In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed

Status
Not open for further replies.
You've only got half the picture.

Camp David, first off, I hope my last post didn't come off too scrappy, but I have to admit to a certain level of frustration. We both see the terrorists as the catalyst for this war and the threat from outside that must be stopped. Where we differ is how much freedom we give up to stop them. My entire outlook on life is to hammer the bad guys and leave the good guys alone. There are so many things that could be done to counter terrorism that would have little or no impact on the average American, but these avenues are being largely ignored. Securing our borders is a major step, but that is being overlooked and demanding papers from legal citizens is being done instead. More thorough screening of immigrants could be done, but DHS wants your library card instead. Known militant muslims are let free until something can be pinned on them while you and I have our rights as Americans eroded under the name of security. See a pattern here?
 
Big d@mn deal. A bunch of nearly-inept terrorists have remarkable luck and succeed in killing a mere 3,000 U. S. residents and vistors, while losing what, ten or a dozen of their own?

And they do so using a means that is extremely unlikely to succeed again. A handful of badguys will not manage to control an airliner full of Americans so easily again. The means used were so self-defeating that of the original four planes siezed, one was kept from its objective by passengers -- and that's what will happen every time it is tried from now on.

Yes, I am very sorry 3,000 innocents were murdered (and sorrier still we did not hunt down the ringleaders, give them a perfectly fair trial and hang them), but that rate of exchange, if we could maintain it, would result in every last member and hanger-on of Muslim extremist movements being safely dead well before the U. S. had lost ten percent of its population.

The "Muslim terrorists" are a horsefly taking on an elephant. Why be stampeded by them? We have plenty of "flyswatters." I'm carrying one every day, in fact.

A lot of people want to elevate the WTC attack into some kind of Defining Moment. Well, perhaps it was, but it's not a patch on Atlanta after Sherman, London during the Blitz, or a lot of Europe when Napoleon was on the march. We need to get a little perspective. There's been lots worse.

The States were very lucky for a long time; outside the occasional shot taken at a President or rare bomber, the U.S. didn't see a lot of Major Bad Stuff within its borders after 1865. It was a fluke. The world is inherently unsafe. That's no reason to give up your rights to Big Government, hoping it will protect you while you cower in a corner!

--Herself
 
Kamicosmos said:
I don't want to make an a$$ of myself, so I'll honestly ask: does anyone know what ethical background this name is from?

Something tells me he ain't from Missouri...
Did you mean 'ethical' or 'ethnic'?
-
 
Camp David said:
Assumed Liberties Denied (ALD) is a fictional malady the left suffers from and credits the Patriot Act and the War on Terror as the cause... it is fictional!

I asked Lobotomy Boy to back up his claim and prove a liberty he was personally denied as a result of the War on Terror; it is a legitimate request...

Waiting....


*Yawn*

I'm still waiting for you to understand that bad law (even unconstitutional law) is bad law. Do we really need to wait for someone to be violated by it
to know this law is bad??? Is that the standard the GOP has for laws now???

So the way we fight terrorism is by trashing our Civil Liberties? Great, looks like they already won and my aren't we so very fragile and shallow to let it happen.

The GOP will get hammered for this (as they should) at the voting boothes.

Pull back on the 1930' and 40's socialism/Fascism card just a bit please
 
Hawkmoon said:
So we gave you a name, and a real incident. So now it isn't enough to cite "someone" who has been harmed. Now it only counts if one of us has been PERSONALLY harmed by the Patriot Act...

Aliens are also rumoured to have captured a human...;) Hardly seems justified to run in the streets in panic does it?
 
Camp David said:
Aliens are also rumoured to have captured a human...;) Hardly seems justified to run in the streets in panic does it?

You just disqualified yourself from a serious debate...you obviously aren't interested in having one, you're just stirring the pot. Very troll-ish.
 
seansean said:
You just disqualified yourself from a serious debate...you obviously aren't interested in having one, you're just stirring the pot

No seansean... read it again... Hawkmoon cites one (1) person claimed affected under the Patriot Act and wants it repealed! There are far more alleged reports of Aliens... I was being perfectly serious...
 
