The Normalization of Horror

[thebullet]

The Normalization of Horror
By Ted Rall
CommonDreams.org

Wednesday 12 January 2004

American gulags become permanent.
New York - A new documentary, "Hitler's Hit Parade," runs 76 minutes without narration. Comprised entirely of archival footage, the film prompts its reviewers to remark upon Hannah Arendt's famous observation about the banality of evil. German troops subjugated Europe and shoved millions of people into ovens; German civilians went to the movies, attended concerts, and gossiped about their neighbors. People lived mundane, normal lives while their government carried out unspeakable monstrosities.

Sound familiar?

As Congress prepared to rubberstamp the nomination of torture aficionado Alberto Gonzales as the nation's chief prosecutor, the Washington Post broke news that would have torn a saner nation apart. The Bush Administration, the paper reported January 2, is no longer planning to keep hundreds of Muslim prisoners currently rotting away in U.S. concentration camps at Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram merely "indefinitely." The Defense Department and CIA are now planning "a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions" for these innocents.

We're locking them up forever. Without due process.

Before gangsters like Alberto Gonzales seduced us into abandoning our values, a person was considered innocent before being proven guilty. Now we're locking people away because "the government does not have enough evidence to charge [them] in courts." And everyone, including Democrats, is OK with this.

Untold thousands of people are being held without charges, tortured and occasionally murdered in the system of gulags hastily strung together by the CIA, FBI, INS and Pentagon. According to the government itself, only a few dozen are former Al Qaeda officials. Most of these postmodern miserables were
farmers, truck drivers, grunt militiamen and political enemies sold into bondage by Afghan warlords and similarly trustworthy souls for cash bounties on a no questions asked basis. We know they have no ties to terrorism, but they've already spent years getting
beaten up. Releasing them would serve as a tacit admission that we were wrong to describe them as - in Dick Cheney's words - "the worst of the worst." They would sue our government, and eventually win. Worst of all, they have unpleasant tales to tell about systemic sodomy and countless other forms of horrific
taxpayer-funded abuse. We can never let them out.

Bush plans to divide U.S. concentration camp victims into two groups. One set of "lifers" will end up in U.S.-run stalags like Gitmo's new Camp 6, built to hold 200 "detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence,
according to defense officials." But not to worry: Camp 6 would "allow socializing among inmates."

Others captured in the "war on terrorism" will be outsourced "to third countries willing to hold them indefinitely and without proceedings" in foreign-run gulags that pledge to make victims available for torture by American interrogators. This practice, some claim, is "an effective method of disrupting terrorist cells and persuading detainees to reveal information."


"The threat of sending someone to one of these countries [where they are likely to be tortured] is very important," said Rohan Gunaratna, author of "Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror."

But the so-called "ticking time bomb" rationale for torture is patently fallacious. We've heard the scenario repeatedly: wouldn't it be worth torturing someone who knew the location of a nuclear bomb that was about to destroy Manhattan? The short answer, to a moral person, is obviously no. Moreover, its logic is ludicrous.

Suppose we had captured Osama bin Laden on 9/10 and immediately gone to work on him with our Alberto Gonzales-approved psychotropic drugs and our Alberto Gonzales-approved "waterboard" dunking technique. It wouldn't take long for Osama's pals to notice that he'd failed to show up at the Terrorcave. They'd assume that we had him and were torturing him. They'd assume that he'd tell us everything he knew. So they'd delay 9/11 to 10/11 or 11/12 or 9/11/02. Or go to Plan B. Or develop a Plan C. No one in an underground organization, not even its top leader, is indispensable. Arrests are inconvenient, not debilitating.

The information a person possesses at the moment of his capture ages like a ripe cheese in hot sun. Even if what he told you at the beginning was true, anything you'd get out of him days and weeks and months and years later would be completely worthless.

Wait a minute.

Look at what we're talking about. Consider the breezy way we Americans - Americans! - are debating the pros and cons of torture. Marvel at our moral bankruptcy. The liberal argument against torture used to be that it was wrong. Now it's that it doesn't work.

So.

Read any good books lately?

 

[rgraham666]

I think the 'evil of banality' is a better description.

People are so willing to feel 'safe', and so unwilling to disrupt their lives, they will allow anything to happen, just so long as it doesn't happen to them.

