CNN will cease using the word "terrorist"

[Isabella Thorne]

<hugs WriterDom>

eh? what? politically incorrect to call them "Terrorists"?

WTF?????

that is what they call themselves ... they see it is an occupation ... it is freaky ...

when i first heard that one of the suspects arrested had "Terrorist" entered on his identification as his occupation ... i thought maybe he was playing some kind of cruel joke or something ...

and then i saw an interview with a man in the taliban from afghanistan and he said:

"Osamin bin Ladin is a terrorist. that is his occupation. if he was a doctor, he would help people. but he is not. he is a terrorist; therefore he terrorizes."

what kind of fucking warped thinking is that?

 

[WriterDom]

good for NBC!

NBC News Vice President Bill Wheatley told the Wall Street Journal, "A group of people commandeered airplanes and used them as guided missiles against thousands of people; if that doesn't fit the definition of terrorism, what does? We have no intention of changing."

 

[lavender]

 

[CelestialBody]

Re: actually he said....

 

[shadowsource]

Re: Most emphatically what Myrrdin says!

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

The Germans probably couldn't remember much by the time Hitler invaded Poland, either. I don't expect UK citizens to understand the nature fo the freedoms that are threatened here.
We don't have an Official Secrets Act, thought the govt. has been trying to build a reasonable facsimile for decades. We are innocent until proven guilty. Except in the case of victims of the asinine Drug War, the government is not allowed to seize property after you're arrested, but before you're convicted (which makes it VERY hard to pay for lawyers and clearly contravenes the spirit of OUR Constitution). When our government detains people, it must account to a judge of some kind for having done so. Balances are carefully built into most areas of our criminal justice system, though in recent years we have started to see significant chipping away at the rights of the accused. The wholesale changes that Ashcroft is demanding would wash away a great many of our freedoms, and it is very hard to imagine how many of these changes would affect low-tech terrorists. They will be used against US citizens by US bureaucrats in the normal course of governmental activity. That's history. That's a fact. And that MUST be debated, openly, intelligently, and critically.

People who don't want us to have such a debate can go stuff themselves, American or otherwise. Don't point to the experience of Britain, where injustice is endemic. Britain, where the Tories managed legally to outlaw direct elections in the 10 largest cities because the opposition party was thriving in said elections! Where books that embarrass the state can be banned in advance! Go watch IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER again. Go read the book by that top cop whose career was destroyed because he tried honestly to investigate the British govt. Death Squads in Ulster.
We've never had a shortage of authoritiarian thumbsuckers in this country, but they've never taken over yet!

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

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!

Your sarcasm is noted - but note this also; there have been a hell of a lot more people who paid with their lives, limbs and personal fortunes to secure our civil liberties. They would be rolling in their graves now at how readily we want to give those liberties away in the name of security. Moreover they would be totally pissed that many of the proposals don't have shit to do with what recently happened, nor would they have prevented it.

I don't know about you, but I have had some small experience working with secure and encrypted communications, having worked some years for the DOD on such projects. Most software engineers know a smidgeon about encryption, computer comms and so on as it is part of their expertise. I know a little more not just due to my experience but also because I have a EE and I specialized in comms before I went from hardware to software.

The stuff I worked on couldn't even be heard by survellience satellites and that was 15 years ago. Much of our current cell phone tech is based on that work - indeed my old boss works for the largest cell phone service provider setting up their networks.

With good security protocols, some good encryptions software (readily available for free) and encryption hardware, not to mention some signal footprint reduction hardware (like spread spectrum) it is not that hard to evade not only interception, but detection as well. Even if the signals are detected and intercepted, decryption of properly encrypted and transmitted data is difficult, sometimes near impossible.

Yeah I know about the NSA, Echelon and Carnivore - the new media and conspiracy buffs over hype their capabilities by several orders of magnitude. The NSA and the government are not going to correct that impression either as it works to their benefit in multiple ways.

So how does strengthening these capabilities harm us? It is not so much the technical capabilities that are harmful, it is the legal blocks to their use on the common citizen that keep them from being abused more than they are already. Typical Joe Blow doesn't use those security measures, but still wants some privacy and anonymity - or at least the semblance of it.

Do you really want the government to collect all of your private online correspondance and then use it against you in the future. Don't think it will happen? Just how do you think J. Edgar stayed in power for so long? He used the resources of the FBI to blackmail those in power. Did you know that the FBI evolved from what was loosely referred to as the Sex Police after WWI?

Look into how such powers have been abused in the past, how these are really irrelevant to the terrorist situation we find ourselves in now, then question whether we really need to so blithely give up something fought for so hard and at such great cost.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: 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.

