Name the Price of your Liberty
 

Let me just pre-face this by saying that while I am very politically minded, every time I've poked my head in here recently, the threads and comments therein have been purely based on the waves of current political trends, rightest vs leftists, dems vs republicans, coke vs pepsi, whatever. Nothing worth reading, much less posting about.

So, I'd like to put forth a subject I think is worthy of discussion and might foster some interesting bipartisan debate.

The price of Liberty. One of the major themes of the Bush administration has been advancing an agenda to consolidate power of the executive branch of the government. This has been done in indirect ways, such as Bush's conservative Supreme Court picks, and direct ways, in his pushing for the passage, renewal, and expansion of The Patriot Act. The Administration has had to deal with numerous scandals involving wiretapping, spying, information collection, etc, on US citizens without having to go through any judicial checks and balances. This essentially hands the US Government a blank check to spy on any American it thinks might be up to possible terrorist actvities. The criteria for establishing these suspisions are pretty much completely arbitrary, and can change at the whim of those the rule is meant to set limits and boundaries for in the first place.

I have talked with many people about this, and the biggest rebuttal I have received is that, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to worry about." While I agree with this statement to a degree, what it doesn't take into to account is that when you surrender your liberty to those in power, if that organization ever succumbs to tyrrany or corruption, how are we to stop them? How are we to justify our own facilitation of their proliferation due to our eagerness to hand over social liberties explicitly designed and included by the drafters of our constitution so that such an outcome would be impossible?

The goal of Osama bin Laden all along has been to rot the core of western society--the things which have allowed us to be a economically flourishing and freedom loving people. Now, our Government uses threats of nuclear dirty bombs, biochemical weapons, and a plethora of other horrible, gruesome possibilities to scare people into hand over the most sacred rights which define us as Americans.

At what point should we accept that, yes, we may have to wait in airport lines for an extra hour, because the government can't as easily background check people and therefore must search everyone more thoroughly.

At what point should we accept that the possibility of a successful terrorist attack is increased because it is more cumbersome for the government to arrange for wiretapping, data sniffing, and surveillance of American citizens who may be involved in terrorist plots?

The way I see it, we are Americans, and we used to be known for our gung-ho attitudes and bravery. Now, we are known for fat bank accounts, fat asses, and hyper sensitive cry babies. If you don't believe this, you have never seen an episode of "The Lardburgers", on London's most popular morning show, Big Breakfast.

To me, it is more important to maintain the integrity of our nation and the things which keep us a free people than to surrender them for some additional security. In the long run, allowing those in power to propgate their influence unchecked will only lead to darkness--as the famous quote says, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

To me, the safety of myself or my family is not a high enough bid for me to support the circumvention of the structural mechanisms which ensure that the freedom and liberty of the citizens of this country are guaranteed; that every move to exercise or expand power must be brought against a balancing factor which will veto such action if it is not in the best interest of the people.

When we are so afraid of boogymen stories that we happily hand over the securities which protect our guaranteed liberties, we have forsaken everything which America stands for, and bin Laden has won. His aim has never been to militarily defeat us--but to manipulate us through fear, ironically allowing the dark, power mongering, insatiable side of those men who would rise to the elite echelons of US government, who supports puppet rulers, economically strong arms weaker countries, assassinate unruly leaders, etc, to be turned upon us so that we too may be subjected to the effects of their drunken power lust.

I am not saying that all men in the government are like this, or there are not those who are much more altruistic, but the fact is that those evil men who will insatiably acquire power will always exist, and if they see an exploitable channel through which to better amass power, they will take it. It is these kinds of men which the current safeguards are in place to stop. Men like Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney, and George Bush, in my opinion, but that's a whole nother thread alltogether.

In closing, I will quote Benjamin Franklin, who most accurately described my thoughts hundreds of years ago when he said,

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

What's the asking price of YOUR liberty?

i agree with the overall thrust of your post... but you did a very poor job of encouraging sober bipartisan discussion. Describing the President as an evil man who is exploiting the nation's fears to quench an insatiable desire for power isn't a great start.

That being said...

i do think the nation has overreacted to a terrorist threat. it seems like a lot of the measures are being taken just to make the politicians look busy.

i go to work each day in uniform having taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution w/my life... that's the price of my liberty.

Thanks for the reply, platypus. That's a very noble example.

The thrust of my post was meant to be that at what point is it justifiable for people to relinquish liberties for stronger government protection capabilities which could possibly be used for ill. I believe evil power mongering men will always exist, and they will be attracted to positions where they can most greatly abuse power, and the fact is our government has positions which weild this kind of power.

That Karl Rove, Bush, etc, are people like this is in no way the focus or cornerstone of my argument--just a passing opinion which I specifically aknowledge as being only that--an opinion. If people focus on THAT sentance rather than the main topic of my post I'm going to be very disappointed.

Then maybe you should change it or decide you don't want bipartisan discussion.

I'm interesting in knowning what liberties you have lost to evil men.

It would be interesting to see how many people die in terrorist attacks every year verses how man die in car accidents, or how many die in alcohol realted car accidents. Maybe we should modifiy the war to be the war on "drunk driving" or maybe the war on "smoking". The chances of dieing from a terrorist attack is much less than being hit by a car while crossing the street, yet people fear the terrorist attack, not the neighborhood boy who just got his license. Why are people so afraid or a terrorist attack?

The issue for me isn't the fear that the government will fall into the hands of the corrupt and the power-hungry. Look around! No point in being afraid of that in the future--that's the present! And I don't mean that in a partisan way; my guys are just as bad as theirs, as far as that's concerned. They don't happen to be the ones with their hands on the wheel at the moment, but I don't have any illusion that it would be all that different if they were.

The concern for me is the slippery-slope nature of the thing. It's not a mistake that the word "erosion" is used to describe what's happening to American civil liberties. Each incremental step doesn't look like much, until one day you wake up and find your entire life regulated in the name of "safety".

