Terrorists

[Walsingham]

Guys, seriously, don

[213374U]

TL;DR

Learn to write in complete paragraphs instead of dissecting every single sentence and typing a lame one-liner as reply. Just because English isn't your first language it doesn't mean you can butcher people's posts at your leisure - text cohesion isn't a characteristic of English exclusively, but inability to master it is probably a good indication of serious mental handicap.

 

BTW, I'm not a native English speaker myself either, but I don't hide behind that when I'm being called on my BS. Be more creative, or get a refund on your IQ tests.

Edited November 18, 2009 by 213374U

[Killian Kalthorne]

I LIKE PICKLES!

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Only terrorists really like pickles.

[Walsingham]

One man's pickle is another man's terrorist.

[TheHarlequin]

I agree that no-one seems to regard terror as important. As if it's been a massive scam. The only reasons I can think of for feeling that way are either laziness, or simply finding it less threatening to be under threat from their own government. Which I guess would be appealing if you already felt that way.

 

I don't have a issue at all with terror. Its a natural human emotion and in some cases a very good self preservation reaction.

 

However TERRORISM on the other hand certainly needs to be addressed but NOT at the expense of our civil liberties or bypassing our legal system. If that means once in a blue moon something gets through so be it. No one said a republic did not come without sacrifice.

[Walsingham]

I agree that no-one seems to regard terror as important. As if it's been a massive scam. The only reasons I can think of for feeling that way are either laziness, or simply finding it less threatening to be under threat from their own government. Which I guess would be appealing if you already felt that way.

 

I don't have a issue at all with terror. Its a natural human emotion and in some cases a very good self preservation reaction.

 

However TERRORISM on the other hand certainly needs to be addressed but NOT at the expense of our civil liberties or bypassing our legal system. If that means once in a blue moon something gets through so be it. No one said a republic did not come without sacrifice.

 

I'm certainly not in favour of abandoning jurisprudence however I would put a few points to you.

 

1. Sometimes the sacrifice of life cannot be borne. i.e. attacks with WMD

2. I have very narrowly (as in feet and inches) lost two friends, civilian friends, to terror attacks in Madrid and London. I would be content to have my emails read - for example - to keep those dear friends alive.

3. Sometimes the sacrifice you allude to needs to be in individual freedoms, not life and limb.

 

What do you reckon?

[Hurlshort]

I'm perfectly fine with surveillance and full disclosure to authorities as I have nothing to hide. The fact is the Big Brother fear is unrealistic, there is only so much surveillance that can realistically be done.

 

I am a big fan of habeus corpus though, and it makes me nervous to see that get suspended.

[Killian Kalthorne]

No cause is just if it requires a course of action to purposefully target unarmed civilians and innocents. Those who do are terrorists, no matter how justified their actions may seem to be.

[TheHarlequin]

I agree that no-one seems to regard terror as important. As if it's been a massive scam. The only reasons I can think of for feeling that way are either laziness, or simply finding it less threatening to be under threat from their own government. Which I guess would be appealing if you already felt that way.

 

I don't have a issue at all with terror. Its a natural human emotion and in some cases a very good self preservation reaction.

 

However TERRORISM on the other hand certainly needs to be addressed but NOT at the expense of our civil liberties or bypassing our legal system. If that means once in a blue moon something gets through so be it. No one said a republic did not come without sacrifice.

 

I'm certainly not in favour of abandoning jurisprudence however I would put a few points to you.

 

1. Sometimes the sacrifice of life cannot be borne. i.e. attacks with WMD

2. I have very narrowly (as in feet and inches) lost two friends, civilian friends, to terror attacks in Madrid and London. I would be content to have my emails read - for example - to keep those dear friends alive.

3. Sometimes the sacrifice you allude to needs to be in individual freedoms, not life and limb.

 

What do you reckon?

 

My reply would be no ones life is above the building block principals of the republic. If security is your #1 concern then toss the constitution and amendments out the window and in still a totalitarian rule or other similar form of govt then ensures security over everything else. Inherently the freedoms of a republic do NOT make the nation as secure. You can't have your pie and eat it too. Either you want to live in a free country with a chance of some wingnut going crazy on you or you live in a locked down society but at least you are 'safe'.

 

Ben Franklin said, very sagely, Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. I agree with him.

 

So do I have a issue getting blown up walking down the street as a sacrifice to ensure the republic remains firm, free and open? No I don't. Again a republic does not come freely. Anyone who would toss the republic under the bus at the first sign of trouble becasue they are selfish, cowards or/and IMO unpatrotic should then move away to a state where such freedoms don't exist but you are 'safe' and stop trying to turn my republic into such.

