You are right that John Ashcroft gives me an easy target. I keep bringing up the camps, because they were recognized as a legitimate tactic during wartime and because they are a reminder of what the Patriot Act and other proposed methods can become. There has also been a good deal of talk about racial profiling in airports and spying on Mosques. And the government is not only listening in on cell phone calls from and to suspected terrorists who are in the country illegally. They are listening in on all of us. I've said before I never voted for Clinton, and this isn't a Republican/Democrat issue for me. I'd be equally opposed to the Patriot Act if it were proposed by Janet Reno.
George W. Bush said "They (the terrorists) hate our freedoms" (source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html), yet what does it say about us when we casually deny our basic freedoms like: The "Patriot Act" (which I always include in quotes because it is the antithesis of patriotic) basically eliminates all of these. It allows totally arbitrary searches and seizures without requirement of a warrant, and without informing the one who has been searched. The 5th Amendment is denied because anybody can be held for any reason (or no reason at all) indefinitely without bail and without any public acknowledgement. Lastly (of the ones I posted), trials are now allowed to be held in secret, without a jury of peers, without the accused knowing his accusation, and allowed no real defense. Now how is this not a blatent stamp of "VOID" on the constitution!? My feeling is that this is not a Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative issue. This is a right/wrong issue that transcents all political bounds. One cannot merely blame Ashcroft and Bush. It was passed through the Senate with only one dissenting vote!!! Every single senator from Hilary Clinton to Kay Bailey Hutchison should be ashamed, with the exception of Russ Feingold (the one dissenting vote). We need to remember also that the Patriot Act was not just dreamed up after 9/11. Many of the provisions were in the 1996 Counter-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act proposed by President Clinton. Now to bring this back full circle to the question of liberal media, let's look at the reaction in the press. Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/presspatriot.html I couldn't have said it better myself.
giddyup: Just one note about security. Someone posted earlier that it doesn't really exist and I know that sounds abstract, but think of it this way. Everyone tells me I am more likely to be struck by lightning than I am to die in a plane crash, yet I still get shaky when I even go near an airport. The legitimate chance of being attacked in the US is much, MUCH smaller than the reality of it happening. It has been for many years and will continue to be. I'm not saying I don't want security. I just think that we tend to go overboard when something terrible happens because it is difficult to put that event and the risks associated with it into a historical perspective. We are emotional and we react that way. It is normal, but it doesn't always produce the best results. My fear of flying from a risk standpoint is irrational, but that doesn't make me any less afraid. However, it doesn't mean I want all the airlines to shut down either. It is just an emotional reality I, and thousand of others who also fear flying, have to face.
That gets a backslap from me, Vengeance. Here's more: This one's a review of the Patriot Act, six months later, endorsed by the ACLU. Those of you who find them to be biased, can take it with a grain of salt. http://www.freeexpression.org/patriotstmt.htm As a service to my "patriotic" friends out there, here's where you can register with the goverment as a real, true patriot: http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/patriot/index.asp Just doing my part...
<b>MrsJB</b>: I knew I had that coming; I just didn't know from where. Timing and I had some serious issues last week in a thread that was locked by your "lesser" half. I thought the risk worth the possible gain.... <b>Jeff</b>: How many cells of terror might be in the US? Is it impossible that there be 10,000 individual terrorists in our midst? How about 5,000? We can reduce our risk by outing and ousting the terrorists, no?
rimbaud, I knew you knew. I took that first softball of yours right down the middle. I had to take a cut at the second one. Forgive me.
Gosh, giddyup, of course we can. After 100+ posts here and however many more in the other thread how can you think anyone of us disagrees with this?
We can reduce our risk by outing and ousting the terrorists, no? Of course, if it were that simple. The problem you have here is the "suspected" part -- that means its being done without proof. There are a number of ways to solve terrorism: 1. Remove ALL people. Shoot everybody, Americans, non-Americans, everyone. 2. Kick all people in America out. 3. Kick all minorities out. 4. Kick all Arab minorities out. 5. Kick all Arabs who've been abroad out. 6. Kick all non-citizen Arabs who've been abroad out. 7. Kick all suspected terrorists out. 8. Kick all terrorists out. The question is why you draw the line between #6 and #7. Doing #6 would further our security more. Why not do that? Or #5? If security is more important than people's rights, why not? Suspicious has no legal bearing. If you have proof, show it. If not, I find it odd that we can deny rights because of suspicion. That throws out the entire Innocence before Guilt concept.
