(The Guardian)
A deal has been reached to resume construction on a National September 11 Museum in New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on the eve of the 11th anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Centre towers.
A dispute between the foundation that controls the museum and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is building the ambitious subterranean structure, has halted construction of the project for months.
Diverging estimates from each side of the cost of the project, which had been scheduled to open this week prior to the delays, range from $700m (£437m) to more than $1bn.
"I'm very gratified that on the eve of this important anniversary we are able to announce an agreement that will ensure the completion of the 9/11 museum," Bloomberg said in a statement.
"My goal during this period has been to get construction of the museum restarted. This agreement ensures that it will be restarted very soon and will not stop until the museum is completed," he added.
The museum is designed to extend seven levels underground and will include artefacts from the day of the attacks, from firefighters' helmets to pieces of rubble to models of the site before the attacks, in which 2,605 people in New York died.
Bloomberg chairs the National September 11th Memorial and Museum foundation. The Port Authority is controlled by governors Andrew Cuomo of New York and Chris Christie of New Jersey.
Under the agreement, representatives for all three will participate in a committee that oversees annual events, including Tuesday's September 11 ceremony.
The foundation said in July that politicians would be excluded this year from speaking roles at the ceremony in order for the focus to fall on victims' families, who traditionally read the names of the dead. In the future, such decisions will be made by committee, not just the foundation.
Under the deal, the Port Authority's cost obligations will be reduced by more than $150m. Construction is expected to take more than a year.
Foreign Affairs: Balancing Liberty and Security 11 years after 9/11
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20081206_8703.php
Read Stuart Taylor's updated article about how our scale has tipped since the 9/11 attacks for better or worse. Blog your opinionaire here on what the author says (2 points). Maintaining a balance of individual liberties with national security interests is key for industrialized, liberal democracies.
21 comments:
The government should be careful to not appose on peoples lives. If the government were to wire tap too many innocent peoples phones it would anger many people. Torture is also not the best method to get information. On the other hand we do need the information inn order to save lives if there is another threat on the U.S.
Therefore the government should do its research and keep its forceful measures to a minimum while also being able to do whats necessary in order to provide for the common defense.
Honestly I don't think the wire taps or data mining are major infringements on our lives-- such technologies don't generally invade the common citizen's privacy.As Taylor introduced, stricter rules should be set regulating what information is detected, retained or at all misused, but I think the precautions themselves are necessary. Of course there are innocents who will be wiretapped or detained and interrogated, but there are ways to minimize the damage (discontinuing military commission, giving men the opportunity to defend themselves or challenge their charge, lessen the harsh methods and cruel actions enacted during interrogations,giving men fair trials, etc). And as absolutely horrible as I know it seems stated like this: the detainment/wiretapping/interrogation of a few hundred innocents in order to protect the lives of millions is necessary for our survival (point blank) and survival as a nation. However, like I said the standards for these three precautions are slowly improving and giving back more liberty to the individual: there are possible ways to separate the truly innocent from the guilty while maintaining our security. The Constitution certainly establishes particular rights for the citizen, but those rights weren't written a time of shortening space-time interactions or TMDs; in the modern world we have to be more lenient with how we interpret those rights.
I think that it is endlessly important that the government use the most effective and useful means to combat terrorism. While wire-tapping and data mining may not acquire the most information, it is important that there is always that presence, and for anyone trying to attack, always the possibility that they could get caught. Technology only makes such attacks easier, and therefore the government needs to keep up with the advancements. It does not infringe on personal liberties enough for it to be banned. While methods like torture or overriding congress are going to do no good in the long run (concerning public opinion and world position), I agree with the author when he says we need to have a more public and solid method to ending terrorism.
I agree with Cameron. The public has a right to their own privacy, and the government really should not infringe on it. Given a case where someone looks extremely suspicious, then of course, the government would have a right, but to wire tap and endless amount of people is wrong and a major intrusion of privacy. Regarding torture, detaining countless innocent men and women and torturing them (some even for 3 or more years) is incredibly wrong. Everyone has a right to their freedom, and I personally believe that the longest someone should ever be detained (without torture), should be a period of 6 months, following which, if there is no direct (emphasis on direct) link between the detainee and terrorist organizations, they should be released. I also beleive that torture should never ever be used on anyone. After all, if you do torture someone for an extended period of time, chances are they will lie and confess whatever you wished for them to confess, even if they are innocent. We as human beings don't have the right to physically injure someone else, especially to gain a confession.