[Killian Kalthorne]

All the freedom in the world is meaningless to the dead.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? I haven't noticed any loss in civil liberties since 9/11.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[TheHarlequin]

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? I haven't noticed any loss in civil liberties since 9/11.

 

habeus corpus suspended and warrentless wiretapping ring a bell?

[Hurlshort]

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? I haven't noticed any loss in civil liberties since 9/11.

 

habeus corpus suspended and warrentless wiretapping ring a bell?

 

Most of the losses have been for immigrants. Habeus Corpus (off the top of my head, I could be wrong) has been suspended for non-citizens. Wiretapping is very easy to get as well, whereas you used to need a warrant and justified cause.

 

The wiretapping does not bother me at all. I'd pity anyone who had to listen to my mother calling me to lay a guilt trip about Thanksgiving.

[TheHarlequin]

All the freedom in the world is meaningless to the dead.

 

We will all be reincarnated so that point is moot. As your death in this life hopefully will be for the betterment and strenght of the republic of the next.

 

You speak of death as something to be fearful of. Its just the next step. If you were killed for your convictions then what a better way to go?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Habeas Corpus has not been suspended. Prisoners of war never had Habeas Corpus. Warrantless wiretapping was only used for foreign phone calls and only to suspected terrorists so far as I know. Certainly I haven't seen any of my civil liberties resticted.

[TheHarlequin]

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? I haven't noticed any loss in civil liberties since 9/11.

 

habeus corpus suspended and warrentless wiretapping ring a bell?

 

Most of the losses have been for immigrants. Habeus Corpus (off the top of my head, I could be wrong) has been suspended for non-citizens. Wiretapping is very easy to get as well, whereas you used to need a warrant and justified cause.

 

The wiretapping does not bother me at all. I'd pity anyone who had to listen to my mother calling me to lay a guilt trip about Thanksgiving.

 

'most' <> all.

 

And your view of the wiretapping is, all due respect, a ignorant and short sighted viewpoint. Does a slippery slope mean anything to you? Does it protect us anymore then in the past? I fail to see that. The FBI already had the legal tools to get a warrent within 15 mins with one phone call under probable cause. So you want to remove judges/probable from the process and 'trust' the CIA and the like to police themselves? Because history has shown us no oversight works SO well in the past. I think you'd have a different view point when your door is kicked in and CIA's with M4's secured your house without a warrent/cause. But see by then its too late to complain or worry about it.

Edited November 18, 2009 by TheHarlequin

[Wrath of Dagon]

I believe the warrantless wiretapping program has already been revised anyway, so now they do have to get a warrant.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Reincarnated, eh? I doubt that. We only get one life and when you are dead there is nothing.

[213374U]

I'm perfectly fine with surveillance and full disclosure to authorities as I have nothing to hide. The fact is the Big Brother fear is unrealistic, there is only so much surveillance that can realistically be done.

The problem with that isn't that they are going to eavesdrop on the average joe - there's a lot you can do to take advantage from a surveillance system, politically, for example. Think Watergate... only it would have been as legal as Nixon needed it to be. Union leaders, businesspeople and small time politicians more or less unable to maintain their independence, you name it. Better not open that can of worms.

 

 

So do I have a issue getting blown up walking down the street as a sacrifice to ensure the republic remains firm, free and open? No I don't. Again a republic does not come freely. Anyone who would toss the republic under the bus at the first sign of trouble becasue they are selfish, cowards or/and IMO unpatrotic should then move away to a state where such freedoms don't exist but you are 'safe' and stop trying to turn my republic into such.

Black and white thinking much? A few reforms here and there isn't the same as abolishing the rule of law and adopting INGSOC. Especially considering that the republic you so love was designed in a time where the enemy within and asymmetric warfare weren't real issues. Everything is rendered obsolete eventually. Do you think your republic is somehow timeless?

 

 

We will all be reincarnated so that point is moot.

Indeed. Look, I have this nice bridge in London you may be interested in... Edited November 18, 2009 by 213374U

[Hurlshort]

I'm perfectly fine with surveillance and full disclosure to authorities as I have nothing to hide. The fact is the Big Brother fear is unrealistic, there is only so much surveillance that can realistically be done.

The problem with that isn't that they are going to eavesdrop on the average joe - there's a lot you can do to take advantage from a surveillance system, politically, for example. Think Watergate... only it would have been as legal as Nixon needed it to be. Union leaders, businesspeople and small time politicians more or less unable to maintain their independence, you name it. Better not open that can of worms.

 

 

I believe we are talking about the FBI and the CIA running surveillance. These agencies aren't supposed to be involving themselves in politics and labor issues unless there is illegal activities suspected. The press would have a field day, just like with Watergate, if it came to that.

 

Not to mention the real charges in the Watergate case are the breaking and entering, and the subsequent attempt to cover that up. They weren't with the FBI or CIA, it was the FBI that pursued the case.

 

And really, today's politicians don't have privacy at all. They are under the public eye all the time.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

We should hire the

.

 

 

Seriously.

[TheHarlequin]

A few reforms here and there isn't the same as abolishing the rule of law and adopting INGSOC. Especially considering that the republic you so love was designed in a time where the enemy within and asymmetric warfare weren't real issues. Everything is rendered obsolete eventually. Do you think your republic is somehow timeless?

 

We will all be reincarnated so that point is moot.

Indeed. Look, I have this nice bridge in London you may be interested in...

 

No but, again, its the start of a slippery slope. 'oh well you don't need these civil liberties either because of your 'saftey'... oh and these too... and come to think of it this one over here...' etc. The movie 'V for vendetta' I feel portrays, in a holloywood way but still it makes a point, my exact sentiments. Out of fear of terrorism the people go all ultra-consertivite and toss their civil liberties away in the name of 'saftey' while the govt used fear tactics. If you don't think thats the path the far right wing of the republicans want to and were heading down during the bush admin you are mistaken.

 

Thanks for being dismissive about my beleifs. As long as you don't beleive some guy 'died for your sins' and the peep in rome 'is the voice of god' either at least you are consistent however.

[213374U]

I believe we are talking about the FBI and the CIA running surveillance. These agencies aren't supposed to be involving themselves in politics and labor issues unless there is illegal activities suspected. The press would have a field day, just like with Watergate, if it came to that.

 

Not to mention the real charges in the Watergate case are the breaking and entering, and the subsequent attempt to cover that up. They weren't with the FBI or CIA, it was the FBI that pursued the case.

 

And really, today's politicians don't have privacy at all. They are under the public eye all the time.

Blame my lack of knowledge of the details of these matters. Still, both the FBI and CIA directors are directly appointed by the President, which links both agencies politically to the government. You said it yourself, all it takes is for either agency to "suspect" that there is illegal activity going on, but now they could do it without judicial warrant. If there's the smallest legal loophole that allows that, the loophole will eventually be found and exploited.

 

The press would have a field day as you say... or not. We're talking legal methods this time around, and the folks that caused the Watergate ****storm had an inside source. State agencies are much more difficult to investigate, and unless I'm mistaken there are legal mechanisms in place to prevent it. That's why you have Senate hearings for that sort of thing, right?

 

But what really bothers me is that the State already has the means to do that sort of thing, with a reasonable degree of accountability. The chief argument adduced to support these initiatives is one of efficiency. So what I can't help but wonder is, the only way to improve efficiency is giving the State carte blanche to spy on people? Really?

 

 

No but, again, its the start of a slippery slope. 'oh well you don't need these civil liberties either because of your 'saftey'... oh and these too... and come to think of it this one over here...' etc. The movie 'V for vendetta' I feel portrays, in a holloywood way but still it makes a point, my exact sentiments. Out of fear of terrorism the people go all ultra-consertivite and toss their civil liberties away in the name of 'saftey' while the govt used fear tactics. If you don't think thats the path the far right wing of the republicans want to and were heading down during the bush admin you are mistaken.

 

Thanks for being dismissive about my beleifs. As long as you don't beleive some guy 'died for your sins' and the peep in rome 'is the voice of god' either at least you are consistent however.

Er, it's a movie (an overly pretentious one at that), not a BBC documentary. Everything is exaggerated for dramatic effect. You still have to concrete exactly which of these implemented or proposed measures will inevitably lead to a collapse of the rule of law and a totalitarian State, and precisely how will this happen. Of course that may require that you step down from the moral high ground you are so fond of and actually look at issues and people as they are instead of placing tags on everything and everyone and working from prejudice and mantras. I seriously doubt that everyone but you and yours is such a coward.

 

And no, it's not your (or anyone else's) beliefs I'm dismissive about. It's attempts to use arguments from Faith to justify or condemn this or that policy that rile me. Because, you know, that's exactly what that infallible douche in Rome does.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Hey, if you are going to be a douche you might as well be infallible about it.