NationStates Jolt Archive

I just read this post in another thead in regards to Al Quaeda.
Killing's too good for them.{A long paragraph explaining how they should be tortured a lot first}
This got me thinking. You hear a lot about how we are protecting "Our way of life". "Protecting our Western Democracy", etc. My question is, what is the cost?

To me, one of the most important parts of a democracy is the ability to dissent. Losing habeus corpus is a nail in the coffin of a true Democracy. The huge media propaganda machine that tries to shut down dissent by yelling "traitor" anytime someone dissents is another nail.

The once greatest democracy in the world seems to be selling out for some perceived security. I would remind people of a comment by one of the greats of American History.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Benjamin Franklin.

I think what annoys me so much, is that all this fear mongering, wire tapping, Patriot Act, etc, isn't making anyone any safer anyway.

I just read this post in another thead in regards to Al Quaeda.

This got me thinking. You hear a lot about how we are protecting "Our way of life". "Protecting our Western Democracy", etc. My question is, what is the cost?

To me, one of the most important parts of a democracy is the ability to dissent. Losing habeus corpus is a nail in the coffin of a true Democracy. The huge media propaganda machine that tries to shut down dissent by yelling "traitor" anytime someone dissents is another nail.

The once greatest democracy in the world seems to be selling out for some perceived security. I would remind people of a comment by one of the greats of American History.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Benjamin Franklin.

I think what annoys me so much, is that all this fear mongering, wire tapping, Patriot Act, etc, isn't making anyone any safer anyway.

Normally when these threads pop up I make a Libertarian statement to defend the very point of view you're making, but I think you've touched on everything I'd say. I approve. *nods*

The way to fight terror is to use the methods that won the Cold War. Espionage. It's subtle and damn scary to think about because you can't see your enemy. It's there and it can subvert anything you have in place. It can mess with your water supply...

Wouldn't so much more have been accomplished if espionage was used rather than military force? After all, we wouldn't have to hear about the troops dying or being called traitors because we want to bring the troops home.

Guerilla warfare is different and we can't win this way. The other way is time consuming but you can really mess with the enemy if you use it correctly.

This got me thinking. You hear a lot about how we are protecting "Our way of life". "Protecting our Western Democracy", etc. My question is, what is the cost?

To me, one of the most important parts of a democracy is the ability to dissent. Losing habeus corpus is a nail in the coffin of a true Democracy. The huge media propaganda machine that tries to shut down dissent by yelling "traitor" anytime someone dissents is another nail.

The once greatest democracy in the world seems to be selling out for some perceived security.
You're right about there being a huge cost involved, but I'm not sure I agree that this is to do with moving away from democracy. The unimportance of the right to oppose the state has always been implicit in our ideas of pure democracy; except, of course, for the rare occasion of election time at which we resample exactly what it is the state stands for. The idea that the biggest group is the one that's allowed to oppress the smaller ones is the lynch-pin on which it claims to be the "least worst method of government".

All we're observing is a natural consequence of this. Terrorists, as a widely feared and hated minority, can be easily oppressed by the majority who wish it upon them. The same goes for any other minority; it can all be done entirely above board and democratically. The 1930's demonstrated that.

You stop this by introducing non-democratic elements into the system. Democracy alone cannot protect freedom from its people, and neither can autocrats protect freedom from themselves, but the two can protect it from each other.

I have actually spoken to a number of people who seem to think that such methods are perfectly fine and that "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide" for some reason when I do bump into it I'm just left speechless (really what on Earth do I can to that?)

I'm more scared of the monsters under my bed than I am of terrorism :p

I must agree with the general sentiment as expressed here. A government that continually abuses its people under the excuse of pretending to protect them is much more dangerous than one or more outsiders who have to get through legitimite security in order to get to the right place at the right time in order to commit a given act of terrorism.

I have actually spoken to a number of people who seem to think that such methods are perfectly fine and that "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide" for some reason when I do bump into it I'm just left speechless (really what on Earth do I can to that?)

That arguement pisses me off because its the Stalin arguement.:headbang:

The terrorists wanted to change America for the worse when they attacked on 9/11.

We now have secret prisons were torture is used, violations of civil liberties, and imprisonment with the right to Habeus Corpus denied.

Mission Acommplished.

This isn't any different than other times in U.S. history where we had to loose some rights for security. In the civil war Lincoln got rid of habeus corpus and yet everybody worships him today as a hero. Once this threat of terrorism is over, the Patriot Act will be revoked and everybody will be back to normal.