This is an important point. Everyone thinks that the horror will only happen to others, They are so bereft of imagination that they cannot conceive that they could easily end up the person broken on the rack.

It's not true. If the torturers get their way, all it will take is one phone call.

I'm now recalling an incident I saw on a documentary about Nazi Germany.

One woman, a strange one, was denounced by a neighbour for being a lesbian. She was arrested and died in Ravensbrük.

The show found the document where the woman was denounced, with the neighbour's signature on it. They also found the neighbour!

They showed the neighbour the document. Even though the neighbour admitted it was her signature, she denied she had signed the document.

What people will do so they won't have to face what they've done!

 

[thebullet]

We use Nazi Germany as an example of the evil that people will ignore as long as they are comfortable. But isn't America starting to look a lot like Nazi Germany? The war is barely mentioned on the news. It's like it is happening in another universe.

I remember reading William Shirer's book Berlin Diary which he wrote in the 1930's while a correspondent for CBS radio.

In those days in early September, 1939, Shirer went into the streets of Berlin to interview the common people, to try to discern their feelings about the Blitzkreig and the war with Poland.

The inevitable response from the man-on-the-street in Berlin was:
'Why are the Poles being so mean to us? What did we do to deserve this dispicable treatment by them?'

This lack of understanding of the true facts (or maybe the people were just in denial) bears an amazing resemblance to the feelings of the American people about our 'liberation' of Iraq. We are over there bringing them peace and freedom and are they grateful? But because we are Americans and therefore 'the good guys' and because our Presdient tells us we must 'stay the course' we continue to support this vile little war of ours regardless of the cost in money, Iraq lives, American lives and goodwill throughout the world.

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

I don't know what else to say except that that is truly frightening.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I remember some years ago while the genocide was happening in Bosnia, some group was holding a holocaust memorial in Washington D.C. I think maybe it was for the opening of the Holocaust museum?

Anyhow, there were people a few blocks away demonstrating to do something to end the Bosnian genocide. The Jewish group was standing in front of a big banner saying "Never Again", talking about how the museum or whatever would always remind us of the evils of genocide, while the police were breaking up the Bosnia demonstration because they were making too much noise and upsetting the people at the memorial service.

---dr.M.

BTW, what ever happened to that War on Terror? Remember, the color-coded warning system? The inevitability of another attack? ("It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when!"--Tom Ridge) The rationale behind all this nonsense?

 

[she_is_my_addiction]

I remember some years ago while the genocide was happening in Bosnia, some group was holding a holocaust memorial in Washington D.C. I think maybe it was for the opening of the Holocaust museum?

Anyhow, there were people a few blocks away demonstrating to do something to end the Bosnian genocide. The Jewish group was standing in front of a big banner saying "Never Again", talking about how the museum or whatever would always remind us of the evils of genocide, while the police were breaking up the Bosnia demonstration because they were making too much noise and upsetting the people at the memorial service.

---dr.M.

 

[CharleyH]

We use Nazi Germany as an example of the evil that people will ignore as long as they are comfortable. But isn't America starting to look a lot like Nazi Germany? The war is barely mentioned on the news. It's like it is happening in another universe.

I remember reading William Shirer's book Berlin Diary which he wrote in the 1930's while a correspondent for CBS radio.

In those days in early September, 1939, Shirer went into the streets of Berlin to interview the common people, to try to discern their feelings about the Blitzkreig and the war with Poland.

The inevitable response from the man-on-the-street in Berlin was:
'Why are the Poles being so mean to us? What did we do to deserve this dispicable treatment by them?'

This lack of understanding of the true facts (or maybe the people were just in denial) bears an amazing resemblance to the feelings of the American people about our 'liberation' of Iraq. We are over there bringing them peace and freedom and are they grateful? But because we are Americans and therefore 'the good guys' and because our Presdient tells us we must 'stay the course' we continue to support this vile little war of ours regardless of the cost in money, Iraq lives, American lives and goodwill throughout the world.

OK. I am writing a non-erotic story about this very question, could be argument. Not all of Germany, which was Nazi oriented, knew what was going on. Not all the SS in camps KNEW what was really happening. We all pass judgement. YES, a sad, bad history event, a comment on human nature . . . sorry BUT what would WE do in the same normal citizen thing in time and space?

