kangaeru

Let me just pre-face this by saying that while I am very politically minded, every time I've poked my head in here recently, the threads and comments therein have been purely based on the waves of current political trends, rightest vs leftists, dems vs republicans, coke vs pepsi, whatever. Nothing worth reading, much less posting about.

So, I'd like to put forth a subject I think is worthy of discussion and might foster some interesting bipartisan debate.

The price of Liberty. One of the major themes of the Bush administration has been advancing an agenda to consolidate power of the executive branch of the government. This has been done in indirect ways, such as Bush's conservative Supreme Court picks, and direct ways, in his pushing for the passage, renewal, and expansion of The Patriot Act. The Administration has had to deal with numerous scandals involving wiretapping, spying, information collection, etc, on US citizens without having to go through any judicial checks and balances. This essentially hands the US Government a blank check to spy on any American it thinks might be up to possible terrorist actvities. The criteria for establishing these suspisions are pretty much completely arbitrary, and can change at the whim of those the rule is meant to set limits and boundaries for in the first place.

I have talked with many people about this, and the biggest rebuttal I have received is that, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to worry about." While I agree with this statement to a degree, what it doesn't take into to account is that when you surrender your liberty to those in power, if that organization ever succumbs to tyrrany or corruption, how are we to stop them? How are we to justify our own facilitation of their proliferation due to our eagerness to hand over social liberties explicitly designed and included by the drafters of our constitution so that such an outcome would be impossible?

The goal of Osama bin Laden all along has been to rot the core of western society--the things which have allowed us to be a economically flourishing and freedom loving people. Now, our Government uses threats of nuclear dirty bombs, biochemical weapons, and a plethora of other horrible, gruesome possibilities to scare people into hand over the most sacred rights which define us as Americans.

At what point should we accept that, yes, we may have to wait in airport lines for an extra hour, because the government can't as easily background check people and therefore must search everyone more thoroughly.

At what point should we accept that the possibility of a successful terrorist attack is increased because it is more cumbersome for the government to arrange for wiretapping, data sniffing, and surveillance of American citizens who may be involved in terrorist plots?

The way I see it, we are Americans, and we used to be known for our gung-ho attitudes and bravery. Now, we are known for fat bank accounts, fat asses, and hyper sensitive cry babies. If you don't believe this, you have never seen an episode of "The Lardburgers", on London's most popular morning show, Big Breakfast.

To me, it is more important to maintain the integrity of our nation and the things which keep us a free people than to surrender them for some additional security. In the long run, allowing those in power to propgate their influence unchecked will only lead to darkness--as the famous quote says, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

To me, the safety of myself or my family is not a high enough bid for me to support the circumvention of the structural mechanisms which ensure that the freedom and liberty of the citizens of this country are guaranteed; that every move to exercise or expand power must be brought against a balancing factor which will veto such action if it is not in the best interest of the people.

When we are so afraid of boogymen stories that we happily hand over the securities which protect our guaranteed liberties, we have forsaken everything which America stands for, and bin Laden has won. His aim has never been to militarily defeat us--but to manipulate us through fear, ironically allowing the dark, power mongering, insatiable side of those men who would rise to the elite echelons of US government, who supports puppet rulers, economically strong arms weaker countries, assassinate unruly leaders, etc, to be turned upon us so that we too may be subjected to the effects of their drunken power lust.

I am not saying that all men in the government are like this, or there are not those who are much more altruistic, but the fact is that those evil men who will insatiably acquire power will always exist, and if they see an exploitable channel through which to better amass power, they will take it. It is these kinds of men which the current safeguards are in place to stop. Men like Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney, and George Bush, in my opinion, but that's a whole nother thread alltogether.

In closing, I will quote Benjamin Franklin, who most accurately described my thoughts hundreds of years ago when he said,

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

What's the asking price of YOUR liberty?

__________________
Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become

irateplatypus

i agree with the overall thrust of your post... but you did a very poor job of encouraging sober bipartisan discussion. Describing the President as an evil man who is exploiting the nation's fears to quench an insatiable desire for power isn't a great start.