Personally I feel as though many people complaining that wire taps or data mining infringe on our lives are making a big deal out of nothing. I completely agree with what Alyson and Sydney said. I think that considering the magnitutde any terrorist strike can have on our country, I would want anything that could prevent it to be done by the government. If they say that wire taps are going to save lives and help prevent an attack on the US, causing a worldwide standstill and depression, I would gladly let them do so. The ehtics of wire taps and all are wrong, but the intentions are right and effective, and after everything is said and done, the latter is what I am most concerned with.
I think the biggest problem here, is regardless of how effective it is or not, it is an infringement on our basic rights as Americans. I would consider my phone calls and text messages private and not for a data miner in Washington to be in possession of. That said, I think data mining and wire tapping purely for the purpose of Terrorist monitoring is a necessary evil. But any punishment past that, that is an invasion of personal privacy and an invasion on rights.
I completely agree with Alyson. It's not like the majority of us have something major to hide. Why would it matter if our phones did have that feature? Now that almost everything is wireless, it makes it easier for terrorists to use these devices for their advantage. The government can protect us and our economy by using these methods. Like the article said, if a nuclear attack does happen, it could have consequences for the entire world's economy. I'd rather the government read my texts than have our economy sink even lower.
I'm a little bit torn reading this article. On the one hand, I completely understand why the government would find it neccessary to wire tap phones and read people's text messages; for this reason, I should think that many people wouldn't mind this occurring if it was for the good of national security. On the other hand, I personally would not appreciate the government reading my personal messages and listening to my conversations because it is a major invasion of privacy; the majority of the people in this country aren't terrorists and even though I really do understand where the government may be coming from with this, they need to be really careful with how they go about doing something like this.
Honestly if there is a great enough risk there should be wire taps in certain people's phones because we don't know what could happen and in our countries state of security. I agree with Alyson's comment on that it wouldn't be such a big infringement on our lives because its only a precaution. Although on one hand the citizens of the US could feel slightly offended because there are people monitoring their personal private lives. Overall in my opinion the sacrifice is worth giving because it would give the people a sense of security.
I think that if it is a necessary issue of national security in the best interest of the people, wiretapping and monitoring technology use is perfectly warranted. As citizens, it is our job to trust that the government will not overstep their boundaries and read into ordinary people's personal lives, and if they do we must hope that the judicial system will function so that they are aptly punished. However, I think Taylor's recommendation of keeping the option of torture open to get information is inhumane therefore should not be used. I agree with Taylor that Obama should - at this point, should have - released Guantanamo prisoners. I liked that he recommended the terms of release be deemed under a bipartisan committee. Overall, raising the standards of national security is justified as long as it remains humane.
I have mixed feelings about this whole issue. Not just about wire-tapping/data mining, but also "searches, seizures, other forms of surveillance, detention, interrogation, subpoenas, informants, and, sometimes, group-based profiling", as listed by the article.
The above methods for national security are, in my opinion, legitimate in theory and intention. However, they could easily go either way in practice - for example, with wire-tapping...it's not like every text message would examined carefully by a human being; more likely, it would be a computer/program searching for certain keywords and most likely, us average everyday people wouldn't have anything to worry about at all with our average everyday texts. But it's the knowledge that the government is technically aware of the contents of each and every text message you send and could, in theory, use it against you (and really create serious, long-term problems/complications in your life based on one seemingly innocuous but apparently "threatening" text you sent two weeks ago) that makes people balk at the idea.
Also....I hate to say it, but "human rights issues" regarding the treatment of people who are (frankly) most likely high-level criminals or terrorists should be secondhand in priority to the security and protection of the majority. Human rights are absolutely important and need to be respected, but (at least to me) it seems like it's either choosing between treating probable/very possible terrorists with care, consideration, and kindness (when they have obviously not shown the American people very much of any of the above), or ensuring that the American population is as safe as possible, the country has the strongest defenses possible, and being able to take stringent measures to prevent potential future catastrophes. The possible risk outweighs the possible cost in importance here, so to speak.
Overall though, I think if moderated carefully and correctly, the methods listed earlier are absolutely justified. Though they may cause ideological disagreements and possibly inconvenience/negatively affect the lives of a few others (in terms of interrogation, detention, etc.), the protection and safety of the overwhelming majority of the American people should be the first and foremost priority of our government. I know it seems unjustified for me to say because I'm not in the affected position, but realistically, you can't make 100% of everyone happy - there are always going to be a few exceptions that will be inconvenienced. But I think the choice here lies between making sure every last 0.00000001% of the population is happy, and taking measures to ensure the security of the majority. All in all though, these techniques (in their intended forms) aren't unreasonable by any means, in my opinion. Their intentions and priorities are definitely in the right place.
