Domestic spying

[Kuciwalker]

Byrd is a racist ****.

[DinoDoc]

/me informs on Odin for being a spammer

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Byrd used to be a racist ****.

corrected.

[Kuciwalker]

No.

Byrd used to be and still is a racist ****.

[Odin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
* DinoDoc informs on Odin for being a spammer

Well? I'm pissed. Are we a constitutional republic or are we a despotism? If Bush is not impeached, democracy is dead. We will be as democratic as the Soviet Union. Do you want that DD?

[Kuciwalker]

WTF does that have to do with spamming?

[DinoDoc]

/me informs on Odin for being an annoying one note spammer

[Odin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
* DinoDoc informs on Odin for being an annoying one note spammer

I'm not spaming. I trying to get people to realize the seriousness of what is going on.

[Kuciwalker]

So is Philosophiser.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So is Philosophiser.

[Admiral]

What we're seeing is a clear example of a situation in which the executive feels the need to suspend the law in order to preserve the law. The fact that there is still debate over this is disturbing; we must acknowledge this in order to judge what the proper response should be.

Since 9/11, Bush has been trying to increase the sectors in law-enforcement that exist beyond the reach of the law. Examples of this include the legal limbo status of Guantanamo detainees, the attempt to restrict access to organizations such as the red cross to detention facilities, the CIA operations in Europe, and yes, the warrantless tapping of domestic phone lines. But, contrary to assertions of some on the left, these are not the actions of someone who is trying to consolidate power and destroy the force of law. Rather, they are the actions of one who must feel that the Constitution as it stands is not adequate for the protection of the Constitution (for the record, there is no way that the wiretapping does not violate the 4th amendment. This is not a reflection on the utility of the wiretapping, just pointing out that any attempt to justify the action through the Constitution is destined to fail).

The broader and more pertinent question is whether entering a State of Exception is the right course of action. Historically speaking, it is generally the reaction of the government when faced with a crisis on the scale of global terrorism. Israel has been in a state of exception since its foundation, the US entered one during WWII (internment camps), and in France during the riots last month (France is an especially interesting case, as there are explicit legal means to move into a space in which laws are no longer applied).

In my view, Bush's state of exception is problematic, in that it exacerbates the heightening of tensions between Muslims and the rest of America. At this point, I think it is safe to say that Muslims do not enjoy the same freedom as the rest America: they are subject to increased travel scrutiny, increased sureillance at home (who do you think the NSA is targetting), and a generally feeling of mistrust on the part of other portions of America. All of this will lead to a resentment on the part of Muslims in America, which could easily transform into passive or even active support for terrorist activities. One of the advantages of American society is that it is open, and there are systems for the resolvement of differences (such as the courts) that do not involve violence; safety valves, if you will. Once we start placing Muslims in a special category in society, they will start to feel constrained, and what the rest of America sees as a safety valve will be seen by Muslims as a restriction, a limit, and they will seek other means to redress their grievances, means that could often involve violence.

Quite frankly, I don't trust Bush to avoid creating this problem. And in the state of exception in which we find ourselves, there are limited ways of challenging Bush, or even knowing the full extent of his actions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin

Your sincerity in pursuit of your cause has nothing to do with the forum rules. In that way you are no different from Philosophiser.

[DRoseDARs]

This, coming from the boy that got banned for spammy asshattery on l'Event?

[lightblue]

The way I see it people like Bush and Blair (big row on freedom speech here after a woman got arrested under the terrorism act for reading a list of the names of British war dead in Iraq too close to Parliament) have seen how Putin handles his "democracy" and want themselves something like that.

My personal opinion is that a couple of London bombings or even something on the scale of 9/11 is not worth giving up essential personal liberties up for that we've had since the Magna Carta.

On average 114 people die a day (!) in the US in car accidents and 42 people are murdered. A hundred or two in one go in a terrorist attack is obviously bad, but is worth descending into police state for? The way I see it we were attacked in part for being free and able to say and do what we want, if our government wants to limit this it's responding in exactly the wrong way.

As said it's all about due process and ensuring that our liberties (be it in the US or the UK) are not taken away by our own government.

[lightblue]

On a more humorous note, can you imagine being the NSA agent that had to write up the Quaker meeting as a terrorist threat? I wonder if he/she could keep a straight face...