Padilla hasn't been proven to be anything. He is labeled an enemy only because the govt. has said he is. Putting that kind of power in the hands of the govt. is dangerous, and un-American. We recovered after doing it to Japanese Americans during WWII. I hope we recover his time, but because of the nature of this conflict it is far from certain. The nature of tyranny is not different now as it was then. AQ is not the tyranny we need to fear. The tyranny that our founding fathers and I speak of is from our own govt. Tyranny has nothing to do with weapons. Listen to the words of our founding fathers. "Give me liberty or give me death!" "I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." etc. Do you think the people who made those quotes or the spirit would be so concerned with dying by an airliner crashing into them, that they would abandon their love of liberty and desire to protect citizens from their govt? That attitude and principle don't change at all because of the weapons used. A change in weapons in no way should change our constitution. That is just a rationalization.
Let me quote a post by FranchiseBlade several weeks ago in a related discussion to give you an idea the kind of direction we shall do our utmost to avoid. As a parallel, China's Cultural Revolution (one may want to call it Reign of Red Terror) didn't happen overnight either. It started out gradually, from suppression of free and critical thinking to punishment of dissenting voices. Initially, the impact was limited to the high levels of Communist Party members as Mao sought to solidify his power. Later on he expanded his reign of terror to the Chinese intellectual circles, which weren't really involved in politics at the time, and eventually to the general public. The perceived (sometimes they were real though) threats from US Imperalism and KMT in Taiwan were always the greatest convenience to scoop up enemies from within. During the height of the Cultural Revolution, neighbours were monitoring and eavesdroping on neighbours and family members were suspicious of one another. One could easily become a enemy sympathizer, a spy for the enemy, or an enemy itself hidden from the KMT era. It was guilty by association, guilty by acquaintance, guilty by heredity, and of couse, guilty by dissenting from the great leadership of Chairman Mao. At the minimum, you got demoted, lost job, and were ordered to be brainwashed with Mao study. Worse, you were sent to labor camp, put to prison, getting tortured or even killed. People were constantly being reminded of class vigilance. Now every time when I was at my local airport, I always heard a deep male voice in the broadcast: "...Watch for suspicious activity...". Yes I understand because of 9/11 it is necessary to be vigilant, but the feeling from someone who only used to listen to this kind of warning many many years ago in a "communist" country simply doesn't sink well.
Here's my problem with the comparison. Hitler used the Jews to instill fear into the German people. Obviously there was no real threat from the Jews. Clearly, by making this comparison, you are implying that Bush is doing the same thing with al quada. Does this mean that there is no threat from al quada? Are you comparing the threat from al quackda to the threat from the Jews in Germany in the 1930's? The Jews were not a threat to Germany in the 1930's. al quada is a major threat to the United States today. Therefore,the comparison is illogical. Which protesters have been "made to suffer terrible consequences" by protesting the PA or any other Bush policy?
mc Do you have anything substantial to add to D&D threads? I mean, it seems all you do is throw out snide comments (and I know you aren't the only one, but really).
To be accurate, 14 of the 16 provisions are being made permanent. Only two are up for review in ten years.
Not if you use Iraq instead of al Quaeda. Al Quaeda is definitely a threat. Iraq was not and could not have been for decades. No real threat from Saddam, yet Bush and his cabal hyped it like we could have mushroom clouds over DC any day now. Much closer than you think.
Umm, sorry if I simply laugh off your post, because that's what it deserves. When you tell me that it's a matter of fact, then litter your backup with pure opinions and partisan name calling (neocons, jingoistic, spineless, "craps"...), I have a hard time believing it to be fact. The liberal pile-on technique in this thread confirms that my view is correct. Otherwise there wouldn't be nearly the response that has come from your camp. Touched a nerve. A sore spot if you will.
People tend to ignore others' lessons, especially those terrible hard lessons. They always think it will not happen to me, but on the end they might learn it in a hard way. Of course, there are lots of them end up without any consequences. To be honest, T_J, if you ever lived in Russia in 50's, in China in 60's, you probably would have a totally different view on lots of issues. Freedom is really a beautiful word, and it means a lot to lots of people. But it doesn't come cheap, it comes with a price. It's never easy to hold onto some principles, if one can find one special, really special, very very important instance where he can just yield his principles, those principles will no longer hold. The imfamous Chinese Culture Revolution started from "finding enemies in disguise among us". In the beginning, people don't mind other people getting unfair treatment. They excuse the government or law enforcement of "they had their reasons", "they are just trying to do their jobs to protect us", "it was just an honest mistake", "it's not happening to me, I don't like that guy anyways, he's not a good neighbour at all" etc. Well, guess what, it's like a snowball, eventually, it might happen to you. It escalated to a certain point that people reported all kinds of suspicious acts from people they didn't like, then their colleagues, then their neighbours, then their friends, even their family members. People got paranoid, everyone around looks suspicious. Also, there were people started to make up stories to take advantage of the situation. At one point, every company, school, office, has some quota to reach. There must be enemies in disguise in your office. How come others have but you don't? it means you are not watchful, or even worse, you could be the one. There was a joke about it: during a meeting in "voting" who's the "right wings - enemy" to meet the quota, a guy could not hold any more, and went to washroom. After he came back, everyone looked at him in a strange way, because he was voted as that "right wings". Funny but really sad. I could not picture US in that kind of situation, truly unlikely. But as ridiculous, unreasonable, unimaginable as certain history events look like, they all started from little things, when you give up or sacrifice your principles, for common goal, special event, emergency situations etc.
You are still publishing your "liberal outrage of the day"? I might as well offer "conservative outrage of the day". But then again you are not really a true conservative. Any fact, as long as it's unappealing to you, becomes opinion. Tell us that Bush and Co. didn't use the tragedy of 9/11 in his presidential campaign ad in attempt to score political points. Tell us neocons didn't try at every posssible turn to link 9/11 to the Iraqi War. Tell us Congress did not succumb to the fear of 9/11 to enact the Patriot Act. And finally,tell us 9/11 didn't change the way you behave. Learn to accept facts is not that difficult, bigtexxx, the only requirement is having an open mind. Now calm down, sit back, and think for a moment: Did or didn't 9/11 change everything, as a matter of fact?
You've just been waiting to use that post huh? There's a big difference between a snide comment and stating the truth. This thread is a perfect example. Anytime anyone criticizes or questions this administration and their policies the 911 card is now thrown in people's face. "Don't like the patriot act?" remember 911 "Don't like the war?" remember 911 I don't need to be reminded about 911. And I certainly don't need some yahoo like texxx throwing out pictures that I've seen a thousand times to use as a shoutdown of people who are questioning the motives and policies of one of the most corrupt administrations in modern history.
The same people are who supposedly so concerned about protecting Americans and our national security against terrorists, are the same ones who are defending folks who leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative who was actually investigating matters in the hotbeds of terrorism in Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East. They don't seem to mind that some people from the whitehouse ruined a whole front cover company that had established contacts in Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East. All of those tangible acts were fighting the war on terror, but taking away our freedoms is somehow OK?
The statement is a reminder of what should be the most important aspect of your humanity: The liberties and the rights guarunteed you. Some of which are being eroded with this passage. I would never willingly give them up - they mean more to me than security or patriotism. No amount of fear will make me change my convictions. You may react differenty - and that's fine - but don't let your fear and lax attitude on liberties restrict me. Franklin is encouraging people to question what is the cost of said security. If security comes at the expense of liberties, what are you protecting? Don't become irrational. Not everything has to be some bizarre absolute. But somethings are worth more than your precious "security". I bet people feel mighty "secure" in China, but at what cost? Because texxx, like Bush, is using them as an excuse and a defense for any action. In this instance it's even more deplorable, as the action in question is removing part of the rights that make us "American".
Reveal the proof and put him on trial - then I'll shut up. You can't just keep saying something and make it true. I don't care if Padilla is a terrorist - he is still a citizen. Put him on trial then lock him up - you can't just "dissapear" him - we don't work that way! This is the US - not Soviet Russia! Timothy McVeigh was a real terrorist who was way worse than Padilla, and yet McVeigh got a fair trail. Evidence was presented in a court, he was convicted and executed. What makes Padilla an "enemy combatant" when McVeigh was just a criminal? And if you feel like suggesting that a right-wing militia and McVeigh's blowing up a building was "mass murder" while Al Queda's blowing up the WTC was "war" I'd be curious to know what the difference is.
Excellent point. I'm glad you brought up Franchiseblade's post on the slow rise of anit-semtiticsm leading to the Holocaust. There is a certainly a threat that the slow erosion of our civil liberties can one day lead to a tipping point, I think we have already seen how a slow process has borught us to the point where a military industrial complex with control of the corporate media, sometimes joint ownership as we see with GE and ABC, has led us to the point whee war is costless for most of us and vey financially proftiable for those who make the decision to start it.
I disagree. I don't think it is a snide comment at all. People are in fear, and it is being manipulated. I'm sorry if that is uncomfortable to hear.
<b>rhadamanthus The statement is a reminder of what should be the most important aspect of your humanity: The liberties and the rights guarunteed you. Some of which are being eroded with this passage.</b> Other liberties you've compromised: 1. buying and carrying guns 2. paying taxes 3. getting licensed to do any number of things (driving, fishing, hunting) 4. Many more... Don't the new inconveniences of TPA fairly specifically target areas that have been proven to be problematic with letting terrorists succeed? Or are they just things that piss us off as individuals?! <b>I would never willingly give them up - they mean more to me than security or patriotism. No amount of fear will make me change my convictions. You may react differenty - and that's fine - but don't let your fear and lax attitude on liberties restrict me. Franklin is encouraging people to question what is the cost of said security. If security comes at the expense of liberties, what are you protecting? Don't become irrational. Not everything has to be some bizarre absolute. But somethings are worth more than your precious "security". I bet people feel mighty "secure" in China, but at what cost?</b> I'm in rural NC. I am not responding out of fear but of logic. The authorities with the resposibility to prevent these tragedies have asked for and been given these powers. Franklin didn't imagine what we face. I'm not going to get romantically stuck in the past when things were different. The PA has been around for a few years now and my liberties are not compromised in any way that has affected my life. <b>Because texxx, like Bush, is using them as an excuse and a defense for any action. In this instance it's even more deplorable, as the action in question is removing part of the rights that make us "American".</b> What exactly is the conspiracy here that you fear?
When/if he gets charged with a crime, he will. Maybe if McVeigh has performed his dirty deed post 9/11 he might have been treated as a terrorist instead? I don't know. McVeigh's group is like a pack of Scouts compared to AQ. McVeigh was an internal matter which did not require the cooperation of a far flung, worldwide intelligence network that runs risk of exposure in a trial.
WTF? I compromised them?? Is this your motivation for disliking liberals? Anger about gun laws and fishing taxes? Good grief that's shallow... I don't fit in your little "liberal box". It's not even worth the time to defend myself on this tripe - it has nothing to do with the discussion, or me. It's hard to say. Check back at some of my first posts - TPA has done very little except infringe on normal citizens. For what it's worth, Britain has some similar laws and they obviously have not helped as of late. Personally, I don't believe that any of the provisions will stop terrorists. I'd really like you to answer that.
No it's not. Half the negative posts here are calling for Rove to be dismissed just on some allegations with no conviction of wrong-doing.