Otherwise, I ask you, how else are we suppose to prevent terrorist attacks? There have been quite a bit blocked in recent years, and probably some they didn't tell us about.

Some people say that because no attacks have been done on our soil since 9/11, that means that the threat is fake or some such. Really its because our agencies have been doing a great job and that is what is keeping us safe.

Otherwise, I ask you, how else are we suppose to prevent terrorist attacks?
By being the sort of nation that people don't want to attack, of course. Like Ireland. Or Sweden.

Some people say that because no attacks have been done on our soil since 9/11, that means that the threat is fake or some such. Really its because our agencies have been doing a great job and that is what is keeping us safe.

More time passed between the first world trade center attack and 9/11 than from 9/11 to now. If you want to use that argument, then by all current measure, we were doing fine without all the torture and the waterboarding.

By being the sort of nation that people don't want to attack, of course. Like Ireland. Or Sweden.

Well considering that's not going to happen anytime soon, I suggest you come up with a better argument.

This isn't any different than other times in U.S. history where we had to loose some rights for security. In the civil war Lincoln got rid of habeus corpus and yet everybody worships him today as a hero. Once this threat of terrorism is over, the Patriot Act will be revoked and everybody will be back to normal.

Otherwise, I ask you, how else are we suppose to prevent terrorist attacks? There have been quite a bit blocked in recent years, and probably some they didn't tell us about.

Some people say that because no attacks have been done on our soil since 9/11, that means that the threat is fake or some such. Really its because our agencies have been doing a great job and that is what is keeping us safe.


Point by point.

A. Not everyone worships Lincoln as a hero. See; the South, entire region of


B. I am so God damned sick of hearing how Bush has kept us safe fro terrorist attacks and prevented many with his policies. Prove it. We havent been attacked. Could that maybe be because they dont NEED to attack us again? Maybe because all they need do is go over to Afghan or Iraq to kill US troops?

There is no proof that attacks have been foiled other than Bush saying it, which becomes a circular arguement.

And saying "We prevented attacks but we cant tell you about them" is equivelent to in Kindergarden when you asked a classmate a question to prove you were smarter (as kids do) and he says, "I know but Im not telling you the answer!"

For God's sake. Until I see evidence to the contrary, this presidents policies have done nothing but violate our civil liberties. You cant prove our agencies have kept us safe and you cant disprove that the threat is fake, because this administration isnt giving us any information.

To be honost, I think if they had foiled an attack, they would have provided evidence, because whos that gonna hurt? Really? The terrorists KNOW we foiled their plans, so its not like they will be let in on some big secret. Besides, Bush could use the bump in approval ratings.


And if you think that after the "war on terror" the Patriot act will be revocked I think your naive

Besides, the "war on terror" is clever because its a never ending war. You cant win a war on an idea.

As far as Im concerned, this administration has done nothing but continuously fuck the US over.

Well considering that's not going to happen anytime soon, I suggest you come up with a better argument.
It was more a suggestion than an argument. Though if you do want an argument, I'd be quite happy to point out that if the superpowers had been that little bit more relaxed and gracious post-war and hadn't gotten into the military equivilent of an insult contest (or even been that bit less bloodthirsty post 9/11), you'd not be struggling now to fight off international terrorist threats.

I just read this post in another thead in regards to Al Quaeda.

This got me thinking. You hear a lot about how we are protecting "Our way of life". "Protecting our Western Democracy", etc. My question is, what is the cost?

To me, one of the most important parts of a democracy is the ability to dissent. Losing habeus corpus is a nail in the coffin of a true Democracy. The huge media propaganda machine that tries to shut down dissent by yelling "traitor" anytime someone dissents is another nail.

The once greatest democracy in the world seems to be selling out for some perceived security. I would remind people of a comment by one of the greats of American History.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Benjamin Franklin.

I think what annoys me so much, is that all this fear mongering, wire tapping, Patriot Act, etc, isn't making anyone any safer anyway.

I blame the bad crazy people who force the government's hand. :mad:

A. Not everyone worships Lincoln as a hero. See; the South, entire region of


Because they are the losers, so obviously.


There is no proof that attacks have been foiled other than Bush saying it, which becomes a circular arguement.

Do you remember the plot back a few summers ago where liquids were going to be used to blow up planes traveling from Britain to the U.S.? This is just one example.

Besides, the "war on terror" is clever because its a never ending war. You cant win a war on an idea.

So I suppose we should just stand by idly. We were able to defeat Facisim and Communism. We can defeat an idea if we change the viewpoints and work cooperatively with the moderate Muslims, which we are doing but not as much as we should.


And saying "We prevented attacks but we cant tell you about them" is equivelent to in Kindergarden when you asked a classmate a question to prove you were smarter (as kids do) and he says, "I know but Im not telling you the answer!"

Perhaps, but then again its the same reason why police sometimes don't tell, because it may reveal methods used to stop such attacks.

And if you think that after the "war on terror" the Patriot act will be revocked I think your naive

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if any democrat was elected revoked it. But in previous situation civil liberties have been restored.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if any democrat was elected revoked it. But in previous situation civil liberties have been restored.

How exactly is a president to revoke a law?

More time passed between the first world trade center attack and 9/11 than from 9/11 to now. If you want to use that argument, then by all current measure, we were doing fine without all the torture and the waterboarding.

but if we don't have such policy's how ever will we stop the evil greens?!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2250022.ece

the case is that the government considers such environmentalism as a type of terrorism and if you look at it that way the ever increasing raping of the planet shows everything is going dandy :)

Well considering that's not going to happen anytime soon, I suggest you come up with a better argument.

why does stomping on the developing world get addictive?

How exactly is a president to revoke a law?

Congress, then. Executive Orders were also sometimes used. See: Japanese Interment in WW2.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Benjamin Franklin.


This is America. Land of the Christian and Home of the Republicans. Why listen to an atheist liberal like Benjamin Franklin? It's not like he helped found this country or anything.

Because they are the losers, so obviously.

hmmm...obviously the Vietnamese actions against American troops are also justified because you lost

lets say smallpox was unleashed would you be losers then and thus hold no opinion?

Do you remember the plot back a few summers ago where liquids were going to be used to blow up planes traveling from Britain to the U.S.? This is just one example.

yes and we know what a fiasco that was, have they managed to prove it yet?

We were able to defeat Facisim and Communism.

no you didn't :p

unless of course the US bombed Spain into submission and the Soviet people themselves didn't bring down the eastern bloc (though how you explain China is beyond me)

Perhaps, but then again its the same reason why police sometimes don't tell, because it may reveal methods used to stop such attacks.

and why should that be a problem? if they havn't done anything wrong what have they got to hide ;)

in previous situation civil liberties have been restored.

like that whole Watergate scandal, wow its so nice that such a thing is still illegal for how else could you smell the freedom?

hmmm...obviously the Vietnamese actions against American troops are also justified because you lost

I was simply pointing out why they thought so is all, they have a right to their opinion.

yes and we know what a fiasco that was, have they managed to prove it yet?

What fiasco? Britain, arrested over 24 people in connection.

no you didn't :p

unless of course the US bombed Spain into submission and the Soviet people themselves didn't bring down the eastern bloc (though how you explain China is beyond me)

China is barely communist anymore. We defeated Hitler and Mussolini, and we defeated the USSR, or we helped too. You can argue that the people did it, but U.S. pressure did, too. If NATO sat back idly, the whole world would be red.
like that whole Watergate scandal, wow its so nice that such a thing is still illegal for how else could you smell the freedom?

And Nixon was caught for that. Therefore that point is moot. At the same time, freedom was restored in the case of the Japanese, Communists during the Mcarthy era, and other times.

I blame the bad crazy people who force the government's hand. :mad:

I blame the bad crazy people who make up our current government.

What fiasco? Britain, arrested over 24 people in connection.

and they have all pleaded/proven guilty...otherwise this case is rather open

China is barely communist anymore.

thats why China doesn't have state run businesses...:p

We defeated Hitler and Mussolini, and we defeated the USSR, or we helped too. You can argue that the people did it, but U.S. pressure did, too. If NATO sat back idly, the whole world would be red.

1) Mussolini was strung up by partisans who where aligned to the west because of geopolitics same happened with many eastern bloc nations and even Germany

fascist Spain however existed for years after WWII so your idea is fairly pointless no?

2) not that any of this matters because people are not ideas

3) the USSR never intended to have a red planet otherwise Finland would be rather strange, cold war is as the concept suggest just a pissing contest for global domination

And Nixon was caught for that. Therefore that point is moot.

yes and its odd that Watergate now happens legally isn't it

I blame the bad crazy people who make up our current government.

I blame both.

and they have all pleaded/proven guilty...otherwise this case is rather open

So, wouldn't that mean we prevented an attack...?

thats why China doesn't have state run businesses...:p

State business does not equate to communism, its denotes a mixed economy, which China formed into.

1) Mussolini was strung up by partisans who where aligned to the west because of geopolitics same happened with many eastern bloc nations and even Germany


And he would have stayed in power if U.S. Soldiers weren't in Rome.

3) the USSR never intended to have a red planet otherwise Finland would be rather strange, cold war is as the concept suggest just a pissing contest for global domination



No they did. Especially in the 20's and 30's. After that they backed down because WW2 came along as well as the Cold War. And even in the Cold War they spread communism. Also, Winter War and the Continuation War.

yes and its odd that Watergate now happens legally isn't it

What are you referring to?

So, wouldn't that mean we prevented an attack...?

no because the attack has not been proven yet nor is the case closed

what do you think ongoing investigations are for?

State business does not equate to communism, its denotes a mixed economy, which China formed into.

...well I was under the impression that you was playing the classic "there communist because they don't let McDonald's run rampant!!!1"

do tell me what you define as communism then :confused:

And he would have stayed in power if U.S. Soldiers weren't in Rome.

actually the root cause of the uprisings can be connected with league of nations sanctions on Iron and the turning of the so called "new Roman empire" into nothing more than a German puppet

never under estimate the power of Italian pride ;)

No they did. Especially in the 20's and 30's. After that they backed down because WW2 came along as well as the Cold War. And even in the Cold War they spread communism. Also, Winter War and the Continuation War.

1) no your thinking of Trotsky, Stalins policy aimed for a strong worker state so the revolution could survive in Russia until the world wide overthrowing of capitalism occurred, Stalin (and to a lesser extent Lenin) never favored the communist adventures of Trotsky's beyond a realpolitik level

2) Finland backed the wrong side in WWII and in the Finns usually way settled for being the Soviets bitch

by all means Finland remained a free market nation which is one of the best examples you can see of Soviet realpolitiks (much like Nixon in China)

What are you referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

The terrorists wanted to change America for the worse when they attacked on 9/11.

We now have secret prisons were torture is used, violations of civil liberties, and imprisonment with the right to Habeus Corpus denied.

Mission Acommplished.

I've said for some time now that the U.S. already lost the "War on Terror"...the only question is how long it will take for the American people to realize it.

This isn't any different than other times in U.S. history where we had to loose some rights for security. In the civil war Lincoln got rid of habeus corpus and yet everybody worships him today as a hero. Once this threat of terrorism is over, the Patriot Act will be revoked and everybody will be back to normal.

The bolded statement says more than the rest...if you think terrorism will ever cease to be a threat in the modern world, then you are incredibly naive.

Otherwise, I ask you, how else are we suppose to prevent terrorist attacks? There have been quite a bit blocked in recent years, and probably some they didn't tell us about.

Prevent terrorist attacks???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents%2C_2007

...and that's just last year.

Maybe the U.S. hasn't had a terrorist attack, but please explain how the Patriot Act was supposed to stop these incidents.

There are two that one could make an argument for...

May 7: 2007 Fort Dix attack plot. Six men inspired by jihadist videos arrested in the US, in a failed homegrown terrorism plot to kill US soldiers.

June 3: 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot. Thwarted homegrown Islamist terrorism plot to destroy the fuel supply system for the airport located in New York City and cause a large amount of casualties by blowing up the connecting pipeline system that runs through densely populated neighborhoods.

But then you have this...

October 26: A pair of improvised explosive devices were thrown at the Mexican Consulate in New York City. The fake grenades were filled with black powder and detonated by fuses causing very minor damage. Police were investigating the connection between this and a similar attack against the British Consulate in New York in 2005.

Both consulates could have easily been hit with real explosives, so I guess a 50% success rate is good enough for you?

Also...I am of the firm opinion that terrorists have not struck the U.S. since 9/11 because they choose not to, not because of anything the U.S. has or hasn't done. The terrorists know that another attack on U.S. soil by an identifiably foreign source will only strengthen our resolve.

Note that both the Fort Dix and JFK Airport incidents were "home-grown" terrorists.

Given the availability of black market weaponry and the relatively porous nature of U.S. borders, it is foolish to think that U.S. efforts are the sole reason that another act of terrorism has not occured on U.S. soil.