There was a U.S. history experiment back in 80's. The Prof decided to prove a point. He started treating all blonds with derisive comments, chiding them, and increasingly suggesting if you hang with them, you will be in their place, failed. Modern theory. What do you think they did? Went along and did the same.

Iraq? Same diff. ANY WAR . . . same diff. The winners get their truth published, we get our history (Not to say holocaust did not occur hello - but what about the Japanese torture to the Chinese in this same time, do we get that in history books?) And sorry complaint: Prince Harry. ROFL, you think such uniforms do not occur at Fetish munches? OK Tangent now It is called a COSTUME party, and anyone who goes as Vlad or any conquering nation will not have to go pay hommage.

Fact is we are all influenced every day into believing via media . . . who does take a stand, who is not objective, specifically after the disasterous reprucssions of media coverage of vietnam. They are fed every day by PR guru's like myself telling them the best course to take; what should and should not be said.

But thank god a lot of U.S. citizens have not been duped. Do we get true facts ever? Nada. But we all have an idea, and so when something like WW2 happens again (better believe it will and is happening even as I talk) are we going to stand or be duped?

I only read first and second posts, sorry

 

[dr_mabeuse]

It's been said many times but it's always good to remember:

"When they come to take our freedoms away, they'll do it in the name of our safety."

And it's as true for the Left as it is for the Right.

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

One evening, when you are bored, give this a try. Cut and paste the quotes from the article and google them. It's odd, but none of them seem to link me to a site with actual documents. One takes you to a site, where the quote is attributed , not to a member of the Cia or Pentagon, but to an ACLU lawyer in herelding a ruling that some Cia documents are covered by the fredom of information act.

I could not find one of them, in any of the articles, atributed to a specific CIA memo or pentagon directive. At best they appear in articles wehre they are attributed to sources who wished to remain unnamed.

This piece is an op/ed by a man who is still suffering from the defeat of his boy Kerry. One who went so ar as to conclude anyone who voted for bush was stupid and stated firmly he was ashamed to be an american.

I am not in any way defending the actions of the present administration, but an op/ed by Rall is without question biased in the extreme. He has an axe to grind and he is grinding it.

If anyone here can find a link to the documents of statements he is quoting so liberally, I would be very interested to see where they come from. Is there really a CIA or DOD program to do these horrible things? Or is the author palying on the fears and angst of the 48% who voted against Bush and just trusting that you won't take the trouble to find out?

 

[domjoe]

In the UK, a "source who wishes to remain unnamed" is often a euphemism for a mole in the Civil Service or MI5.

But Colly, I always approve of scepticism regarding received information.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

In the UK, a "source who wishes to remain unnamed" is often a euphemism for a mole in the Civil Service or MI5.

But Colly, I always approve of scepticism regarding received information.

Unnamed sources are big over here too, considering the climate of fear and reprisal, it seems likely they will become even more important to news gathering agencies.

I remain skeptical of anything that is solidly anti-bush. Just as I remain skeptical of anything that is solidly pro bush. My experience is when something paints a person or policy in a wholley good or bad light, you are usually only getting part of the story.

 

[shereads]

My self-loathing quotient is holding steady at around 8.25.

1 = Oh, how the world must have suffered while it waited for me to be born! I'm an enhancement to life on earth.

2


3


4


5


6


7


8
< 8.25 (me)

9


10 = I'm part of a venemous organism with no discernable purpose but to contaminate everything it touches.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'm just surprised that someone else actually has read Ted Rall.

He's usually shunned by liberal and conservative alike for having the same "take no prisoners" rhetoric as the right-wing pundits.

And Colly, I appreciate skepticism, especially your skepticism because it's damn true that the level of bullshit out there is staggering. Yeah, yeah, I know, where's the BUT?

But, I googled and the first google link took me to a Washington Post story with the word for word first use of quotes taken from a bit credited to the CIA.

Link

Google Search number 1


Not saying he's not a rabid leftie with an axe to grind. No more than Ann Coulter is a rabid rightie with an axe to grind. It's why I've grown to respect both of them. They're psychos and I don't always agree with them or their worldviews (though I do tend to lean towards Rall more than Coulter cause well hell) but they usually have a point. A sharp one. Bloody shivs.

Oh and minor note, I believe the op/ed piece Rall wrote about Kerry was inches away from curse words. He was most assuredly a Kerry is a douche-bag man. And he was one of the staunchest leftie criticizers of Clinton. He didn't forgive transgressions like the Libs did. Please refrain from "he's a partisan hack" labeling. He's a lunatic, but he's also a believer and he doesn't sell his principles on the cheap for any man. Which is the one reason that of all the op/ed people out there, Rall gets the most respect of them. Because he's not the type to ever deify any politician and in an era where people refer to presidents as Sons of Gods like the old days it's a damn rare thing.


Okay, blah blah blah over. Back to the torture is wrong debate that never happened.

Or the political shouting match of "your party will DESTROY THE WORLD, MUAHAHA" that a good 90% of these damn threads turn into (though the neo cons do scare me half to death I must admit).

Anyhoo, have fun kiddos. I'm trying to keep my Anti-Politics high movin'.

 

[Guest]

...
---dr.M.

BTW, what ever happened to that War on Terror? Remember, the color-coded warning system? The inevitability of another attack? ("It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when!"--Tom Ridge) The rationale behind all this nonsense?...

cant speak for others but for me, when i see this terror level orange business on the bottom of the CNN screen now, its so "normal" that I wonder if I would notice/care if it were raised.

and.. on the other hand, i got a slip from the school the other day, stating that i need to sign in order for my daughter to receive potassium iodide should there be a "situation". That, was a bit of a wake up call, even though I filled one out last year and knew of its existance.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm just surprised that someone else actually has read Ted Rall.

He's usually shunned by liberal and conservative alike for having the same "take no prisoners" rhetoric as the right-wing pundits.

And Colly, I appreciate skepticism, especially your skepticism because it's damn true that the level of bullshit out there is staggering. Yeah, yeah, I know, where's the BUT?

But, I googled and the first google link took me to a Washington Post story with the word for word first use of quotes taken from a bit credited to the CIA.

Link

Google Search number 1


Not saying he's not a rabid leftie with an axe to grind. No more than Ann Coulter is a rabid rightie with an axe to grind. It's why I've grown to respect both of them. They're psychos and I don't always agree with them or their worldviews (though I do tend to lean towards Rall more than Coulter cause well hell) but they usually have a point. A sharp one. Bloody shivs.

Oh and minor note, I believe the op/ed piece Rall wrote about Kerry was inches away from curse words. He was most assuredly a Kerry is a douche-bag man. And he was one of the staunchest leftie criticizers of Clinton. He didn't forgive transgressions like the Libs did. Please refrain from "he's a partisan hack" labeling. He's a lunatic, but he's also a believer and he doesn't sell his principles on the cheap for any man. Which is the one reason that of all the op/ed people out there, Rall gets the most respect of them. Because he's not the type to ever deify any politician and in an era where people refer to presidents as Sons of Gods like the old days it's a damn rare thing.


Okay, blah blah blah over. Back to the torture is wrong debate that never happened.

Or the political shouting match of "your party will DESTROY THE WORLD, MUAHAHA" that a good 90% of these damn threads turn into (though the neo cons do scare me half to death I must admit).

Anyhoo, have fun kiddos. I'm trying to keep my Anti-Politics high movin'.

Hi Luc

I know Rall is one of your favorites. I began reading him after you suggested him in a thread long ago. I tend to find him overbearingly liberal and of late, mean spirited and angry. I still read him however, as he does give a counter point to the more conservative Op/ed folks I like.

On the article, it's by Priest, who is a respected reporter and has, as far as I can see, no political agenda of her own.

But:

"We've been operating in the moment because that's what has been required," said a senior administration official

What official? How senior? Connected to these discusions how?

One proposal under review is the transfer of large numbers of Afghan, Saudi and Yemeni detainees from the military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center into new U.S.-built prisons in their home countries. The prisons would be operated by those countries, but the State Department, where this idea originated, would ask them to abide by recognized human rights standards and would monitor compliance, the senior administration official said.

Our official again. Where's the proposal? From what office at state did it come? Could you get any more vague about the source when you are so specific in the nature of the plans?

As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, according to defense officials.

Again, what officials? Joint chiefs? General officers? a colonel in supply?

"The whole idea has become a corruption of renditions," said one CIA officer who has been involved in the practice. "It's not rendering to justice, it's kidnapping."

Case officer? Department head? What?

The one specific source quoted in the whole article comes from an open speech where the context of that speech isn't specificaly tied to the other allegations.

All of the articles I found are just like this one. Filled with innuendo, unnamed sources, and hot allegations with no substantative proof. No memo is cited. No DOD op plan. In fact, nothing is cited you can look up or compare to. Not saying it isn't so, only that these are some very specific allegations, with very specific knowledge of the "plan" to have nothing to back them up but unnamed senior, very very senior, in the know, wink-wink-nudge-nudge officals.

When you have the brass balls to make a comparrison of anything or anyone to the Nazis you should have something to stand on other than rumors. You are evoking one of the most tragic and horrifying episodes in our collective history. People do it so casually now, almost out of hand, but I have an appreciation of it that just dosen't allow casually alluding to raw evil like that.

It seems to me, if we are going to let our emotions run high over an article, we ought to be able to authenticate the allegations in it. I can post anything Ann Coulter has writen and within...5 or 6 hours, every fact and quote will be disputed. That's cool, she has a tendancy to play fast and loose with the facts. Only right and proper that people should be skeptical. But unless I do it, the odds are that any liberal op/ed posted here gets a pass.

Notice that in this case, everyone just asumed the facts were legit and let themselves get upset. I am not sayong Rall is pulling a Rush, merely pointing out that I can't authenticate one word of this despicable plan with a document or named source for a quote used in any of the articles I read.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Which is why I don't much like how the media is flying with little to support them. Perhaps he dug on his own or perhaps he just went, I'll trust the WP this time. They've steered me right before. I don't know.

Op/Eds shouldn't have to do their own investigative journalism (though he has once or twice in the MidEast to his credit). If the reporter is reputable but is being vague and an Op/Ed is quoting him, is it taking too much on faith in the reporter or is spreading a half-truth as a truth?

It's a hard question to make.

Trusting a respected guy even if his sources are all unnamed and vague is not uncommon. If it weren't for the vague and similarily open-ended articles by Woodword and Bernstein, Congress would never have opened the investigation on Nixon or even known to look at CREEP's dirty dealings.


Don't know what point I'm making. Certainly isn't trust everything and as a citizen I wished the media would report more facts and less incriminating innuendo. The latter may sell better, but the former is more worthy of respect.

I guess my only thing is that the reteller shouldn't be flogged for the retelling's incompleteness, especially if the original teller is competent and reputed.



And Rall has an unfortunate habit of jumping to the Nazi analogy. It's his greatest shortcoming, I believe. He's done it on a great number of people including Bill Clinton.

And yes, overbearingly liberal would be a good term for him. I can definitely see the provoking of a "what does he/she think we all are" or "WTF, that's a bit much" that I do when I read Coulter, being done by Conservatives who read him.

Asking everyone to love him would probably be akin to a snake tamer passing around a poisonous viper and asking people to pet it cause after all it doesn't bite too often.

P.S. I'm honored that one of my posts would get you to read a op/ed writer that would make you angry. Don't hurt yourself too much for balance. Too much anger is unhealthy.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Which is why I don't much like how the media is flying with little to support them. Perhaps he dug on his own or perhaps he just went, I'll trust the WP this time. They've steered me right before. I don't know.

Op/Eds shouldn't have to do their own investigative journalism (though he has once or twice in the MidEast to his credit). If the reporter is reputable but is being vague and an Op/Ed is quoting him, is it taking too much on faith in the reporter or is spreading a half-truth as a truth?

It's a hard question to make.

Trusting a respected guy even if his sources are all unnamed and vague is not uncommon. If it weren't for the vague and similarily open-ended articles by Woodword and Bernstein, Congress would never have opened the investigation on Nixon or even known to look at CREEP's dirty dealings.


Don't know what point I'm making. Certainly isn't trust everything and as a citizen I wished the media would report more facts and less incriminating innuendo. The latter may sell better, but the former is more worthy of respect.

I guess my only thing is that the reteller shouldn't be flogged for the retelling's incompleteness, especially if the original teller is competent and reputed.



And Rall has an unfortunate habit of jumping to the Nazi analogy. It's his greatest shortcoming, I believe. He's done it on a great number of people including Bill Clinton.

And yes, overbearingly liberal would be a good term for him. I can definitely see the provoking of a "what does he/she think we all are" or "WTF, that's a bit much" that I do when I read Coulter, being done by Conservatives who read him.

