I am not for violation of our basic rights as protected by our Constitution and Bill of Rights..however, for those continuing to cry foul of everything done in intercepting possible information...are those who are irate going to reverse themselves should our country suffer say 1/4 million deaths in a sudden attack?...will they speak of the more important need of no infrigement of any kind rather than the protection of American lives...I am a complaining voter of Bush as he has failed in several vital areas that threaten our future and I will not excuse him in the slightest degree if he fails to push legislation to solve or at least combat these problems..i.e. border control, deficit spending, etc..
American casualties vs. civil rights?
- Thread starter aspen1964
- Start date
Like everything else we do, a balance must be struck between intrusion and security.
This country is great BECAUSE we hold the government at bay. Give the NSA, FBI and Justice Department free reign and we are no longer the US of A.
You can't claim to defend the American way of life if you destroy it in the process. If that's the choice, we're doing something very wrong. There is more than one way to capitulate to terrorists.
This country is great BECAUSE we hold the government at bay. Give the NSA, FBI and Justice Department free reign and we are no longer the US of A.
You can't claim to defend the American way of life if you destroy it in the process. If that's the choice, we're doing something very wrong. There is more than one way to capitulate to terrorists.
GoSlash,
Interesting. I believe it was Lincoln who said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," when he was being criticized for suspending the writ of habeas corpus. You're essentially saying that it is a suicide pact, that you'd rather die than lose any of your liberties.
What if you had a roommate that was known to have extremist views, and you overheard him saying to a friend that all who don't believe in Jesus Christ should either be forcibly converted or killed, and that this should start with the people they're living with, at 9:00 a.m. the following Saturday? Or better yet, he'd been acting more flaky than usual and you overheard him saying that, because your ear was to his door?
What I just described is the micro, personal version of what's going on at our national level. To be consistent, you'd have to forget that you ever heard what was said, not be concerned if he was acting flaky in the first place, and not be packin' the next Saturday morning. If that's your attitude, you're at least consistent.
This enemy we're facing truly does hate us and the freedoms of speech, religion, the press, etc., that we enjoy, and truly does want us dead if we won't convert. Because they're not a nation-state that we can concentrate firepower on, because they're nebulous and shadowy, because they rely on asymmetric warfare, it's inevitable that our response to their threat will make us something we weren't, simply from a survival standpoint. In that sense, they've already won part of the battle, because it's our freedom they detest, and it's our freedom that's being checked. But the question is: Is it better to become something we weren't and still survive as a nation in some fashion, or is it better to grant the terrorists the freedom that GoSlash would grant them, enabling them to strike simultaneous devastating blows, precipitating our probable collapse? When they struck 3 buildings and a field on 9/11 we teetered for a while. If they can get their hands on some nukes and smuggle them into the country (drugs anyone?) and time the blasts to be simultaneous as they are wont to do, we'd have anarchy, chaos, martial law. The Patriot Act might then become a fond memory for civil libertarians.
Then again, the nation that rises from those ashes might write a constitution that won't allow rights to be "precedented" out of existence extra constitutionally. Maybe marching judges out to a firing squad at dawn the next morning, after making an asinine ruling the day before, would concentrate their attention.
Interesting. I believe it was Lincoln who said, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact," when he was being criticized for suspending the writ of habeas corpus. You're essentially saying that it is a suicide pact, that you'd rather die than lose any of your liberties.
What if you had a roommate that was known to have extremist views, and you overheard him saying to a friend that all who don't believe in Jesus Christ should either be forcibly converted or killed, and that this should start with the people they're living with, at 9:00 a.m. the following Saturday? Or better yet, he'd been acting more flaky than usual and you overheard him saying that, because your ear was to his door?
What I just described is the micro, personal version of what's going on at our national level. To be consistent, you'd have to forget that you ever heard what was said, not be concerned if he was acting flaky in the first place, and not be packin' the next Saturday morning. If that's your attitude, you're at least consistent.
This enemy we're facing truly does hate us and the freedoms of speech, religion, the press, etc., that we enjoy, and truly does want us dead if we won't convert. Because they're not a nation-state that we can concentrate firepower on, because they're nebulous and shadowy, because they rely on asymmetric warfare, it's inevitable that our response to their threat will make us something we weren't, simply from a survival standpoint. In that sense, they've already won part of the battle, because it's our freedom they detest, and it's our freedom that's being checked. But the question is: Is it better to become something we weren't and still survive as a nation in some fashion, or is it better to grant the terrorists the freedom that GoSlash would grant them, enabling them to strike simultaneous devastating blows, precipitating our probable collapse? When they struck 3 buildings and a field on 9/11 we teetered for a while. If they can get their hands on some nukes and smuggle them into the country (drugs anyone?) and time the blasts to be simultaneous as they are wont to do, we'd have anarchy, chaos, martial law. The Patriot Act might then become a fond memory for civil libertarians.
Then again, the nation that rises from those ashes might write a constitution that won't allow rights to be "precedented" out of existence extra constitutionally. Maybe marching judges out to a firing squad at dawn the next morning, after making an asinine ruling the day before, would concentrate their attention.
Afsnaco,
There are a lot of people on this board that STILL don't agree with Lincoln. He had a point, but tossing the Constitution away is also suicide.
As to terrorists, they are only viable when they have a populace to support them. While their rhetoric may include global conversion, the general Muslim populace does not care or believe in that. They allow the terrorists to exist because they have specific problems with US foreign policy. Change the perception or affect of those policies and much of that support evaporates.
There is more than one solution to Muslim extremism. Counterforce is only one. If that method requires us to become prisoners, monsters, or both we need to be looking at some other methodology.
There are a lot of people on this board that STILL don't agree with Lincoln. He had a point, but tossing the Constitution away is also suicide.
As to terrorists, they are only viable when they have a populace to support them. While their rhetoric may include global conversion, the general Muslim populace does not care or believe in that. They allow the terrorists to exist because they have specific problems with US foreign policy. Change the perception or affect of those policies and much of that support evaporates.
There is more than one solution to Muslim extremism. Counterforce is only one. If that method requires us to become prisoners, monsters, or both we need to be looking at some other methodology.
Ah, so you're in the "it's our own fault" camp. I couldn't disagree more. In fact, as much as I hate to say it, Muslim culture may be inimical to creating a constitutional republic. It appears that this culture can only exist in two forms: as an authoritarian government, or as a theocratic government. That's all we see everywhere in the world anyway. Of the two, I'm sure you'll agree that we prefer the authoritarian one, which, of course, will alienate us from the populace. But the alternative, a theocratic government, will generally become a pariah and a menace to the region and to us, as is Iran, because we believe in freedoms they detest. They'll hate us because we support their authoritarian leader, or they'll hate us because their imams tell them to. Sounds like "the people" will hate us either way, so bring on the authoritarians.
You've apparently not been following the stories about Wahabi jihadist mosques sprouting all over the U.S., all preaching that the US are infidels, etc., ad nauseum. That sort of sounds like a support network to me. Atta, et al, existed in this country for quite some time before 9/11. They bankrolled and planned the mission far in advance and then worked to execute it, apparently without darkening the doors of a mosque, so they'd stay under the radar. Sorry, the argument that they need a support network doesn't hold water.
Counterforce is the only viable alternative right now. It's been longstanding US policy to not negotiate with terrorists. The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have avowed to make those countries into Islamic republics if they win. Afghanistan was one before 9/11 and they harbored OBL. And gee, Iran's conversion to a theocracy worked out so well for our national interests.
So that's my $.02. They don't appear capable of creating a constitutional republic, and we much prefer that they devolve into a friendly authoritarian government rather than an unfriendly religious government. And I'm confident that if they're left to their own devices, without appropriate "guidance," they'll become theocracies. I don't think an Iraqi or Afghani "George Washington" exists.
We should remain where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, so we can prevent those 2 countries from devolving into theocracies, and to invite the jihadis to concentrate their hatred and firepower on armed, trained Americans who can fight back, over there.
You've apparently not been following the stories about Wahabi jihadist mosques sprouting all over the U.S., all preaching that the US are infidels, etc., ad nauseum. That sort of sounds like a support network to me. Atta, et al, existed in this country for quite some time before 9/11. They bankrolled and planned the mission far in advance and then worked to execute it, apparently without darkening the doors of a mosque, so they'd stay under the radar. Sorry, the argument that they need a support network doesn't hold water.
Counterforce is the only viable alternative right now. It's been longstanding US policy to not negotiate with terrorists. The terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have avowed to make those countries into Islamic republics if they win. Afghanistan was one before 9/11 and they harbored OBL. And gee, Iran's conversion to a theocracy worked out so well for our national interests.
So that's my $.02. They don't appear capable of creating a constitutional republic, and we much prefer that they devolve into a friendly authoritarian government rather than an unfriendly religious government. And I'm confident that if they're left to their own devices, without appropriate "guidance," they'll become theocracies. I don't think an Iraqi or Afghani "George Washington" exists.
We should remain where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, so we can prevent those 2 countries from devolving into theocracies, and to invite the jihadis to concentrate their hatred and firepower on armed, trained Americans who can fight back, over there.
No, I don't blame us. Where'd you get that from? But just as it was non-military issues that created the crisis, non-military measures can end it. Sometimes, more force just does the opposite, which is what many of our military leaders are saying about what's happening in Iraq.
As to your analysis of Islam and Democracy, you should look up a country called "Turkey". Or don't, since it will pretty much kill your generalizations.
Nice place. You should visit.
I'm really going to have a hard time continuing on in a discussion with someone who resorts to "they" statements about groups of people that number over a billion. It doesn't work with race, either, and is just as insulting and backwards when applied to a faith.
As to your analysis of Islam and Democracy, you should look up a country called "Turkey". Or don't, since it will pretty much kill your generalizations.
Nice place. You should visit.
I'm really going to have a hard time continuing on in a discussion with someone who resorts to "they" statements about groups of people that number over a billion. It doesn't work with race, either, and is just as insulting and backwards when applied to a faith.
Iraq, yes. Afganistan? Probably not, but they're giving it a go.
I actually think Iran is best set up for full blown democracy. Their people think that way, but are being strangled.
Democracy requires an educated, civilized populace. Places that are only a generation away from warlords or tribes are going to have a hard time with it. That's the limitation on these countries, not their faith. The Catholic church was just as much against our freedoms at one time, and we found our way through.
I actually think Iran is best set up for full blown democracy. Their people think that way, but are being strangled.
Democracy requires an educated, civilized populace. Places that are only a generation away from warlords or tribes are going to have a hard time with it. That's the limitation on these countries, not their faith. The Catholic church was just as much against our freedoms at one time, and we found our way through.