<p>Why hasn’t there been another 9/11?</p>
<p>Why bother - we have ourselves so tied up in knots they don’t need to do anything but hint at another one.</p>
<p>I’m disgusted with both the Republicans and the Democrats. They are acting like a couple of Iraqui political parties.</p>
<p>Why do I have the feeling that, should YourWorld’s scenario come to pass, he’ll be the first one yelping for the ACLU?</p>
<p>UMDAD–agreed…banning liquids for instance. All the terrorists have to do is whisper another plot and we’ll fall into line a new way.</p>
<p>yourworld–I agree; you HAVE been watching too much 24. </p>
<p>Not saying our government is evil, but they have been DOING evil, in conjunction with corporations that benefit from all the arming, shooting, destroying, and rebuilding. </p>
<p>Plus–and this is the last straw–we can’t pay for it. Spending billions we don’t have so our children/grandchildren will have to foot the bill. That is what will ultimately bring this country down…not the terrorists.</p>
<p>“Our children will never know what freedom used to be and I pity THEIR children.”</p>
<p>Oh please! Stop the histrionics. What freedoms have we lost that any of our children (or the adults) will have even noticed? What is noticeable, however, is 6 years of no domestic attacks and a lot of plots disrupted and bad guys arrested. I’ll take that swap any day - especially knowing that bin Laden’s target, for which he received clerical blessing, is to kill 10,000,000 of us.</p>
<p>Sheesh - this thread has gotten ridiculous!</p>
<p>Wonder if everyone will continue to think the government is evil when the administration changes…</p>
<p>It is truly amazing that there are people out there who have stooped so low as to believe that 9/11 was an “inside job”. It’s crazy & illogical, but I guess “facts” and “logic” have never stood in the way of a good protest.</p>
<p>(A dichotomy is that the "liberals’ or “Democrats” or “progressive” (whatever you call them) distrust this government so much, yet they are the ones who want MORE government intervention, such as in socialized medicine, Social Security, welfare, etc.).</p>
<p>Re: the Patriot Act: it’s interesting that people are not willing to believe that they could prove their innocence if necessary, that the government would be so willing to lock up anyone under the slightest suspicion. We do have a court system after all, and even in the most egregious situation, namely the Nifong case mentioned above, the truth did come out & the charges were dropped.</p>
<p>Granted, the founding fathers did structure everything under the premise that it was better for 100 guilty people to go free than one innocent person to go to jail - but that was in the days before 9/11. When you’re talking about the potential for so much destruction & killing, it seems like people wouldn’t mind letting the gov’t do what is necessary to keep us safe. We’re only talking about warrantless searches that are in the interest of NATIONAL SECURITY. If you aren’t engaging in suspected TERRORIST activity, then you have nothing to fear!</p>
<p>Another dichotomy: It’s those who are opposed to profiling that stir up the fear that ANYONE could be suspicious in the eyes of the government!!</p>
<p>I felt pretty unfree when the National Guard was on every street corner of lower Manhattan and Brooklyn for weeks, and even less free when the bridges and tunnels were closed, but that’s just me. We wouldn’t have to worry about any of this if the terrorists, nice middle classor or better, educated folk that they are, would turn their attention to lifting up their own citizens and building things instead of tearing down. This is one of those situations where it’s important to remember that the circumstances we face now were not of our choosing. And anyway, can ANYONE tell me exactly who “the government” is? Is this a secret society? Is there a handshake? Why are so many people acquainted with “the government” and I’m not?</p>
<p>bz – Your dichotomy has it’s reflection on the ‘regressive’ or conservative side as well. Why are conservatives always so upset with the ‘nanny state’ laws (no smoking, no trans-fats, seatbelt/helmet type laws) but the second they feel insecure go running for more searches, more security, more government interference in daily life?</p>
<p>we need to stop this ungrounded fear of our government. Leftists are the worst. They keep fanning fear of evil government. There are plenty of stops between where we are now and the getstapo society the left wants you to believe. If you won’t help you should at least let your government do its job - of protecting you.</p>
<p>Remember: no attacks since 9/11 (keep your prayers up) and countless plots thwarted,including those that didn’t get reported for security reason and to protect future operations.</p>
<p>Many of you are misunderstanding what is being argued here. It’s not that I, as a liberal, fear my own government that is in power now, it’s that I fear you. Right now, you’d be hard pressed to find any member of Congress who would be willing to eliminate, as yourworld is so blithely willing to do, any one of the Bill of Rights. You’re totally off-base to put this as a liberal vs conservative issue. Bob Barr is a case in point. A conservative Republican, yet Barr would never, ever agree to give up one jot or tittle of the Bill of Rights. Barry Goldwater would have jumped off a bridge before he’d have sold the Constitution down the river. Yet some of you guys don’t seem to value it any more than last year’s telephone book. So stop this lib vs conservative thing - that’s totally bogus.</p>
