today, most terrorist attacks are in regions were the United States has destabilized the area, such as parts of Iraq and Afghanistan. More importantly, I think these since the war on terror began, different terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda have needed to evolve and adapt in order to ensure survival, while maintaining the ability to effect world politics. In this situation, it makes sense that terrorist organizations have become more successful in hiding, communicating, and developing weapons because the survival and success of an operation has grown more costly in the face of greater restrictions, enforcement, and vulnerability. Therefore, terrorist groups have probably changed in order to maintain power and avoid detection by international actors that threaten their power.
ReplyDelete