One great example of this is the nation of Israel. Israelis live with constant security checkpoints, ID examination, metal detectors at every public building... And they're still getting blown up left and right. Literally not two weeks go by without something in Jerusalem getting bombed. We don't even hear about it in the US anymore unless some exceptionally large number of people get blown up. So what have they gotten? All these intrusions into their lives haven't bought them any real safety, and it has cost them the freedom to move around unmolested and unexamined.

I am willing to die for my liberty or the liberty of my loved ones.

With that being said - if an enemy threatens my liberty I will fight them and I am willing to kill.

Since I am willing to kill to protect my liberty - I have no problem using whatever means necessary against my enemy to discover their plans. I will torture, spy, lie, cheat and steal all against my enemy.

Since I am willing to do that against my enemy - I am will to spy, cheat, lie, and steal against those who give safe harbor to my enemy.

You have to declare you are with me or with my enemy. I won't accept nuetrality.

I see the world in "black and white" not shades of gray. I only speak for myself, no party or religion, etc. I understand that very few would repond the way I did. In normal circumstances I am actually very nice person until someone starts "f,ing" with me or my loved ones.

Awful example. Take a look at Israels border sometime. The surprising thing is that in the one true democracy in the mideast (I'm still holding out on Iraq) that is openly hated by ALL of its neighbors, they don't have more of these attacks. You will also note that in the era of bombs on planes and hijacking it wasn't Israeli planes held at gun point or blown out of the sky as they have always had better than post 9/11 security.


http://www.factsofisrael.com/en/maps/mideast2.jpg

The right to carry my own personal firearm, open or concealed, while I was an illinois resident.

I'm not so sure about this rebuttal, Ustwo. The Israelis aren't really getting blown up by people OUTSIDE their borders these days. The threat they face isn't because of who their neighbors are - it's from the inside.

With that in mind, I do wonder what all of that security has bought the Israelis. On the other hand, perhaps it would be worse without their measures?

I'm not sure that you can count the cost of increased security in terms of lives lost or minutes spent waiting in line or in numbers of victims of inaccurate profiling. I mean, you could try, but since so much of the question is either hypothetical or classified, I don't know how productive that would be.

Like kangaeru, I think that you can mark some of the changes as a sort of death of character... I'd always thought of the US (fondly) as a place that existed because of ideals - liberty, opportunity, social equality, etc. I thought our way was better than the alternatives. Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, NSA wiretapping, rendition and torture... All of these things make me question what I thought the character of the US was. If we're not willing to extend our due process to others over technicalities (enemy combatants) because they aren't our citizens and they fall into a crack, then maybe we don't believe in liberty as much as we claim to.

Thinking of the line from Munich, "every civilization has to negotiate compromises with its values," I question some of the compromises we seem to be considering. Rendition and allowing torture by proxy (if not doing it ourselves) seem to be so far outside of what we claim to represent that I'm not sure what to make of it. The way those compromises are negotiated says a lot, and I don't think I like what we're saying.

Were they evil or just stupid?

I think that there are a lot less evil men in power, than there are men with good intentions that are prepared to use evil practices to achieve a goal. (And by men I mean both sexes)

Sometimes I do feel like I'm swimming in a tub of water that's slowly starting to get hotter, but it's so damn hard to jump out.

You need to read his statements before posting your arguments about someone else's plan. His plan was to suck us into Afghanistan and militarily defeat us in the same battlefield "he" be the Russians.

The warrantless wiretaps to international communication? There's ALWAYS been warrantless wiretaps on international calls. Every President in History in a time of war have monitored international communications. There had been a law allowing up to 72 hours, though I agree with you that the Patriot Act is wrong, throwing your hands up and decrying this as a sign of the degridation of our civil liberties is making a mountain out of an anthill. Say tomarrow word gets out that they're monitoring internal calls without a warrant then sure I'd agree.

And if the "evil" men was not the thrust of your argument, dont allow it to distract (i.e. ammend or delete it).

Amazing huh? The same people decrying the end is near for Civil Liberties are the same ones who push further controls (on both sides sadly).

I look at the current regime today, which is pretty much the offspring of the regime before, and I have to say they are evil.

Blagojevich is evil? I thought he was just a big haired little twit who is out of his league :)

Or maybe we are just realists when dealing with people who want to kill us and take away our liberties. Liberty is not an innate atribute to society, it is fought for, it is won, and it is defended. By not 'extending' the same rights to those who wish us evil, we do not become evil. Were they not intent in our distruction we would not feel the need to take such measures. You do not give your enemies liberty in a war and like it or not we are in a war. We have been in this war directly since the late 70's and as a culture since the first Arab took up the sword and headed west in allahs name. Hand wring all you like, pine over what never was, compare naked humiliation to beheading videos, but in the end know what side you are on.

:crazy:

You'll know if I start comparing naked humiliation to beheading videos because that's what I'll write. I didn't say we were becoming the enemy, just that we're failing to live up to our own stated ideals (you know, the freedom that the terrorists hate us for...).

Besides, if it is as black-and-white as you suggest, it shouldn't be too difficult to get some indictments to go with our detentions. That's a freedom that we get as citizens of the US, and I can't think of why it would be unreasonable to give it to others as a matter of course. Of course, if it IS too difficult to produce evidence that will lead to legal proceedings, then maybe we ought to let those guys go. Until then, we're just imprisoning people because we think they MIGHT have done something wrong, and we're not even bothering to try to justify that action.

My civil liberties do not have a price.
Meaning, that I am not willing to trade them away for any supposed benefit.

I find this whole discussion somewhat ironic, actually. Especially considering that we Americans live in the most regulated, monitored, and recorded culture in all of history. (Bureaucratic efficiency is inversely related to civil liberty. IE, how can they regulate you if they cannot monitor you?)

blago, daley, bloomberg, doyle (WI gov), and the morons in massachussetts are all evil. I'll add kansas to that one too. theres a beauty of an article I read either this morning or yesterday where a state rep actually expressed fear that consituents who are angry at him could shoot him. Isn't that what we need in this country?

That wasn't fair to you, as I was waxing into the imperial 'you', I know you didn't compare them, but others have.