What GEM said, and then some.

You folks are all ranting because someone suggested touching your favorite freedom. But you're quite willing to tear down the rest of your freedoms.

Even if you love George Bush and trust him, he ain't gonna be in office forever.

Will you all be happy when Clinton II uses the powers that Bush acquired?

pax
 
GEM said:
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread - kill me. However, the debate about the infringement of rights for the WOT is going on at many gun boards.

We get folks who clearly think that the situation demands that the leader get free reign to go after the terrorists and violate constitutional rights. I, flame suit on, regard this as not a well thought out philosophical position but rather an authoritarian personality that really has no respect for liberty.

The one exception is raving about the 2nd Amend - but, IMHO, this is not because of an appreciation of liberty, but instead liking to play gun boy. (Add another flame suit layer).

Such folks also don't realize that in an 'emergency' a president can quickly decide the armed populace (doesn't that mean that right wing extremists, animal rights terrorists and Muslim-amercians can buy guns) is a threat and move to ban/confiscate weapons from the general populace.

Can't you see No Warrant Wire Tapping George, who would have signed the AWB if it got to him, going after guns? He isn't the deepest thinker on the cruise ship of state.

As Bush apologist Fred Barnes said on FOX - the problem is that some folks make a fetish of personal liberty.

Your choice are:

1. All hail the leader and screw the Constition. He knows what is good for us and the trains will run on time.
2. All hail our liberties and the Constitution. We will do the best we can against enemies domestic and foreign within the domain of our liberties.

We might do better with more competent leaders rather than violating our rights.


We make it sound like this sort of thing is new. I am working my way through Napalitano's book, wherein his premise is that the government (at all levels) routinely breaks the law to enforce the law. If it achieves the desired result, no problem.
 
Even if you love George Bush and trust him, he ain't gonna be in office forever.
Of course he won't. But if the war's not finished by the time he leaves office, we'll elect another Good, Honest Republican, who will continue not abusing the power, and if it is done, then the government will happily relinquish the power, just like it has every time in the past.

Right?
 
I've noticed that Camp David seems to think that anyone who isn't Bush's number one fan must be a liberal. But he doesn't understand that 'round here, most people are more conservative than Bush. Some one should explain to him that there are more than two political views.

I've also noticed that he's calling people liberal for not wanting our original values and principles to change. But isn't that the very definition of conservative? Wouldn't patriot act supports then be the liberals? Not that name calling means anything. Just my thoughts.
 
The only tampering with the Constitution that ought to happen right now is an addendum to the 2A that says, "PS: Look again, it says ...Shall Not Be Infringed."

The government has an obligation to protect our liberty from threats, foreign and domestic. We, as a people, are encumbered with the responsibility to see to our individual safety.

Hon. George Bush has no obligation to do anything more than promise me I might remain free to do what I might to see to my own safety in my own land. I need to have the freedom to be armed to do that, from time to time, at my discretion, not his.

In this world of fascist terrorists, we need to, rather than have schools be gun free zones, propose a movement to teach firearms in our schools starting perhaps in the 8th grade.
 
TheArchDuke said:
... 'round here, most people are more conservative than Bush...
I find that hard to believe!

You see, most Americans want the president to honor his duty to keep America safe... a small portion of the nation questions his motives.

Based strictly on what you are claiming, the president should have said, "Sorry... I can't keep you safe! Because I can't act and interdict terrorism before it happens, you Americans are all in grave danger." That is not what he did, thank God. Instead he acted. He made us safe.

Now if you want to continue to question his motives, feel free. Understand you are in the minority however.

Just my thoughts.
 
