"9/11 cannot be the day civil liberties perished"

[WebmasterAlex]

There's another big difference. At an event such as a stadium, the security forces have every incentive to make sure people pass through security as quickly as possible with plenty of checkpoints, personell etc.
At a protest do you think the governement is going to make sure that there are plenty of checkpoints? Do you think they are going to care if protesters have to wait..oh 3 or 4 hours?
Or if there are mysterious equipment break downs and maybe they don't get in at all?

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by septbride2002

But none of these scare me. What scares me is that the fear of terrorism is so great that people are willing to put cameras in their neighbors home to make sure they aren't doiong anything wrong. And with the way fear is driving this country lately I don't see us to far from the possibility.

~Amanda

Who said anything about putting cameras in your home??

BTW - do you own one of those cell phones with a camera?? How about a camera of any kind?

If so = are you violating your neighbors rights?? how about people you meet on vacation? are you violating their rights?

What if a policeman had one of those phones? Is he violating everyone's rights?

This is paranoia on steriods.

No - actually it is just partisan hype = something to whine about when there is a GOP president. There would be no whining if a DEM were president. You know that. Everyone knows that.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by LucyStorm
No they haven't. It just means that we have opened our eyes to what the world is really like, and are taking steps to prevent that type of violence from coming here again.

Americans have lived in an era where war means somewhere else, not on our shores. We have always felt safe within the boundaries of our borders. This isn't true anymore, and we need to wake up to that reality.

As brilliant as the founding fathers were, they didn't live in an era where someone from halfway across the world could be here in a few hours with their own WMD, whether it be biological weapons or airplanes.

Helmet laws have nothing to do with civil liberties. Gun laws are another matter.

Hey, and please don't paint the Democrats with a broad sweeping brush. I don't vote party, I vote issues. And I'm probably the most conservative Democrat you'll ever meet.

You are correct. The ideas that dominated the founding of our constitution did not envision the capacity for single individuals or small groups to cause mass casualtie.

Even the horrors of WWII did not bring that thought into fruition. We became aware of mass destruction on a monumental scale, but it was still thought to be within the province of a government to have that capacity. We still did not, as a national entity, understand that small groups of individuals could do the same thing.

It was not until 9-11 that we understood we are at risk from unknown zealots who are content to live in caves until they decide to come out and commit suicide in order to inflict massive destruction on us.

The cold war strategy of negotiation - with the threat of mutually assured destruction as the only motivation to negotiate - will not work in this era.

We now live in a different world. Old ways of looking at problems are "not operative" any longer - to borrow a phrase from the 90s. If any politician continues to base our national security decisions on strategies developed for the cold war and for law enforcement, he is living in the dark ages with respect to the threat we face. That politician is UNFIT to be our leader.

There are only two possibilities when you examine Kerry and his stance (stances) on the present war.

1) Perhaps he actually BELIEVES what he is now saying. In that case he is unqualified to be president because such a thought process is woefull outdated and is a recipe for disaster.

2) Perhaps he is only saying this stuff now because of a political calculation that if he agrees with Bush he won't be elected. But, if he is elected he will go ahead and do the same thing Bush is doing, with a couple of insignificant alterations.

Either way - he is unfit to lead.

I actually hope for the latter - that if he were to be elected, then he would abandon his stupid message that appeals to the appeasement wing of the democrat party. I would hope that if he became president he would actually act like a president of the USA and not like a candidate for "most likeable" in France.

Kerry does not have the integrity to lead - he has demonstrated that in his record. He is the ultimate opportunist when it comes to elections. He will say anything - do anything to get elected.

Kerry is an empty suit.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by shortbun
Actually it's the lack of logical people with which to exchange
logically. I haven't seen a logical post, unclouded by emotion,
around here by you guys in a long time. The fact that you spend
ssssooooooooooooooooooooooooo much time at this endeavor
is simply illogical in itself. I picture you two afraid to leave the house, in a dark room with fast food wrappers all around and
flies. LOL! Really though!

Is this, then, what a "logical" person sounds like? Am I reading a post that is "clouded" by angry emotion? You can say no, but that's how you sound!

Hope you're having a wonderful morning!

 

[septbride2002]

Who said anything about putting cameras in your home??

