Dean's World

My prediction: crude prices will go down within days.

John - This post seems to show some slight ignorance of the tendency for a certain type of lawyer to sue anything it can set its sights on

Are you alleging that Ron Motley is an ambulance chaser? As you say, allegations are not fact.

From the New York Times article profiling lawyer Motley:

Jennifer Senior article profiles Ronald L Motley, lawyer who thinks of terrorism not just as form of war, but as depraved, ruthlessly efficient business whose financiers must be exposed and held accountable for their role; has concluded that Sept 11 hijackers would not have been able to carry out their plans without generous Saudi assistance .. while he is not alone among US attorneys in filing suit, his is most lavishly financed, having already spent more than $12 million, most of it his own money

If his goal was to chase cash, he was running around in circles.

Motley also says:

Why, in the context of terrorism, should the needs of the state be privileged above the rights of the victims? Or, put another way, why should the flesh-and-blood targets of terrorist attacks -- the deceased and the bereaved -- take a back seat to the less tangible target, the state?

The tactic of terrorism thrives because it is not a direct attack against the state. Despite the fact that terrorism destroys the trust and the security that a society needs to function, most states don't see it as a real threat.

When they started doing random searches of backpacks in the NYC subway, most people didn't object - most said "Why didn't they do this years ago?" If the Islamists were specifically and only targeting our government, they probably would have started the searches a long time ago.

If these Saudi-funded paramilitaries were using traditional "revolutionary" tactics, if they specifically and uniquely targeted the government, and if they threatened governments, not commuters and schoolchildren, their actions would be considered an act of war. They and their supporters would be seen as enemy combatants, and they would have lost their war a long time ago. Abdullah wouldn't have been invited back to the Crawford Ranch.

Our state, like other states, is willing to tolerate the deaths of many of its citizens, as long as those deaths don't directly threaten the state's power. That's why Saudi-funded terrorism is so successful. The British will probably find the Saudi connection to the bombings, and like America, they'll do absolutely nothing about it.

While our alliance with theofascist Saudi Arabia alienates most of the world's population, it does maintain the illusion that our economic power is secure and it does effectively threaten the Russians and the Chinese. The loss of this alliance would threaten our government's power. Therefore, Democrats, Republicans, and especially diplomats, are willing to go to great extremes to preserve it.

None of this has anything to do with saving American lives or stopping terrorism. It does explain why we're not fighting it effectively, and it does explain why terrorism will continue to thrive for a long time.

As a former State Department employee, it's no surprise that you believe that the employees of States are privileged over the rights of citizens. It's no surprise that you're willing to devote large amounts of time and effort to your beliefs. Your tendencies are as obvious as Motley's.

Well, Mary, the Civics I was taught was that the State represented ALL the people in a country. It worked to serve their best interests. It was a given, even at the Constitutional Convention, that not everyone would achieve the same measures of freedom, the same security of life, the same portions of property, the same happiness, no matter how pursued. Some would lose in life's struggles.

The role of the state is not and never has been to guarantee the total happiness--even the lives--of everyone. The state tries to do its best to secure those, but it cannot guarantee them.

By insisting that everyone be safe from all threats to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, you create an impossible paradox. For some will always be disadvantaged, even in the best of circumstances.

So, yes, the state does sometimes behave callously. Or at least is perceived as behaving callously. This is because it cannot do otherwise while seeking to do the jobs the people elected it to do.

If the state gives property back to the XYZ tribe because it was taken from them in the 17th C., then it clearly advantages members of XYZ tribe. It equally clearly disadvantages those who may have been fruitfully enjoying that property since the 17th C.

Not since the Spanish American War has the US gone to war over slights and insults offered an American citizen by a foreign government.

Is that simple disregard? Or might it be that the well-being of hundreds of millions of people can be better safeguarded by letting an offense go unpunished rather than to start a war that will lead to the deaths of thousands.

As much as you may care to believe it, life is not priceless when it comes to reality. We do a calculus--you, I, and the state. We say that the rights of a woman over her own body are solely hers to define. We do not say that the rights of an unborn fetus are supreme. We do not say that the father of a fetus has rights to protect that life.

Callous disregard? I think not.

We do not provide extreme medical treatment to all patients, even if that treatment might extend the life of an ill person. Or do you accept the calculus that extending the lives of some people--say the young, or mothers--makes better sense than extending the life of a 96-y/o cancer patient?

While the universe may be infinite, man's ability--and therefore the state's ability--to effect perfection is very limited.

Bad things happen, through state action and through state innaction.

Shall the state prevent you from dying in an auto accident? It's the "will of the people," after all, to be protected against untimely death.

"Oh," you say, "I want to be safe, but I don't want to spend $200K for a car... that's just foolish! It would violate my rights.

So choose what you want... do you want perfect safety or do you want reasonable safety at a reasonable price?

The USG believed and still believes that the acts of the terrorists of 9/11 were not the acts of any state, directly. Rather, they were the acts of Al-Qaeda, acting within the protective cover of the Taleban government of Afghanistan. That government no longer exists. Al-Qaeda, a non-state actor, still does exist and still remains a target.

