What Should Happen to George W. Bush?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Faded Glory -
Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraints in choice or action. Did Ramo have a different definition? What is your definition of freedom?

No that is a dangerous definition of anarchy, not freedom


Freedom is the ability to go about your lives in whatever way you see fit. To criticize your leaders...and protest accordingly. These laws in no way hinder my ability be free. I can still bash bush on the opinion page....I can still protest if I want too..this in no way in its current form hinder freedoms. Convenience and Civil Liberties are different things. Do not mix them! You dont have the right to walk past security at an airport! You dont have a right to not pull over during a blockade stop! This is Public Safety, NOT Civil Liberties!


Stop beating this poor dog to death!

[drake]

Better intelligence could have detected something before 9-11 and prevented it. Had we detected some of the red flags then that we know about now, these attacks wouldn't have happened. Period. It was sheer lack of secuirty and intelligence that allowed such a horrendous act to take place. I mean really, did these hijackers honestly believe they could get not one, but 4! planes at virtually the same time? No way. I'm sure they had a good laugh about how pathetic our national security is, and how trusting we are. We let them kill us with our own infastructure. They didn't have to do a thing, our in-efficiency did it for them!

Is terrorism completely preventable though? No. Course not. Can we improve our odds? Sure. Did foreign policy have something to do with this attack? Sure it did, but it doesnt change the fact that America can't make all its problems go away at the flick of a switch. "Tuddah! New foreign policy!"

This crap with the middle east people has been going on with the west for centuries. It's one thing after another, and it probably isn't going to end anytime soon.

Until it does, we need to be better about preventing 9-11 like incidents. If that means stretching a few things to help make people safer, I'm all for it. Much rather see a few people offended about their rights, than another 3-4000 people dead. Wouldnt you? Or no?

[Ramo]

Better intelligence could have detected something before 9-11 and prevented it.

What, in particular? And why do judicial checks need to be abolished in order for this intelligence to be acquired? How is indefinite detention of aliens necessary to acquire this intelligence? And why does a vague definition of terrorism, which could be streched to mean just about anything, need to be applied to gain this intelligence?

But so far, it appears these laws deal only with aliens.

Actually, the provisions concerning "domestic terrorism" apply to citizens as well as aliens.

[drake]

Answer my question and I'll answer yours

Which is more important, public safety or the incovenience of 10 people? (gross exaggeration)

[Ramo]

That's a loaded question.

1. You've yet to demonstrate how these laws beneficially affect public safety.
2. Where are you pulling this "10 person" figure from?
3. What kind of magnitude of net increase in public safety are you referring to?

[drake]

the latest story I've read reports that ~1100 have been arrested since 9-11, and currently ~ half are still in some form of custody.

Now, is there anything demonstratable for me to show or say to you that this act guarantees safety? No. Course not. But a lot of people that supposedly have links to terrorism are supposedlyin a safe place now and un-able to either conduct terrorist acts themselves or help aid another terrorist. Communications between cells could possibly be disrupted as well.

Can I prove that by taking people with links to terrorism off the streets makes the country safer? No. No way I could either. But on the same hand, is there any way you can prove that it isn't making the country safer? As the un-informed public, for all we know they could have a few major terrorist masterminds in custody. For all we know, they couldn't have anyone except someone that once shined a hijackers shoes.

All I know is that the idea right now is public safety. And we put our public safety in the hands of our government, our military and local law enforcements. Who knows? Maybe I am a kook for thinking that someone might actually know what they're doing. Maybe I am a kook to think that the government is actually trying to protect us, rather than screw us all over as you'd like to think. All I know is that there hasn't been any real issue since 9-11. The people that made this act happen are people we elected. If we didn't have faith in them, and faith in their judgement, we shouldn't have elected them.

[Ramo]

Now, is there anything demonstratable for me to show or say to you that this act guarantees safety? No. Course not.

Why are these acts necessary to guarantee safety? The assertion that the legislation undermining judicial checks is beneficial to public safety simply isn't intuitive.

If you have reasonable cause to believe there's a link between a suspect and a crime, there isn't a problem in acquiring evidence, or prosecuting the suspect, under old laws.

