Therein lies the problem indeed. You and others like you may see this as a time of war, but only because you and others like you have been duped by that very same unconstitutional, un-American, too-big-for-its-britches government that strikes fear into my heart. It's not a time of war by any legal definition because Congress has to declare war and they haven't done so. It's not a time of war by any academic definition either. Terrorism is not war. No other country is making war on us. These attacks are being launched by civilians in small groups that don't even qualify as militias. Paramilitary, to put it generously, rather than military action. Paramilitary action cannot be countered with military action. There is a mismatch in scope, reaction time, and covertness that will always work to the advantage of the smaller force. Trying to "fight a war on terrorism" is like trying to "cure the disease of obesity." Repeating one's own ridiculously twisted semantics for so long that one comes to believe oneself is a proven formula for disaster. It's not a time of war by any practical definition either. 9/11 was the worst act of terrorism ever performed, with the death toll an order of magnitude greater than any previous attack by any group. Yet in the cold, hard analysis of threats to the safety and security of the American people, an analysis that must be performed if we are to allocate our finite resources to do the most good, it was not in the same category as war, not even close. It's right down there with the really severe earthquakes and hurricanes that we're unable to prepare for. We let those things happen over and over and over and over again and people just build houses right back in the same stupid locations over and over and over and over again and the government finances them and the insurance companies cover them and they get knocked down over and over and over and over again and somehow we think that is just dandy. Americans are hugely irrational when it comes to risk analysis and management. But I guess that's not surprising since we're hugely irrational about almost everything important. Personally I would rather see the resources go to New Orleans, given that we really are going to be stupid enough to build another city in the same preposterous location. 9/11 is used as an infinitely renewable excuse for the government to pull any kind of crap it wants to. Things it couldn't get away with in what you and others like you apparently refer to as "peacetime." At the risk of violating Godwin's Law because I can't think of a less offensive example off the top of my head, this reminds me of the Nazis rushing to complete the extermination of the Jews during WWII because, as memos found after the war revealed, they understood that they couldn't get away with crap like that in peacetime, even if they were the winners. War is government's favorite environment, because a scared people are always willing to sacrifice their freedom for security. And as--um, was it Ben Franklin?--said, "Those who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for security are doomed to have neither, and they deserve it." Do "you and others like you" honestly believe that any of this crap is going to prevent another 9/11? You can't be serious! Terrorists are going to get nailed by phone taps? By bank audits? By airport shoe-checks? By surveillance videos masquerading as red-light cameras? It sounds to me like the terrorists are smarter than we are. If I were a terrorist I would ship my stuff into this country in a cargo container. Something like two percent of them get inspected, so 98% of my stuff would get in. You can even ship people in that way. People with paramilitary skills could easily survive an ocean voyage inside a container. I'm not giving anything away. A lot of people are screaming about the lax state of seaborne cargo security. And the government doesn't give a damn. They don't really want to curb terrorism. It would take away their excuse to oppress us.
Exactly. Where were people wanting to give up their freedoms for more security from people like Timmothy McVeigh when he blew up the Murrah Federal Building? Where were people wanting to give up their freedoms for more security from people like the D.C. Sniper? What about local gangs? What about drug dealers? What about jaywalkers? What about shoplifters? What about illegal parkers? What about the Atlanta Olympic Pipe Bomber? What about the Unibomber? I don't recall anyone ever wanting to give up their freedoms for any of those illegal acting terrorists. Why? Probably because in the grand scheme of things, terrorism isn't much of a threat. Sure, I feel sorry for those that died, but it doesn't really affect me one bit other than having other people getting all scared making the terrorists win by having these so-called laws passed that infringe on my personal freedoms. I fear our people giving our government that type of power more than I do some terrorist. I feel just as equally sorry, no more and no less, about those that died during 9/11 than the 64,000 people that die each year in car accidents. It sucks that it happened just as it sucks those people in cars die, but I'm not quaking in fear over being run over by a car where I want the government to watch my every move to save me from wreckless drivers. As Al Gore said in his speech in Constitution Hall in January: Talk about a complete slap in the face wanting to give up our freedoms in this "War on Terror". - N
It's not a time of war by any legal definition because Congress has to declare war and they haven't done so. It's not a time of war by any academic definition either. It's not a time of war by any practical definition either. Sept. 14, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution which states, in part, that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." -Source "Wall Street Journal" Trying to "fight a war on terrorism" is like trying to "cure the disease of obesity." This I cannot entirely argue with, but I still would rather us fight back than not. It's right down there with the really severe earthquakes and hurricanes that we're unable to prepare for. That is real good there, Skippy. Comparing a planned terrorist attack to a natural disaster!!! Do "you and others like you" honestly believe that any of this crap is going to prevent another 9/11? You can't be serious! So I take this to mean you have a better plan? "Those who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for security are doomed to have neither, and they deserve it." This is the second time you have used this quote. It is too bad you don't apply to taxes, social security, welfare checks, government schools and jobs, subsidies, right to bear arms, freedom of religion not from, I could go on but you get the picture. If I were a terrorist I would ship my stuff into this country in a cargo container. Something like two percent of them get inspected, so 98% of my stuff would get in. Without ever asking, I am willing to bet you have no problem with illegals coming into the country.