<p>If freedom of the individual were so easy to maintain we would never have needed the Constitution. It’s like I always kid my husband: if you always wanted to stay married to me, you wouldn’t have had to make a vow to do it!<br>
yourworld, the founding fathers didn’t set up the courts in order to count the votes of the congressmen. And congressmen aren’t “prudent jurists”. The courts are supposed to interpret the written law in the context of the Consitution, not to echo the current polls. You simply don’t accept the premise of this country. As far as hating or fearing my government - far from it. From Bush on down, I think you would find a whole lot more support for the Constitution in Congress right now than we seem to see on this message board. We may disagree on what the Constitution allows and what it doesn’t (which is exactly why we have courts and jurists who have read more law than yourworld’s Ann Landers approach to legal reasoning.) But that’s exactly the problem! You’re willing to throw our legal system out the window, and then accuse us of not protecting the country? Huh? </p>
<p>Freedom is not the natural tendency of government. Of course I don’t think that Bush is trying to turn this country into some kind of police state. But that if you give up the concept of “drawing the line”, then one day, years in the future, the line won’t exist. Power is the natural tendency of governments. That’s not just some dumb liberal idea, that’s just human nature, not to mention the past several thousand years of history. This thread is a perfect example of how that happens.</p>
<p>What specfic, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights do you feel have been taken from you? The reason I asked the question I did about “the government” is because so many posters have used that term and it doesn’t mean anyhthing to me without context.</p>
<p>Dadguy says “A scared and cowered population.” Why are you scared? Most people are not. Just reasonably concerned. As for power concentrated in the hand of an individual (I assume you mean the Prez) Bush has far less power than FDR or Lincoln and has been much less aggressive in the exercise of power. But we need to be realistic. Aggressive tactics are needed and also the nation must repudiate the likes of Move0n.org who seek to divide us, question the integrity of our military leaders and simply surrender.</p>
<p>zoosermom - there have been a number of cases where the courts have overturned portions of bills and/or actions recently as overreaching. I think the one that most concerned me was the recent patriot bill’s attempt to permit the government to get data in secret which the government is not permitted to get, from private companies which have a business-related access to the data. In other words, if the gov’t wanted to get the telephone records of everyone in my town, they’d have to go to court to get a warrant. To get a warrant, they need to demonstrate to the court some kind of tangible evidence that “warrants” the warrant. If they don’t want to go to the court because they have no evidence, the new law permitted them to go to Verizon and get the records. In addition, Verizon was forbidden under the law from informing anyone of the release of the data, including the person whose data is released. It was a way of saying that our right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure applies only to DIRECT action of the government, not to indirect subpoena’s from the government to third parties. I think the courts just overturned that part of the law last week. The case was brought by one of the telecommunications companies that received a supoena. They were concerned that they promise our data is treated confidentially, yet here the government was forcing them to cough it up and not tell anyone. If the company hadn’t challenged it, no individual could have challenged it, since the law prohibited anyone from disclosing the secret release of the data to the government. </p>
<p>As with so many of these issues, if you can guarantee these actions will only be taken against terrorists, they would be pretty benign. But once there is no oversight by anyone outside of the administration, how can anyone know what the use will be 100 years from now?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This one for starters:</p>
<p>“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” </p>
<p>Warrantless wiretaps. Evading court control of the process with resultant corrosive effects on checks and balances.</p>
<p>Or how about this one:</p>
<p>“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”</p>
<p>It’s a pretty scary day when our own government declares a civilian US citizen to be an “enemy combatant” so that he can be thrown into a military prison, like the wretches stuck in the Gitmo limbo, and be locked up indefinitely without any of that inconvenient “due process” stuff. Had that been allowed to stand, what would have prevented them from declaring any citizen, including you or me, an enemy combatant and locking us up? Nothing. That’s what. </p>
<p>And in the longer run, the issue isn’t how much the current government abuses the Constitution to give the terrorists a beating. Heaven knows the terrorists need a beating. The larger issue is how the current and future governments (including Democratic ones) will misuse the anti-terrorist powers to oppress their own citizens for <em>political</em> reasons. Look at how Nixon used the Plumbers, FBI, CIA, and even the IRS to spy on and torment anti-war protesters, administration critics, and political opponents. Some of the government apparatus that he misused was set up for legitimate purposes, but unless strictly and vigilantly controlled, there are very few government “security measures” that won’t eventually be turned on innocent citizens for merely political purposes.</p>
<p>coureur: Great post.</p>
<p>bz2010: As pointed out previously, I find it amusing that so-called conservatives argue vehemently against laws restricting their freedom to do things like drive without seatbelts, and the other kind of nanny-state stuff, yet are so surprisingly fine with laws that restrict their freedom in hugely more meaningful ways, as many of the post-911 terror laws do.</p>
<p>I’m also surprised you’d point to Duke as some kind of example of the justice system correcting a malicious prosecutor, because, really, it isn’t a very germane one. If those boys had not been rich, had not had the significant resources to fight the entire apparatus of the legal system as they did, odds are good they’d be in jail right now. It’s an entirely separate argument whether it is fair that the rich get much better justice, but one thing is certain: in the case of a malicious governmental prosecution, it is by no means certain that the justice system will right the wrong.</p>
<p>I for one am glad that our government is able to obtain internet records to trace terrorists’ trails. And I applaud iNET companies which did the moral thing by complying, sensing the greater good to the public. Others have argued for due process, which is possible when you have individuals in mind and a relative lax timeframe to act. What if you have to do data-mining to flesh out the suspects and/or a short time to act? Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. That’s why I support reviewing the Patriot Act every few years, to subtract as well as to add if necessary. Do I feel good by giving away few civil liberties. No, but I will consent in the greater context of fighting global terrorism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And just what is so extraordinary about these times as opposed to before 9/11? Terrorism has always been a threat, and will always be a threat. Its good to fight terrorism and those who would do us harm, but it must be done without sacrificing the civil liberties that define America. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yikes, I would not want to live in that world.</p>
<p>Yeah, yourworld, these aren’t extraordinary times. These are ordinary times, with a couple of exceptions:</p>
<p>1) Massively increased awareness and fear on the part of the American public.</p>
<p>2) The war in Iraq and America’s current foreign policies, which are fostering massive resentment, and probably feeding terrorism more than anything else (note that not all other Western nations have had terrorism issues).</p>
<p>But hey, maybe you’re right. So if these are extraordinary times, when do they become ordinary again?</p>
<p>UMDAD, your post, #101, said exactly what I said here:</p>
<p>
on page 4 or whatever of this thread.</p>
<p>But that serves to prove something about the nature of some threads in the Cafe. Either people don’t actually READ what other people write, then rabbit off the same opinions pages later, or they dissect and pick apart individual words and phrases of posters whose opinions differ from theirs.</p>
<p>In any case, this sort of thread results in nothing more than opinioneers shouting at each other, no growth is made, no minds are changed, and nothing is learned.</p>
<p>By a show of hands, how many people here changed their minds about anything after reading this thread? Anyone impressionable out there?</p>
<p>Listen I am not castigating you without also glancing in the mirror. I am not immune to hot blasts of opinion myself. All I can say is, all of us here must be the most boring people at any parties we attend.</p>
<p>GUILTY AS CHARGED!</p>
<p>I admit it. I read the first few pages to see what the thread was about and read the last page to see where it had gone. I was disgusted with all the politicizing and posted an off-the-cuff comment.</p>
<p>Do I head to Gitmo to serve my punishment? Or is living in the Detroit area punishment enough?</p>
<p>Rotfl, UMDAD, well, I don’t know. They say that some parts of Detroit are actually nicer than Gitmo, but that could be just a rumor. </p>
<p>The weather has to be better at Gitmo though, and it’s my understanding they get free health care.</p>
<p>No, for your punishment, I think you should be forced to read this entire thread and summarize the main points.
(j/k)</p>