That being said...

i do think the nation has overreacted to a terrorist threat. it seems like a lot of the measures are being taken just to make the politicians look busy.

i go to work each day in uniform having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution w/my life... that's the price of my liberty.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

kangaeru

Thanks for the reply, platypus. That's a very noble example.

The thrust of my post was meant to be that at what point is it justifiable for people to relinquish liberties for stronger government protection capabilities which could possibly be used for ill. I believe evil power mongering men will always exist, and they will be attracted to positions where they can most greatly abuse power, and the fact is our government has positions which weild this kind of power.

That Karl Rove, Bush, etc, are people like this is in no way the focus or cornerstone of my argument--just a passing opinion which I specifically aknowledge as being only that--an opinion. If people focus on THAT sentance rather than the main topic of my post I'm going to be very disappointed.

__________________
Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become

Toaster126

Then maybe you should change it or decide you don't want bipartisan discussion.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

Ustwo

I'm interesting in knowning what liberties you have lost to evil men.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Rekna

It would be interesting to see how many people die in terrorist attacks every year verses how man die in car accidents, or how many die in alcohol realted car accidents. Maybe we should modifiy the war to be the war on "drunk driving" or maybe the war on "smoking". The chances of dieing from a terrorist attack is much less than being hit by a car while crossing the street, yet people fear the terrorist attack, not the neighborhood boy who just got his license. Why are people so afraid or a terrorist attack?

ratbastid

The issue for me isn't the fear that the government will fall into the hands of the corrupt and the power-hungry. Look around! No point in being afraid of that in the future--that's the present! And I don't mean that in a partisan way; my guys are just as bad as theirs, as far as that's concerned. They don't happen to be the ones with their hands on the wheel at the moment, but I don't have any illusion that it would be all that different if they were.

The concern for me is the slippery-slope nature of the thing. It's not a mistake that the word "erosion" is used to describe what's happening to American civil liberties. Each incremental step doesn't look like much, until one day you wake up and find your entire life regulated in the name of "safety".

One great example of this is the nation of Israel. Israelis live with constant security checkpoints, ID examination, metal detectors at every public building... And they're still getting blown up left and right. Literally not two weeks go by without something in Jerusalem getting bombed. We don't even hear about it in the US anymore unless some exceptionally large number of people get blown up. So what have they gotten? All these intrusions into their lives haven't bought them any real safety, and it has cost them the freedom to move around unmolested and unexamined.

aceventura3

I am willing to die for my liberty or the liberty of my loved ones.

With that being said - if an enemy threatens my liberty I will fight them and I am willing to kill.

Since I am willing to kill to protect my liberty - I have no problem using whatever means necessary against my enemy to discover their plans. I will torture, spy, lie, cheat and steal all against my enemy.

Since I am willing to do that against my enemy - I am will to spy, cheat, lie, and steal against those who give safe harbor to my enemy.

You have to declare you are with me or with my enemy. I won't accept nuetrality.

I see the world in "black and white" not shades of gray. I only speak for myself, no party or religion, etc. I understand that very few would repond the way I did. In normal circumstances I am actually very nice person until someone starts "f,ing" with me or my loved ones.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Ustwo

Awful example. Take a look at Israels border sometime. The surprising thing is that in the one true democracy in the mideast (I'm still holding out on Iraq) that is openly hated by ALL of its neighbors, they don't have more of these attacks. You will also note that in the era of bombs on planes and hijacking it wasn't Israeli planes held at gun point or blown out of the sky as they have always had better than post 9/11 security.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dksuddeth

The right to carry my own personal firearm, open or concealed, while I was an illinois resident.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ubertuber

I'm not so sure about this rebuttal, Ustwo. The Israelis aren't really getting blown up by people OUTSIDE their borders these days. The threat they face isn't because of who their neighbors are - it's from the inside.

With that in mind, I do wonder what all of that security has bought the Israelis. On the other hand, perhaps it would be worse without their measures?