Technically not correct; all people have the same rights everywhere - whether those rights are recognized and protected by legal and political systems varies depending on your locality and timeframe - even in the US.

Seems like picking nits - but it is an important basic tenet to Natural Rights theory, which when ignored or forgotten can cause serious problems later. Rights don't come and go when legal/political systems change - they are just ignored/abused.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

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.

There are a number of communist/socialist countries that have free elections, although they are getting fewer as time goes on. Communism/socialism doesn't necessarily mean elections don't happen, or that totalitarianism is in place - although that is often the result.

But anyway, you've all condemmed the violence. Donated blood and money. After all it hasn't cost you anything.

It hasn't? How do you know?

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?

No one has absolute privacy - what we are fighting against is unwarranted, uneeded and highly instrusive measure where some in power want to poke their noses into our private lives with the end goal of gaining more power for themselves and less for themselves.

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 ?

Do you believe law enforcement should be able to listen to, analyze, collect and keep any and all of your private written and voice comms in the unlikely chance that you might commit a crime in the future?

The fight against terrorism on home soil is either fought with surveillance and undercover work. Or it's fought at the point of attack.

It is fought with both. I don't have a problem with either. What I have a problem with is greatly expanding the legal power of the government to do that - they have plenty enough to do what they need to do right now if they didn't rely on ELINT so much and went back to a few more resources inside the terrorist orgs. Believe me - I have a pretty good idea of what our ELINT capabilities are and expanding the legal authority of our intelligence agencies to spy on its own citizens is not going to help in that regard.

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

Right now or in the future? On my life or my childrens? I tend to look a little further out than the here and now.

 

[miles]

Shy Tall Guy

Sorry, Cha-Cha, you are wrong on both counts. Our rights as Americans are granted to us by the Constitution, not theory. Just because a theory says all people have the same rights everywhere means nothing. It simply isn't true.

In the U.S. the only place where you have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is in a court of law.

Period.

If a store owner throws you out because he thinks you stole something, he doesn't have to prove you are guilty. Kids who are expelled from school don't have the right to be presumed innocent. Unless there is a contract forbidding it, companies can terminate employees for any reason, other than discrimination, at any time. They don't have to prove the fired employee was guilty of substandard work, theft, or dishonesty.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Shy Tall Guy

Sorry, Cha-Cha, you are wrong on both counts. Our rights as Americans are granted to us by the Constitution, not theory. Just because a theory says all people have the same rights everywhere means nothing. It simply isn't true.

Go back and take Poly Sci 101 over again - you probably flunked if you came away with that understanding. The Constitution recognizes (elucidates) our Natural Rights. Anyone who has ever read any of the debates on the Constitution by the founding fathers, or their writings on the same, learns that real quick.

Locke, Jefferson, Blackstone, etc. - they all recognized this basic principle. There was a huge debate on whether the Constitution should even elcuidate our rights for this very reason; that people would think that if something wasn't in the Constitution then it didn't exist.

Do a little research and reading. A few books I have read that I can recommend:

"The Foundations of American Constitutional Government"
"The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson" - Mayer (part of a series)
"The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution" - Bailyn

Moreover, if you have read any of the Supreme Court decisions on rights not specifically elucidated in the Constitution (such as the right to privacy) then I don't see how you could have this opinion. Don't people read any more?

I guess that people have a deeper misunderstanding of this basic foundation of rights than I thought. So much for our vaunted educational system.

 

[miles]

Shy Tall Guy

This started when I said the only place we have the right to be presumed innocent is in a court of law.

You said that was "technically incorrect."

I spelled out several examples to prove it.

I guess some people have a deeper misunderstanding of when they are wrong. I thought they could admit it.

So much for our vaunted educational system.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Shy Tall Guy

This started when I said the only place we have the right to be presumed innocent is in a court of law.

You said that was "technically incorrect."

I spelled out several examples to prove it.

I guess some people have a deeper misunderstanding of when they are wrong. I thought they could admit it.

So much for our vaunted educational system.

We are talking past each other; when you stated "everywhere" I assumed that meant every place on earth, not every situation such as your examples of the storekeeper or employer. "Everywhere" would be the wrong word to use.

You are correct in the context of societal situations, just as I am in mine; I meant that regardless of where you are, whatever legal jurisdiction, country, legal/political system - you have the same rights as you do here in the US. The right to free speech, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law), etc.

IMO, you used the wrongs words to get across your point and ignored what I was saying. I ignored what you were saying because from my perspective it meant nothing when talking about geographic place, legal jurisdiction, etc.

I still maintain our rights, and correctly so by every poly sci theory, every legal theory/decision in the US, that our Natural Rights do not descend from a written Constitution but rather from our basic natural rights as humans - hence the name "Natural Rights"; they are naturally right for human societal interaction and come from our human nature not some artifice of governmental fiat.

