Funny you should say that. As I understand it, British investigators actually obtained warrants for their surveillance, and the US investigators were working within the FISA framework. So the fact that a plot was allegedly broken up actually shows that surveillance that's already allowed under current laws is sufficient for breaking up terrorist plots, and there's no excuse for the kind of illegal surveillance (see Judge Taylor's recent ruling) the Bush administration is pushing for.
I had written it off as an isolated incident which was Hollywood-ised. These recent (say, since 9/11) changes in policy and law have brought back memories. Especially because they didn't even bother to come up with a new name for the same disproportionally empowering law. Even if I give politicians that use terrorism as an argument the absolute benefit of the slightest doubt (i.e. I don't accuse them of specifically causing fear, or stimulating it) I still conclude they use it to find fall-guys. I'm just hoping they're not about to steal 30 years from innocent people again.
(Boys could also attend an industrial school.)
Donald has contributed his story to TACA (‘PERSONAL STORY: ‘MY SCHOOLING AT ARMY SCHOOLS WAS ON A PAR WITH, IF NOT BETTER THAN, AT THOSE NON-ARMY SCHOOLS THAT I ATTENDED’’, below, and
A pupil (a ‘Dukie’) can be seen in the foreground.
Those who are actually willing to inflict terror aren't interesting in the high level concept of "inflicting terror". Likely, they just want to kill Americans and Westerners.
And click to visit the school’s website.
No amount of high concept thinking about "well we don't actually have to do anything, but just scare them into changing their lives and giving up freedoms" is going into this. It's just "I want to be personally responsible for the mass genocide of as many Westerners as possible, simply because they are Westerners."
The two oldest were started during Sir Henry’s lifetime.
The main problem I have with the thesis of the article is that it draws a conclusion that the "terrorists" (a grouping I think is probably not valid) want to inflict terror.
Even road deaths in the US for 2002 was over 40 000.
As usual, the only point of view I automatically reject is "My solution is the only decent/sane/righteous one, and you are part of the Problem if you aren't with me." I have no great love for "There is no problem except that Bad Men want to get power by claiming that there is one," either, but that at least seems vaguely possible if unlikely---to crib from Niels Bohr, the latter at least can rise to the level of being wrong.
My late father had two brothers, Desmond and Brian.
What level and kind of response should we have, addressing the problem while not hurting our ourselves too much? That's politics; it's particularly difficult because we have such wildly varying assessments of the risk and threat (hello, Mr Schneier), and what constitutes hurting ourselves "too much" (you might _like_ someone in uniform looking in on your conversations or bedroom at regular intervals...I'd be willing to pay to avoid that, even if the payment is a slightly higher chance of being blown up).