AirForceShooter said:
if we surrender our rights to have a more secure feeling the terrorists have WON!!!
Just my .02

AFS


+1,000,000,000,000,000

It just astounds me that so many just don't see that. What's the point of even trying to fight the terrorists if we're just going to change our ways to be more like them?
 
pax said:
What GEM said, and then some.

You folks are all ranting because someone suggested touching your favorite freedom. But you're quite willing to tear down the rest of your freedoms.

Even if you love George Bush and trust him, he ain't gonna be in office forever.

Will you all be happy when Clinton II uses the powers that Bush acquired?

pax

Totally true. Like I said before, it smacks of the same arguments we've heard before, in regards to different rights.....

<shotgunner> Well, hell, ban those AR-15s... they don't affect me and my trapshooting...
 
Will you all be happy when Clinton II uses the powers that Bush acquired?

Actually, Clinton had the same power for electronic surveillance in the form of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, going back to 1978.

I think there's too much hyperbole on both sides. Too much patriotic flag waving on one, and too much 'the sky is falling violation of Constitutional rights' on the other. The subjects of this surveillance were people who had demonstrated ties to terrorists and terrorist organizations. Sometimes their identities and phone numbers were found on laptops or in records of known terrorists in Iraq/Afghanistan. The gubmint is not monitoring Joe Sixpack. As formidable as some of you think you are with your EBR and 50k rounds of ammo, you don't represent a national security threat, dontcha know.
 
Camp David said:
You see, most Americans want the president to honor his duty to keep America safe...
I'm sorry -- in what part of the Constitution does the President get the "duty to keep America safe?" I must have missed it.
Most of the "keeping safe" part appears to be the job of Congress, which alone has the power to declare war and which alone sets the budget, including things like, oh, defense.

Job title for the president is "President of the United States." It's not "Superman." He's the guy we hired to look Kings in the eye. I haven't agreed with the last few dozen hiring decisions.

Camp David said:
a small portion of the nation questions his motives.
Not me! I have no question at all about his motives. He's a politician, just like his fellow Skull&Bonesman John Kerry. He wants external validation and lots of it; he wants power over his fellowman and, like all politicians, he should be watched very closely indeed.

Like any specialist, his trade is best practiced by persons of a certain bent; and not every characteristic that fits a man to his work is necessarily a good one otherwise.

Our elected and appointed officials are not better and more moral than the population in general. Many of them may well be a lot less so. The American system works as well as it does because we don't trust the men who serve in our government -- the higher up they are, the less we trust them, and with good reason: their temptations are correspondingly greater. Our government doesn't issue titles and grants of arms for good reason: even Prominent Political Figures are just workin' stiffs. Mere mortal men and women. Start thinking they are somehow finer and more noble than the guys at the drive-through oil change and you're deluding youself.

It's something to bear in mind.

--Herself
 
Last edited:
RH Lee said:
Actually, Clinton had the same power for electronic surveillance in the form of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, going back to 1978.
Yes. It was controversial even then, because of fears that it would be abused down the road. But everyone laughs at a slippery slope argument, so there it was.

President Clinton never sidestepped the FISA court. He didn't need to, because during more than 20 years in operation, the court practically never found anything any President requested to be out of bounds.

President Bush, in his eagerness to protect and defend the country (rather than the Constitution~!) managed to find something even the FISA court would boggle at, and now is trying to tear down even the pathetically minimal safeguard of the FISA court rubberstamp.

[heavy, bitter sarcasm]

But it's okay. I'm sure the next President will never abuse that power or push it any further.

[/sarcasm]

pax
 
He didn't need to, because during more than 20 years in operation, the court practically never found anything any President requested to be out of bounds.
Allow me to clarify this for everyone:

"The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation." No request was flatly denied in those 22 years.

That, folks, is what we call a "rubber stamp."

Now, the kicker: "ut since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered 'substantive modifications' took place in 2003 and 2004 -- the most recent years for which public records are available. The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection in the court's history."

So, even a rubber-stamp court finds Bush's requests unpalatable. We've gone from "we'd need a warrant to do that," to being refused a warrant by a rubber-stamp court, to "I don't need a warrant, I'm the C-in-C!"

(Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html?source=mypi)
You see, most Americans want the president to honor his duty to keep America safe... a small portion of the nation questions his motives.
Actually, public opinion polls seem to be indicating quite a bit more than "a small poirtion of the nation" mistrusting--or flat out distrusting--the President. Heck, even here on THR, I'd bet there are more than you think. I'd offer to start a poll, but I think the mods would disapprove of me starting a poll that would pit the majority of the board against a few members.
 
Majority?

Camp David said:
You see, most Americans want the president to honor his duty to keep America safe... a small portion of the nation questions his motives.

... That is not what he did, thank God. Instead he acted. He made us safe.

Now if you want to continue to question his motives, feel free. Understand you are in the minority however.

Fact check time, Camp David.

Majority, eh? ‘Fraid not, unless you count 40% as a ‘majority'. For an education, go to: <http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/BNCapp_12756_image001.gif> which tracks the average opinion polls of Nixon, Clinton, and Bush across their terms of office. Bush is heading right down there with ol' Tricky Dick....

George Bush did not act, or rather he did not follow through. The 'enemy' was in Afghanistan, and if the point was *really* to go after Al Qaeda, we would have 150,000 troops there instead of Iraq and ol' Osama's head on a plate by now. No, the world is not safer...it is infinitely more dangerous because of what he has done. Even Bush himself now admits that the reasons for the Iraq War were wrong. Spin that one....

And if you still think you are in the majority, try this one on for size in the form of last week's rulings in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge J. Michael Luttig writing the opinion in the Jose Padilla case. Luttig served as assistant White House Counsel under Reagan, and was appointed to the federal bench by Bush #41. An uber-conservative, he was on the short list for the Supreme Court, before Alito's nomination. The court ruled that Padilla has been held illegally "even if justifiably by mistake" and in his closing paragraph of the ruling stated that:

"And these impressions have been left, we fear, at what may ultimately prove to be substantial cost to the government's credibility before the courts, to whom it will one day need to argue again in support of a principle of assertedly like importance and necessity to the one is seems to abandon today. While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all of this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective would be."

Whoa...pretty heavy. Google the PDF file, [United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Case No. 05-636 - and sorry I don't have the hypertext link, just the actual text] and read the whole ruling: this judge lays some pretty strong words on the President. And this was a *conservative* jurist from one of the most conservative circuits in the land.

The one thing that I have always admired (and could in no way comprehend) was the unquestionable support for Bush, come hell or high water [pun intended]. I mean, he could somehow manage to burn down the White House and others would still give him credit for creating jobs.. What would he have to do to cost him your support? Umm..., lets see.... he could he could be absolutely wrong about a threat (or lack thereof) to America. (I can't stand incompetence.) He could give awards and promotions to people who were absolutely wrong about a threat (or lack thereof) to America. (I can't stand bad judgement.) He could put party loyalty over the good of the nation. ("You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie.") He could suspend habeus corpus. He could wiretap people without getting warrants. He could bar some folks from his speeches (Doesn't the First Amendment say something on point?). He could act like a king and declare the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper."

...No. Wait...he's done all that.

One of the things that has appealed to me most about this forum are all the most-excellent sig.blocks: on-point quotations from truly great Americans (and others). Here are a few of my favorites from those who have posted in the past few days, and apologies in advance to those I have ripped off. Each addresses the errosion of rights and libetries that is now taking place.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety and shall have neither." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759

"The only way Governments can induce citizens to surrender their rights is convincing them that by doing so, they will gain a measure of safety in exchange" -Thomas Jefferson

"The greatest calamity which could befall us would be submission to a government of unlimited powers." -Thomas Jefferson, 1825

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." Hermann Goring - Nuremberg Trials

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." -Thomas Jefferson, 1781

and my favorite:

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it" -Mark Twain

Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top