I'm not sure that you can count the cost of increased security in terms of lives lost or minutes spent waiting in line or in numbers of victims of inaccurate profiling. I mean, you could try, but since so much of the question is either hypothetical or classified, I don't know how productive that would be.

Like kangaeru, I think that you can mark some of the changes as a sort of death of character... I'd always thought of the US (fondly) as a place that existed because of ideals - liberty, opportunity, social equality, etc. I thought our way was better than the alternatives. Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, NSA wiretapping, rendition and torture... All of these things make me question what I thought the character of the US was. If we're not willing to extend our due process to others over technicalities (enemy combatants) because they aren't our citizens and they fall into a crack, then maybe we don't believe in liberty as much as we claim to.

Thinking of the line from Munich, "every civilization has to negotiate compromises with its values," I question some of the compromises we seem to be considering. Rendition and allowing torture by proxy (if not doing it ourselves) seem to be so far outside of what we claim to represent that I'm not sure what to make of it. The way those compromises are negotiated says a lot, and I don't think I like what we're saying.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

Were they evil or just stupid?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

WillyPete

I think that there are a lot less evil men in power, than there are men with good intentions that are prepared to use evil practices to achieve a goal. (And by men I mean both sexes)

Sometimes I do feel like I'm swimming in a tub of water that's slowly starting to get hotter, but it's so damn hard to jump out.

Seaver

You need to read his statements before posting your arguments about someone else's plan. His plan was to suck us into Afghanistan and militarily defeat us in the same battlefield "he" be the Russians.

The warrantless wiretaps to international communication? There's ALWAYS been warrantless wiretaps on international calls. Every President in History in a time of war have monitored international communications. There had been a law allowing up to 72 hours, though I agree with you that the Patriot Act is wrong, throwing your hands up and decrying this as a sign of the degridation of our civil liberties is making a mountain out of an anthill. Say tomarrow word gets out that they're monitoring internal calls without a warrant then sure I'd agree.

And if the "evil" men was not the thrust of your argument, dont allow it to distract (i.e. ammend or delete it).

Amazing huh? The same people decrying the end is near for Civil Liberties are the same ones who push further controls (on both sides sadly).

dksuddeth

I look at the current regime today, which is pretty much the offspring of the regime before, and I have to say they are evil.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ustwo

Blagojevich is evil? I thought he was just a big haired little twit who is out of his league

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ustwo

Or maybe we are just realists when dealing with people who want to kill us and take away our liberties. Liberty is not an innate atribute to society, it is fought for, it is won, and it is defended. By not 'extending' the same rights to those who wish us evil, we do not become evil. Were they not intent in our distruction we would not feel the need to take such measures. You do not give your enemies liberty in a war and like it or not we are in a war. We have been in this war directly since the late 70's and as a culture since the first Arab took up the sword and headed west in allahs name. Hand wring all you like, pine over what never was, compare naked humiliation to beheading videos, but in the end know what side you are on.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ubertuber

You'll know if I start comparing naked humiliation to beheading videos because that's what I'll write. I didn't say we were becoming the enemy, just that we're failing to live up to our own stated ideals (you know, the freedom that the terrorists hate us for...).

Besides, if it is as black-and-white as you suggest, it shouldn't be too difficult to get some indictments to go with our detentions. That's a freedom that we get as citizens of the US, and I can't think of why it would be unreasonable to give it to others as a matter of course. Of course, if it IS too difficult to produce evidence that will lead to legal proceedings, then maybe we ought to let those guys go. Until then, we're just imprisoning people because we think they MIGHT have done something wrong, and we're not even bothering to try to justify that action.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

SERPENT7

My civil liberties do not have a price.
Meaning, that I am not willing to trade them away for any supposed benefit.

