CNN will cease using the word "terrorist"

[Problem Child]

This is not going to be a conventional war.

We have an enemy, lot's of them. Just because their names may not necessarily be "The Nation of___, or the government of ____, does not mean they are any less the enemy. The only obstacle left to engaging and killing them is finding them. But just because they are harder to find than a country on a map does not mean they are any less a threat.

We need to stop thinking in conventional terms.

I agree that Ashcroft seems a bit overzealous at times, but I think congress will give him the power he needs to protect our security without trampling all over our civil liberties. He is in a very visible landscape right now, and congress seems to be moving a tad slowly for him, which is probably a good thing.

We have to be prepared to look for these people for months and years if need be. I am confident that the civil libertarians in this country aren't going to let Ashcroft run rampant. I certainly hope so, anyway.

I liked what SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld said the other day, something to the effect of "If we let these people change the way we live, we've lost. We need to change the way they live."

 

[p_p_man]

The historical facts are clear. In every war restriction of personal freedoms occurs as a sacrifice for the good of the whole.

Yes I agree. The problem is that the authorities use the situation to impose restrictions which they knew would never be accepted by the electorate in normal times and then don't repeal those same restrictions once the danger is over.

As it seems this campaign is going to last forever then we must expect the "freedoms" we've all enjoyed for so long are now about to be distant memories.

 

[Laurel]

I liked what SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld said the other day, something to the effect of "If we let these people change the way we live, we've lost. We need to change the way they live."

I love that guy! He knows his shit, he thinks before he speaks, and he's sharp as a tack. If only...ah, won't go there.

I hope you're right, PC.

 

[Calamity Jane]

someone help me

I saw a quotation today... and i don't know where (though it was probably here)...

something like 'those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety' ... anyone?

 

[shadowsource]

not to beat a dead horse, but -

Putting hackers and web site defacers in prison for life has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with control at any cost. If Ashcroft wants these powers only to fight terrorism, why doesn't he agree that they can't be used EXCEPT in cases of terrorism?

 

[Laurel]

Ben Franklin. He said, "There are those who would sacrifice liberty for safety. These people deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

You make a great point, PP...

and that may be the worst tragedy to come about from this entire incident - much worse than the loss of 6000 lives. Personal freedoms may be curtailed far into the future, perhaps the duration of our lifetimes. But if that's the necessary price to pay for safety, I for one am willing to pay it.

Believe me, I don't relish giving up my civil rights more than anyone else. For me, this is a lose-lose situation. We can lose safety or we can lose freedom. If you choose freedom without safety, though, it's only an illusion of freedom. (this is where I part company with ol' Ben who I dearly love)

And shytallguy, I don't have time to rebut you point for point. You make all the standard rebuttals to my position and there's some validity there. But just because totalitarian states justify evil actions in the name of the public good doesn't mean that all invocation of action for the public good is evil.

And just because I support stronger security measures doesn't mean I excuse putting Americans in concentration camps. I agree with you that victory is not worth "any cost", but I'm confident that the measures enacted here will be prudent and on the whole proportionate to the threat at hand. I think there are lines of basic personal freedom that should not be crossed. I just happen to have a far different idea of what those freedoms are than you seem to.

 

[Problem Child]

actually he said....

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

but you were close.

 

[Laurel]

Yeah, that too.

 

[Calamity Jane]

I think you're being unfair, Laurel. To be sure these proposed measures restrict personal freedoms, but they stand to do great benefit for the public good.

How does tapping my phone benefit the public? I'm a law-abiding (for the most part) American citizen. Does the CIA need to know about my dime bag?

Does making it easier to wiretap people, conduct searches and seizures, and so forth makes us like the Taliban? LOL. The idea is absurd. Go take a look at Problem Child's thread on the Taliban and see if there's any resemblance.

take a look at the current leadership... ashcroft et al would love nothing more than to restrict freedoms, especially those of women, until we all gave up fighting.

What good were civil rights to people living in the World Trade Center?

Do you honestly believe that those people would have handed over their civil rights if it wouldhave meant they survived that day?

The fallacy I see in all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the security measures is that there's an idea that there will be some sort of slippery slope toward tyrrany. The people who are advocating these measures you find so distasteful aren't "exploiting the deaths of Americans" because of some diabolical hatred of personal freedom. Do you really see them as Taliban members??

maybe not taliban members... i really can't see ashcroft mixing races... but i totally see him as a minion of the right wing freaks.

Their intent is to take pragmatic steps to protect all of us against terrorism. Obviously these measures would be excessive in peace-time, but as they say, "desperate times call for desperate measures".

these 'measures' are extreme right now. because we're fighting an enemy we can't even see. how do you declare the war on terrorism over? it's like the pathetic money pit we call the war on drugs... you can't fight a belief system. (and no, i'm not saying we shouldn't fight)

All we have to do is win.

And who will determine the winner?

 

[Problem Child]

My search engine is better than yours, so neener.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I should've known better...

than argue for the limitation of civil rights on an internet porn BB of all places.

I give up.

LOL.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: You make a great point, PP...

But if that's the necessary price to pay for safety, I for one am willing to pay it.

You may be - but those of us who have already paid a heavy price for our freedoms don't care to see it all go down the drain in the name of "safety"

Believe me, I don't relish giving up my civil rights more than anyone else.

Maybe not, but all the same you seem a little too willing.

But just because totalitarian states justify evil actions in the name of the public good doesn't mean that all invocation of action for the public good is evil.

Not all actions in the name of public good are evil, only the evil ones and these are evil in both intention and result.

 

[Problem Child]

Ollie-

Do you get to do gyno exams on your fellow female students?

I mean in the spirit of higher education and all that, you know...

 

[Calamity Jane]

My search engine is better than yours, so neener.

you fixed my post? so do i say thanks, or do i smack you for stickin your tongue out at me? i get so confused.

 

[Problem Child]

I was talking to Laurel, but you can smack me if you want.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

No, PC, unfortunately not. I'm trying to get that rushed into the curriculum before I graduate, though. If I do, I promise to make you an honorary med student so you'll be able to get your share of educational experiences.

Shyman - you win! I have seen the error of my ways. Loss of personal freedom even at the cost of great loss of life and human suffering is inexcusable. Viva la Constitution!

 

[Problem Child]

You do realize that the only way to judge whether or not the clitoris is receiving adequate blood supply is by manipulating it with your tongue, right?

(I was pre-med before Dean Wormer kicked me and my frat bros off campus back in '62)

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

that's true, PC. But there was a study in JAMA last month proving that that particular test is only diagnostic in young, nubile hotties.

That crusty old dean was always out to spoil you and the boys' free sorority-girl gyno clinic, right?

 

[Calamity Jane]

I was talking to Laurel, but you can smack me if you want.

ohhhhh... the ben franklin quotation... wonder how my post changed...?

could you guess it's almost 4am here?

i can't smack you for sticking your tongue out at laurel. no matter how much i'd like to

 

[Laurel]

I'D like to give PC the smacking he deserves, but I think that would lead to trouble at home...

 

[XXplorher]

I think you're being unfair, Laurel. To be sure these proposed measures restrict personal freedoms, but they stand to do great benefit for the public good. Does making it easier to wiretap people, conduct searches and seizures, and so forth makes us like the Taliban? LOL. The idea is absurd. Go take a look at Problem Child's thread on the Taliban and see if there's any resemblance.

ok - I did not read your continuing comments, but,

I’m sorry to say…… but you are a bit ignorant.
It’s a concern.
We’re going to ride a fine line for a while. I’M worried about it. It’s CERTAINLY a concern!! In fact, to me, it’s the ONLY concern (we’re going to crush anything outside of us. INside is scary.). People, governments, abuse their control. That’s a FACT of life. It’s happened HERE (this is why the CIA has a bad rep, remember Nixon? How pure was Kennady?). NO ONE is more ‘American’ than me. So I’m not pulling ‘militia’ duty here. But it IS our responsibility to not allow this to be a police state. If we do – the government WILL abuse it. That’s the fakt jakk.

Sorry. But there are MANY issues happening at once here. You can’t turn a blind eye to your country in the middle of it. DEMAND from your country what you had before 9/11/01 (which I’m tired of seeing on the screen). As much as you refuse a terrorist……… you refuse to be changed by one. You reFUSE to be ‘followed, tagged, numbered, watched’ as if you WERE one. If it gets to that. We got our OWN war to fight – right here. I don’t want that. SO be smart in the mean time, eh?


PS “In the end the threat will be eliminated and restrictions on civil rights will be relaxed. It's how it's always happened before. Why should we expect different now?”

Because you never stop MAKING sure. THAT’S why it holds!! Be careful, Oliver, of falling into communism/ socialism. You’re speaking like it. Trust me.

 

[Myrrdin]

It makes me laugh everytime I see an American compared to a Communist/Socialist. Kinda undermines the whole argument. I must have been away the day free elections were banned.

It's odd how the more people are packed together, the more paranoid they become about their privacy/anomymity. You ought to try living in the countryside. Everyone knows everyone elses business. There's no intelligence agency faster than the bush telegraph.

But anyway, you've all condemmed the violence. Donated blood and money. After all it hasn't cost you anything. They both can be replenished. But a degree of personal freedom, is that to much to give to help your countrymen ? Your own rights to absolute privacy is more important than your safety on the streets?

Do you belive that the law enforcement agencies should only investigate crime after it has happened, or should they also be involved in crime prevention ?

The fight against terrorism on home soil is either fought with surveillance and undercover work. Or it's fought at the point of attack. Officers in flak jackets at street corners. Unattended cars towed away. Unattended bags, blown up with controlled explosions. Street searches. Vehicle checkpoints. Night time curfews, etc, etc.

Which option is going to have the major impact on your life ?

 

[p_p_man]

Most emphatically what Myrrdin says!

With the added comment that no matter what personal freedoms you lose now in years to come there will be even more legislation about many more issues and what, at the moment, looks like fierce government interence will quietly be forgotten and life will continue on as usual.

In fact I'm willing to bet that most people won't recall exactly what personal freedoms were lost.

 

[miles]

peepee

Until proven guilty.


Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the courts in the U.S.
An individual does not have that right elsewhere in society.