No one has to say it. But the paranoia is there that you have to wonder if that will be the next step. Look at the responses here in this thread - if people have nothing to hide then they shouldn't mind surrveliance and metal dectors. How would you like it if that was turned around to that everyone needs to be under surrveliance? How many scared people out there would be for it because after all if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't mind being watched - right?

And to set the record straight I don't vote along party lines. At the last election I voted for George Bush so your BS about partisan hype is falling on deaf ears in my opinion. I don't care who is in the White House Democrat, Republican, or Independent - I would not want this type of Big Brother being exercised.

And with that I leave the conversation - I promised myself no more political threads and this one has crossed the line from being about civil rights to being about who is going to be elected in Nov.

~Amanda

 

[ThAnswr]

The bunker mentality and paranoia that's taking over this country will do us more harm than anything Al-Qaeda can come up with. How many people have already expressed the opinion that our Founding Fathers would've seen our rights very differently if they had to face Al-Qaeda. That is truly scary. Our rights are not situational or based on any government position or outside enemy.

Here's wonderful Thomas Friedman Op-Ed column that appeared in the NY Times. IMO, this column says it all.

----------------------------------------------------

Addicted to 9/11
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

"I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear the president and vice president slamming John Kerry for saying that he hopes America can eventually get back to a place where "terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." The idea that President Bush and Mr. Cheney would declare such a statement to be proof that Mr. Kerry is unfit to lead actually says more about them than Mr. Kerry. Excuse me, I don't know about you, but I dream of going back to the days when terrorism was just a nuisance in our lives.

If I have a choice, I prefer not to live the rest of my life with the difference between a good day and bad day being whether Homeland Security tells me it is "code red" or "code orange" outside. To get inside the Washington office of the International Monetary Fund the other day, I had to show my ID, wait for an escort and fill out a one-page form about myself and my visit. I told my host: "Look, I don't want a loan. I just want an interview." Somewhere along the way we've gone over the top and lost our balance.

That's why Mr. Kerry was actually touching something many Americans are worried about - that this war on terrorism is transforming us and our society, when it was supposed to be about uprooting the terrorists and transforming their societies.

The Bush team's responses to Mr. Kerry's musings are revealing because they go to the very heart of how much this administration has become addicted to 9/11. The president has exploited the terrorism issue for political ends - trying to make it into another wedge issue like abortion, guns or gay rights - to rally the Republican base and push his own political agenda. But it is precisely this exploitation of 9/11 that has gotten him and the country off-track, because it has not only created a wedge between Republicans and Democrats, it's also created a wedge between America and the rest of the world, between America and its own historical identity, and between the president and common sense.

By exploiting the emotions around 9/11, Mr. Bush took a far-right agenda on taxes, the environment and social issues - for which he had no electoral mandate - and drove it into a 9/12 world. In doing so, Mr. Bush made himself the most divisive and polarizing president in modern history.

By using 9/11 to justify launching a war in Iraq without U.N. support, Mr. Bush also created a huge wedge between America and the rest of the world. I sympathize with the president when he says he would never have gotten a U.N. consensus for a strategy of trying to get at the roots of terrorism by reshaping the Arab-Muslim regimes that foster it - starting with Iraq.

But in politicizing 9/11, Mr. Bush drove a wedge between himself and common sense when it came to implementing his Iraq strategy. After failing to find any W.M.D. in Iraq, he became so dependent on justifying the Iraq war as the response to 9/11 - a campaign to bring freedom and democracy to the Arab-Muslim world - that he refused to see reality in Iraq. The president seemed to be saying to himself, "Something so good and right as getting rid of Saddam can't possibly be going so wrong." Long after it was obvious to anyone who visited Iraq that we never had enough troops there to establish order, Mr. Bush simply ignored reality. When pressed on Iraq, he sought cover behind 9/11 and how it required "tough decisions" - as if the tough decision to go to war in Iraq, in the name of 9/11, should make him immune to criticism over how he conducted the war.

Lastly, politicizing 9/11 put a wedge between us and our history. The Bush team has turned this country into "The United States of Fighting Terrorism." "Bush only seems able to express our anger, not our hopes," said the Mideast expert Stephen P. Cohen. "His whole focus is on an America whose role in the world is to negate the negation of the terrorists. But America has always been about the affirmation of something positive. That is missing today. Beyond Afghanistan, they've been much better at destruction than construction."

I wish Mr. Kerry were better able to articulate how America is going to get its groove back. But the point he was raising about wanting to put terrorism back into perspective is correct. I want a president who can one day restore Sept. 11th to its rightful place on the calendar: as the day after Sept. 10th and before Sept. 12th. I do not want it to become a day that defines us. Because ultimately Sept. 11th is about them - the bad guys - not about us. We're about the Fourth of July."

------------------------------------------------------

Powerful words.

Btw, a pre-emptive strike. Before anyone comes up with the idea that Thomas Friedman just doesn't get it, the fact is he's lived on and off in the Middle East for the last 30 years.

 

[Kendra17]

How come all of you ARE NOT upset, then, when you go into a bank or a federal building or the convenience store down the street.

Anytime you are driving in your car, walking in a public space, or in a place of business, you have to assume that you might be under human or electronic surveillance.

That's just how it is--and it's been that way before 9-11.

There are so many places we go where we expect to go through a metal detector or have our bags briefly looked through. Some private and some public venues. I understand that a protest seems like a strange place to be forced to submit to a search, but the people that protest are also the most emotional about the issues, the most angry about the issues, etc. Not saying most of the protesters are like this, by any means. . .but you are putting highly emotional or agitated people together in an environment that ellicits emotion. Seems like that would be where you might want those metal detectors.

My opinion--which differs from some of yours--is, the terrorists win if they are successful in committing another attack. If it's foiled, they are not successful. You can't foil an attack if you aren't willing to try.

This isn't bunker mentality, this is realism. It's not fear--it's a realistic look at the world that confronts the fact that not everyone wants us to live. Acknowledging the threats that exist is reality. Ignoring them and pretending they don't exist is fantasy.

 

[Kendra17]

I just wanted to add the following:

Here's an article from our local little weekly. This was also in the daily, but this came up first when I searched for the article.
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section_id=9&screen=news&news_id=36463

Terrorism case has conflicting picture
By Craig Boerner, cboerner@nashvillecitypaper.com
October 14, 2004

A conflicting picture emerged Wednesday in the case of Ahmed Hassan Al-Uqaily, a 33-year-old Iraqi native living in Nashville who is said to be heavily involved with the peace movement but who willingly withdrew $1,000 last week to purchase weapons illegally.

Al-Uqaily allegedly spoke of “going jihad” to a friend Aug. 4 and that he was going to “blow something up.” On Oct. 7, at the conclusion of a two-month FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force sting operation, he purchased two disassembled M-16 machine guns, four disassembled hand grenades, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI agent.

He waived his Miranda rights immediately after being arrested and told agents he was working on a “reverse sting.”

In his wallet were business cards from law enforcement agents who had previously interviewed him following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, though FBI Special Agent Greg Franklin testified Wednesday before U.S. Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles that Al-Uqaily had never contacted those agents about his “reverse sting.”

Wednesday’s testimony was part of a combined detention and preliminary hearing that will be continued at 1:30 today. Al-Uqaily, who was wearing a yellow jumpsuit property of the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office, remains in custody and seeks to be released until his trial for charges of illegally possessing machines guns begins.

Assistant Federal Public Defender David Baker asked Agent Franklin numerous questions Wednesday concerning allegations made about his client, Al-Uqaily.

Through questioning it became unclear if the prosecution has proof of the defendant saying he was “going jihad” and was going to “blow something up,” or if that would rely on testimony from the unnamed individual who filed an Aug. 5 complaint with the FBI after re-acquainting with the suspect by chance after 10 years.

Baker indicated that “going jihad” could be interpreted to mean spiritual warfare, although Assistant United States Attorney Eli Richardson, who is prosecuting the case on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, countered that the alleged statement, when coupled with “and he was going to blow something up,” could mean he intended to take part in a holy fight in support of the Muslim religion.

The FBI does have several taped conversations in which the defendant and FBI informant are said to be discussing the weapons purchase, although it is also unclear from Wednesday’s testimony who initiated the discussions and what was going to be blown up.

Al-Uqaily allegedly told the individual cooperating with the FBI in September that he needed “two or three machine guns with clips and bullets, as well as missiles,” according to the affidavit.

During further conservations in October, the suspect allegedly expressed an interest in a “missile designed for use against a tank,” according to the affidavit.

When asked where he would go on his mission, Al-Uqaily allegedly “expressed animosity towards the Jewish community,” and a discussion ensued about two Jewish facilities in the Nashville area, but Al-Uqaily gave no indication of specific plans in connection with those facilities, according to the affidavit.

Al-Uqaily, who worked at Krispy Kreme on Thompson Lane, had $43,000 in his bank account on the day of his arrest and had made roughly $55,000 in wire transfers to Jordan and United Arab Emirates since 2001, according to Wednesday’s testimony.

He was said to have worked an average of 66 hours a week, making an average of $4,000 per month, and had also received a $50,000 lawsuit settlement.

He could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted.

Now, he is not a terrorist? He works at Krispy Kreme and has $43000 in his bank account?

I, for one, am glad the citizens are on high alert. . . if it wasn't for our talk and discussion about terrorism and extremists and jihadists, this guy may not have been caught.

I am just glad we'll have a realist in the Oval office for the next 4 years.

 

[FatCow]

Originally posted by LucyStorm
I agree. If the point is simply to protest, what is the point of bringing anything that you would have to worry about going through a metal detector?

I don't go on protest or anything, but I went through enough airport metal detector and it went "beep" on me just because of my shoes/belt/jeans/glasses.

It's freakishly annoying when I have to take off my presription glasses (and have it handled by the oily fingers of airport security), take off my belt and shoes just for some people to have a flase sensxe of security.

Look, if a dude really wants to smuggle something, he/she will find a way regardless of the sensitivity of a metal detector.

Ever heard of ceramic guns and plastique (and/or) paper bomb?

 

[septbride2002]

This isn't bunker mentality, this is realism. It's not fear--it's a realistic look at the world that confronts the fact that not everyone wants us to live. Acknowledging the threats that exist is reality. Ignoring them and pretending they don't exist is fantasy.

Kendra,
Of course we don't want another attack here on US soil - or anywhere for that matter. But I also do not want to become a society that becomes afraid of their own neighbor. A society where you no longer FEEL free to do the things you want to do. The focus, in my opinion, has become more about living in fear then fighting the fear.

~Amanda

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by septbride2002
The focus, in my opinion, has become more about living in fear then fighting the fear.

~Amanda

Hi,
Obviously, I disagree. We aren't "living in fear". We are living with a clear understanding of the nature of our enemies, and taking action to defeat them at home and abroad.
I think that so many on the left can't accept that the insanity of the clinton era is over. They can't accept that we are at war and that we are going to be at war for the foreseeable future. These truths are hard to take. Lots of folks choose to ignore them, rather than deal with them. But that is of no moment. Hopefully, our leadership will never be so enamored of the past that they don't understand the current threats that face us. I'm not at all living in fear, nor is anyone that I know. We still fly on commercial aircraft, ride buses, and go to work. Look at the bravery of the regular folks in Israel. They still ride buses to work even though so many have been attacked, and so many people killed on buses. Life goes on there, just as it does here. And, all the while, we'll do our best to defeat these loonies who want to end our existance.

 

[jennyanydots]

I do know something about McCarthyism, thank you for asking.

what I know is that the last time I checked, the Constitution didn't outlaw membership in a political party.

the last time I checked, being a "Communist" was not the equivalent of being a subversive, disloyal or a spy.

Joe McCarthy found a few Communists in government and then went on a witch hunt, equating communism with treachery and un-American activities. people werre blacklisted, lives and careers were ruined, over what was essentially an allegation that legal activity was treasonous.

did you know that Lucille Ball had to defend herself in the court of public opinion against such charges? she'd registered to vote in the 1930's, and as a courtesy to her grandfather she enrolled in the Communist party. this was neither illegal nor subversive. but when the information surfaced in the 1950's...well, Desi Arnaz did some quick thinking and active campaigning to keep that information from turning into a publicity disaster.


you're right when you say the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine an enemy with the ability to kill Americans from a remote location. the Founding Fathers knew war up close and personal. and you'd only be kidding yourself if you think civilian populations weren't at risk in the wars our forefathers fought.