I find this whole discussion somewhat ironic, actually. Especially considering that we Americans live in the most regulated, monitored, and recorded culture in all of history. (Bureaucratic efficiency is inversely related to civil liberty. IE, how can they regulate you if they cannot monitor you?)

dksuddeth

blago, daley, bloomberg, doyle (WI gov), and the morons in massachussetts are all evil. I'll add kansas to that one too. theres a beauty of an article I read either this morning or yesterday where a state rep actually expressed fear that consituents who are angry at him could shoot him. Isn't that what we need in this country?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ustwo

That wasn't fair to you, as I was waxing into the imperial 'you', I know you didn't compare them, but others have.

You find a man from Sudan ordering 4000 lbs of fertilizer and looking up references to 'fuel oil bombs' using your 'illegal' wiretaps on his internet. Do you wait for him to build a bomb? Proof in a court of law can NOT apply in war, thats for after its over to be sorted out. In peace a guilty man may go free for lack of an innocent man be convicted, but in war it is reversed by necessity.

Treating this as a criminal matter is what lead to the intelligence agency break down in the 90's. We didn't 'take' Bin Laden because we had no 'legal' reason to hold him when offered by Sudan. You see where that got us.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Seaver

My question is why? Some are Prisoners of War... at NO time EVER did PoW's get a trial. Those that arent fall under the rule of Traitors or Sabateurs, at NO time did they ever get trials, they were simply shot or hanged (being non-Citizens). Name a war when we did and I'd be amazed.

Rekna

So Ustwo what your saying is it is ok to rape little girls as long as others are killing them?

dksuddeth

and you got that how?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ustwo

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Hardknock

Too bad Bush doesn't share the same setiment. I mean, selling ports to terrorists and countries that harbor and support terrorists has nothing do putting a price on liberty now does it?

politicophile

Government = surrender of liberties

Read that last bit again. The nature of every form of government that ever existed has been to limit the liberty of its citizens. In fact, the whole purpose of government is to mutually benefit everyone by limiting the undesirable liberties of "the other guy". I don't know what Ben Franklin was addressing with that quote, but out of context it makes absolutely no sense.

Here's an overly simplistic example. If I lived in an area lacking government control, I would have the liberty to murder, rape, steal, etc. Others would have the right to do the same to me. I think we would all agree that the rational thing to do in this purely hypothetical situation is for everyone to sacrifice some liberty in exchange for security against others exercising their liberties to harm others.

Sure, one might say, it is fine to give up your liberty kill: but that is fundamentally different than a civil right.

I respond with two examples:
1. Minimum wage laws: Most people have never thought about minimum wage laws as restrictions on contracts made between an individual and a business, but that is precisely what they are. The minimum wage tells individuals that they are not permitted to enter into contracts in which they make less than a specified hourly wage. Thus, the law is a direct limit on individual liberty.

2. Gun control: Some towns and states have laws forbidding the possession of particular types of firearms. These laws have the effect of taking away citizens' liberty to bear certain types of arms.

In the first example, it will be objected that the sacrifice of liberty in preventing people from assuming low-paying jobs is worth the security gained from preventing evil businesses from forcing people to work terrible jobs. This objection is precisely correct: minimum wage laws sacrifice the liberty of the individual in order to gain security against the abuses of businesses.

In the second example, it will be objected that gun control is intended to protect the public good, that guns serve no purpose but to hurt other people. This objection reveals that gun control advocates are willing to sacrifice the right of citizens to bear arms in order to gain security against potential gun violence.

For the above reasons, I believe that people who enjoy saying things like, "My freedom has no price. I will not give it up at any cost." are not being genuine. With the definitional exception of ANARCHISTS, everybody is willing to sacrifice certain liberties in order to gain additional security. You can tell Ben Franklin to shove it.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Mojo_PeiPei

Not to mention everything our military is doing in places like Gitmo has been affirmed by the Supreme both historical in cases like Ex parte Quirin, and more recently Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (names might switch, but I'm pretty sure those are correct). All the constitution affords is due process and searches to be reasonable: putting illegal combatants in military tribunals is not unreasonable and not an afront to any due process, why do you have military POW status? So you can seperate and act with military people, sending military personnal to military court is due process, as such those who fight outside the realm of war illegally are not afforded any of the rights of POW or common/civil law.