Well, last time I looked the terrorists weren't surrendering voluntarily so I guess we have to go find them. In fact, they were trying to kill as a rapidly as possible. You can sit around on your ideals all day and night. I say let's get out there and kick some terrorist ass! Not knowing (or having any way of knowing) how large their numbers might be raises this to the level of a potential disaster, doesn't it? Do you just want to assume that there are a handful of bad guys? I think a little more caution and pro-activity is the order for the day.
You can sit around on your ideals all day and night. I say let's get out there and kick some terrorist ass! No, you want to go out and kick some suspected terrorist ass. Whether they actually are terrorists or just badly flagged people (ever seen Arlington Road?) doesn't appear to matter.
Did I say terroriist or suspected terrorist? Hey, ARlington Road was a <b>movie</b>.... what's your point? Okay, let's start with the illegal aliens. That should get most of them. What's the point of having legal immigration, if we are going to ignore illegal immigration.
I knew that you knew that I knew...ok, I really didn't know. Hmm... I wanted somebody to swing, you just did it and rendered me useless.
giddyup: Finding terrorists is a noble pursuit just like finding murderers, rapists, pedophiles, armed robbers, car theifs, etc. All of them pose a potential danger to our health and safety. The point is that the degree to which terrorism represents a legitimate RISK to the average person in America is FAR FAR less than any number of other crimes. You are more likely to be a victim of a road rage shooting than of a terrorist bombing. I understand that it is important to find them and punish them. What I'm saying is that we are overestimating how much danger we truly face from them. As a result, we go into a panic and demand searches. In the mid 70's, David Berkowitz supposedly murdered and/or injured some 10 or 11 people in a city of 8 million, yet New York was gripped by panic. Each person thought she would be the next victim. Was that a rational belief? Of course not. But, the fear was real. My argument is that fear should never drive you to make presumptions about anything. If we are dealing with the law, it should only be facts that lead us to our conclusions.
Great links Batman and Vengeance. Thanks. Ashcroft hasn't even done anything in the past few days and I'm already fired up. This stuff makes me sad.
You presume I'm motivated by fear. Batman says I'm scared even when I said I wasn't. I just don't think we should put up with this nonsense. Our laxness has let them in amongst us and it's time to clean up. I don't really know how you, with confidence, can estimate the level of danger we face. Your stats deal with known events heretofore. What about the newer era of terrorism? Won't it be fun if the suicide bombers show up! I am not concerned about he civil rights of illegal aliens. They don't share the protections of the Constitutiion, do they? I though one had to be a citizen of the US....
I actually think that this whole liberal media bias claim is simply an asinine claim that conservatives make to distract from the fact that their arguments are hateful and irrational. Seriously, is the media supposed to give play to typical conservative reasoning? i.e. 'Those homos better stay away from our kids!'. 'Blackie shouldn't complain about the number of black coaches.... we buy 80% of the tickets! Know thy place, black man!', etc. etc. 'Those women want equal pay! They're liberal'. Repeat the word 'liberal' a thousand times and maybe everyone will think it means something dirty. Someone previously mentioned something in line with my own reasoning... I can be liberal from time to time. What I see from the media is decidedly not liberal. The other day a scientist spoke on CNN about what will happen (now these are median trends of global warming associated with anthropogenic elevated CO2 mind you...) with global warming. Immediately after the piece the dimwit commented "we should point out, that's just his opinion". LOL. It's just the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences. Certainly, the fool down the street that's bagging your groceries has an equally valid 'opinion'. Whatever. Here's a link echoing the 'that's a liberal media?' sentiment: http://www.swans.com/library/art8/rdeck023.html Here are your links rimbaud/grummett: http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/8/nunberg-g.html http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2002/04/nunberg-g-04-22.html
Jeff you can't be serious. You're more at risk to die of heart disease than by the hands of a murderer so does this mean we should start having cops patrol the frozen foods section? Keep those fatties from the ice cream! The average American can stop flying and move to Montana but our infrastructure and economy cannot just go into hiding. The potential for damage done by a single terrorist act far outweighs what any murderer or car thief could ever accomplish.
