Suspected Terrorist = Actual Terrorist

[Verto]

For the sake of my country, stop defending it Winston.

Its called being pro-active instead of being re-active.

If your poractive, there are less terror attacks, but mistakes can be made.
If your reactive, then no mistaes are made but you have hundreds, or thousands of people dead; and usually no one to try, as they kill themselves in the process.

I, for one, prefer that the US government maintain its proactive stance to insure my saftey.

Translation: Who gives a **** about innocent people being falsely imprisoned and held, so long as I'm free.

You wouldn't happen to drive an SUV covered in flag magnets, would you?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by DanS


I was merely pointing out that the problem was corrected and we admitted the mistake, unlike what Admiral believed.

So suck it.

Yeah, a mistake. If this was within the constraints of the current legal system the mistake would have been far less likely to have occurred. And if it had, he would have been incarcerated rather than having sustained severe psychological and physical harm.

How can you possibly be OK about this kind of treatment, whether the person was innocent or guilty? What about the concept of innocent before being proven guilty? I mean, this bloke was merely suspected. And one little admission of guilt makes this kind of conduct somehow acceptable? Hell no...

[Provost Harrison]

And to the Americans or pro-Americans here, may I remind you of the following quote:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

Now who coined that phrase eh?

[Winston]

Originally posted by Verto
For the sake of my country, stop defending it Winston.

I wasn't aware that I was, specifically. And who are you to lecture me on what I should do?

[Donegeal]

Nope. I drive a 10 year old beat up Saturn for safety a feul efficentcy (still get over 30 miles to the gallon). Currently, the only flag I fly from my car is a Chicago Bears flag. I am, however, a 12 year vet of the US Army and a Law Enforcement Officer.

Regardless, your translation is correct, although taken to an extreeme. We live in a society that cannot e absolutes regarding civil liberties and still remain safe. This has to be laid out in a matter of degrees. In the current situation (the one stemming from 9/11), we live in a time that requires more security in order to live. I like the line we have taken.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And to the Americans or pro-Americans here, may I remind you of the following quote:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security

Now who coined that phrase eh?

Everyone is entitled to thier opinon regarding this. Go ahead and feel that way. It only makes life harder...

[Provost Harrison]

You can't just compromise civil liberties willy-nilly just for the supposed ends of security. Give the police force and intelligence force the resources they need to prevent or pursue these terrorists. But what do these measures gain? They take more away from all of us than we ever gain. If the odd terrorist attack is the cost of that, then alas, so be it. Perhaps we should try to address the reasons why we are getting these terrorist attacks!

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Donegeal


Everyone is entitled to thier opinon regarding this. Go ahead and feel that way. It only makes life harder...

You didn't answer the question...who coined that phrase?

[Donegeal]

I believe it was FDR... some one had it as their quote for awhile.

You can't just compromise civil liberties willy-nilly just for the supposed ends of security.

Yes, you can; and as a matter of fact, I think we should. We just have different opinions about this.

Give the police force and intelligence force the resources they need to prevent or pursue these terrorists.

Again, your talking about absolutes. Their isn't enough money or manpower to prevent all terrorists (If someone is truly intent on killing himself "for the cause", it is almost impossible to stop them). Other messures need (or, as this is just my opinion, should) to be taken in order to ensure the safety of the greater good. I know its a happy trek quote, but it valid in this case: "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few."

But what do these measures gain? They take more away from all of us than we ever gain. If the odd terrorist attack is the cost of that, then alas, so be it.

Personally, I feel that getting double checked at the airport, or, heaven forbid, having to take my shoes off, is well worth not having another 9/11. We appearently differ on this...

Perhaps we should try to address the reasons why we are getting these terrorist attacks!

See, PH, we do agree on somethings...

[DanS]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
How can you possibly be OK about this kind of treatment, whether the person was innocent or guilty? What about the concept of innocent before being proven guilty? I mean, this bloke was merely suspected. And one little admission of guilt makes this kind of conduct somehow acceptable? Hell no...

Which had nothing to do with what I said. So, again, suck it.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Donegeal
I believe it was FDR... some one had it as their quote for awhile.

Benjamin Franklin in fact. One of your founding fathers. Isn't it amazing that what were supposedly the founding principles of your country can be conveniently ignored? You don't seem to be grasping that these laws can be used against anyone. Faith alone is not enough to ensure your personal civil liberties. Even within months we are seeing gross abuses of these powers, and they are legitimate!

You can't just compromise civil liberties willy-nilly just for the supposed ends of security.

Yes, you can; and as a matter of fact, I think we should. We just have different opinions about this.

Enjoy your police state. If you'd ever had an original thought in your life, you might understand why you want to have them. Just because you are aligned with your current administration (hell knows how) you are safe. But at some point in the future, you may not be quite so cosy.

Give the police force and intelligence force the resources they need to prevent or pursue these terrorists.

Again, your talking about absolutes. Their isn't enough money or manpower to prevent all terrorists (If someone is truly intent on killing himself "for the cause", it is almost impossible to stop them). Other messures need (or, as this is just my opinion, should) to be taken in order to ensure the safety of the greater good. I know its a happy trek quote, but it valid in this case: "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few."

You can minimise but never eliminate. That is a fact of life. But none of these security measures mean anything except to terrorise people into not committing these act. And thus your supposed 'war on terror' is lost without the enemy firing a shot.

But what do these measures gain? They take more away from all of us than we ever gain. If the odd terrorist attack is the cost of that, then alas, so be it.

Personally, I feel that getting double checked at the airport, or, heaven forbid, having to take my shoes off, is well worth not having another 9/11. We appearently differ on this...

That's the tip of the iceberg. My government tried to get an extension for detention without trial extended to 3 months under the prevention of terrorism act. So basically this would give the police a chance to lock someone up for whatever reason for a period of time that would destroy the persons life. Just because they want to. And let's face it, even if nothing malicious ever occurs under these laws, the police have a nasty habit of making mistakes.

Perhaps we should try to address the reasons why we are getting these terrorist attacks!

See, PH, we do agree on somethings...

Perhaps, depends on what you mean by that. I am referring to the west's gunboat diplomacy that has created this insurgency...

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by DanS


Which had nothing to do with what I said. So, again, suck it.

You know Dan, you're an utter buffoon...

[DanS]

You're the rim of Park Ave's *******.

[Provost Harrison]

[DanS]

If you wanna have a conversation, that's fine. But don't use me as a prop for your sanctimonious monologue.