Saudi Arabia, while culpable in part, was not deemed culpable enough to reasonably go to war against it. That remains the calculus.

I'm not about to call any lawyer an ambulance chaser. I'd be sued, whether I was right or wrong. I will say that in my opinion, most class action suits are fraudulent in intent and deceptive in conduct, no matter how real, how tragic, how pitiful the damages to individuals might be. That's a political opinion.

I'll leave for you to look into the history of class action suits regarding asbestos, pesticides, dioxins, etc. Then look into the science of those suits. Discover for yourself where reality meets greed.

Saudi Arabia, while culpable in part, was not deemed culpable enough to reasonably go to war against it.

Saudi Arabia was and is as culpable as the Taliban - but of course, there's more to the calculus than culpability.

The USG believed and still believes that the acts of the terrorists of 9/11 were not the acts of any state, directly.

The USG made a few hints that Iraq was involved, yet Iraq was much less culpable than the Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Sudan, or Syria. The war was waged for a variety of reasons, some made public, some not, but the war was primarily waged in the interests of the state, not the people. That's why so many people resent it. Our military is successfully fighting many of the terrorists who threaten lives around the world (many of them Saudis), and that's a great thing, but that wasn't part of the original plan. Saddam was supposed to be our only target.

The USG is also very much aware of extremist Saudi influence over American organizations like mosques preaching Wahhabi dogma, WAMY, CAIR, etc., and yet they do very little to stop it.

So choose what you want... do you want perfect safety or do you want reasonable safety at a reasonable price?

The latter, of course. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

I was trying to say that the state gives a much higher priority to its own survival, happiness and security than it gives to the lives of its citizens.

The FBI gives a very high priority to its intercorporate warfare with the CIA and local police forces; they give a lower priority to our welfare and the fight against terrorism.

The Democrats and the Republicans give a very high priority to the status of their political "teams", less to our welfare. Like most governments, they'll actively fight terrorists and their supporters when terrorism becomes a direct threat to their power. Right now, it's not.

This isn't just a problem with our government; it's the nature of states. Democracies are, of course, much better at caring for the welfare of ordinary people than anyone else. America, among all Democracies, is probably the best. But Motley's question is still unanswered.

Why, in the context of terrorism, should the needs of the state be privileged above the rights of the victims?

As you said, the state's primary concern is not to defend every aspect of our silly little lives. Despite that, individual citizens care very much about defending our silly little lives. Under American laws, we have every right to do that. Under American laws, we have the right to defend ourselves, through civil lawsuits or other means. "Homeland Security" could be improved by involving citizens and citizens groups in self defense efforts. People in NYC were actually volunteering to help the police search backpacks. Guardian Angels groups are becoming more visible, patrolling the subways and even suburban streets.

The government should encourage and supervise these efforts. It's becoming obvious to most people that if we want something done right, we're going to have to do it ourselves.

I'm certainly in favor of self-help programs, whether it's neighborhood patrols or border patrols. And I do agree that some parts of the government tend to forget just who it is they're working for or why they exist.

I don't elevate internecine warfare within the USG to a major problem, however. Turf-battles are going to be there as long as we keep hiring human beings. As long as we keep hiring humans, we're going to have traitors, we're going to have people with mixed agendas, we're going to have unqualified people in some important jobs. This can cause financial problems, efficiency problems, policy problems, and even moral problems. I don't think we differ there.

I think one of the major problems, though, is the US Congress. Congress wants its say--and preferably its way--on every single policy issue, whether or not it actually has a constitutional right to have it. They send contradictory messages constantly. Contradicting the Executive, contradicting the Judiciary, contradicting themselves. Congress does have certain rights, but so does the President (and the Executive branch). The states have certain rights as much as it might pain some members of congress. Most importantly, the people have rights. In fact, they have every right that is not specifically given to either the federal or state government. We don't get rights from the state; we already have them. We cede certain rights.

One of the rights we cede, as individuals, is the conduct of foreign affairs. Congress has very limited rights in that area as well. Most of the rights (and the power) reside in the Executive. The Executive is supposed to be looking out for the rights of all of us and, IMO, does a pretty decent job of that. But it is not all-powerful. Other countries also have rights, even if they're not the same rights we acknowledge, or even like.

If the Executive deems a country to be a terrorist threat, Congress does not have the authority to order, "Oh no it's not." Nor does the citizen have that authority. But both have the authority--because they have the right--to question the Executive's judgement. They can also try to enforce their view by witholding funding (in the case of Congress), by playing political games (like delaying appointments or confirmations), by speaking loudly and often.

Ordinary people have the right and authority to also speak out. They can also vote for a new Executive, or even throw one out of office.

But they don't have the day-to-day responsibility for seeking the greatest good for the greatest number, within constitutional and moral limits. They can second-guess, of course. They can send letters of complaint to officials, to newspapers, or even comment in blogs. But while they also have the right to impugn motives, I believe they have a moral obligation to be able to support their allegations.

I think one of the major problems, though, is the US Congress. Congress wants its say--and preferably its way--on every single policy issue, whether or not it actually has a constitutional right to have it.

Since our members of congress actually take the time to respond to citizens' concerns lives more often than others, I think they're one of the more effective branches of government. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that one.