You find a man from Sudan ordering 4000 lbs of fertilizer and looking up references to 'fuel oil bombs' using your 'illegal' wiretaps on his internet. Do you wait for him to build a bomb? Proof in a court of law can NOT apply in war, thats for after its over to be sorted out. In peace a guilty man may go free for lack of an innocent man be convicted, but in war it is reversed by necessity.

Treating this as a criminal matter is what lead to the intelligence agency break down in the 90's. We didn't 'take' Bin Laden because we had no 'legal' reason to hold him when offered by Sudan. You see where that got us.

My question is why? Some are Prisoners of War... at NO time EVER did PoW's get a trial. Those that arent fall under the rule of Traitors or Sabateurs, at NO time did they ever get trials, they were simply shot or hanged (being non-Citizens). Name a war when we did and I'd be amazed.

So Ustwo what your saying is it is ok to rape little girls as long as others are killing them?

and you got that how?

Too bad Bush doesn't share the same setiment. I mean, selling ports to terrorists and countries that harbor and support terrorists has nothing do putting a price on liberty now does it?

Government = surrender of liberties

Read that last bit again. The nature of every form of government that ever existed has been to limit the liberty of its citizens. In fact, the whole purpose of government is to mutually benefit everyone by limiting the undesirable liberties of "the other guy". I don't know what Ben Franklin was addressing with that quote, but out of context it makes absolutely no sense.

Here's an overly simplistic example. If I lived in an area lacking government control, I would have the liberty to murder, rape, steal, etc. Others would have the right to do the same to me. I think we would all agree that the rational thing to do in this purely hypothetical situation is for everyone to sacrifice some liberty in exchange for security against others exercising their liberties to harm others.

Sure, one might say, it is fine to give up your liberty kill: but that is fundamentally different than a civil right.

I respond with two examples:
1. Minimum wage laws: Most people have never thought about minimum wage laws as restrictions on contracts made between an individual and a business, but that is precisely what they are. The minimum wage tells individuals that they are not permitted to enter into contracts in which they make less than a specified hourly wage. Thus, the law is a direct limit on individual liberty.

2. Gun control: Some towns and states have laws forbidding the possession of particular types of firearms. These laws have the effect of taking away citizens' liberty to bear certain types of arms.

In the first example, it will be objected that the sacrifice of liberty in preventing people from assuming low-paying jobs is worth the security gained from preventing evil businesses from forcing people to work terrible jobs. This objection is precisely correct: minimum wage laws sacrifice the liberty of the individual in order to gain security against the abuses of businesses.

In the second example, it will be objected that gun control is intended to protect the public good, that guns serve no purpose but to hurt other people. This objection reveals that gun control advocates are willing to sacrifice the right of citizens to bear arms in order to gain security against potential gun violence.

For the above reasons, I believe that people who enjoy saying things like, "My freedom has no price. I will not give it up at any cost." are not being genuine. With the definitional exception of ANARCHISTS, everybody is willing to sacrifice certain liberties in order to gain additional security. You can tell Ben Franklin to shove it.

Not to mention everything our military is doing in places like Gitmo has been affirmed by the Supreme both historical in cases like Ex parte Quirin, and more recently Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (names might switch, but I'm pretty sure those are correct). All the constitution affords is due process and searches to be reasonable: putting illegal combatants in military tribunals is not unreasonable and not an afront to any due process, why do you have military POW status? So you can seperate and act with military people, sending military personnal to military court is due process, as such those who fight outside the realm of war illegally are not afforded any of the rights of POW or common/civil law.

Also as far as I've heard Bushs actions regarding the wire taps are legit for reasons like Seaver pointed out earlier, plus I think there have been some precedents in the courts (even recently), I might have to look into it... but there is not necessarily anything unreasonable with the president issuing wire taps against a sworn enemy of the consitution in Al Qaeda and its members who we are at war with. I personally would like it to go to the Supreme Court, and maybe get some congressional over sight, but I think it is stupid to have a preconcieved notion because it is Bush that something must automatically be evil and unconstitutional.

I haven't lost any of my freedoms, and there is no price that would let them be taken from me.

Prisoners of war never get trials because they haven't committed crimes. You don't get prisoner of war status if you're doing illegal things.

As far as traitors and saboteurs, citizens and non-citizens alike have sometimes received trials. I refer you to the following Supreme Court decisions related to the subject:

Ex Parte Milligan (1860's sometime)
Ex Parte Merryman (1860's)
Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950's, spelling is a little off)
Ex Parte Quirin (1950's, again with the spelling)


These three cases nicely summarize the history of trials being (or not) given to traitors and saboteurs. The first two deal with American citizens, Quirin with both, and Johnson with foreigners exclusively.

No document has better described the function of government. To that end, some "liberties" are surrendered. The liberty to freely harm others without fear of punishment, for example.

Administration does sometimes cross the line, and the courts have generally held them in check. Even the most conservative SCOTUS is careful to not abrogate those liberties protected under the bill of rights. I think the wiretapping and portions of the patriot act will wind up argued in court, and some portions of the act will probably be invaldated.

However, our system does work.

To answer the question, the price of my freedom can ill be defined. The price of living under our system of governance is to me that sometimes you have to lay it all on the line. To that end, "My life, my fortune, and my sacred honor."

from this

He implies that naked humiliation of prisoners means nothing because the terrorists (who are not the same as our prisoners) behead some of their captives.

My statement was using his same logic on a situation that is obviously not true to show the falicy in his logic.

Since every response I would like to make would give me a 'time out' I have to say its amazing how people on the same planet can live in such different worlds.

Ustwo,

I think the argument you are trying to make is that we are within our rights to fight as dirty as our enemy, but then the question becomes, where does it stop? What level of cruelty or inhumanity is necessary for people to draw the line? If you're constantly taking an eye for an eye, it's only takes so long before everyone is blind and angry. If you aren't willing to be the change you want to see in the world, people will see yours and countless others examples and will also not change. This is the reason Israel and Palestine will always be bitter enemies--because someone always has to get revenge, which in turn spawns only more revenge.

While I am not saying our government is horrible, I AM stating that is moving towards a conslidation of power, and this centralized power is also becoming less and less reliant upon democratic mechanisms to keep it in check. We think it's impossible...because this is America...but who knows where we could be 50 years from now? We could be living with Big Brother. Or perhaps not--but the point is, the erosion of the protections which prevent government organizations from becoming corrupt, self serving, self regulating agencies is NOT a good thing no matter how you slice it. Using the protection of the American people as a justification, and supplementing this with all different kinds of scare tactics (which is nothing new--look at the cold war and the old communist scares--has anything really changed now? Back when anyone accused of being a commie was imprisoned or interrogated and surveiled by the FBI? We've already SEEN this country turn into big brother. Anybody remember Joeseph McCarthy? Is terrorism really any different? Different subject, identical human response from the American Public), what are people supposed to think? The sky is falling?

Seaver,

Bin Laden's plan has ALWAYS been to manipulate the cowardice of the American public. Oh no, we're in a bloody war we can't cleanly win, spending billions of dollars! My son might get shot in the head, AND my retirement plan might collapse, I'm AFRAID. Oh no, a nuclear bomb may go off on my kid's schoolbus, I'M AFRAID! Oh no, Osama just sent in another video tape making vague comments referencing semi-recent events, meaning he is still alive and well and planning more terrorist attacks, OH NO I'M AFRAID WE'LL NEVER BE SAFE!!

Everything Osama does is aimed at influencing the American public, and because he will never conqeur us, he instead will twist us until the men he hates will see their dream fester and die from the distrust and fear caused by bin Laden's actions.

Maybe for the sake of discussion, I would like the tinfoil hat crew to answer a question for me that is directly related to the initial question of this thread.

Where again has my liberty been threatened?

Oh and at our worst in our war on terror our actions are still saintly compared to those of our enemies. Don't forget that.

Heh I WISH all I'd face is being naked and forced to stand for prolonged periods of time is all I'd face if I was captured by the terrorists.

Sorry, misfire, I check

Your liberty is being threatened when your government defends the practices of torturing and indefinitely detaining prisoners of war, in violation of international human rights laws, using their classifcation as 'enemy combatants' and not 'prisoners of war' as the cornerstone of their justification. Off-shore torture facilities...who knows, one day it may be loudly dissenting Americans start winding up there? Why should a facility like that even exist?

Your liberty is being threatened when your government seeks to gain the right to arbritrarily spy on any American citizen who they feel might be up 'anti-american' activities. Sure, you may be doing nothing illegal--but what if you're having an affair with somebody, and her husband has a friend in the FBI. What if he could tap both your phone, sniff your e-mail, and see your tax returns, without ever having to go through a judge?

Sadly, it seems a lot of you are completely missing my point. I'm not saying im being oppressed, I'm saying that the way things are going, its very possible that I COULD BE because the things in place to safeguard us from ourselves, such as going before a judge who would never allow the aforementioned jealous husband to spy on his wife and her supposed lover, are disappearing from society. And we're allowing it to happen, in the name of preserving HomeLand Security and the Safety of the American Way Of Life. What could be more un-american than handing over unchecked power to those who could, if they wished, abuse it and in doing so harm us? At what point do you say, "I don't care if a bomb goes off in Times Square, I would rather live in a society which is as safe as possible within the confines of constitutionally protected rights" and when do you say, "Here's the key to my house, I'm gonna go on a vacation, let me know when it's safe and I can have my keys back"

I am going to have to repeat myself to address your ignorace here.

For the record here is a basic lesson is realist power politics, the only legitimate political player is a sovereign state, international law only has authority as it is lended by said sovereign; Bush and the American government swear feality to the American populace, not some international order. Furthermore "illegal combatant" has historical standing dating back to international law and treaty in the late 19th century in the Hague treaty.


Put it to Judicial review something that our constitution allows for. The President as the executive is allowed to act into good faith the laws that congress executes. I agree that the executive might have overstepped his authority in this matter, but you sir are completely coming out of left field with you exagerrations regarding this matter.

Bottomline is I thing just about every point here is unsubstantiated, exagerrated, or completely false.

Also, I simply LOVE how some here say America is big into propaganda and misinformation, yet here you are alleging our state participates broadly in torture by our handling of illegal combatants.

You are suckers to Al Qaeda propaganda, memos have been captured atesting to the fact that members are taught in claiming torture, because they know the paper tigers, the cut your nose to spite your face crowd will shrek in horror agains the Evil Empire that America is. Remember when Americans were defacing the Koran at Gitmo?!?! Oh wait that's right it was an Al Qaeda prisoner; all the stink made world wide that led to several deaths at this great and patently false story perpetuated by the likes of the American media and Al Qaeda/Anti-west agents seemed to fall on deaf ears.

I find that funny.

Your nose is bleeding. Are you going to punch back, or tuck your tail?

I appreciate you saying so. Thank you.

Seaver - good reply... I didn't forget, I'll have to think about it (and sleep)before I write back, but Politicophile #27 made some great points...

That is you though and not nessarly everyone. Many people have different views. For instance some women would rather die then be raped. When it comes to the fundimental Muslim world view this is especially true. To many fundimental muslims they would rather die and go the heaven then have pigs blood poured on them. In addition i believe a lot more happend there then being naked and forced to stand for long periods of time. Anyone know what was all shown in those photos/videos? I seem to recall the recent pictures shown in the Austriallian newspapers showed something like men being sadamized or forced into different homosexual activites.

When I see actual torture going on (Abu Graib excluded, it was a terrible mistake that was corrected) I'll have sympathy.

At the moment it's only Al Queda and their lawyers who are screaming this. The UN have been invited MANY times to come see whats going on, yet they say no.

So... the UN Humanities division, led by China/Libya/Saudi Arabia (the worst offenders in the world) decry the US for torturing victims. Victims who were never talked to in person. About situations that were not investigated because it was taken at face value. In a base that no member of the UN has actually been to.

So I'll sell you a car that gets 200 mpg, goes 0-60 in 2sec flat, and gives women spontanious orgasms when they sit down... all for the price of $5. Dont believe me? I could have sold plenty to the UN if I spoke Arabic and was anti-US.

The bottom sentence, in bold print in the bottom quote box of this post, sez it all....

Those who do not question and challenge authority now, while still legally permitted to do so, will ultimately have blood on their hands, because they stood by and did nothing while the opportunity for a non-violent and effective restoration of the pre-9/11 provisions of the American Consitution was still a possibility.

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss....

The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris">hubris</a> that leaps off the pages of
this thread and in the posts of the most prolific participants these days at this political
forum, is offensive to a number of us who exhibit a different way of looking at current events
in The U.S. and in the UK. Note the time frame when the Diego Garcia "Op" was executed.
The islanders were forcibly evacuated in the early 70's and U.S. military construction began in
1976. The "adults" were "in charge" of the U.S. government in those days....initially Nixon,
and subsequently, after Nixon's resignation, Ford was POTUS and Cheney was his COS, and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/paths/ford.html">Rumsfeld</a> was his SOD....and....they're back......and too many Americans and Brits are still willing to follow them over a cliff....<b>in the name of C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-I-S-M not L-I-B-E-R-T-Y</b>

Hey our defense department only plants stories in the 'free' iraqi papers, but there's no propaganda.

Claiming the torture is alleged is pretty fun as well considering the debate is no longer whether or not it's torture, but whether or not you think torture is good or not. Remember that Saddam guy who was bad for torturing, well we picked up right where he left off. Nothing wins the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people like torture.

Lies and disinformation are the new freedom.

Thanks host, you summed it up better than I was. Great post.

Just a side note, construction started in 1971

So the British used basicly eminent domain (which is in fact something I hate but supported by the left) and the land goes back to the islanders in 10 years.

But thanks for the info host, I had no idea the US had such a vital naval and airbase there.

Yeah I'm not quite sure what the acquisition of an Island in the Indian Ocean has to do with my "liberties having been wagered at". Perhaps you could tell me? Or maybe address what myself and others have posted regarding the total fallacies being levied here regarding America's gross violations of civil liberties and international law? No takers?

Mojo if you want people to answer your question then ask it in a more realistic way. Asking what liberties have "you" lost is not valid. Asking what liberties have "someone" lost is more valid. Just because something hasn't happend to you doesn't mean it hasn't happend to someone. Ask that question and you will get more responses.

No one LOST liberties in Pan's post. It's Eminent Domain. It's always been around in the US.

Now if it was a post about using it to give to corporations for economic expansion... then I fully support the opposition to that.

Is he going to post about how eminent domain kicks an old lady out of her house so that a hospital can be built too?

What liberties have US citizens lost?

Fair enough Rekna, but I pose that question in such form deliberately. Some people here are painting with a pretty broad brush, like there are some horrendous and blatant violations going on; as being apart of the citizenry that is being affecting I pose them selfishly, sorry.

What are some incidents were there are sweeping and gross violations of citizens liberty?

I understand why you posted it that way but you have to figure the sample size of this forum is probably 20-30 people. To try and draw conculsions on the effects of the patriot act from that sample size is very missleading. Hopefully someone will look up some info because I don't have any time at the moment.

Back to the original topic, I just wanted to post the true price of my liberty.

http://www.rightonblog.net/media/arlington.jpg

Having served and retired, this is the price that was paid for every single American, from the brave to the chicken shit flag burner.

I haven't lost any liberties, there aren't any men in black suits following me around.
The day they drag me or shall I say attempt to drag me from my house will be the day I will be concerned about losing my liberties.

Mojo, first of all, every post you make is combative and intentionally laden with smug insults ("the tin foil hat crew"), so do me a favor and try to correct that. It makes you sound opinionated to the point of obnoxiousness, which in turns encourages personal attacks rather than good debate.

Addressing your concerns, I am not saying that the US Government has already made gross transgressions on the liberties and freedoms of the American people. I am saying that because US Government power is becoming more centralized while at the same time becoming gradually more independant of the structural mechanisms of democracy in place to ensure the government acts in a way which reflects the society it presides over, rather than large powerful parties who could trade influence to mutually benefit a social elite, I am worried.

This is not to say that the Government will DEFINITELY be evil and abuse it's citizens. But, what incentive does any monopoly have to provide an ever-improving product at as low a price as possible to it's customers? It simply doesn't--altruism is not an inherent human quality. The government wants must always compete with society's wants, and together the things mutually agreed upon will be accepted as societial standards. This works because if the people don't like what's going on, they are free to organize, say whatever they want as publicly as they want, and rally society into voting into new representation which will change the rules society has become galvanized against. The US has already been through a historic period where citizens were for all intents and purposes censored from criticism of the government--it was called The McCarthy Era. I believe terrorism propaganda based public fear propaganda has many similarities to communist fear propaganda from decades ago--what's to stop history from repeating itself?

I believe it is the kind of citizen who will stand up and not allow the arbitrary monitoring of private conversations or transactions of fellow citizens by their government--even if by not having this capability the government is in a weaker position to defend the country.

A citizen who is willing to foregoe a little bit extra safety in exchange for not compromising the things which keep their guaranteed liberties truly guaranteed.

I hope this helps, please try to play nice.

and for a moment there I thought someone had some examples of liberty lost. shucks.

Sorry Kangaeru, I am just perpetually upset by all innate smugness and holier then thou attitude from the more liberal members, coupled with the claims levied here on the boards, the little liberal one line snip bits regarding Guantanmo and the various provisions of the patriot act, all this things that are somehow violating and a threat to American liberty and ideals; everytime I provide examples, they get at best overlooked and no response.

This can even be seen even in your last post, that almost entirely changes its tone. Through out this discussion you had made comments and charges that I had responded to with facts, American law, American precedent and ignored them, then changed your direction from making broad and sweeping charges to going to hypotheticals. Furthermore and for the record, it needs to be reiterated, America is not now nor has it ever been a democracy.

So.. what liberties were lost?

The right to check out a book from a library and be sure it won't get your name on a list ;)

This is the classic example cited by opponents of the USA PATRIOT Act. I apologize for being frank but... who the fuck cares? Seriously.

The freedom of speech or expression or whatever constitutional right you want to appeal to does not protect your ability to go to a government-funded library to check out books without having one's name and reading habits recorded. If you are so peeved about other people knowing what you read, don't check books out of the library: read them in the library or buy them from a bookstore.

The fact that opponents of the USA PATRIOT Act use this example with annoying frequency leads me to believe they have no freaking clue which, if any, of their rights are being violated. This whole library things sounds like inarticulate propaganda to me.

If you use a frequent shopper card at your favorite grocery store, your buying habits are recorded. I don't care if anyone knows what I buy, what I read, what I eat, or anything else about me. I am free to choose to buy what I want, read what I want, and eat what I want.

Look at the bill of rights, and tell me which freedom you've lost. I just don't see it.

The difference there is 1) it is volentary and 2) the government can't access that information (maybe they can with a warrent but i'm not sure).

How about the right to due process (zacharious moussaoui).

I'm completely against holding people without a fair trial reguardless of how henious a crime we believe or know they have done. My logic is this: If you know he is guilty then you can prove it if you can't prove it then you don't know he is guilty.

But you have to borrow books at the library?

Here is a good read on the contervisial provisions in the patriot act

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/pat...otactdeal.html

The ones that I have problems with are "Access to records" again I don't think I should be profiled based on shopping, reading, driving, ect habbits. To say if you have nothing to fear... which I don't.... doesn't change my arguement. Here is why. There may come a time when our government is no longer serving the needs of the people. If this time comes true then I would hate to have this infastructure in place in which citizens fighting for their rights are doomed because the government already has us watched with increadible scruitny. Our founding fathers new this and that is why they have charged the american people with the duty to overthrow the government if it is no longer serving them.

Another one I have a problem with is Material support. what exactly does that mean? If i fix a friends computer who is a member of some terrorist group and I don't know this I could be guilty of terrorism. If I were a martial arts teacher and a terrorist took my class I could be guilty of terrorism. If I am a car salesman and I sell a car to a terrorist I could be guilty of terrorism. If I work at walmart..... ect

atually for my work many times yes. I can buy the same groceries without using the card but I can't checkout the books without getting a record. see the differerence?

I'm not in the US, but for my part I share that view.

If we don't stand up for the essential freedoms, the key ones to me being rule of law and due process (no not the right to bear arms) - then we have nothing left.

Security laws are fine to some extent - but they'll never remove the possibility of a terrorist attack. The only safegaurd against terror ultimately, is to be less easily terrified.

Moussaoui has had more then a far trial, the court has bent over backwards dealing with his antics to ensure he has a fair trial. Perhaps you meant Jose Padilla, but the courts have upheld how the administration proceeded with that case.

Also as far as the Patriot Act goes, people really have no clue about it, I've never delved deeply into the text; but I do know that most of the laws that entail the patriot have existed on the books for along time, only their application was for people like the mafia/racketering type stuff. Plus to boot a lot of the contentious provisions have been brought before the courts amicus curiae and have been subject to review.

I think you are right. I was thinking about Padilla. The one who was held for years without being charged with a crime or allowed access to a lawyer. Even if the courts did rule in favor of the administration I still believe that it was a gross violation of the US constitution. Arresting people and holding them without charging them with a crime and letting them defend themselfs is against our constitution. Case in point, every time I hear about peaceful protestors being arrested at a Bush ralley I cringe. I mean is it really a crime to where a shirt that says you don't like Bush? These people get arrested and held for a day before they are released and they have commited no crime at all. That is wrong.

I going to have to say you are wrong as far as Padilla is concerned. The circumstances surrounding his arrest and designation are complex as he was a citizen, but precedents stemming from historical cases like Ex Parte Quirin, only it was not Quirin rather Haupt I believe, was a citizen who forfeited his status. At any rate arresting a citizen based on the designation of an "illegal combatant" is contentious, as such Padilla served alot of time in part due to a stay of ruling by the courts, namely inpart on the Solicitor General. As it goes, from what I understand there was alot of confusion surrounding Padilla's detention in that the jurisdiction was also messed up, improper authorities were filing if memory serves, that another reason why he served so much time in limbo. At any rate, long story short, you are well within your rights to contend that he was held against the constitution, but federal courts at all levels would seemingly disagree with you. Padilla is a new precedent in American law, that's why there was so many problems surrounding the whole situation.

And herein...lies the truth

I think of it more as a meaningless cliche. It sounds good but means nothing.

I can be less terrified all I want. In fact I could not be terrified at all, but if I'm in a plane that gets hijacked and slammed into the capitol, terrified or not, I'm still dead, terrorists still hijacked a plane killed everyone on board and many people in the capitol. So, not being terrified at all is not a safeguard against terrorism.

Whats wrong with records being kept with what you read at a library? The books are publicly funded. Therefore there should be safeguards that those that use said books are using to keep the public interest (i.e. not terrorism).

If you dont want to, buy a book instead of using the library. It's the same as me telling the cashiers "No" when they ask for my address/telephone number.

I believe my liberty is not something that should be held in front of me like a carrot on a stick. I'm free. If you feel the need to want to control me, whoever you may be, you had better be prepared for a fight.

What freedoms have we lost? Name any law.

In order to ward off fear, people want security. In order to provide a sense of security a government must enact measures that do impinge on what we have typically considered to be civil liberties. The result is a complex situation that requires careful balancing and constant observation to ensure that the people are protected to the best degree possible while maintaining individual freedoms.

The price of my liberty?
Vigilance to ensure that my family and friends are as protected as they can be while still maintaining the rights that we hold so dearly.

Whats wrong with it is the next step..... what if next they require google to give them individual browsing habbits.... how many of you would be upset if all the sudden the admin decided to target people who look at porn and issue search warrents at all their houses because they *might* have child porn.

So in other words you really haven't lost anything but you object to the potential of losing something in the future like your porn?

This is what brings the calls of the greatest loss of liberty in American history? :rolleyes:

So....if by chance, one decides to be unafraid of terrorism , for whatever reason.....this will have no effect on how it works?

Surely, you do not believe this to be true.

Actually Ustwo I don't look at porn, thanks for assuming. But i was phrasing the argument in a way that would impact most of the men on these forums (and many of the women). The idea is what if the government starts using this information to profile people. Let's say anyone who buys alcohol gets search warrents served on them to make sure they aren't doing drugs also.

I'm sorry, but I have a MUCH harder time accepting the forced gun registration than internet or library logging. Yet you support the government knowing every single person who owns a gun (only legally, a very small % of guns used in crime), but looking up how to build bombs out of Walmart supplies is protected?

Actually Seaver, I don't have a problem with people owning guns. I do have a problem with people who aren't properly trained owning guns and people bringing guns to places they shouldn't be (say a bar....). I don't have a problem with people having a gun in their house or car. As for conceled carrying I'm still undecided on the issue.

Thats fair enough Rekna, but take a cross section on the people crying the sky is falling and I'd bet the VAST majority are the same ones who argue about the outlawing of guns or severe restrictions thereupon. Just amazes me.

Not to be rude, but lets deal with the corporeal, tangible.

Crinkle, Crinkle; Where's the Reynolds?

If one walked blindly into death without fear for themselves or others then yes it would effect how it works.

Anyone who has a family knows how ones instincts are to protect it, and as such it means nothing.

Call it terror, fear, or just concern, this is not something you ignore until it goes away.

I know I don't have to inform you of the events I'm referencing, but nothing in the Patriot Act frightens me nearly as much as the lack of punishment for those involved in the Ruby Ridge fiasco.

For those who don't wish to Google "Randy Weaver" or "Ruby Ridge," a citizen was entrapped by agents of the US government, and his refusal to infiltrate a group the government wanted to investigate resulted in federal agents shooting his wife and son to death. This is a very abridged version. The US government was found to have lied in the subsequent court case, and Randy received a $3 million settlement. However, his family members were still dead, and to my knowledge, none of the perpetrators have been punished in any way.

That scares me a hell of a lot more than the Patriot Act, and very few people seem to have gotten excited about it, or remember it.

Two family members were the cost of Weaver's freedom. It annoys the hell out of me that so few people are aware of the "incident," but (semi-threadjack) so many were referencing "manslaughter" in regard to Cheney's problem.

Agreed....but there is a level of fear that is counter productive, such as we see in the "War on Terror", the threat does not seem to justify the reaction. Mind you, I in no way mean to minimize the pain inflicted on our country by 9/11, as this was a truly terrorizing event, but in my opinion we have become focused on increasing the fear in our population to improve the taste of security measures. The creation of this enormous government entity we call the Dept. of Homeland Security is a prime example, as it seems (from what I have seen) to be disfunctional for the most part, and has completely failed to address massive security issues ie: Borders/Ports/chemical and nuclear plants/disaster preperation.
If we, as a people intend to face this threat to our way of life...we will need to get over the collective fear instilled in us by the enemy, otherwise the enemy is ourselves, and we willl continue to fight the symptoms of this, rather than the cause. Just My Opinion.

I remember it very well. The feds acted like common thugs, trying to apprehend a former green beret. Weaver’s kid then killed a deputy which started the whole tragic ball rolling. When confronted with this horrible episode, President Bush Sr. managed to sit on it until he was out of office.

Most of the people behind Ruby Ridge not only got away without punishment, they are now back in the decision making process under Bush jr

Really? So they were fired by Clinton (who had even worse with Wako) and then rehired by the bush admin to do make the decisions?

Oh Bush is there anything you don't do wrong? :crazy:

Not much. Waco, by the way, was an operation started by Bush sr's administration. They told the incoming admin that David Koresh was stockpiling illegal weapons and cornholing 12 year olds.

What was it with Bush sr. and his crazy BATF stuff anyways? Still jonesing to be back in the CIA?

this is kind of a funny thread:

the op tried to generate a non-partisan discussion on a kind of abstract question concerning civil liberties and what resulted was a long thread that gave the lumpenconservatives the chance to rehearse all their favorite memes: in this case:

the bush administration is a priori incapable of violating civil liberties.
the clinton administration was a priori incapable of not violating civil liberties.

the result of this little syllogism: accusations concerning the violation of civil liberties are a pure partisan issues.
they mean nothing in themselves.

the lumpenconservative set seems to be fine with this, not so much because the position is coherent, but because it dissolves one of the legion of trajectories across which fundamental critiques of the bushsquad could be elaborated. but this interpretation assumes a certain distance, a certain cynicism with reference to questions of civil liberites. but there is no such distance in the posts above from the lc-types.

on the other hand, when it comes to the officially sanctioned rightwing relation to the clinton administration, questions of civil liberites are concrete and violations everywhere.

it seems absurd to hold up the criterion that the violation of civil liberties can be indexed via the personal/emotional sense of being-violated--which is, both above from the far right loyalists and in general in conservativeland, the standard against which this question is evaluated.

for the lumpenconservatives, this line goes directly to tautology:

this administration cannot violate civil liberties because it is headed up by Our Guy, made up of Our Guys.

the relation to Our Guy is properly infantile: in this scenario, george w bush is something of the Spectral Father---and the lumpenconservatives like children who see in the Father powerful, near omniscient--the source of Authority, the Protector-Dad---because rooted in some kind of identification with the Father, the administration's motives are necessarily understood (if at all) as pure---it follows then that the actions of the Father are necessarily rational---He is trying to protect his flock from chaos, destruction death and other Bad Things---He is motivated, like God, by an infinite love for us, his Children---so violations of civil liberties are impossible----particularly if you hold up the sense of being-violated as a legitimate measure.

so for many of the more rabid conservatives above, the matter of civil liberties has been entirely instrumentalized---it is a tactic, an issue to be raised and taken seriously at certain officially sanctioned moments, and to be dissolved at other officially sanctioned moments---the idea of civil liberties means nothing in itself.

that way you get to avoid pesky questions of law.
but then again, law that would be violated by Our Guy is linked to the state as source of Irrationality....civil liberties are legal limits on power, articulated to check the actions of the state---so long as Our Guy is at the helm, these checks are themselves irrational--questions of violation of law are in the case of Our Guy irrelevant--anything goes---particularly if you take seriously the lumpenconservative claim that what really matters is the personal sense of being-violated---because support for the bushpeople is so deeply elaborated as a type of identification, it follows (again) that meaningful violations of civil liberties are impossible.


if an Enemy is in power, however, these same checks are fundamental.

the martyrologies of waco and ruby ridge are both repellent indices of the devolution of the conservative coalition during the clinton period: waco was an index of the assimilation of extreme right religious organizations (centered on assimilating a sense of being-martyr), weaver an index of the assimilation of the militia movement into the main stream of conservative ideology. across the revisions of both into incidents in a far right book of martyrs followed a reinforcement of the image of bill clinton as the Evil Persecuting Dad---the offically sanctioned emotional response to the Evil Dad is a sense of being-violated at every point---threatened by a malevolent Father, the children displace their anxiety onto a symbolic conflict concerning possession of the Phallus--in this case, guns--which serve as a fundamental signifier in the playing out of this tedious extreme right scenario of politics as Family Drama.

the conclusion: the conservative Children play out delusions of autonomy across the matter of Phallic power--this is of a piece with the truly bizarre combination of complete, often abject, support for the actions of Our Guy and its correlate--the impression that many on the right can hold that their abject relation to the Conservative Father is in fact the opposite of the abject, an expression of Free Will, a positive Choice. all this functions to do is to dissolve any problem that folk who identify with the lumpenconservative set could possibly raise about the nature, quality and implications of their particular mode of interacting with the Political.


i would worry about this dissolving of the notion of civil liberites into a pure tactic.
on the other hand, it is not surprising to see so many conservative loyalists above
not worried at all. they support the right to possess guns, the commodity that means Freedom. possessing Guns, the commodities that indicates Freedom, means that they have the problem of civl liberties sussed out.

anything goes.
Dad wouldn't hurt us.

:lol:

So are you trying to imply that Waco is Bush's fault? If not why bring it up?

Logic path here....

Bush Sr. - We are worried about this group in Texas, they are stockpiling weapons and may be abusing children.

Clinton - Ok we will deal with it.

*pile of bodies later*

Left - Its Bush's fault!

The ONLY reason Ruby Ridge was not made into as big deal by the press as it deserved was that it was a white supremisist as the victim. Just think what would have happened had they done the same to a hippy commune.

oddly i've heard the same argument as to why 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

RB, I really don't know what you are saying. Your post is dismissive and hypocritical, as you, like many people here in this thread whole line of reasoning d thought stems from the fact that you don't like conservatives or Bush.

How about rather then thumbing your nose at me because I am a "lumpen conservative" you put forth something concrete as to how Bushco is taking away civil liberties? Your post was redundant and pointless has you rant for several paragraphs about one point; that our whole line of thinking regarding the issue of erosion of civil liberties is completely wrong because we have some psychological infantile model of thinking, whereas we only say there is no erosion because we support "our guy" and the "bushsquad".

Nevermind, that I have approached this legal/constitutional matter in the proper framework, that of as objective, and in my own personal mold of being a strict constructionist. Myself and others hear have not once referred to Bush here in posts countering all these accusations, we have used things such as the law and precedent, reference to the constitution.

Maybe besides ranting and raving, and thus making me do the same, you being so fervent in knowing us conservatives are wrong, why don't you provide an example of how Bushco is evil and eroding American Civil Liberties; I promise you I will be objective/non partisan/ and use the same mold of constructionist reasoning in addressing any grievances. Who knows maybe you will help me learn something.

You left out an important factor in your dialogue there.

Bush Sr. - We are worried about this group in Texas, they are stockpiling weapons and may be abusing children. This is the plan our guys have drawn up for it, we'll surround them for a week playing bad music, then go ass crazy shooting everything in sight.

Thank you Mojo.

RB, we "bushco" supporters asked a simple question in reply to the OP. We have not recieved an answer. Us "neocons" have posted more examples of decaying rights than anyone else on this thread. When that changes you can freely attack us all you want. Until then dont let your blind hatred speak for you.

Actually, the original plan (which I'm assuming Bush drew up) was to nab David Koresh while he was in town, except the ATF blew it three seperate times and lead to the cult being tortured and burned to death in their compound outside of Waco.

Yea I hear he had a plan for burning the kids too. :rolleyes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intellectual honesty is key to having meaningful dialog, sadly what I see is peoples world view being used to color any meaningful doubt in this thread. When you assume a position that Bush and the administration is evil and use any information to connect the dots in any way possible to prove this evil you have eliminated the possibility of discovering they may not be evil. This blind hatred has been the hallmark of the left since 2000, and it has stifled any debate. We hate Republicans has been the lefts rally cry for the last 6 years.

Now before I get accused of the same, (which is the common tactic on this board), you will have to understand that when someone claims that posts 'Bush planned the Iraq war in 2000' or 'They are wiretapping international calls by suspected terrorists illegally' I don't really care because I agree with the philosophy behind both. Both might be true, though I will not accept left wing hearsay as proof, but even if true I don't really care, as I think both are good long term policy. I am upset with the Republicans as a rule for allowing the spending spree to continue, but there is no viable alternative there for me.

If you don't like Bush or his policies that fine and good, but don't play twister with logic to attempted to prove it.

RB is right about one thing, this is a funny thread.

It was meant to be a bi-partisan conversation, hypothetically based, issues such as, is the benefits of improved govt security vs privacy rights and freedom from scrutiny.

At what point does a necessity for security justify erasing some constitutional privacy rights?

Hypothetical, such as, if the US were like Israel and we had bombs going off all the time, I'd be okay with it.

Or in my case, because our freedoms are what should define us as a country, no matter how dangerous America ever got, I wouldn't want that to change. I would rather find other means.

This was never meant to be examples, right here right now, X Y and Z are being taken away. It's a purely hypothetical question which can be supported by some current events but by no means proven one way or another.

You all brought your bigotted, hardened agendas here, which is why we got mired in this crap. That's why the Politics forum is becoming a waste of time to read or to post in. No one wants to be neutral about anything, it's always someone trying to ram their opinion down your throat like it's going to save your life from darkness.

Well, I tried.