As Jordan put it, this "necessary evil" is a concern to us, as a nation. It doesn't surprise me that they'd be taking into consideration wiretapping our phones.(I mean, they've probably even check our... MySpace accounts...) As Alyson mentioned, the truth is, America isn't as it was a few centuries ago, our ideals may have remained constant, but we have gone through many transitions.
Even within history, our ideals can be easily deciphered. From the abolishment of slavery, to the repeal of the Asian immigration quotas, to the delayed deportations of illegal immigrants so that they could get a worker's permit. It seems as if America can be like a track that is constantly being replayed.
When placed with making the choice between security and liberty. It's obvious to me that we have made a national consensus that: "it's better to be safe than sorry." Although the nation was created under the mantra of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," it pains me to say that Lady Liberty tends to overruled when our well beings are at stake. But at least we're all extremely elated by the fact that the government can see that post of you saying, "TGIF!!" (By the way, I'm never happy when I see those types of posts.
Especially when I have a calendar on my phone, that specifically says, Friday.)
But nevertheless, thanks for the notification... Captain Obvious.
Parker N.
I think we take the security that our government provides for granted. As long as whatever the government is doing has purpose that they should be able to impose on our liberties, in secret at least. I do not think that it will hurt the american people to have wire taps or data mining. It wouldn't/doesn't really effect our lives until we find out about it. Then suddenly the government has crossed the line, regardless of the lives that action saved or the intentions behind said action.
And by Captain Obvious, I mean, the pseudo-poster. Not Mr Wolak. <33
Parker N.
I don't think that wire taps or data mining is an issue until people make it one. We take for granted the security that our government provides, painting the illusion that our homes are safe from any sort of attack. This "my bubble" mentality if you will causes people to freak out at the prospect of such activities, clinging to every liberty they have for dear life. Thats the thing about americans, we don't value many of our liberties until someone tells us the government is threatening them. What we don't know, won't hurt us.
In my opinion, I don't think it's a matter of whether or not this will work, but the fact that this is a violation of privacy and rights. If we allow this, where does it stop? Ultimately, we can't sacrifice our rights for safety.
Even so, who would regulate all these text messages and calls? I don't believe we have the resources for someone to be looking into every call/message for some hidden details.
But basically, it is my personal opinion that security is not worth the sacrifice of basic rights.
I do think that the public is entitled to some degree of privacy and liberty (i.e., I don't want the CIA reading my texts or anything, that's just wrong and kind of creepy) but as far as airport security goes and such, I don't think it's too much to ask for a bit of security as long as there is a consensus that the liberties can be given up in the name of security. However, not really sure why, but I am deathly afraid of nuclear wars or biological warfare, and I for one would rather the government search my phone or pat me down in an airport in order to protect me from being vaporized by an atomic bomb. As unrealistic as it may seem, before 9/11, no one would've fathomed flying airplanes into the World Trade Center; people are unpredictable and the government, to a degree, should prepare for that.
I think Stuart is very correct in his concern for the safety of the American people. The terrorist act 11 years ago shows that there are organizations in the world who are willing to take their own lives in order to damage the lives of Americans, and there is no doubt there are groups who would be willing to do it again. The rise in security not only gives the American people a sense of safety, but it provides the necessary measures to prevent another attack such as that of 9/11. The various protestors to the heightened security on the domestic front should continue to be ignored despite the so-called invasion of personal liberties. With awareness of the government investigations so low, it is not necessary to take into account the opinions of the few protestors, and the security measures are currently not harmful to anyone.
I realize that many people are concerned about their privacy and protest that heightened security measures would violate it but, if it's a matter of national security then I think that the government should have more power over wiretapping, data mining etc. He says in the article that if terrorists get a hold of a WMD it could be the end for many cities and states in the U.S. I personally believe we should be able to sacrifice a little if it means heightening national security.
"As long as whatever the government is doing has purpose that they should be able to impose on our liberties, in secret at least." (Parker)
If we are told that we have freedoms, but the government can ignore them at their leisure are we really free?
The problem with the wire tapping for terrorism is how can the listener determine who is an actual terrorist. The likelihood of any terrorist calling their evil terrorist friends on the phone to discuss their top secret plans is pretty hard to believe.
Against what Kirin said, its more than sacrificing "little things" Its about losing the freedoms that make us Americans. Its about pardoning the government when it seems convienent and that should not be the case. It only shows our weakness and desperation to bend our own morals for specific cases.
Post a Comment