I just reread Bradbury's Farenheit 451. In that novel, written in the 1950's, we as Americans have no idea why the rest of the world hates us. at the end of the book there is a nuclear attack leading to almost total annihilation.

we as Americans became complacent because we had not had a war on our shores in a long time. the methods of the 21st century are scary. but the scope of the weapons makes no difference.

if we sacrifice our principles for our physical safety, then what are we so desperately defending?

 

[jennyanydots]

oh, and by the way, the City of New York is facing considerable fines and penalties, not to mention civil suits for wrongful imprisonment, for its treatment of protesters during the RNC. almost all of the people arrested the mass sweeps will not be prosecuted for the myriad of petty crimes of which they were accused. isn't that interesting?

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
oh, and by the way, the City of New York is facing considerable fines and penalties, not to mention civil suits for wrongful imprisonment, for its treatment of protesters during the RNC. almost all of the people arrested the mass sweeps will not be prosecuted for the myriad of petty crimes of which they were accused. isn't that interesting?

Not at all - happens all the time - especially in riots and demonstrations.

The arrests stop the activity from becoming more illegal. When it is over they realease the offenders without charges.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
I do know something about McCarthyism, thank you for asking.

what I know is that the last time I checked, the Constitution didn't outlaw membership in a political party.

the last time I checked, being a "Communist" was not the equivalent of being a subversive, disloyal or a spy.

Joe McCarthy found a few Communists in government and then went on a witch hunt, equating communism with treachery and un-American activities. people werre blacklisted, lives and careers were ruined, over what was essentially an allegation that legal activity was treasonous.

did you know that Lucille Ball had to defend herself in the court of public opinion against such charges? she'd registered to vote in the 1930's, and as a courtesy to her grandfather she enrolled in the Communist party. this was neither illegal nor subversive. but when the information surfaced in the 1950's...well, Desi Arnaz did some quick thinking and active campaigning to keep that information from turning into a publicity disaster.


you're right when you say the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine an enemy with the ability to kill Americans from a remote location. the Founding Fathers knew war up close and personal. and you'd only be kidding yourself if you think civilian populations weren't at risk in the wars our forefathers fought.

I just reread Bradbury's Farenheit 451. In that novel, written in the 1950's, we as Americans have no idea why the rest of the world hates us. at the end of the book there is a nuclear attack leading to almost total annihilation.

we as Americans became complacent because we had not had a war on our shores in a long time. the methods of the 21st century are scary. but the scope of the weapons makes no difference.

if we sacrifice our principles for our physical safety, then what are we so desperately defending?

Not sure of your point. Of course civilian populations were in danger, but they could fight back individually - and they could flee in the advance of overwhelming force to survive and fight again. This has been the pattern of war through the ages. They had no thought of defenses against sudden, unforseen mass disaster against which they could not even flee.

Second - I was alive during the McCarthy era - I recall it well. There was no mass hysteria. The McCarthy myth grew up afterwards, after he turned out to be a personal jerk and dysfunctional drunk. Every ill that anyone suffered then became "McCarthyism."

Third - there was a time - in the 50s - when being a "communist" was the equivalent of being an enemy of the USA. Sure - you could hold the same views as the socialist manifesto, and not be a person dedicated to the defeat of the USA - but you didn't call yourself a "communist." You could call yourself a "socialist" or a "lenonite."

Saying there were kind-hearted communists is the same as saying there were kind-hearted Nazis in the USA. I am sure there were some kind-hearted Nazis in the USA, but they sure got no sympathy if known.

As for Lucille Ball, I really don't care - I don't recall she had any dire consequences. I have no idea if she suffered or not.

And yes - the communists in the government did much harm - they gave the USSR the H-Bomb - which ushered in the cold war and all the tens of thousands of lives that were lost in the defense of freedom afterward.

I have no sympathy for communists in the USA - none - they should be rooted out and sent to a communist state to live, if not charged with treason or sedition and executed.

but thats just me.

And by the way - the scope of the weapons make all the difference in the world. If you want to argue philosophically about some grand universe where realities don't matter, then be my guest. But this earth is my only home and my country happens to be the one moral force that keeps it from descending back into barbarism.

So as for me - I will defend her against all enemies - foreign and domestic.