I defy you to find where I have ever said I was willing to give up (which is naturally impossible, if you understood the Declaration of Independence you would know this) my freedoms? A phone company handing over data that contains my phone call records is not me giving up my freedoms. It is a phone company assisting in finding nefarious activity.
Uh, when a subpoena is given to a phone company to trace calls to aid them in a court case, it's usually due to probable cause of a person being on trial, so that one person's records are handed over. Since when have millions of people become suspects of terrorism? It's nice to see that instead of there being probable cause on a select few, we're all suspects and millions of phone records are handed over rather than the couple hundred phone records of suspected terrorists. Pretty ass-backwards if you ask me. What next, when the police come by to raid a crack house, you won't mind if they raid every home in the neighborhood instead just to catch that one crack dealer? That's exactly what's going on with those phone records. - N
Radicand seems to implicitly trust his government, while probably considering himself an American patriot. Which is both ironic and alarming, because he is speaking in opposition to the entire spirit of what the original American patriots strived to establish, and that was expressed both in our Constitution and the public admonishments of individual Founders. Our political founders passionately strove to establish (and warned future generations to jealously guard) an intrinsic popular aversion to the creeping invasions that are an inevitable consequence of unfettered central authority. Authority-creep, the slow erosion of seemingly mundane privacies, the exponential growth of state apparatus, are the subtle but defining characteristic of terminal democratic decay into authoritarianism. We have been sternly warned for centuries now, to always pay close attention for this, and to rise together without delay in opposition to any such trends. Radicand, like so many Americans, has failed to comprehend the most fundamental aspects of Revolutionary American thought. If such short and warped historic memories prevail, then the ideological efforts of the founding American patriots will continue to be diluted. Our founding democratic principles will thusly be progressively neutralized until they are for all public purposes harshly terminated: Which means back to Square One for us all, and an unecessary re-enactment of history to include violent revolution, kicked off by those who have learned from history. Humanity will not get off the bloody merry-go-round until these hard lessons are learned. If there is a "life force" in the political realm, it has been consistently proven through history to rapidly corrupt, whenever democratic controls are neglected. Radicand, please try reading the works of Thomas Paine. Examine how other democracies have degenerated into authoritarian states. Discover a more authentic and democratic patriotism.
1a. It doesn't matter if a republican or democrat is in office. It is our job to critize all what is wrong in the world. 1b. Ironically you think America may not be critized although you say to have democratic ideals, such as freedom of speech. Wouldn't you think that this is rather inconsistent? 1c. The US has self-elected herself to be the leader of the world. A coup d'etat. And is now trying to impose her will on the world. May we not critize the bully? Should we abandon our free will like so many americans did and not speak up? We are just upholding the original american ideal. The one you seem to have forgotten. You are Britain, we are America during the fight for indepence if you want to use an analogy. The bully of the world. Except in the rethoric you consider yourself the saviour of the world. The services of freedom are actually rather meager compared to those I have been used to. For instance, in Europe I was actually allowed to criticize the government. The government could also not wiretap me at random or imprison me without charges. Moreover I was more protected from greedy companies. I enjoyed a more diverse culture, for instance also politically. So I am not really enjoying your services of freedom. America feels like one big sweatshop. Not the land of the free. Hence I am leaving again. I actually lowered my standards since arriving in the US. If I would keep up the same standards I would go nuts.
This is my problem with America. You believe this garbage. FraggleRocker, Hyperwaders, Spurious Monkey and others have elegantly expressed the concerns. If I have a good friend who is fucking up and I try to explain this to them, but they reject it, after a while I can get really pissed off with them.
i had a friend that so eloquently put america's current state in perspective: imagine a playground. america is the biggest, baddest kid around. another child comes over to him when he isnt looking, and pulls his pants down on september 11. now, that bully is running around the playground, redfaced, beating up all the kids from poor families to prove that he is still tough. imagine my surprise when i, as an american, moved here to belgium. i was astonished by how much happier and free the people were. it isnt much different than your home in the netherlands, i am assuming. people dont believe me when i tell them about this. apparently, alot of people think we have gold toilets in america.
Yes they did. And it was entirely unconstitutional. Congress does not get to do whatever the hell it wants any more than the President does. It's the judicial system's role to step in and clean up stuff like this and they're not doing their jobs. Fight back? If you mean try to solve the problem, I have no objection. But doing something futile because you can't think of anything effective to do is a symptom of insanity. They both kill people. The details matter but the impact matters more. Attacks by terrorists are a problem for the USA of the same order of magnitude as attacks by Mother Nature. I refer you to my previous comment. A bad plan is not better than no plan. In fact, it's worse, because it lulls people into thinking the problem has been dealt with when it hasn't. Oh I do, Mister Skippy. I'm both a small-L philosophical libertarian and a capital-L member of the Libertarian party. I'm with you on everything except the religion part and my take on that is different only to the extent that I believe that freedom of religion must include the freedom to not be forced to choose one of the same ones as everybody else. One of the litmus tests of the libertarian philosophy is the statement: Peaceful people must have the right to immigrate and emigrate freely. If we didn't have welfare checks and those other redistributions of our money by the government to which you have already objected, most of the objections to immigration would abate. Americans are the most outraged by seeing foreigners come here and as part of the deal they get free health care and their children get free education. (Welfare and social security are actually getting pretty difficult for them to qualify for but that's a topic for a different argument.) I find the education part amusing because so many Americans don't really take advantage of our educational system; they get the diplomas but not the learning. But still I appreciate the argument. As nice as it makes me feel to share my wealth with poor people, even the poor people in other countries, there just isn't enough of it to go around. Immigration was never a big economic issue in the USA until recently, because immigrants had to work their butts off to make it here. It was always an issue of racism, first the Irish and Italians, then the east Asians, finally the Latinos. I'm working in the northeast and I observe first hand that the only illegal immigrant group that the Minutevermin care about are the Latinos. This place is full of Indians, Middle Easterners, and people from the former Soviet bloc who are just as poorly documented as the Salvadorians and Colombians, but nobody gives them a second look.
Tell me radilcand - How many people in Ameirca have died by gun since 911 How many people in America have been killed in road 'accidents' since 911 How many people in America have died of alchohol abuse since 911 How many people in America have died of tobacco related illnesses since 911 How many people in America have died of drugs since 911 How many people in America have died because of an inadequate health system since 911 The implications of the terrorist attack of 911 in terms of number of fatalities is all but irrelevant. How come you are so concerned about it?
...I hear the word of the Lord. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! edit: In case somebody didn't get it, it's a line from a popular american christian gospel.
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' " -1984
It's nice to see that instead of there being probable cause on a select few, we're all suspects and millions of phone records are handed over rather than the couple hundred phone records of suspected terrorists. This does not mean we are all suspects. It is my understanding that itemized calls are asked for to determine if there is a need to take further action. Now if the government is taking action against me knowing that I do not have such contacts, then I have a problem. What next, when the police come by to raid a crack house, you won't mind if they raid every home in the neighborhood instead just to catch that one crack dealer? That's exactly what's going on with those phone records. Not really worth responding, because it is posturing and trivial. Why, because the cops would not do that and you know it. And obviously, yes I would have a problem if such a thing occurred. However, this is different from what we are talking about. My home is not public domain. My phone number is owned by the phone company. Totally different!!!!!
And I am supposed to care that you cannot handle the fact that I can differentiate what you can't? Be mad!!!
Don't have time for a long response right now, but I can say this. The problem with what you posted is that you believe we live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic, a form of representative government not democracy. Although, I will grant that this an offspring of democracy. Therefore, I understand how DEMOCRACIES have denigrated into authoritarian states.
And congress pushed by the democrats gave the President the powers to remove Saddam by anymeans nessary in a 296 to 133 vote on Oct. 16h, 2002, that was a war declaration. So yes the President had authorization to go to war from Congress.
radicand,I have not claimed that the USA is an absolute democracy, or entered any discussion of the technical structure of US Government. When you have time and without strawmen, please do respond with more detail on present topic. Correction BR, the President never received Constitutional (legal) authorization for war from Congress, because Congress never issued it. Congress let a meek trial-balloon fly, to see if the public is awake, or if incumbents can stay seated with necks retracted thanks to voter ignorance. Now Congress is learning the national "huh?" only lasts a while concerning momentous issues. Scandalously, most of Congress was way too uninformed at the time you point to, in order to make a politically "safe" educated guess how the occupation of Iraq would play out. They could have brought all this out in the sincere debate we pay them to fully carry out, but instead they hid in cowardice behind the flag, nd stayed mute behind the war-drums. Big Mistake: We and they are going to pay dearly for their criminal negligence. Please refer to the US Constitution / War Powers Act of 1978, and the rise of the 3rd Reich for the legal and venal aspects (respectively) of this issue. Finally, please don't pretend to care about your country if you have never dutifully studied her basic civics and history. That's pathetic.
What did you say earlier? Something about a business transaction? Both sides having something each other wants? I want the phone number and the phone company wants my money? Dual-ownership? "Funny, but the material in my house (or the bank's if you wish) needs a warrant to be searched. Banks do not have resources or desire to physically make sure everything in my house is kept. Thusly, my presumed privacy rights. For two reasons, while it is true the ownership is in the bank's hands it is being transferred slowly with each payment Therefore, the bank owns what I have not paid for yet. Thusly, dual ownership. It is called a business transaction. They have something I want. I have something they want. Then, the furniture, etc within the house that I partially own is already my personal property." Talk about symantics. Okay, since that example doesn't fly with you, how about this example then? Let's say a natural distaster occurs and leaves a city in ruins. A small group of people that are left without any food and water begin looting the place and start firing at police, aid workers, and the military. To combat that small group of renegades, the police decide to go door-to-door disarming all people, including innocent civilians trying to defend their homes, of their arms. Don't believe that'll happen either? Well it happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. - N