Also as far as I've heard Bushs actions regarding the wire taps are legit for reasons like Seaver pointed out earlier, plus I think there have been some precedents in the courts (even recently), I might have to look into it... but there is not necessarily anything unreasonable with the president issuing wire taps against a sworn enemy of the consitution in Al Qaeda and its members who we are at war with. I personally would like it to go to the Supreme Court, and maybe get some congressional over sight, but I think it is stupid to have a preconcieved notion because it is Bush that something must automatically be evil and unconstitutional.

I haven't lost any of my freedoms, and there is no price that would let them be taken from me.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

politicophile

Prisoners of war never get trials because they haven't committed crimes. You don't get prisoner of war status if you're doing illegal things.

As far as traitors and saboteurs, citizens and non-citizens alike have sometimes received trials. I refer you to the following Supreme Court decisions related to the subject:

Ex Parte Milligan (1860's sometime)
Ex Parte Merryman (1860's)
Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950's, spelling is a little off)
Ex Parte Quirin (1950's, again with the spelling)


These three cases nicely summarize the history of trials being (or not) given to traitors and saboteurs. The first two deal with American citizens, Quirin with both, and Johnson with foreigners exclusively.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

SirLance

No document has better described the function of government. To that end, some "liberties" are surrendered. The liberty to freely harm others without fear of punishment, for example.

Administration does sometimes cross the line, and the courts have generally held them in check. Even the most conservative SCOTUS is careful to not abrogate those liberties protected under the bill of rights. I think the wiretapping and portions of the patriot act will wind up argued in court, and some portions of the act will probably be invaldated.

However, our system does work.

To answer the question, the price of my freedom can ill be defined. The price of living under our system of governance is to me that sometimes you have to lay it all on the line. To that end, "My life, my fortune, and my sacred honor."

__________________
DEMOCRACY is where your vote counts, FEUDALISM is where your count votes.

Rekna

from this

He implies that naked humiliation of prisoners means nothing because the terrorists (who are not the same as our prisoners) behead some of their captives.

My statement was using his same logic on a situation that is obviously not true to show the falicy in his logic.

Ustwo

Since every response I would like to make would give me a 'time out' I have to say its amazing how people on the same planet can live in such different worlds.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

kangaeru

Ustwo,

I think the argument you are trying to make is that we are within our rights to fight as dirty as our enemy, but then the question becomes, where does it stop? What level of cruelty or inhumanity is necessary for people to draw the line? If you're constantly taking an eye for an eye, it's only takes so long before everyone is blind and angry. If you aren't willing to be the change you want to see in the world, people will see yours and countless others examples and will also not change. This is the reason Israel and Palestine will always be bitter enemies--because someone always has to get revenge, which in turn spawns only more revenge.

While I am not saying our government is horrible, I AM stating that is moving towards a conslidation of power, and this centralized power is also becoming less and less reliant upon democratic mechanisms to keep it in check. We think it's impossible...because this is America...but who knows where we could be 50 years from now? We could be living with Big Brother. Or perhaps not--but the point is, the erosion of the protections which prevent government organizations from becoming corrupt, self serving, self regulating agencies is NOT a good thing no matter how you slice it. Using the protection of the American people as a justification, and supplementing this with all different kinds of scare tactics (which is nothing new--look at the cold war and the old communist scares--has anything really changed now? Back when anyone accused of being a commie was imprisoned or interrogated and surveiled by the FBI? We've already SEEN this country turn into big brother. Anybody remember Joeseph McCarthy? Is terrorism really any different? Different subject, identical human response from the American Public), what are people supposed to think? The sky is falling?

Seaver,

Bin Laden's plan has ALWAYS been to manipulate the cowardice of the American public. Oh no, we're in a bloody war we can't cleanly win, spending billions of dollars! My son might get shot in the head, AND my retirement plan might collapse, I'm AFRAID. Oh no, a nuclear bomb may go off on my kid's schoolbus, I'M AFRAID! Oh no, Osama just sent in another video tape making vague comments referencing semi-recent events, meaning he is still alive and well and planning more terrorist attacks, OH NO I'M AFRAID WE'LL NEVER BE SAFE!!

