National security: The Uses of Scare-Talk

[Lost-in-FL]

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7946091

The Republicans think talking about terrorism can save them from defeat in November. A new poll suggests they may be on to something. Republican strategists think the best way to minimise their losses on November 7th is to talk non-stop about terrorism. If the latest Gallup/USA Today poll is to be believed, the plan is working. Mr Bush's approval rating has lifted to 44%, up from a trough of 31% in May. More important, likely voters were evenly divided (48%-48%) between those who favoured Republican candidates for Congress and those who favoured Democrats.

If accurate—a big if—this is awful news for the Democrats. Conventional wisdom in Washington says they will win control of the House of Representatives, where all seats are up for election. The Senate, where only a third of the seats are to be contested, will be tougher, but some Democrats think they have a chance. Their problem is that although they enjoy a comfortable lead among registered voters (51%-42% in the Gallup poll, for example), they do far less well among those who say they will probably vote. And only the votes of those who actually vote are counted.

Lower petrol prices have certainly boosted the Republicans. But the Gallup poll found specific evidence that Mr Bush's strategy of vowing again and again to catch or kill terrorists is helping his party. Gallup discovered that among registered voters who think terrorism is the most important issue, far more think Republicans would do a better job than Democrats in fighting it (68%-17%). Among those who said the war in Iraq was their top issue, it was the other way around: 60% thought Democrats would handle Iraq better, while only 23% said Republicans would. So if the Republicans can maximise the number of people thinking about terror on election day, maybe they can hang on to both arms of Congress.

Some news helps them: for example, the alleged British plot to blow up transatlantic airliners. And advertisements put out by pro-Republican pressure groups add unsubtle mood music. One from the Centre for Security Policy urges Americans to “Vote as if your life depends on it. Because it does.” Another, from a group called Progress for America, states simply that “These people want to kill us.”

Meanwhile, with only a few days left before Congress's pre-election recess, Mr Bush is struggling to persuade lawmakers to pass two laws he says he needs to fight terrorism. One concerns wire-tapping; the other is about how to deal with captured terrorist suspects. Mr Bush argues that the intelligence services should be allowed to eavesdrop on people in America suspected of terrorist links when they call their contacts abroad, without having to waste time obtaining a warrant. He also believes that the CIA should be allowed to use coercive techniques to extract information from captured terrorists. His critics retort that warrantless wire-tapping is an invasion of Americans' privacy, and that if you let spooks rough up suspects even a bit, it is a slippery slope to torture.

On September 20th the House intelligence committee considered a compromise that would allow warrantless snooping if the president believes an attack is “imminent”. The new bill, which also allows for greater congressional oversight of such surveillance, could be voted on next week, but would need to be reconciled with whatever the Senate passes.

The question of what to do with top al-Qaeda detainees is more fraught. The CIA says it has gained life-saving intelligence from the harsh interrogation of people such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the attacks of September 11th 2001. It has reportedly agreed to stop waterboarding people. But it is unclear which subtleties it still plans to employ.

Mr Hoekstra argues that CIA agents need to know what they can and can't do; current law is too vague. Others worry that any attempt to spell out what America thinks the Geneva Conventions mean will be seen as an attempt to re-write it. Lindsey Graham, one of three Republican senators blocking Mr Bush's proposals on the subject, predicts that other nations would see that as a licence to re-write the treaty to suit their own secret police, which “would be disaster”. “We cannot have a great nation,” he told CBS, “when we start re-defining who we are.”

[teryang]

1. The guy in the picture needs automatic weapon for whom?

is it a defense against chemical weapons? biological weapons? Airliners falling from the sky? Bombs?

The war on terror is a phony reality created by black ops and psy war people from corporateville for bushco.