Somewhere along the line either one or both of us missed the context of the other's intent. Can we agree on that?

 

[Mischka]

Re: Re: Shy Tall Guy

Locke, Jefferson, Blackstone, etc. - they all recognized this basic principle. There was a huge debate on whether the Constitution should even elcuidate our rights for this very reason; that people would think that if something wasn't in the Constitution then it didn't exist.

Actually, have you read any recent opinions by Justices Scalia and Thomas? They are of the opinion that if the right is not specifically stated in the Constitution, it is not a federally protected right (including privacy). I can't quite figure out how they got this interpretation past the 9th Amendment, but that's what they espouse. Too tired to look it up right now, but I will find some opinions later if anyone is interested.

And miles, I thought you meant the world when you said "everywhere" as well. All this talk of a global perspective of late, you know.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Re: Re: Shy Tall Guy

Actually, have you read any recent opinions by Justices Scalia and Thomas?

This is one of the problems with the strict constructionalist POV/theory - it is short sighted and has as many cons as it does pros. They ought to read "The death of Common Sense" - a very concise and to the point explanation of why we don't need or want an increasing complex system or rules/regulations/laws to cover every nuance of life.

Typical conservatives - they just don't get it; they don't go back far enough to look at the underlying reasons why something was done. This leads to all kinds of inconsistencies; they support some particular right/theory as long as it is to their advantage; such as supporting free speech for praying in school (as long as it is Christian prayer), but offer a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning.

 

[shadowsource]

And they seize PROPERTY -

In a nation where property is sacrosanct in so many ways, these "strict constructionists" enthusiastically countenance the seizure of assets before conviction (in the case of the drug war), equaling punishment before conviction, and thereby helping to ensure conviction as defendants can't afford attorneys. This concept is obviously anathema to the spirit of the authors of our constitution: It's exactly what King George III would have loved to do to dissenters. But he couldn't, until it was too late.

And the modern conservatives particularly hate the Fourth Amendment. Burger and Rehnquist declared war on it almost 30 years ago. It's where much of the privacy claim originates.

STG, I have REALLY enjoyed your posts here. Thanks.

 

[miles]

Shy Tall Guy

Interesting that some people who self righteously call themselves "progressive" or "forward thinking" are always the first to put labels on people, seperating them into groups, and dividing them. So much for bringing people together.

Typical conservative? Meaning they are all the same? Isn't that blind prejudice? Am I a typical conservative?

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Shy Tall Guy

Interesting that some people who self righteously call themselves "progressive" or "forward thinking" are always the first to put labels on people, seperating them into groups, and dividing them. So much for bringing people together.

And we can't use descriptive labels at all?

1) I am not "progressive" - if I were to choose any description of the way I think politically it would be Libertarian. To me, Liberty and Freedom are a passion. I have a rather simple set of rules I go by in that regard, and I try to keep my political thinking consistently along those lines. Those rules go way back - nothing especially progressive or "forward thinking" about them at all.

2) Sometimes descriptive labels can be helpful refer to a group of people that have the same beliefs, goals, actions, etc.. I don't have a problem with using labels as long as I know people understand that I am generalizing and that there are exceptions to the rule. That is why I often use the qualifiers "typical" and "generally" with labels.

Typical conservative? Meaning they are all the same?

Hardly - read #2.

Isn't that blind prejudice?

Go ahead and play that card if you wish although it is bullshit.

Am I a typical conservative?

Was I referring to you in my post about the judges? Did you see your name there? You tell me - do you consider yourself a "typical" conservative? Do you consider yourself a conservative at all?

I haven't got a clue what you view yourself to be - you choose, but don't feel you need to share your conclusions with me - I don't really care.

 

[miles]

Shy Tall Guy-`

Ahhhhhh.The disadvantages of BB and email communication. Something tells me our opinions are very similar. It's this format that's creating a smokescreen.

Warning: Calling yourself a Libertarian around here is risky. I've heard it all from being told I'm in favor of legalizing sex with children to someone saying I didn't know what freedom is.

Been there, done that, didn't get a t-shirt.

 

[shadowsource]

More bullshit, Miles -

If you've been reading STG's threads and posts for a couple of months, you'd find that he's no liberal. He's tangled with the liberals, including me, on many issues. You didn't notice his voluminous citation of von Hayek yesterday on the question of how much war helps an economy? Typical for you, if not for conservatives, you retreat to name calling when a well-read, self-motivated, determinedly original thinker like STG disagrees with you. Better he should have called you an "Ashcroft Libertarian."

 

[miles]

shadowsource

Having another bad day, I see. Such venom.

What if I haven't been reading any of his posts?

Please go away.