I don't know how undermining judicial authority can be seen as anything but a malicious move by the state.

If we didn't have faith in them, and faith in their judgement, we shouldn't have elected them.

I didn't elect them. The first election in which I can vote won't be until '03. And you can be damn sure I won't support a Democrat or Republican.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by drake
the latest story I've read reports that ~1100 have been arrested since 9-11, and currently ~ half are still in some form of custody.

And not a single one of them has been officially charged with a crime. You don't have a problem with that?

[David Floyd]

drake-

To answer your question, yes I'd rather see more September 11th attacks than an erosion of ANY civil liberty. Who are we, after all, if we only stick to our convictions when it is easy? The true measure of greatness is sticking to them when the times are tough. If there is any greater conviction that guaranteeing civil liberties and Constitutional rights for everyone, even under times of extreme crisis, then I have yet to hear it.

[Saint Marcus]

Seems the terrorists have won then. America has changed. Civil liberties have erosed. The US gets more involved in the middle east. Despite what US' officials have said, the US has changed, and the terrorists have gotten what they wanted (partly that is).

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Mark L
Seems the terrorists have won then. America has changed. Civil liberties have erosed. The US gets more involved in the middle east. Despite what US' officials have said, the US has changed, and the terrorists have gotten what they wanted (partly that is).

Oh really? The terrorists are going to be dead soon, 1500 US marines are tracking them down and are going to kill them. Some victory.

[drake]

I didn't elect them. The first election in which I can vote won't be until '03. And you can be damn sure I won't support a Democrat or Republican.

Ramo, your single opinion doesn't matter all that much, I hate to say. The mob rules in America, and hate it as we may, that ain't going to change. Do I think everything a leader does is right? No. Are the people that voted himm in (the majority), partially to blame? Yes. Most politicians agendas are transparent.

And not a single one of them has been officially charged with a crime. You don't have a problem with that?

Wrong! Most are held because of immigration violations. As in "illegal" immigrants

To answer your question, yes I'd rather see more September 11th attacks than an erosion of ANY civil liberty. Who are we, after all, if we only stick to our convictions when it is easy? The true measure of greatness is sticking to them when the times are tough. If there is any greater conviction that guaranteeing civil liberties and Constitutional rights for everyone, even under times of extreme crisis, then I have yet to hear it.

Here we go with this righteous nonsense. Life is more important than trivial sh1t like this act. You won't even remember it in 20 years. No one will. It's just another bump in the road and like it or not, it isn't going to effect anything in this country. The country is just fine and will continue to be fine. We didn't fall apart after ww2 when they locked up every jap in the country did we? We're not going to fall apart now either.

There is so much discrimination in this country already, but you don't cry about it because it's not in the news. This utopian like country you have in mind is never going to happen. The world is too f*cked up. A few peoples feathers will always get ruffled. Just the way it is.

[drake]

Guynemer

In Washington, Ashcroft disclosed 603 people remain in custody - 55 on federal criminal charges and 548 on immigration violations. Forty-nine others who have been charged with crimes are either being sought or have been released on bond, officials said.

Does this concern me? No, not particularly. Because we don't have a trial on court tv doesnt mean there isn't evidence against these people. A lot of the evidence and names of people is sensitive anyway.

Theres a few more bits of info you might want to check out here:
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/01112...-investigation

[Ramo]

drake, is there any specific reason why you're avoiding my questions? To dismiss my argument with nothing more than saying "your single opinion doesn't matter all that much" doesn't cut it.

[Saint Marcus]

Oh really? The terrorists are going to be dead soon, 1500 US marines are tracking them down and are going to kill them. Some victory.

Giani, you promised to stay out of political threads. So beat it.

Anyway, to address your ignorant remark. Al Qaida is active in 68 countries. If you kick them out of Afghanistan that still leaves 67. Even if Bin Laden dies it's a victory for them, because Bin Laden doesn't care if he dies or not. So all in all, the terrorists have gotten what they want, namely killing Americans and changing American policies both internally as internationally. So tell me, they have met their objectives while the US has so far met none. Who's victory is this then?