Should we start stripping down our democracy because of fear

[Ennui]

that's not the point, it's should the government have the power to monitor us that closely? maybe it helps catch terrorism, but it also deprives us of the liberty this country prides itself on so much.

 

[Nemesis6]

Says the rabid totalitarianist and the guy with the Stalin quote in his signature.

Tell me why it's relevent that I have a quote from Stalin in signature. As I said to another dumbass: Just because I quote someone doesn't mean that I support them. But suppose that's how some people debate - If there's a hint of opposition to their own political agenda, they will attack the person personally.

 

[Sulkdodds]

He was talking about Numbers. Pay attention.

Answer to the OP question: Yes!

Wait. No.

And I don't know if I support the HL2 community stripping, I don't imagine most of you as very good looking .

You have clearly not seen a picture of Angry Lawyer.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

You have clearly not seen a picture of Angry Lawyer.

Zooomj! Clicky!

-Angry Lawyer

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

It is the people whom should be watching the government.

We the free people are the most powerful force on this earth.

 

[Solaris]

I could see myself in about 10 years not reporting a bomb on an army base if things keep going the way their headed.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

You find it so easily to disassociate the fact that soldiers are actually people.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[B_MAN]

the only thing you have to fear is the government that has hijacked your country

 

[spookymooky]

He wanted the damn turkey to be the national bird!

Nah, that was in a satirical article.

 

[DaMaN]

Should we be so terrorized by Al Queda that we should completely ignore the fact that the president is going beyond the constitution and our laws so that he has the power to fight terrorists (so he says). Or should we show Al Queda that we are not scared and that we will not change our values because of a single attack on our country? I refuse to be terrorized by these terrorists so I want accountibility in my government, who's with me?

Agreed. One cannot have total security AND total freedom. Contrary to the Bush Administration and George Orwell's 1984, freedom is NOT security.
Total security => straightjacket inside padded room inside cheyane mountain.
Total freedom => no fences on the edge of cliffs.

A balance of security and freedom must always be maintained.

Currently, the U.S. has gone totally overboard on security, inciting fear and panic into the general population. Their goals are not the same as the goals of the general population, so they must control the population. Since the government is supposed to represent the people, when a divide like this exists, something is very wrong.

-DaMaN

 

[spookymooky]

Agreed. One cannot have total security AND total freedom. Contrary to the Bush Administration and George Orwell's 1984, freedom is NOT security.

You might want to read 1984 again...Freedom is slavery

 

[Tr0n]

Paradox? D:

 

[DaMaN]

You might want to read 1984 again...Freedom is slavery

Yup, you're right. Sorry, wrong quote.

Similar message though, in order to "keep America free" Big Brother Bush is stripping civil and human rights from his populace, essentially enslaving them through a campaign of fear.

Paradox? D:

Yep.

The U.S. is promoting a war on terror while waging a war of terror, however, in this case, it's not a paradox, just a lie.

-DaMaN

 

[delusional]

freedom is not slavery all that was was propaganda too keep the masses from wanting freedom

 

[spookymooky]

Not quite. The neatest part of 1984 is when he explains all the paradoxes. Remember, in literature a paradox is that which at first seems contradictory, but really makes a deeper sense. The idea in 1984, I think, is that those who created Engsoc ensured their own freedom through the slavery of others.

BTW, check this out, it's an intro I made to a powerpoint for government class. Volume needs to be way up, thanks to stupid powerpoint recording program...NOT a screamer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpusfsC2g0c
Suffice to say, teacher was not amused.

 

[Crazy Horse]

A balance of security and freedom must always be maintained.

This is not true. The very thought of having a "balance of security and freedom" as a system of rule is culturally-biased.

 

[spookymooky]

This is not true. The very thought of having a "balance of security and freedom" as a system of rule is culturally-biased.

Though in South Korea, it's probably very, very true.

 

[delusional]

too bad i cant watch it since i dont have a computer so im using my psp browser which makes typing slow
anyway if you really think monitoring phone calls for words like al queda and death to america by computers is in violation of your freedom then you really confuse me since you shouldnt be saying these things in the first place and tracking terrorist funds doesnt violate your freedom

 

[15357]

Freedoms do not exist without security. That is the very basis of freedom.

Guaranteed National Security will bring on greater freedom

 

[DaMaN]

This is not true. The very thought of having a "balance of security and freedom" as a system of rule is culturally-biased.