Asking everyone to love him would probably be akin to a snake tamer passing around a poisonous viper and asking people to pet it cause after all it doesn't bite too often.

P.S. I'm honored that one of my posts would get you to read a op/ed writer that would make you angry. Don't hurt yourself too much for balance. Too much anger is unhealthy.

Anger might be unhealthy, but being uninformed is worse, because then when called on it I am angry at my own stupidity/gullibility.

Sources have to be protected or you avenues of information quiclkly dry up. In today's atmosphere, and with the administrations propensity for meteing out revenge for betrayl, that probably goes double. Still, a report that can name no specifics, reguardless of the author's reputation, is nothing more than gopssip and hearsay. Evenmore so when there is no possibility of independant verification or rebutal.

Mary Mapes presented her source as trustworth and non partisan, when in fact he was a step short of the nut house and hated the Bush family with undisgused zeal. Protecting a source and hiding one so he cannot be held up to scrutiny both come with using unnamed sources. It's imposible to decide which is the reason.

I really don't even strongly doubt the validity of the reports, but on the strength of what was presented, I can't say there is any reason for conviction they are correct. The head janitor at the white house is technically a senior administration offical. Inthat he is senior in his post and since he works there his job title is offical.

A healthy skepticism has always been a prejritive when you are deling with the media. In light of the recent failings that have come to light, I think it only prudent to apply the toughest standards to all reporting. If an op/ed writer is basing his opinion on a printed report, I think he should be responsible for applying that skepticism. As a reader, it's incumbant on me to apply it behind him.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Anger might be unhealthy, but being uninformed is worse, because then when called on it I am angry at my own stupidity/gullibility.

Sources have to be protected or you avenues of information quiclkly dry up. In today's atmosphere, and with the administrations propensity for meteing out revenge for betrayl, that probably goes double. Still, a report that can name no specifics, reguardless of the author's reputation, is nothing more than gopssip and hearsay. Evenmore so when there is no possibility of independant verification or rebutal.

Mary Mapes presented her source as trustworth and non partisan, when in fact he was a step short of the nut house and hated the Bush family with undisgused zeal. Protecting a source and hiding one so he cannot be held up to scrutiny both come with using unnamed sources. It's imposible to decide which is the reason.

I really don't even strongly doubt the validity of the reports, but on the strength of what was presented, I can't say there is any reason for conviction they are correct. The head janitor at the white house is technically a senior administration offical. Inthat he is senior in his post and since he works there his job title is offical.

A healthy skepticism has always been a prejritive when you are deling with the media. In light of the recent failings that have come to light, I think it only prudent to apply the toughest standards to all reporting. If an op/ed writer is basing his opinion on a printed report, I think he should be responsible for applying that skepticism. As a reader, it's incumbant on me to apply it behind him.

Ah, k, I get what you're saying.

He made a lapse of skepticism possibly in lieu of something confirming what he already had evidence to believe.

A judgement call I hope he does not grow to rely on because as you demonstrate, the reliance on those who use fuzzy only, makes your own argument fuzzy too.

Anyway, enough politics for now. I'm off in silly land.

 

[shereads]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dr_mabeuse
...
---dr.M.

BTW, what ever happened to that War on Terror? Remember, the color-coded warning system? The inevitability of another attack? ("It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when!"--Tom Ridge) The rationale behind all this nonsense?...
------------------------------------------------------------------------


cant speak for others but for me, when i see this terror level orange business on the bottom of the CNN screen now, its so "normal" that I wonder if I would notice/care if it were raised.

and.. on the other hand, i got a slip from the school the other day, stating that i need to sign in order for my daughter to receive potassium iodide should there be a "situation". That, was a bit of a wake up call, even though I filled one out last year and knew of its existance.

The terror alerts were in the news pretty heavily throughout campaign season. Haven't heard a peep since the election.

 

[rgraham666]

The terror alerts were in the news pretty heavily throughout campaign season. Haven't heard a peep since the election.

And this is surprising why, exactly?

 

[Spitfire_23]

I'm not a huge Bush fan, but the situation before World War Two and the situation right now are not comparable. For one thing, then there was an actual balance of power in the world. Not so now. As well, America hasn't exactly been openly calling for ethnic cleansing or anything like that. And finally, America hasn't annexed Iraq and made it a part of the country, a key point in the German occupations.