Everything Osama does is aimed at influencing the American public, and because he will never conqeur us, he instead will twist us until the men he hates will see their dream fester and die from the distrust and fear caused by bin Laden's actions.

__________________
Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become

Mojo_PeiPei

Maybe for the sake of discussion, I would like the tinfoil hat crew to answer a question for me that is directly related to the initial question of this thread.

Where again has my liberty been threatened?

Oh and at our worst in our war on terror our actions are still saintly compared to those of our enemies. Don't forget that.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Seaver

Heh I WISH all I'd face is being naked and forced to stand for prolonged periods of time is all I'd face if I was captured by the terrorists.

Mojo_PeiPei

Sorry, misfire, I check

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

kangaeru

Your liberty is being threatened when your government defends the practices of torturing and indefinitely detaining prisoners of war, in violation of international human rights laws, using their classifcation as 'enemy combatants' and not 'prisoners of war' as the cornerstone of their justification. Off-shore torture facilities...who knows, one day it may be loudly dissenting Americans start winding up there? Why should a facility like that even exist?

Your liberty is being threatened when your government seeks to gain the right to arbritrarily spy on any American citizen who they feel might be up 'anti-american' activities. Sure, you may be doing nothing illegal--but what if you're having an affair with somebody, and her husband has a friend in the FBI. What if he could tap both your phone, sniff your e-mail, and see your tax returns, without ever having to go through a judge?

Sadly, it seems a lot of you are completely missing my point. I'm not saying im being oppressed, I'm saying that the way things are going, its very possible that I COULD BE because the things in place to safeguard us from ourselves, such as going before a judge who would never allow the aforementioned jealous husband to spy on his wife and her supposed lover, are disappearing from society. And we're allowing it to happen, in the name of preserving HomeLand Security and the Safety of the American Way Of Life. What could be more un-american than handing over unchecked power to those who could, if they wished, abuse it and in doing so harm us? At what point do you say, "I don't care if a bomb goes off in Times Square, I would rather live in a society which is as safe as possible within the confines of constitutionally protected rights" and when do you say, "Here's the key to my house, I'm gonna go on a vacation, let me know when it's safe and I can have my keys back"

__________________
Dont be afraid to change who you are for what you could become

Mojo_PeiPei

I am going to have to repeat myself to address your ignorace here.

For the record here is a basic lesson is realist power politics, the only legitimate political player is a sovereign state, international law only has authority as it is lended by said sovereign; Bush and the American government swear feality to the American populace, not some international order. Furthermore "illegal combatant" has historical standing dating back to international law and treaty in the late 19th century in the Hague treaty.


Put it to Judicial review something that our constitution allows for. The President as the executive is allowed to act into good faith the laws that congress executes. I agree that the executive might have overstepped his authority in this matter, but you sir are completely coming out of left field with you exagerrations regarding this matter.

Bottomline is I thing just about every point here is unsubstantiated, exagerrated, or completely false.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Mojo_PeiPei

Also, I simply LOVE how some here say America is big into propaganda and misinformation, yet here you are alleging our state participates broadly in torture by our handling of illegal combatants.

You are suckers to Al Qaeda propaganda, memos have been captured atesting to the fact that members are taught in claiming torture, because they know the paper tigers, the cut your nose to spite your face crowd will shrek in horror agains the Evil Empire that America is. Remember when Americans were defacing the Koran at Gitmo?!?! Oh wait that's right it was an Al Qaeda prisoner; all the stink made world wide that led to several deaths at this great and patently false story perpetuated by the likes of the American media and Al Qaeda/Anti-west agents seemed to fall on deaf ears.

I find that funny.

Your nose is bleeding. Are you going to punch back, or tuck your tail?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

ubertuber

I appreciate you saying so. Thank you.

Seaver - good reply... I didn't forget, I'll have to think about it (and sleep)before I write back, but Politicophile #27 made some great points...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam