NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, not to sound overly paranoid, but way before 911, back when huge street protests were a rising tide sweeping over various nations on earth, I predicted over a pint that one day soon, something would cause the authorities to crack down on the mass demonstrations that were increasingly common and throw suspicion on all protestors. Now, I don't claim to be any more foresighted than the common person...it wasn't hard to predict that one day some protestors would go too far, get violent, and give the police all the justification they needed to crack down. After the protester in Italy was shot and killed by police, I worried that this might provoke retaliation, ending in a total crackdown on any mass demonstrations. It didn't, and the popular movement continued to gain momentum.

Yet who could have predicted 911? Sure, a terrorist act aimed at the U.S was not unthinkable...but one so successful and dramatic was. At first, protests after this event did not seem appropriate. Then, with new anti-terrorism laws being passed in so many countries, being a protestor suddenly could earn you the title of terrorist. We thought it would pass with time, but instead, that attitude seems to be increasing. The world is tensed, waiting for the next disaster. The recent tsunami was almost a relief, allowing us all a chance to reclaim our humanity and help out our fellow human beings, regardless of ethnic or religious background. This brief respite, born of a tragedy that lays the blame at no one's feet will pass, and once again, we will return to the slow build up of militarism that seems destined to throw us back into a Cold-War like mindset of fear and uncertainty. When will 'they' strike next? Who will the U.S target next? What will the reaction be?

It is very frustrating to be a passive player in this. As an individual citizen, I can not stop or start this play from being acted out. All I know is that the world feels considerably less safe to me now than it did four years ago. Issues that were once at the forefront of discussion, things like poverty, human rights, new ways of organising, have all been forced to the backburner in favour of unilateralism and preemptive military action. They seem less important now, despite the fact that in the post 911 world, these issues are still very much in need of a solution. Even women's groups, who were making great strides forward all over the world have issued declarations saying that now is not the time to enter into any sort of negotiations at regional, or international levels. To do so, in such a climate of conservatism could lead to rulings that would undue some of the successes so hard-won. All eyes are on Iraq and the U.S, and meanwhile, governments are seizing the opportunity to 'clean house'. Anti-terrorism laws have been a perfect tool in keeping protests to a minimum, (either by directly banning large demonstrations, or by allowing governments to increase surveillance on known protest groups). I am glad that I decided 10 years ago to never put my name on any list affiliated with ANY political organisation. I got flack for it then, but hopefully my police file has nothing more than photographs placing me at protests.

That isn't to say that I feel we should not continue to work for change. It is simply a recognition that these are tense times. People are scared, and scared people let laws that protect human rights to be bent sometimes if they think it might make them safer. This can affect those of of Arab decent, or Muslims (for not all Muslims are Arabic), or outspoken dissenters.

I only hope this climate of fear and aggression does not last as long as the Cold War did. I would prefer to raise my children in a climate of peace...barring that, a climate of tolerance and freedom would be acceptable. That includes allowing the protest movement the freedom to breathe once again.

no

Not really.

Shit, you can't stop the threat of terrorism and still have a free and open society. I'm not afraid. One can't live in fear. I just think we should establish horrific consequences to any attack on the USA. Make them think twice.

I believe we are safer, with so much money and attention being put into counter terrorism.

Shit, you can't stop the threat of terrorism and still have a free and open society. I'm not afraid. One can't live in fear. I just think we should establish horrific consequences to any attack on the USA. Make them think twice.

Just to clarify...do you think we should have that free and open society, or do you think it is a necessary sacrifice in order to battle terrorism?

If it IS necessary (in your eyes), when can things 'return to normal'? With such a nebulous 'war' (as is the 'war on drugs'), how can we tell when we've won?

What kind of horrific consequences do you have in mind? Would they apply to the terrorists only, or would you include their nation of birth in the punishment as well?

I believe we are safer, with so much money and attention being put into counter terrorism.

Do you believe that that money and attention will stop terrorism? Can you afford to continue spending money and focusing on this target indefinitely? At what point will it no longer be feasible or desirable to do so?

Safety is still an illusion. And I don't think it's necessarily the government's job to keep everyone safe. I mean if it was, no one would go to prison (where it is decidedly unsafe) or Iraq.

So I really just have pity on people who think they're safer now, when of course they could easily die today to any one of nine billion government-unpreventable causes. "At least terrorism, one of the least likely causes of my death, is less of a threat! Whew! All safe!"

Just to clarify...do you think we should have that free and open society, or do you think it is a necessary sacrifice in order to battle terrorism?

If it IS necessary (in your eyes), when can things 'return to normal'? With such a nebulous 'war' (as is the 'war on drugs'), how can we tell when we've won?

What kind of horrific consequences do you have in mind? Would they apply to the terrorists only, or would you include their nation of birth in the punishment as well?
Keep the free and open society.

Act as if everything is normal. Just don't take stupid chances like letting people with weapons who aren't sky marshals on planes.

The horrific consequences should apply to the terrorists, those who fund them, and any nation that knowingly supports or houses them.

Safety is still an illusion. And I don't think it's necessarily the government's job to keep everyone safe. I mean if it was, no one would go to prison (where it is decidedly unsafe) or Iraq.

So I really just have pity on people who think they're safer now, when of course they could easily die today to any one of nine billion government-unpreventable causes. "At least terrorism, one of the least likely causes of my death, is less of a threat! Whew! All safe!"
That's a good point....I mean, you are much more likely to die in an automobile accident, or even be hit by lightning than you are (at least in Canada and the U.S) of being a victim of terrorism. Is it reasonable to invest so much time in energy on this one issue? AIDS alone kills more people world wide than have been killed in recent terrorist acts...yet it is not a priority anymore.

Keep the free and open society.

Act as if everything is normal. Just don't take stupid chances like letting people with weapons who aren't sky marshals on planes.

The horrific consequences should apply to the terrorists, those who fund them, and any nation that knowingly supports or houses them.
Do you think that so much money should be poured into anti-terrorism then? Will it actually make a difference? Your points are quite reasonable...do they need to be backed up with an increase in militarization, or should be do as we did before 911 (albeit, with a little more caution)?

Do you think that so much money should be poured into anti-terrorism then? Will it actually make a difference? Your points are quite reasonable...do they need to be backed up with an increase in militarization, or should be do as we did before 911 (albeit, with a little more caution)?
I'm always in favor of a bigger, more effective military. (the two don't always go hand in hand)

Yes, more funding than pre 9/11 is necessary, but only for more inspectors for cargo and more security guards to search people at the airports (the wait can sometimes be annoying).

Funding secular boarding schools in muslim countries would be nice too. The Saudis fund madrasses that teach Islam is the only true religion, women are inferior to men, and Jews and secular people are the enemy. Let's fight those ideas with better ones, like no religion has any proof, women are as valuable as men, and leaders who would turn you into a human guidance system for a bomb are the enemy.

I'm always in favor of a bigger, more effective military. (the two don't always go hand in hand)

Yes, more funding than pre 9/11 is necessary, but only for more inspectors for cargo and more security guards to search people at the airports (the wait can sometimes be annoying).

Funding secular boarding schools in muslim countries would be nice too. The Saudis fund madrasses that teach Islam is the only true religion, women are inferior to men, and Jews and secular people are the enemy. Let's fight those ideas with better ones, like no religion has any proof, women are as valuable as men, and leaders who would turn you into a human guidance system for a bomb are the enemy.

We do actually fund some secular schools throughout the muslim world (well, through the whole world, actually) through various NGOs and the UN. In fact, UNICEF has developed good curriculum that can be adapted to various communities in order to incorporate local interests. That doesn't mean these school are run by UNICEF...usually the teachers are local women or international volunteers, and some religious aspect MAY be incorporated, but the idea behind this is to increase literacy among children and adult in every nation. What I would NOT like to see is a U.S developed based on U.S history and the like. An internationally developed curriculum is much preferred. I like the idea of pushing education more, though. Educated people feel less hopeless and are less likely to become extremists religiously. Not to say that educated people don't become extreme...911 has proven that it can indeed happen. I think it's a good start, though, as long as those schools don't become ideological training grounds for the West to promote anti-government sentiment. Let the people come to that conclusion on their own.

Is there anyone here who participated in actions such as demonstrations, or who do political work that now (post 911) feel less free to do so now? Have current world events curtailed your political activity in any way?

Is there anyone here who participated in actions such as demonstrations, or who do political work that now (post 911) feel less free to do so now? Have current world events curtailed your political activity in any way?
I think twice before visiting some websites or running a search on certain words. That royally sucks.

I live in a place where 9/11 should be referred to as 11/9, in a place when we've been dealing with terrorism on our own turf for some time now. As such I don't really feel any different now than I did before, though I don't feel particularly safe.

I think twice before visiting some websites or running a search on certain words. That royally sucks.

By no means do I think internet screening is a new thing...just that there is more funding for it now. I watched an investigative report on a Canadian muslim in Ontario who was tagged for sending emails about a bomb plot in London as well as visiting sites that showed how to construct bombs. The people screening for such things were based in the U.S. As his case was described, put together, all the things he was doing looked suspicious, but it got me thinking....I signed out Che Guevara's book, "Guerrilla Warfare" once, and it shows how to make small bombs, and how to clean guns and conduct urban warfare....I love paintball, and do it on land owned by friends rather than pay the fees to go to a range....I have some pretty radical friends who might be up to things I'm not fully aware of...and at times, I can write some pretty inflammatory things about the U.S without truly meaning it. That is essentially the case with this man...though the story goes much deeper. Point being, I don't exactly do things the way I'm expected to as a middle class teacher...could my actions at some point make me a target if Natives start becoming suspects? It's really rather chilling how such a case could be made based on such a series of coincidences..I could absolutely picture my younger brother visiting a site on bomb making just for kicks, without actually intending on making one, but it could mean trouble ESPECIALLY if you are of the 'wrong' decent or religion, or a card-carrying member of an out-of-favour political group.

I feel as safe as before... or maybe even safer than before. I don't think small neutral countries were high on terrorists' hit lists before, but after recent events I'm sure we haven't been going up either.

I feel as safe as before... or maybe even safer than before. I don't think small neutral countries were high on terrorists' hit lists before, but after recent events I'm sure we haven't been going up either.
So your government hasn't enacted any major changes that has affected freedoms of politcal dissenters? Have you noticed any changes in the political atmosphere? I don't know much about Finland's history of political action to begin with...was there much before 911, and what is it like now?

There are no "terrorists!" Its a catch phrase the US Goverment has coined to convince the public that invading other countries is necessary. 9/11 happened because the Arab nations hate the US because we fund Israel, which prides itself on killing innocent Palestinians....who are Arabs. 9/11 will happen again and again until our government stops supporting a country founded on hate.

There are no "terrorists!" Its a catch phrase the US Goverment has coined to convince the public that invading other countries is necessary. 9/11 happened because the Arab nations hate the US because we fund Israel, which prides itself on killing innocent Palestinians....who are Arabs. 9/11 will happen again and again until our government stops supporting a country founded on hate.
Isreal was no more founded on hate than the U.S was....being Native, I have major issues with the slaughter of Indians, but I don't think that slaughter was the sole raison d'etre for the foundation of the U.S.

That being said, I agree that the U.S should stop supporting countries that violate human rights...but have some consistancy. Don't support some, just because they are good trading partners, while sanctioning others because they have nothing worth buying (or taking). If human rights is an issue in terms of U.S foreign policy in anything other than rhetoric, then, as Jean Luc Picard often said, "Make it so".

There are no "terrorists!" Its a catch phrase the US Goverment has coined to convince the public that invading other countries is necessary. 9/11 happened because the Arab nations hate the US because we fund Israel, which prides itself on killing innocent Palestinians....who are Arabs. 9/11 will happen again and again until our government stops supporting a country founded on hate.
No, it happened because Osama and his ilk want to weaken the US so that we stop supporting governments in the muslim world. That way when the muslim governments grow weak islamofascists can seize power, unify the muslim world under a caliph, and start spreading sharia to non-muslim lands and conquering territory.

Israelis kill palestinians in self defense, and sometimes in retalitation. They have to to protect their people.

Israelis kill palestinians in self defense, and sometimes in retalitation. They have to to protect their people.
So do the Palestinians. Fact is, neither side is completely wrong, or right.

Anywho....

No major changes Sinuhue. Certainly nothing affecting freedoms of politcal dissenters (like we had any :) ).
The changes in political atmosphere are like...'wait...should we still really stay out of NATO as we have in the past?'.
I'd say 9/11 was seen as a great tragedy here, but because of our 60+ years of non-alignment police we feel we are safe here and no major changes are needed. I sure hope somebody doesn't prove us wrong.

No major changes Sinuhue. Certainly nothing affecting freedoms of politcal dissenters (like we had any :) ).
The changes in political atmosphere are like...'wait...should we still really stay out of NATO as we have in the past?'.
I'd say 9/11 was seen as a great tragedy here, but because of our 60+ years of non-alignment police we feel we are safe here and no major changes are needed. I sure hope somebody doesn't prove us wrong.
I know how you feel...I just hope in Canada, the Prime Minister, Paul Martin can separate himself from Bush's ass long enough to keep us out of this. Anyway, he looks funny with his legs sticking out like that.

I don't feel any less safe. The chances of me or a member of my family getting killed are so tiny that it's not worth worrying about. Plus worrying about it won't prevent any attacks. All I want is for the UK to stay out of international politics and stay neutral in wars.

How can I not be safe? Why, look at all these pretty chains I have!

Lets face it, most of the people who feel safer were never in any danger to begin with. I mean, people in Kansas speaking out against terrorism and how they don't feel safe...WHY?! What, are we bombing corn fields now?

are we bombing corn fields now?
Get him!!!! He's a terrorist!!!!

... What, are we bombing corn fields now?
Yes! Are you?!? Are you trying to bring down the popcorn industry... of course movies and other media will crumble... ...GET HIM!!!

To repeat Twee: As a New Yorker, as a guy who works in the potential crater left by a WMD attack, I feel much less safe. I have very little confidence in DHS and I believe that the only reasons we haven't seen another attack is because there haven't been any attacks coming down the pipe.

I think this question hinges very much on location. Folks who live or work in areas that have been attacked or that have been named as potential targets (NY, DC, CA Bay Area, Seattle, government buildings, financial hubs) are naturally going to worry more about their vulnerability than folks in less dense or less financially or governmentally important areas. For example, when I visit family in less crowded areas, I don't even bother carrying my IoSat.

To repeat Twee: As a New Yorker, as a guy who works in the potential crater left by a WMD attack, I feel much less safe. I have very little confidence in DHS and I believe that the only reasons we haven't seen another attack is because there haven't been any attacks coming down the pipe.

I think this question hinges very much on location. Folks who live or work in areas that have been attacked or that have been named as potential targets (NY, DC, CA Bay Area, Seattle, government buildings, financial hubs) are naturally going to worry more about their vulnerability than folks in less dense or less financially or governmentally important areas. For example, when I visit family in less crowded areas, I don't even bother carrying my IoSat.
You forgot New Jersey. And Poland too I guess.

IoSat? You carry potassium iodide with You to protect You from radioactive iodine? Please say I got this all wrong. If ordinary people (please forgive me thinking you are ordinary...you are special in your own way..) do this... I really think there is hysteria.

IoSat? You carry potassium iodide with You to protect You from radioactive iodine? Please say I got this all wrong. If ordinary people (please forgive me thinking you are ordinary...you are special in your own way..) do this... I really think there is hysteria.

Lot of companies issue packets. It's inexpensive, it has a long shelf life, and it's effective in the event of dirty bomb or meltdown. There's a reactor just across LI sound.

(They also issue an automatic, forty dollars in Dinars, forty dollars in gold coin, two prophylactics, three lipsticks, and a box of granola bars. Just kidding about that part.)

"Do you feel less safe in the post 911 world?"

Safety is an illusion, so I have to say "no."

You forgot New Jersey. And Poland too I guess.

Yeah, you're in the crater too, homes. I guess it is a little insensitive to refer to the whole metro as "NY."

Lot of companies issue packets. It's inexpensive, it has a long shelf life, and it's effective in the event of dirty bomb or meltdown. There's a reactor just across LI sound.

Well, dunno what to say... good luck with that. The price some have to pay I guess.

Here in south america things hare very much the same: mafia like corrupt goverments sometimes, really bad situations in some others, but this international terrorism CNN keeps telling me about has not made any big impact in our ways of living after all. Some very small groups of people may be paranoid but nor more than that.

I'm not particulary worried about a terrorist attack, I'm more concerned with my government using the possibility of such attacks to take away freedoms. It happend with Trudeau during the FLQ crisis, when he used the War Measures Act to suspend civil liberties, and also to crack down on all the dirty hippies that pissed him off so much...like I said, people are willing for the laws to be 'bent' when they're scared.

I feel that no matter what happens, there will never be a climate of "peace". It is human nature to wage war, and for as long as there is human civilization there shall be war. The '90's weren't a climate of peace, it just seemed that way. Wars were being waged all over the planet(and still are). The only times you have the impression of "peace" is when you are ignorant of the world around you. There will always be war and conflict, so no matter what happens, just live your life normally. It's not like by acting paranoid war will go away.

Here in south america things hare very much the same: mafia like corrupt goverments sometimes, really bad situations in some others, but this international terrorism CNN keeps telling me about has not made any big impact in our ways of living after all. Some very small groups of people may be paranoid but nor more than that.
What country in South America are you in? Some countries are more into this 'anti-terrorism' campaign than others.

Well, dunno what to say... good luck with that. The price some have to pay I guess.

It seems more rational to me than duct taping visqueen over my windows or digging a fallout shelter.

And I know a number of folks who go a step further and keep Cipro in their fridge door, next to the butter tray.

But that seems slightly wrong to me, seeing as how Cipro has a limited shelf life and other medical uses besides anthrax treatment. The jar they let spoil on the shelf could find use someplace else.

I feel that no matter what happens, there will never be a climate of "peace". It is human nature to wage war, and for as long as there is human civilization there shall be war. The '90's weren't a climate of peace, it just seemed that way. Wars were being waged all over the planet(and still are). The only times you have the impression of "peace" is when you are ignorant of the world around you. There will always be war and conflict, so no matter what happens, just live your life normally. It's not like by acting paranoid war will go away.
That all is true enough.I think the thread was about how you feel things are. People won't get far (or live long) with the mindset you just described. methinks (and i have gastric ulcer without the fear of being under an attack :) )

I'm not particulary worried about a terrorist attack, I'm more concerned with my government using the possibility of such attacks to take away freedoms. It happend with Trudeau during the FLQ crisis, when he used the War Measures Act to suspend civil liberties, and also to crack down on all the dirty hippies that pissed him off so much...like I said, people are willing for the laws to be 'bent' when they're scared.

What ... freedoms ... have ... you ... lost?

No matter how many times I ask this question, no one has ever been able to offer a satisfactory answer. If you like, I can list all of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution so you can tell me which ones you no longer have. And simply referring me to The Patriot Act does NOT answer the question!

What country in South America are you in? Some countries are more into this 'anti-terrorism' campaign than others.

Yes you are right, in fact my country (Chile) has taken considerable measures, compared to others in the region, to counter terrorist activities, but it almost entirely affects our capital

What ... freedoms ... have ... you ... lost?

No matter how many times I ask this question, no one has ever been able to offer a satisfactory answer. If you like, I can list all of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution so you can tell me which ones you no longer have. And simply referring me to The Patriot Act does NOT answer the question!

Sinuhue hasn't lost any, seeing how she lives in Canada but....

I agree with you.

It seems more rational to me than duct taping visqueen over my windows or digging a fallout shelter.

And I know a number of folks who go a step further and keep Cipro in their fridge door, next to the butter tray.

But that seems slightly wrong to me, seeing as how Cipro has a limited shelf life and other medical uses besides anthrax treatment. The jar they let spoil on the shelf could find use someplace else.
Oh! Believe me, I only mentioned it sounding 'panicky' in my earlier post because that's what behaviour like that seems from over here. I'm sure you do what you think is prudent. I'm just gasping at air and thanking my geopolitical situation right now. :)

I think that the threat of terrorism will always exist. There is no way to guarantee safety from terrorists, and the "War on Terror" will never really come to anything. There are simply too mnay seperatist groups in existance, they can't be dealt with at all. The best thing we can do, and this may seem uncouth or insensitive, but it's my opinion, is to just keep going as before.

If people start worrying overly about terrorist attacks, and witch-hunting anyone with an odd name, the terrorists have won already. We just have to grin and bear it. If they realise that we can't be beaten by cowardly attacks, perhaps terrorists might start taking chances. Then we can get rid of the craze for blowing yourself up and killing innocent people.

Israelis kill palestinians in self defense, and sometimes in retalitation. They have to to protect their people.

Thats BS and you know it. Britain kicked Palestinians out of their homes in 1948 to make room for Jews in the newly created Israel. Or have you forgotten that Israel was created on Palestinian land? Palestine has been fighting against the Jews because they dont want them as next door neighbours, nor do any Muslim nations, or anyone else for that matter. The Jews should take the hint, pack up their dradles, and leave.

Sinuhue hasn't lost any, seeing how she lives in Canada but....

I agree with you.
Oops! Heh! [ hastily retracts previous post! ] :headbang:

I feel that no matter what happens, there will never be a climate of "peace". It is human nature to wage war, and for as long as there is human civilization there shall be war. The '90's weren't a climate of peace, it just seemed that way. Wars were being waged all over the planet(and still are). The only times you have the impression of "peace" is when you are ignorant of the world around you. There will always be war and conflict, so no matter what happens, just live your life normally. It's not like by acting paranoid war will go away.
Hey, just to be clear here, I never said the 90s were peaceful. I just said that aside from being shot or beaten or tear gassed by cops every once and a while, people still felt okay about going out and joining in a massive protest. Such is no longer the case. I don't think I'm being particularly paranoid myself...I've seen a substantial increase in censorship (not by the government, but through media outlets that seem less willing to cover protests) and far fewer activists feel comfortable raising shit for fear they'll be targetted under new anti-terrorism legislation.

I'm sorry but I personally don't feel the need to worry about terrorism, as long as my buddies and I are doing our job, then i have nothing to worry about.

Yes you are right, in fact my country (Chile) has taken considerable measures, compared to others in the region, to counter terrorist activities, but it almost entirely affects our capital
Ahh, a Chilean... So, I have to ask you this... what do you think of 9/11..?
And I do mean 9/11 1973. Nice job bringing freedom in.. or something else?

Terrorism, doesn't worry me in the least - it's the nutcases you could encounter everyday. There is just too much "urban" attitude out there that make me cringe at the thought of my kids having to deal with it when they get older.

Difference used to be settled with a fistfight or brawl, now it's a onesided assault that usually ends up in a homocide. Knives seemed to be the weopon of choice these days, they're not illegal, and easy to dispose of. It's quick and dirty. That's because all of the assholes who brandish a knife know that they would probably get their ass kicked in a real brawl. So it's get the first/last shot in all in one 'stab'.

Just after the New Year, our city's largest paper summarized all murders that took place. Of all of the pictures posted, 80+% of the victims were not white. The ones that were, were elderly and were being robbed. Is it racial profiling? Sure, but the numbers don't lie. Most of these cultures are bringing their barbaric ways to what was a much more civilized country. We're emulating the U.S. in more ways than one, and it's down right scary.

I wonder what it will take to bring back Capital Punishment to our country - our health system is deteriorating, we might as well have some redemption in seeing some guy getting fried for murder rather than giving him a place to sleep and three meals a day.

Edit: Never mind...you know I'm Canuk now.

Did I say that freedoms have been expressly denied me (in Canada, by the way)? No. But I am worried about it happening through a 'relaxing' of the rules. Here's an example:

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was born in Syria (though he'd been in Canada since high school) was deported by the U.S during a trip to that country for nothing other than the 'suspicion of terrorist links' that were never proven. He wasn't deported to Canada, where he lived, but rather to Syria, where he was tortured. It is now alleged (by the U.S) that Canada tipped them off and was okay with this deportation, something that explicitly contravenes Canadian law...we CAN NOT extradite someone to a nation where they could be tortured or put to death. I blame this on my government, not yours.

This kind of thing is happening more and more...people are being deported for 'suspicions' rather than facts (meanwhile, real criminals fight through the courts and get to stay). We are 'bending' the rules because people are paranoid.

My husband, who is Chilean, happens to be able to pass as an Arab (or Greek, or any group of swarthy, black-haired people on earth), and was FINGERPRINTED at the airport (in Canada) when we went on a trip to Chile. No one told us why, but if he refused, we couldn't have boarded the plane. No one else in the group was fingerprinted. Again...it is written in stone that people who look Arabic are fingerprinted? No. Would it have happened pre 911...doubtful.

Do you see where I'm going here?

Ahh, a Chilean... So, I have to ask you this... what do you think of 9/11..?
And I do mean 9/11 1973. Nice job bringing freedom in.. or something else?

Yes that is a big question, I do not feel capable of answering but, can say that it was a truly a nice job of... brainwashing people. And killing thousands of others. chilean 9/11 destroyed a once full of life, polliticaly involved generation, and today, there is a feeling of nothing at all. It was may be a good job of depolitizing people, "sheep-ing" people

What ... freedoms ... have ... you ... lost?

No matter how many times I ask this question, no one has ever been able to offer a satisfactory answer. If you like, I can list all of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution so you can tell me which ones you no longer have. And simply referring me to The Patriot Act does NOT answer the question!

I've lost the right to a trial by jury of peers if I'm accused of terrorism.

Hey, just to be clear here, I never said the 90s were peaceful. I just said that aside from being shot or beaten or tear gassed by cops every once and a while, people still felt okay about going out and joining in a massive protest. Such is no longer the case. I don't think I'm being particularly paranoid myself...I've seen a substantial increase in censorship (not by the government, but through media outlets that seem less willing to cover protests) and far fewer activists feel comfortable raising shit for fear they'll be targetted under new anti-terrorism legislation.

What do you mean people don't feel safe about joining in Massive protests? I see them everywhere on the news; in Canada, in Britain, in Greece, in France, in Germany, in everywhere! In the United States at least, the Constitution still reigns above all. You can say whatever you think, whenever you think, as long as you don't kill someone in the process.

What ... freedoms ... have ... you ... lost?

No matter how many times I ask this question, no one has ever been able to offer a satisfactory answer. If you like, I can list all of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution so you can tell me which ones you no longer have. And simply referring me to The Patriot Act does NOT answer the question!

I find myself doing this a lot. The Patriot Act. Specifically, Section 213. If the police come to search my house, they don't have to show me a warrant at the time of the search. The right to "knock and announce" before a search goes back to the Magna Carta. Now that's a right I don't have. I'm not going to spell them all out, but Sections 215, 216, 218, 411, 412, 505, and 802 also curtail existing liberties or are sufficiently broad to allow for interpretation that would jeopardize liberties.

I know, to preempt your argument: "The right to knock and announce isn't a Constitutional right." I'm not saying that the Patriot Act curtails Constutional rights, just that it curtails rights we had prior to its passage. So, I'm ignoring your qualifier to answer your first question "What freedoms have we lost?" Not all the freedoms we enjoy are secured by the Constitution. If they were, the Patriot Act would have been struck down.

Terrorism, doesn't worry me in the least - it's the nutcases you could encounter everyday. There is just too much "urban" attitude out there that make me cringe at the thought of my kids having to deal with it when they get older.

Difference used to be settled with a fistfight or brawl, now it's a onesided assault that usually ends up in a homocide. Knives seemed to be the weopon of choice these days, they're not illegal, and easy to dispose of. It's quick and dirty. That's because all of the assholes who brandish a knife know that they would probably get their ass kicked in a real brawl. So it's get the first/last shot in all in one 'stab'.

Just after the New Year, our city's largest paper summarized all murders that took place. Of all of the pictures posted, 80+% of the victims were not white. The ones that were, were elderly and were being robbed. Is it racial profiling? Sure, but the numbers don't lie. Most of these cultures are bringing their barbaric ways to what was a much more civilized country. We're emulating the U.S. in more ways than one, and it's down right scary.

I wonder what it will take to bring back Capital Punishment to our country - our health system is deteriorating, we might as well have some redemption in seeing some guy getting fried for murder rather than giving him a place to sleep and three meals a day.

You're absolutely right. Racial profiling is a different way of saying "Oh shit, they're catching on that we cant live peacefully in society." Blacks make up about 13% of the American population, yet they commit between 20-60% of almost all crimes. Statistics do not lie. We dont need the death penalty, that costs too much money because they have to wait at least 7 years, meanwhile our tax dollars are feeding them. Those who break the rules, get shipped back to their country of origin.

Today's crime in America is not an American problem.

Yes you are right, in fact my country (Chile) has taken considerable measures, compared to others in the region, to counter terrorist activities, but it almost entirely affects our capital
Ah...but Lagos isn't nearly the puppet to Bush as Colombian President Uribe Velez....you also have to constantly worry that Bolivia is going to dip in there and steal access to a port, and Argentina loves to goad you by refusing to sell you gas....it's less an issue with terrorism abroad as regional considerations...

Thats BS and you know it. Britain kicked Palestinians out of their homes in 1948 to make room for Jews in the newly created Israel. Or have you forgotten that Israel was created on Palestinian land? Palestine has been fighting against the Jews because they dont want them as next door neighbours, nor do any Muslim nations, or anyone else for that matter. The Jews should take the hint, pack up their dradles, and leave.
I only hijack threads with dead baby jokes, and I only debate with rational people.

What do you mean people don't feel safe about joining in Massive protests? I see them everywhere on the news; in Canada, in Britain, in Greece, in France, in Germany, in everywhere! In the United States at least, the Constitution still reigns above all. You can say whatever you think, whenever you think, as long as you don't kill someone in the process.
I need your news channels then...in Canada or the U.S, when was the last massive protest?

Don't forget the government can spy on you on the internet and take a peek at your library racords now. And the sneak and peek searches. These may not affect me much now but they keep eroding our rights little by little. If they do it slowly maybe no one will notice.
Since I live in Oklahoma City, perhaps I should worry more about domestic terrorism. The government is just using this as an excuse to clamp down on the populace, the same as the bogus and ineffective war on drugs. Both parties do it. The only state easy to police is a police state.

Yes that is a big question, I do not feel capable of answering but, can say that it was a truly a nice job of... brainwashing people. And killing thousands of others. chilean 9/11 destroyed a once full of life, polliticaly involved generation, and today, there is a feeling of nothing at all. It was may be a good job of depolitizing people, "sheep-ing" people
Well, thats what I thought. But no tragedy big enough without summink good... because of 9/11 I now know people of Chilean blood who moved here to escape tyranny. I must say they couldn't have picked a country to flee to more wisely... cold and next to nothingness (i know... i shouldn't say that of Russia...). :D
So, thanks for the refugees... nice people the lot of them.

I have always felt safe. How you ask? By surrounding myself with a personal arsenal, never leaving the house without a forearm, and having an attack trained Great Dane. I also have friends, who are of the same like mindedness, and happen to be very tall. (not that that has much to do with it, but it still makes me feel safer haha) Besides, death is an uncertain thing, and are you really concerned whether you get taken out by a terrorist or a speeding bus with a two day drunk commandeering the wheel? Death is death, it usually hurts like hell, and you never look pretty when you first arrive on the embalmers table.

You're absolutely right. Racial profiling is a different way of saying "Oh shit, they're catching on that we cant live peacefully in society." Blacks make up about 13% of the American population, yet they commit between 20-60% of almost all crimes. Statistics do not lie. We dont need the death penalty, that costs too much money because they have to wait at least 7 years, meanwhile our tax dollars are feeding them. Those who break the rules, get shipped back to their country of origin.

Today's crime in America is not an American problem.
Lies, damn lies and statistics....-Benjamin Disraeli
Yikes, I thought any problem happening within your borders was an American problem...but apparently crime in the U.S is a Russian problem...or it is a Mongolian problem? They better up their spending to deal with American crime....or not.

By the way, since those BLACKS have been in your country for a couple of hundred years already, are you close to letting them be called Americans now? If so, isn't the crime committed by ANY American an AMERICAN problem?

I have always felt safe. How you ask? By surrounding myself with a personal arsenal, never leaving the house without a forearm,
I too always leave the house with a forearm...actually, I have two! :D

Shit, you can't stop the threat of terrorism and still have a free and open society. I'm not afraid. One can't live in fear. I just think we should establish horrific consequences to any attack on the USA. Make them think twice.

Like what??? Say "if we find out that some terrorists were from your country, we'll bomb the shit out of you."? Well we tried that, and look how glaringly unsuccessful that was. We have opium (terrorist funding) factotries in Afganistan, and more terrorists flowing into Iraq than ever. So tell me, what else could we possible do to them that would have any effect at all? THEY ARE NOT AFRAID OF US, or any of the useless blustering and sabre rattleing that we constantly blather on with. All we end up doing is killing the innocents, making them even more angry, only with a rightous touch to it now.

I need your news channels then...in Canada or the U.S, when was the last massive protest?

Do you remember when GWB went to Canada?

Oh, and to answer your question, I watch BBC World, FOX, CNN, CBS, DW-TV(A German News Channel), TV 4(A local Panamanian Channel), and ABC.

I too always leave the house with a forearm...actually, I have two! :D

hahahaha- i meant firearm. that better be my last typo that actually changes the meaning of an entire sentence- but speaking of forearms- check out my flag- maybe it was pertinent after all ;)

Like what??? Say "if we find out that some terrorists were from your country, we'll bomb the shit out of you."? Well we tried that, and look how glaringly unsuccessful that was. We have opium (terrorist funding) factotries in Afganistan, and more terrorists flowing into Iraq than ever. So tell me, what else could we possible do to them that would have any effect at all? THEY ARE NOT AFRAID OF US, or any of the useless blustering and sabre rattleing that we constantly blather on with. All we end up doing is killing the innocents, making them even more angry, only with a rightous touch to it now.
Destroy their military and kill off their leaders. Repeat as often as needed. Whoever wants to take and maintain power needs to play ball with us.

By the way, since those BLACKS have been in your country for a couple of hundred years already, are you close to letting them be called Americans now? If so, isn't the crime committed by ANY American an AMERICAN problem?

Blacks will never be Americans, nor will Whites ever be Chinese. They need to accept the fact that nationalities arent just clubs you can join. They are Africans, and always will be.

Do you remember when GWB went to Canada?

Oh, and to answer your question, I watch BBC World, FOX, CNN, CBS, DW-TV(A German News Channel), TV 4(A local Panamanian Channel), and ABC.
Do I ever! Does he though, I wonder...

I guess that was a pretty big protest...too bad no one it was aimed at got to see it. Then again, keeping protesters in tightly policed areas started before 911...it's just gotten all the more ubiquitous now.

Ah, for the days of rollicking freedom where we could protest directly in front of the target, take over streets, and actually maybe derail undemocratic talks with our non-violent unruliness.

All I saw of that particular protest in the news was a few quick shots of people crammed up against a gate with banners, looking a little tired. The reaction now to protestors trying to scale the fence is immediate arrest. Like I said, that started before 911, but it is just all the more easy to justify now.

The main point is that it is this slow erosion of liberty, beginning before 911, but sped up since that worries me more than any phantom menace (which was a terrible movie, I'm sorry, it just was). I don't think I'd feel LESS safe with less money and energy expended on hazy anti-terrorism programs, but I do feel less FREE because of them. Thank goodness I don't look like a muslim. :(

Blacks will never be Americans, nor will Whites ever be Chinese. They need to accept the fact that nationalities arent just clubs you can join. They are Africans, and always will be.
Then you are British, and always will be. Damn immigrant...get off my brothers' land!

Then you are British, and always will be. Damn immigrant...get off my brothers' land!

And your brother is......?

And your brother is......?
The Natives who occupied the Americas first....geez, you can't just come into our nations and expect to join in our club! You'll always just be Brits to us!

I know, I know...I shouldn't feed the trolls....

Or maybe I shouldn't blemish the reputation of our NS trolls by comparing them to Hitler J here (shouldn't that be Hitler Jr?). Ok:

I know, I know...I shouldn't feed the Nazis...

...though I am curious as to what they eat...I wonder if they avoid kosher food?

Blacks will never be Americans, nor will Whites ever be Chinese. They need to accept the fact that nationalities arent just clubs you can join. They are Africans, and always will be.

Whoa!!! You didn't... well, obviously you did. RACIST ALERT! ^ So when did the definition of America as a "melting pot" become, "but only if you're white."

Go back to whatever back woods, tax evading, government hating, militia you oozed out of. Cock! (though I mean that in the most tolerant way possible... :p )

Anyway, not to be sidetracked...

I'm still waiting to read a reply to the Patriot Act post...

Damn it...the racist cleared the room! Bad Hitler! Bad! *smacks him on the nose*

Damn it...the racist cleared the room! Bad Hitler! Bad! *smacks him on the nose*
He'll leave everyone alone if we all just ignore him for a while. He needs to get a reaction so he doesn't get bored. Then again, it can be fun to screw around with him.

Do I ever! Does he though, I wonder...

I guess that was a pretty big protest...too bad no one it was aimed at got to see it. Then again, keeping protesters in tightly policed areas started before 911...it's just gotten all the more ubiquitous now.

Ah, for the days of rollicking freedom where we could protest directly in front of the target, take over streets, and actually maybe derail undemocratic talks with our non-violent unruliness.

All I saw of that particular protest in the news was a few quick shots of people crammed up against a gate with banners, looking a little tired. The reaction now to protestors trying to scale the fence is immediate arrest. Like I said, that started before 911, but it is just all the more easy to justify now.

The main point is that it is this slow erosion of liberty, beginning before 911, but sped up since that worries me more than any phantom menace (which was a terrible movie, I'm sorry, it just was). I don't think I'd feel LESS safe with less money and energy expended on hazy anti-terrorism programs, but I do feel less FREE because of them. Thank goodness I don't look like a muslim. :(


Actually, most protests(except for the recent one in Ukraine during the "Orange Revolution") nowadays are violent. Some looned hippies throwing rocks at people, angry Panamanians throwing Molotov Cocktails, pissed-off South Korean Rice Farmers hitting policemen with BIG sticks....

I mean, jeez! If there's so much hate amoung "peaceful" groups, then they should be recruited into the military!

He'll leave everyone alone if we all just ignore him for a while. He needs to get a reaction so he doesn't get bored. Then again, it can be fun to screw around with him.
That's the problem...I kind of like it...does that make me evil? :p

What 'freedoms' have you lost? This is the most overblown bunch of hooey I've ever heard of. Things ARE normal, little has changed. What, you have to stand in line a little longer at the airport? What a tragedy! The fact is, we have made sure to maintain a free and open society in the US, and because of that, we have to take steps to keep a very close watch on certain people coming into our country (or plotting against our country from the outside).

You know, I NEVER hear any ideas from the 'we're losing our rights' crowd about what exactly we are supposed to do in the wake of 9-11 to prevent a repeat. We were attacked in part because the terrorists thought we were to weak and scared to do anything about it, yet this seems to be the approach most of these types of people want to take.

Actually, most protests(except for the recent one in Ukraine during the "Orange Revolution") nowadays are violent. Some looned hippies throwing rocks at people, angry Panamanians throwing Molotov Cocktails, pissed-off South Korean Rice Farmers hitting folicemen with BIG sticks....

I mean, jeez! If there's so much hate amoung "peaceful" groups, then they should be recruited into the military!
Oh yeah...protests in most countries are way more eventful...I'm referring just to the ones in my own country (tightly controlled and monitored...hey you even have to buy a permit to do it:))

Are there really hippies around anymore? Aren't they a bit old for that? Or are their Philipine nursing aides pushing their wheelchairs for them why they feebly toss rocks?

I got caught in a protest in Chile once...the guanacos sprayed the crowd with water and I got a bad case of tear gas....

They were protesting because a politican had stolen the equivalent of $3000 US....shit, our government 'mishandles' $260 million and we get scathing editorials for a week before things are back to normal.

Sheesh.

I've lost the right to a trial by jury of peers if I'm accused of terrorism.
Not according to recent Supreme Court decisons.

Not all the freedoms we enjoy are secured by the Constitution. If they were, the Patriot Act would have been struck down.
I find myself a bit confused by this. If there are "freedoms" which are NOT guranteed by the Constitution, what DOES guarantee them, and how did they become "freedoms?" :confused:

What 'freedoms' have you lost? This is the most overblown bunch of hooey

Hooey is a great word. People should use it more!

I've ever heard of. Things ARE normal, little has changed.
That's right....everything.....is.......the......same.....you are feeling.....sleepy......
What, you have to stand in line a little longer at the airport? What a tragedy!
Yeah, and be fingerprinted for looking Arabic. Do you want to address the issues brought up around the Patriot Act? http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7984140&postcount=58
I don't know much about it, being Canadian, but it seems you're asking for proof, and some has been given, and not refuted.

The fact is, we have made sure to maintain a free and open society in the US, and because of that, we have to take steps to keep a very close watch on certain people coming into our country (or plotting against our country from the outside).
Free and open society....keep a close watch....these points rather contradict one another....

You know, I NEVER hear any ideas from the 'we're losing our rights' crowd about what exactly we are supposed to do in the wake of 9-11 to prevent a repeat. We were attacked in part because the terrorists thought we were to weak and scared to do anything about it, yet this seems to be the approach most of these types of people want to take.
Hmmm....I sure wish I'd saved a link for this one, because I've seen many suggestions of what you could do...namely changing your foreign policy to stop interfering with the sovereignty of other nations, and cut out all that helping-in-puppet-dictators (like Saddam). It'd be a good start.

That's the problem...I kind of like it...does that make me evil? :p
All the interesting people are.

Yeah, and be fingerprinted for looking Arabic.
Since when was there a "freedom" to NOT be fingerprinted, regardless of WHO you are???

1.Oh yeah...protests in most countries are way more eventful...I'm referring just to the ones in my own country (tightly controlled and monitored...hey you even have to buy a permit to do it:))

2.Are there really hippies around anymore? Aren't they a bit old for that? Or are their Philipine nursing aides pushing their wheelchairs for them why they feebly toss rocks?

3.I got caught in a protest in Chile once...the guanacos sprayed the crowd with water and I got a bad case of tear gas....

4.They were protesting because a politican had stolen the equivalent of $3000 US....shit, our government 'mishandles' $260 million and we get scathing editorials for a week before things are back to normal.

Sheesh.

1. Heh. :D. I guess you should go to Panama to protest the Canadian Government(protests are so common here, you can set your calender by them. If you start a protest, people will join for no apparent reason.)

2. Trust me, the hippies are still alive and kicking. One of my grandmothers friends was a hippie, and I went on a 10k run with her. And not to mention these "New age" hippies...

3 and 4. Thats nothing. Here in Panama, students armed with Molotov's and Police armed with tear-gas and rubber bullets clash over roads.

You know, I NEVER hear any ideas from the 'we're losing our rights' crowd about what exactly we are supposed to do in the wake of 9-11 to prevent a repeat. We were attacked in part because the terrorists thought we were to weak and scared to do anything about it, yet this seems to be the approach most of these types of people want to take.

KD, I take it you don't really talk to or read any of the "we're losing our rights" people, do you? I reckon not, cause there are a number of steps that we could take that don't involve Patriot Act-style rights limitations. Let me spell them out:

1. Engage in the "Battle of Ideas." Fire up the old Voice of America system. Work to undermine jihadist propaganda and increase understanding of the west in Islamic nations.

2. Provide assistance to Islamic nations. While jihadist terrorists aren't impoverished themselves, the nations that are more likely to harbor them (such as Afghanistan) are. If they are financially or diplomatically tied to the U.S., these states are less likely to offer haven.

3. Defuse sources of Islamic hatred towards the U.S. This means looking at specific foreign policies that increase tensions and changing those policies.

4. Improve intelligence. Increase noncareer tracks in the FBI and CIA. Create an oversight board in accord with the 9/11 commission recommendations.

5. Locate and seize terrorist funding. It's a way of crippling organizations without an invasion.

6. Improve military organization with an emphasis on small unit/special forces counterterrorism. Maintain "not official cover" presence in problem areas. Again, problems can be solved without a full scale invasion.

7. Improve homeland security in meaningful areas. This means securing ports and chemical plants and scanning all checked baggage and cargo. Not restricting rights through the Patriot Act.

8. Increase efforts at nuclear nonproliferation.

9. Decrease dependence on foreign oil. This means hybrid cars, biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and mileage requirements.

How about that?

KD, I take it you don't really talk to or read any of the "we're losing our rights" people, do you? I reckon not, cause there are a number of steps that we could take that don't involve Patriot Act-style rights limitations. Let me spell them out:

1. Engage in the "Battle of Ideas." Fire up the old Voice of America system. Work to undermine jihadist propaganda and increase understanding of the west in Islamic nations.

2. Provide assistance to Islamic nations. While jihadist terrorists aren't impoverished themselves, the nations that are more likely to harbor them (such as Afghanistan) are. If they are financially or diplomatically tied to the U.S., these states are less likely to offer haven.

3. Defuse sources of Islamic hatred towards the U.S. This means looking at specific foreign policies that increase tensions and changing those policies.

4. Improve intelligence. Increase noncareer tracks in the FBI and CIA. Create an oversight board in accord with the 9/11 commission recommendations.

5. Locate and seize terrorist funding. It's a way of crippling organizations without an invasion.

6. Improve military organization with an emphasis on small unit/special forces counterterrorism. Maintain "not official cover" presence in problem areas. Again, problems can be solved without a full scale invasion.

7. Improve homeland security in meaningful areas. This means securing ports and chemical plants and scanning all checked baggage and cargo. Not restricting rights through the Patriot Act.

8. Increase efforts at nuclear nonproliferation.

9. Decrease dependence on foreign oil. This means hybrid cars, biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, and mileage requirements.

How about that?
As best I can tell, all of these things and more are being done. So what you're saying is that we could preclude further terrorist attacks by doing only these things? If so, you need to study the Jhiadist mind a bit more.

What ... freedoms ... have ... you ... lost?

No matter how many times I ask this question, no one has ever been able to offer a satisfactory answer. If you like, I can list all of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution so you can tell me which ones you no longer have. And simply referring me to The Patriot Act does NOT answer the question!

Eutrusca, perhaps I can satisfy your need for an answer to this question. I know that you believe that the Constitution is just as safe as it was before, but at the same time you said yourself that "safety is an illusion." Do you see where I am going with this already? If yes, then take the time to read through anyway; perhaps you just need to hear it spelled out in plain (as plain as I can make it) English.

You are at least partially correct in the fact that no one has lost a freedom outright. No actual freedom on the books is now NOT on the books. However, the laws that cannot be broken can be bent; and what people are afriad of, and complaining about, is how far those rules are being bent in this situation.

You are also partially correct in your statement that safety is an illusion, most of our feelings of safety rely on no one actually disturbing the peace. If anyone truly wished it, they could arm themselves with automatic weapons and empty a convenience store or two permenantly. Do this enough times, get a high enough body count, with enough different people carrying out the act, and soon every 7-11 from New Jersey to California would be closed or guarded like a bank. Its quite simple to ruin the illusion of safety in America.

So we have the rather nebulous concept of "Bending the Rules" and the largely illusitory nature of "saftey"; lets combine those two shall we? We have a Legal system that is only backed by the words of law, judges and lawyers. They have no real power to enforce, just mandate rules, and tell others to enforce them. Their "power" is illusion. If those charged with enforcing the rules instead break them, who is there to stop them?

You know this of course, and you know that the rule of law is superior to the rule of force because its more fair and less arbitrary. Its not "whoever is strongest" its "whoever follows the rules" Well this is where we come to a sticking point. Many people believe that the rule of law is not being followed by those who should be enacting it. That those in power are relying purely on power to pursue their goals in the war on terror; not the rule of law.

The current US administration has repeatedly come under fire for following the "letter" of the law only, or using legal "gray areas" to do things that contradict the spirit of the law. Torture, dentention, legal review, all familiar subjects to the American people now. There is a climate of fear in America that the "rules" are not being followed, that the rule of law is being passed over in favor of rule by force.

Abu Graib, Guantanimo, Patriot Act, US citizens detained without trial until the Supreme Court Steps in and demands legal review. These things and more have led people to question the illusion of safety they have seen in the rule of law. Do you dispute that in some instances the US has overstepped its bounds? If you don't think so, the Supreme Court itself disagrees with you. Yes, the US government then complied with the Supreme Court's decision, but what's to stop them from doing it in the future? The illusion of safety within the rule of law.

Some of the provisions we're using against the terrorists are not being used against the US citizenry only because the current administration hasn't. Read that part again. Legally speaking; some of the counter-terrorism provisions could be used to detain US citizens without reason. The protection the people enjoy from unfair detention is entirely illusion, because the legal process now has loopholes in it.

That's it. That's all thats protecting people; illusion. Right now the US government has the right to label someone a terrorist and hold them without trial or review indefinately, during which time they can do many "interrogations" that may or may not cross the line between questioning and torture.

This maddening legal gray area is not currently being used (to my knowledge) to do illegal things. But how would I know? The lack of forthrightness on the part of the Current administration is legendary. They simply do not wish to have a transperant government; examples of this abound through the news. Everything from the Airport "Do not board" lists to the now infamous statement by Donald Rumsfeld that documentation of Abu Graib made the scandal a scandal; not the gross mistreatment of prisoners.

So yes, no freedoms have been "lost" per se. I ask you know though, does that matter? It is only the illusion of safety that makes us free, and that illusion is broken for many within the US. Perhaps your illusions of safety in the rule of law are still intact, but you're not the issue here. Its the millions of Americans who now fear that their government has the ability to override the rule of law, the very basis of our society.

People are afraid that anarchy or worse is coming, and you cannot ally their fears by pointing out that ink still exists on paper. What people are worried about is that those charged with enforcing what the ink says are using lese majesty to run the nation with their own rules, made up as they go.

Its the fear of arbitrary law that you are trying to figure out. Fear is not always rational, that's why so many simple point mutely in horror at the Patriot act. They cannot EXPRESS what they fear, because its so basic. Do you understand now? Have I wasted enough of your time, in my futile attempt to explain the sometimes irrational fears of the US populace to you?

We were attacked in part because the terrorists thought we were to weak and scared to do anything about it, yet this seems to be the approach most of these types of people want to take.

You BELIEVE THAT?

Where were you when they passed out brains and common sense?

I find myself a bit confused by this. If there are "freedoms" which are NOT guranteed by the Constitution, what DOES guarantee them, and how did they become "freedoms?" :confused:

Oh wait. I'm sorry:

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.

I guess that business about knocking and announcing is in the Constitution. You see, you're not very secure against unreasonable searches if the searchers aren't required to show a warrant or notify you that they've ransacked your stuff. How about that?

As best I can tell, all of these things and more are being done. So what you're saying is that we could preclude further terrorist attacks by doing only these things? If so, you need to study the Jhiadist mind a bit more.

No, they're not being done. New York metro ports remain a gaping vulnerability. Not all cargo is inspected or scanned. And what are we doing as a nation to reduce reliance on oil? What as a nation are we doing to make our foreign policy more palatable? Cause I tell you, what we're doing in Iraq just ain't squeezin' the Charmin'.

Meanwhile, legalizing sneak and peek and pen/trap on the internet is a top priority.

No, sorry.

I've never been worried about terrorism, despite, and maybe because, it's been something that's had a presence, though a tiny one, where I live all my life. There aren't any bins in stations in London because they could be used for putting bombs in, and there are signs telling you to keep bags with you, because if you leave them, they'd be suspected as having bombs in them, too. Even when a bomb in a series of three went off in the area where until recently I had lived my whole life, it didn't change how safe I felt. I knew a hell of a lot of people who lived there, and the four year old of a teacher in my school had a i don't know many inch nail in his head as a result of it. The two other in the series where in a place where I knew people who lived there, and one where virtually everyone went to on a fairly regular basis in the centre of London. Despite that I'm more worried about what the government are doing than the terrorists, and if that didn't change the way I feel, I don't see why 911 should.

Since when was there a "freedom" to NOT be fingerprinted, regardless of WHO you are???
Since it is the gathering of evidence when one has not been accused of a crime. It's like DNA...you need to have permission to take a sample. Now, saying, "Be fingerprinted or begone" is not exactly illegal, because you CAN refuse...they aren't wrestling you to the ground to do it...but if you miss your flight, you are responsible for the charges. Undue pressure.

Oh wait. I'm sorry:

I guess that business about knocking and announcing is in the Constitution. You see, you're not very secure against unreasonable searches if the searchers aren't required to show a warrant or notify you that they've ransacked your stuff. How about that?
I suppose that depends upon what constitutes "unreasonable" searches. I don't know of any cases of violations of this guarantee which have made it to the Supreme Court. "The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine." Patience.

And what are we doing as a nation to reduce reliance on oil? Sorry, is your main reason for this to do with terrorism...?

Since it is the gathering of evidence when one has not been accused of a crime. It's like DNA...you need to have permission to take a sample. Now, saying, "Be fingerprinted or begone" is not exactly illegal, because you CAN refuse...they aren't wrestling you to the ground to do it...but if you miss your flight, you are responsible for the charges. Undue pressure.
Pardon me if I can't dredge up much sympathy. Flying ( as well as other forms of transportation ) is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right, neither is being fingerprinted or having your DNA checked. Since 9/11, anyone who flies or takes any other form of publicly used transportation should be well aware that there will be delays, up to and including being denied service. If they're still unaware, shame on them.

I find myself a bit confused by this. If there are "freedoms" which are NOT guranteed by the Constitution, what DOES guarantee them, and how did they become "freedoms?" :confused:

Also, you'll be delighted to hear that the Constitution does not define the "freedoms" of the people. Rather, it allocates powers to the government. By Amendment, powers not granted to the government revert to the state or the people. This does not mean that the government can tap your phone because the law doesn't prevent them from doing so. Rather, they get to tap your phone only if the law gives them that power.

Since 9/11, anyone who flies or takes any other form of publicly used transportation should be well aware that there will be delays, up to and including being denied service. Hmmm, what's the word again...? Oh yes, PARNIOD!!

Sometimes I get annoyed about the UK, but if it gets to much for me, I just have to think about those poor people who live over the ocean...

Pardon me if I can't dredge up much sympathy. Flying ( as well as other forms of transportation ) is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right, neither is being fingerprinted or having your DNA checked. Since 9/11, anyone who flies or takes any other form of publicly used transportation should be well aware that there will be delays, up to and including being denied service. If they're still unaware, shame on them.
No problem...if you wouldn't mind me not dredging up any sympathy were you to be in this situation. You're obscuring the point anyway...would it be better if I'd said my husband was thrown to the ground and fingerprinted? Or would that still be ok? "Hey, we can't legally do it, but if you don't let us, we're going to deny you access to water because access to water isn't in the Constitution of this here You-night-ed States of America!"

Now, address this: I think it sums things up beautifully, and I'm glad someone put the effort in, because I can't be bothered when it is so glaringly obvious:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7984719&postcount=93

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/middle_east_shooting_in_tal_afar/html/4.stm

this is the most harrowing picture i have seen yet of the iraq war.
its just beyond horrible.

Sorry, is your main reason for this to do with terrorism...?

George Kennan defines security as "the continued ability of a country to pursue its internal life without interference." Oil interferes in two ways. It either puts the U.S. in an unstable economic situation (a la the 1970s oil crisis), or it requires us to become involved in the Middle East in other ways (either through policy decisions or military action). The former is unpopular in the U.S., the latter is unpopular with certain pilot-licensed individuals.

In short, dependence on foreign oil threatens national security because it forces us to put ourselves at the economic mercy of another nation, or to become involved in the politics of their region. Lose-lose. We don't have the domestic reserviors to support our habit, so we need alternatives.

I suppose that depends upon what constitutes "unreasonable" searches.

Ah, semantics. The Alamo of the uninformed. :D

Just joshing ya.

Eutrusca, perhaps I can satisfy your need for an answer to this question. I know that you believe that the Constitution is just as safe as it was before, but at the same time you said yourself that "safety is an illusion." Do you see where I am going with this already? If yes, then take the time to read through anyway; perhaps you just need to hear it spelled out in plain (as plain as I can make it) English.

You are at least partially correct in the fact that no one has lost a freedom outright. No actual freedom on the books is now NOT on the books. However, the laws that cannot be broken can be bent; and what people are afriad of, and complaining about, is how far those rules are being bent in this situation.

You are also partially correct in your statement that safety is an illusion, most of our feelings of safety rely on no one actually disturbing the peace. If anyone truly wished it, they could arm themselves with automatic weapons and empty a convenience store or two permenantly. Do this enough times, get a high enough body count, with enough different people carrying out the act, and soon every 7-11 from New Jersey to California would be closed or guarded like a bank. Its quite simple to ruin the illusion of safety in America.

So we have the rather nebulous concept of "Bending the Rules" and the largely illusitory nature of "saftey"; lets combine those two shall we? We have a Legal system that is only backed by the words of law, judges and lawyers. They have no real power to enforce, just mandate rules, and tell others to enforce them. Their "power" is illusion. If those charged with enforcing the rules instead break them, who is there to stop them?

You know this of course, and you know that the rule of law is superior to the rule of force because its more fair and less arbitrary. Its not "whoever is strongest" its "whoever follows the rules" Well this is where we come to a sticking point. Many people believe that the rule of law is not being followed by those who should be enacting it. That those in power are relying purely on power to pursue their goals in the war on terror; not the rule of law.

The current US administration has repeatedly come under fire for following the "letter" of the law only, or using legal "gray areas" to do things that contradict the spirit of the law. Torture, dentention, legal review, all familiar subjects to the American people now. There is a climate of fear in America that the "rules" are not being followed, that the rule of law is being passed over in favor of rule by force.

Abu Graib, Guantanimo, Patriot Act, US citizens detained without trial until the Supreme Court Steps in and demands legal review. These things and more have led people to question the illusion of safety they have seen in the rule of law. Do you dispute that in some instances the US has overstepped its bounds? If you don't think so, the Supreme Court itself disagrees with you. Yes, the US government then complied with the Supreme Court's decision, but what's to stop them from doing it in the future? The illusion of safety within the rule of law.

Some of the provisions we're using against the terrorists are not being used against the US citizenry only because the current administration hasn't. Read that part again. Legally speaking; some of the counter-terrorism provisions could be used to detain US citizens without reason. The protection the people enjoy from unfair detention is entirely illusion, because the legal process now has loopholes in it.

That's it. That's all thats protecting people; illusion. Right now the US government has the right to label someone a terrorist and hold them without trial or review indefinately, during which time they can do many "interrogations" that may or may not cross the line between questioning and torture.

This maddening legal gray area is not currently being used (to my knowledge) to do illegal things. But how would I know? The lack of forthrightness on the part of the Current administration is legendary. They simply do not wish to have a transperant government; examples of this abound through the news. Everything from the Airport "Do not board" lists to the now infamous statement by Donald Rumsfeld that documentation of Abu Graib made the scandal a scandal; not the gross mistreatment of prisoners.

So yes, no freedoms have been "lost" per se. I ask you know though, does that matter? It is only the illusion of safety that makes us free, and that illusion is broken for many within the US. Perhaps your illusions of safety in the rule of law are still intact, but you're not the issue here. Its the millions of Americans who now fear that their government has the ability to override the rule of law, the very basis of our society.

People are afraid that anarchy or worse is coming, and you cannot ally their fears by pointing out that ink still exists on paper. What people are worried about is that those charged with enforcing what the ink says are using lese majesty to run the nation with their own rules, made up as they go.

Its the fear of arbitrary law that you are trying to figure out. Fear is not always rational, that's why so many simple point mutely in horror at the Patriot act. They cannot EXPRESS what they fear, because its so basic. Do you understand now? Have I wasted enough of your time, in my futile attempt to explain the sometimes irrational fears of the US populace to you?
So to boil this down to its essence, if I read you correctly: some people are worried that the rule of law is breaking down ( or may be breaking down at some point in the future )? This is always a possibility, wherever and whenever you live. There are many, many safeguards against this: the system of jurisprudence, including hungry lawyers; the media, including hungry newspeople; organizations like the ACLU, regardless of how you feel about them; even people like yourself who have concerns.

Have there been abuses? Probably. Will there continue to be abuses? Perhaps. Are there systems and organizations in place to discover these abuses and work to get them corrected? Definitely.

Given the choice between being afraid of my own government, including the courts and other legal systems on one hand, and being concerned that everything possible to prevent another 9/11 is being done on the other, I'll take the latter every time.

George Kennan defines security as "the continued ability of a country to pursue its internal life without interference." Oil interferes in two ways. It either puts the U.S. in an unstable economic situation (a la the 1970s oil crisis), or it requires us to become involved in the Middle East in other ways (either through policy decisions or military action). The former is unpopular in the U.S., the latter is unpopular with certain pilot-licensed individuals.

In short, dependence on foreign oil threatens national security because it forces us to put ourselves at the economic mercy of another nation, or to become involved in the politics of their region. Lose-lose. We don't have the domestic reserviors to support our habit, so we need alternatives.

Oh, yes, I know that, and it's a decent reason, believe me, but I just wondered if in your opinion that was the only reason for it. Of course, the whole thing about global warming and dwindling oil supplies aren't important in the slightest...

No. Can't say I feel safer. I think things pretty much stayed the same. Except that the US finally threw off it's mask of decency and showed the world it's true megalomanic face.

Oh, yes, I know that, and it's a decent reason, believe me, but I just wondered if in your opinion that was the only reason for it. Of course, the whole thing about global warming and dwindling oil supplies aren't important in the slightest...

Well, according to Osama, the primary reasons for 9/11 were the presence of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and U.S. policy regarding Israel. (Notice that the primary reasons are not "because we were weak" or "because we are a beacon of freedom.")

I don't even want to start on Israel, because that is a very sticky moral wicket, but would we have bases in Saudi Arabia if the Saudis had no oil? I'd say no way in hell. So right there you've got one motive gone. I don't want to go on with the Monday morning QB, but you get the idea. Oil dependence is one cause among many. How we attempt to meet that dependence is another. Foreign policy decisions are another.

But I agree, there are a lot of good reasons to be a little more conservative with our energy expenditures. Global warming, limited supply, and nasty politics being three big ones.

No. Can't say I feel safer. I think things pretty much stayed the same. Except that the US finally threw off it's mask of decency and showed the world it's true megalomanic face.
Von! I haven't seen you around here for ages! Well, anyway, hi:)

So to boil this down to its essence, if I read you correctly: some people are worried that the rule of law is breaking down ( or may be breaking down at some point in the future )? This is always a possibility, wherever and whenever you live. There are many, many safeguards against this: the system of jurisprudence, including hungry lawyers; the media, including hungry newspeople; organizations like the ACLU, regardless of how you feel about them; even people like yourself who have concerns.

Have there been abuses? Probably. Will there continue to be abuses? Perhaps. Are there systems and organizations in place to discover these abuses and work to get them corrected? Definitely.

Given the choice between being afraid of my own government, including the courts and other legal systems on one hand, and being concerned that everything possible to prevent another 9/11 is being done on the other, I'll take the latter every time.

Well, you wanted to know, so I told ya. My point is this; the idea that the rule of law even exists in America today is being questioned. This will lead to far worse concequenses than 9/11 if left unchecked. The checks you mentioned are, thus far, utterly ineffective. If you are unconcerned by anarchy, then good for you, but society is only strong when the majority of its citizens support it.

I might point out that the difference between rule of law and rule by force can be subtle, and leeway exists between them. Still, switching between the two forms of Justice is not your choice to make, nor is it the choice of the executive branch. Congress has to sign off on the switch, and officially, it has not done so. Just as Congress must declare war, last I checked Congress must sign off on suspension of legal review.

Thus in advocating the Executive branch use its power to simply override the rule of law to safeguard against terror you are actually advocatng overturning the constitution yourself. Thus how safe is the Consitution, how safe are the American people from those, such as yourself, who would willingly allow people to be detained without reason just so that 9/11 is a little less likely to reoccur?

Are you beginning to see the arguments of the other side? You are actually advoacting the suspension of rule of law to defend the American people from an incident that is less likely to kill them than lighting. How do you propose we deal with lightning? The actions you advocate taking are so extreme that frankly, I question how you would deal with a more serious problem.

Therin lies a large problem. You've convinced yourself that Terroism is such a danger, so imminent a threat, that the risk denying people basic rights is justifiable to keep others alive. Others see this situation differently; they see a threat that is vaugely menacing but rather minor in comparison with the leading threats to the US, and they watch you throw away the foundations of society to defend them from what? Something that happend once.

Meteors crashed into the earth Millions of years ago, causing massive extinctions. Which civil liberty do you propose we get rid of to help defend ourselves from Meteors?

Millions are infected with AIDS, a widespread epidemic that threatens the US, which freedom is worth curtailing to help us stop the spread of AIDS?

Automobile accidents are one of the leading causes of death in the US; how many innocents shall we detain to prevent this tragedy from continuing?

These are the same arguments people are using to defend us from Terror. The ones I just listed are just as overblown and silly to you as yours seem to those who question your argument.

Terrorism is a threat to the US. So are meteors, AIDS and Automobile accidents, all of them claim lives, all are tragic. Are all of them worth losing our fundemental rights over Eurtusca? Are any of them?

Why is terrorism worth throwing away our right to trial for, our right not to be tortured, our right not to be detained indefinately, our right not to have our houses ransacked, our library books searched, our phones tapped without warrant, without review? Why is terrorism in your eyes such a grave threat that you'd throw away all of this just to make terror even LOWER on the scale of threats to US lives? How can you justify it?

other: i worry about the increased terrorist activity caused by the war on terror.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/middle_east_shooting_in_tal_afar/html/4.stm

this is the most harrowing picture i have seen yet of the iraq war.
its just beyond horrible.

and you are the most harrowing liberal minded bleeding heart i have ever encountered. not only do you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE FIVE MINUTES SURROUNDING THE TAKING OF THIS PHOTO, you also don't understand how many staged photographs there are. (the left, and the right in the US are both guilty of this) you seriously cannot take stock in pictures, supplied by the spin machine of journalism.

and you are the most harrowing liberal minded bleeding heart i have ever encountered. not only do you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE FIVE MINUTES SURROUNDING THE TAKING OF THIS PHOTO, you also don't understand how many staged photographs there are. (the left, and the right in the US are both guilty of this) you seriously cannot take stock in pictures, supplied by the spin machine of journalism.

I hate to poke a hole in your theory, but actually, we know exactly what happened within 5 minutes of either side of the photo in question...because if you clicky the linky on the page you'll see the photos that preceed it and follow it in a timeline.

Of course, who can say it wasn't staged? Not me. But since these photos were supposedly from a specific incident that was on several news services, I can only assume that it occured. Just an FYI.

Hey, and lay off the bleeding heart crap. That pic was of a child who had just watched both her parents get shot to death; show a little respect eh?

I have to admit I do, for reasons one, two and three. It's not that I think the threat of terrorism is suddenly higher; I'm just more aware of it. Being born and raised in Ohio I was fortunate never to really give terrorism much of a thought because it was something that happened in other, faraway places (yes, I do know how naive this sounds.) I was far more worried about getting carjacked, or shot when I went to an ATM or something of that nature. 9/11 just raised my awareness level and broke that last foolish security bubble for me, the one labelled 'it can't happen to me.' (That said, I'm still far more worried when I'm in London than when I'm at home on the south coast.)

I also do find it worrying that the threat of terrorism is being used as an excuse for seemingly knee-jerk reactions back home in the States for unprovoked military actions and bills like the Patriot Act which...well, they're just plain unAmerican, in my opinion. We do need to be prepared for terrorism, but if we let fear take away our rights to free speech, free assembly, etc. then the terrorists have already won - the terror they spread is in control, not us.

I used to think that chartered accountants were a waste of money, but now with George Ide Phillips "Home Care Plus (Extra)" Plan, I have settled my arrears and tripled my turnover.

www.georgeidephillips.co.uk (http://www.georgeidephillips.co.uk)
I liked the Last Tango in Paris too. Nice meeting you. OMG This is going to be the shortest friendship ever.

Imo, feels the same.

Though international terrorists with loads of money able to fund terrorism would have to think twice or get their bank accounts frozen. Or it's TEAM AMERICA bursting into the rooms.

Von! I haven't seen you around here for ages! Well, anyway, hi:)
Well hello. I havn't been anywhere. I have just posted a little less then usual the past week. :)

I hate to poke a hole in your theory, but actually, we know exactly what happened within 5 minutes of either side of the photo in question...because if you clicky the linky on the page you'll see the photos that preceed it and follow it in a timeline.

Of course, who can say it wasn't staged? Not me. But since these photos were supposedly from a specific incident that was on several news services, I can only assume that it occured. Just an FYI.

Hey, and lay off the bleeding heart crap. That pic was of a child who had just watched both her parents get shot to death; show a little respect eh?
I saw th timeline, and I am still not convinced. In my lifetime I have been party to many a setup incident, so staged photos and/or situations are nothing new to me. As for the respect issue, i deal with the dead and death happens every day, in many forms, and usually a child is affected. everyone goes on. it is the human spirit. plus, i cant respect a kid, they are younger than me. i guess i could feel a little bit sorry for them, but then again, where does that get anyone

I think twice before visiting some websites or running a search on certain words. That royally sucks.

I don't. I think having the police batter down the front door at 3am and drag me off for questioning would be incredibly amusing. Even more amusing when they find out the reason I was looking for explosives ingredients and military equipment prices was as data in an economy calculator.

I personally feel roughly the same. The big difference is that the September Eleventh attacks still get thought about me at least every week in some form or another. But, I've done more traveling post September 11th, than I had done prior to the incident. It hasn't affected my actions, or feelings, just pokes it's nose into my thoughts fairly often.