Good point. I conceed to it.

anyway if you really think monitoring phone calls for words like al queda and death to america by computers is in violation of your freedom then you really confuse me since you shouldnt be saying these things in the first place and tracking terrorist funds doesnt violate your freedom

Monitoring phone calls for words like "Al queda" (or "Al Keyda"), "Death to America by Computers", "I love Lucy", or anything else is a violation of people's freedom.

As stated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

(Source: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)
Listening for some certain word on a telephone call is arbitrary interference, regardless of cause (I.E. "tracking terrorist funds").

As part of the opening of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Thus, violating a Human Right is attacking the foundation of "freedom, justice and peace in the world."

you shouldnt be saying these things in the first place

Freedom of speech allows people to say what they want to say.

Therefore, I think it's fairly obvious that monitoring phone calls arbitrarially is, in fact, violating people's freedom.

Freedoms do not exist without security. That is the very basis of freedom.

True, if none of the securities we have today were around, we'd all be dead from walking off of cliffs with no guiderails, drinking poisonous substances with no labels, or driving exploding cars. But there is a point where security starts seriously impacting freedom. In my opinion, we're past that point.

-DaMaN

 

[delusional]

well i still find the need for domestic spying since it can identify sleeper cells in america so im willing to sacrifice that freedom for security the US tracking terrorist funds is completely different we were tracking bank transfers

 

[Solaris]

You find it so easily to disassociate the fact that soldiers are actually people.

-Angry Lawyer

Indeed, and when the time came when I saw internal attacks against military bases justified all the decent soldiers would have rebelled already. Otherwise, a man is responcable for what he does and takes part in, if he takes part in an evil, he is responcable for that evil, and if it is nessacary to kill him to stop that evil, then it is justified to do so.

 

[No Limit]

well i still find the need for domestic spying since it can identify sleeper cells in america so im willing to sacrifice that freedom for security the US tracking terrorist funds is completely different we were tracking bank transfers

But again, what you are doing is letting al queda win. What do you think Osama wants? Do you think he wants the basic freedoms we have in our system defended at a time of crisis or do you think he wants them slowly, but surely, stripped away? Are you not buying in to fear when you say that president Bush should be able to bypass all the laws that our government has set up in the name of fighting Osama Bin Laden? And worst of all he does this while he takes down the CIA unit in charge of finding Osama. Don't you see how this is a slippery slope? First it started as monitoring international communication. The administration claimed its not that bad because it is only used on international communication. Then we find out tht they have been doing this on domestic communications and now the administration claims this is also okay as it helps find Osama. What has to happen next for your to be outraged? Please, tell me how that makes sense to you.

Also, to the people saying you shouldn't be able to say those things. Have you completely surrendered your freedom? Do you honestly believe I should not be able to say that we need to not be in the middle east and that could help stop all the hate coming from al queda . Should I really be put on a terrorist watch list for saying something like that?

 

[No Limit]

Indeed, and when the time came when I saw internal attacks against military bases justified all the decent soldiers would have rebelled already. Otherwise, a man is responcable for what he does and takes part in, if he takes part in an evil, he is responcable for that evil, and if it is nessacary to kill him to stop that evil, then it is justified to do so.

To me thats just group punishment and it is identical to what Israel is doing right now iin Lebanon. One soldier rapes and kills a little girl and her family then burns the bodies we should punish every soldier our there. As terrible as the actions of that one soldier was we should give other soldiers the benefit of the doubt. If anything we should be looking at the system that allowed that thug to be a soldier in the first place.

 

[99.vikram]

But again, what you are doing is letting al queda win.

Between letting Al Qaeda "win" and keeping my country safe, I know which I'd prefer.

 

[Sulkdodds]

you shouldnt be saying these things in the first place

1. Says who?
2. If you were a terrorist, would you really be that bloody obvious?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Freedom and National Security run on a sliding scale.

On the one end, you have a police state. That's 100% security, 0% freedom. EVERYTHING you do is getting watched. Yes, Numbers, they saw you looking at that teacher's boobs, the Scanner caught it on camera, and you're now being investigated for sexual harrassment.

On the other end, you have anarchy. The government is abolished, there is no National Security, and you're free to do whatever you want without repercussions.
Bad move. That group of jocks that teased you today? Well one of them's broken into your house and sexually assaulted your mother. It's not against the law, as there is no law. You can't prosecute them. And the guy's looted a load of guns, so killing him in revenge isn't going to be possible.

I prefer the middle ground.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Sulkdodds]

Ah, but you could argue that anarchic chaos as you describe contains very little freedom since everybody is enslaved by a 'state of fear'. You can't act freely because you'd be afraid that jocks would break into your house and assault your mother.

 

[15357]

Ah, but you could argue that anarchic chaos as you describe contains very little freedom since everybody is enslaved by a 'state of fear'. You can't act freely because you'd be afraid that jocks would break into your house and assault your mother.

Hence the reason why I said, "Security is the basis of freedom."


And contrary to popular belief, I do not support a totalitarian state. Yes, somewhat authoritarian, but not that far.

 

[No Limit]

Between letting Al Qaeda "win" and keeping my country safe, I know which I'd prefer.

Simple question, I would appreciate a simple answer from you. In time of crisis which do you think Al Queda would consider a victory:

A) Having the american people step up to al queda and showing them we are not afraid of these terrorist threats by protecting our democracy and stepping up to anyone that challenges that democracy.

or

B) Cowering down by stripping the most basic liberties we have in this country by letting the president do anything he wants without having to check with the legislative and judicial branches of our government.

Which is it, A or B.

 

[Reaktor4]

i completely support the govermment doing what it needs to do to stop terrorism unlike the media who find the need to reveal programs which are being used to do so thus removing the effectiveness of the programs i.e domestic spying and how we were tracking terrorist money

Apt name.

 

[15357]

Simple question, I would appreciate a simple answer from you. In time of crisis which do you think Al Queda would consider a victory:

A) Having the american people step up to al queda and showing them we are not afraid of these terrorist threats by protecting our democracy and stepping up to anyone that challenges that democracy.

or

B) Cowering down by stripping the most basic liberties we have in this country by letting the president do anything he wants without having to check with the legislative and judicial branches of our government.

Which is it, A or B.

Thats black and white logic. Which is a fallacy.

 

[No Limit]

Thats black and white logic. Which is a fallacy.

No, its not. Like I said, its a slippery slope, first we track only internation wire transfers, then we track international communication justifing it by saying we are not tracking domestic communitcation, then we go on and track domestic communications any way. What's next or better yet what are they doing that they haven't informed any courts or congress of.

So please, reply to the question. If you aren't willing to answer that question, I really can't help you, but atleast explain to me why the courts and our legislative branch shouldn't be aware of what the white house is doing? Have you read the seperation of powers in our constitution.

 

[15357]

Neither. You can't choose between just 2 extremely biased and untrue choices.

 

[No Limit]

Neither. You can't choose between just 2 extremely biased and untrue choices.

read following from previous post:

So please, reply to the question. If you aren't willing to answer that question, I really can't help you, but atleast explain to me why the courts and our legislative branch shouldn't be aware of what the white house is doing? Have you read the seperation of powers in our constitution.

 

[15357]

Oh. Its 3:43 am and I can't read straight. Sorry.

 

[delusional]

i believe losing our freedoms should only be temporary never permanant like when bush tried to make the patriot act permanent. all this does is send a message to terrorists that they won. and dont think this is new because its happened before and with one of our greatest presidents abraham lincoln suspended habeas corpus but this was needed to keep the country together during war and was later restored

 

[No Limit]

i believe losing our freedoms should only be temporary never permanant like when bush tried to make the patriot act permanent. all this does is send a message to terrorists that they won. and dont think this is new because its happened before and with one of our greatest presidents abraham lincoln suspended habeas corpus but this was needed to keep the country together during war and was later restored

And I disagree with what lincoln did, what FDR did, and I certainly disagree with what Bush is doing. The reason for this is I don't see how what they did helped us keep this country together. But that is completely besides the point.

All I want to know is why Bush shouldn't have to get approval from the other 2 brenches of government like the constitution calls for. 15357 I know its 3 am but you still haven't replied to the point.

Also, let me ask you this. You don't think Al Queda wants our constitution destroyed? (please don't tell me this is a biased question).

 

[delusional]

read the patriot act because it gives the president power to do alot of things like wiretapping and tracking money and many other stuff but not sure if it said anything on judicial approval since its hard to understand and i also think i saw that the attorney general had to inform congress every once in a while but this was approved by all branches

 

[CptStern]

bush committed impeachable offenses when he lied to congress around the justification to use force in iraq ..dated 10/11/02 ..the downingstreet memos (minutes from meetings between bush and blair) proves this (dated 23 July 2002) :

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

so even knowing that the case was weak he went ahead and lied to congress

Whereas Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security ...



The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors ... If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

...John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqresolution.htm