You don't need some vast network or some elaborate plan...all you need is a nut with a gun who's willing to die. We've got plenty of such people already, born and raised in the U.S....how hard do you honestly think it would be for a terrorist organization to sneak a few more in???

Giving up our civil liberties to "stop" terrorism, with results such as these, only proves to politicians that we're too stupid to hold on to the rights we ought to be fighting tooth and nail for.

Terror is in the eye of the beholder.

If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out.

1) Mussolini was strung up by communist partisans who where aligned to the west because of geopolitics same happened with many eastern bloc nations and even Germany

Fixed

You don't need some vast network or some elaborate plan...all you need is a nut with a gun who's willing to die. We've got plenty of such people already, born and raised in the U.S....how hard do you honestly think it would be for a terrorist organization to sneak a few more in???

Giving up our civil liberties to "stop" terrorism, with results such as these, only proves to politicians that we're too stupid to hold on to the rights we ought to be fighting tooth and nail for.

This is exactly the point I was going for. Good post.

I'm more scared of the monsters under my bed than I am of terrorism :p

That is both positive and negative, positive because the terrorist want you to be scared of them, and negative because if you don't at least have a respect for these people then they will destroy you.

By being the sort of nation that people don't want to attack, of course. Like Ireland. Or Sweden.

Thats not true, terrorist organizations are actually more dangerous in European countries than they are in America.

It's only a pyrrhic victory if you actually win something. Can't really see what's been won, so I'd personally just call this whole "War on Terror" business an expensive way to make the world hate the US, to be honest.

Thats not true, terrorist organizations are actually more dangerous in European countries than they are in America.
Nah.

Since the Red Army Faction and the IRA have laid down their arms, not really.

Nah.

Since the Red Army Faction and the IRA have laid down their arms, not really.

Possibly, but the number of Islamic people their is growing and there have been threats and a few incidents (the subway bombing) and we may not here about it as much in America.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
Benjamin Franklin.

I'm more reminded of another Benjamin Franklin quote with regard to what we're doing.

We allow the government to cut taxes for the rich, let corporations screw us, and look the other way when they conduct illegal wiretaps of "terrorists." Also, we continue to beat our chests and act unilaterally toward the world.

As a result, the dollar is in the toilet, the middle class is increasingly strained, and the world resents us big-time.

So in response, we've continued to allow corporations to exploit us, continued to fight in Iraq and denounce those who don't want to, continued to hold prisoners in Guantanamo, refused to alleviate the mortgage problems and the health care problems, and gone about our merry way.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said: The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome.

As a nation, America has gone insane.

Possibly, but the number of Islamic people their is growing and there have been threats and a few incidents (the subway bombing) and we may not here about it as much in America.
Nah, not really a larger threat to Europe, which has a pretty minimal involvement in the War on Terror, than to the US. Yeah, fine, the UK is marginally at risk, but it's nothing to be too worried about.

Besides, the "war on terror" is clever because its a never ending war. You cant win a war on an idea.

I've been saying this for a long time.

This all reminds me of something my US History teacher once said.

"You can't beat an enemy who is not afraid to die."

Anyways, I'm currently in agreement with those who have said that the current policies regarding the war on terror have not helped the US and are instead hurting it (generalized statement there). One point of this entire war that most people don't seem to get is that the war is not just military but idealistic. We are never going to win till we start with,as someone else said, using espionage. By that, I mean propaganda and attempting to root out terrorism at its source, not just blowing the brains out of them.

On the US side of the world, policies like the Patriot Act are, in my view, more dangerous than the terrorist themselves. Such measures, in changing
American life and values for in some people's eyes the worse, are signs that , again as someone else mentioned earlier, the terrorist are succeding. By creating that fear and anger, we blindly gave up some liberty for security. At least people are starting to, or have been, waking up from that and seeing things as they really are.


Oh, and it is possible to win a war with an idea.Just can't do it with a gun alone. Remember that the pen is mightier than the sword.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said: The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome.
I think that's Bill Wilson (founder of Alcoholics Anonymous)/

Quote PeoplesFreedom: Once this threat of terrorism is over, the Patriot Act will be revoked and everybody will be back to normal.

Which is to say-- never?

Anyone else thinks T.P.F. = F.A.G.?

Anyone else thinks T.P.F. = F.A.G.?

Possibly, but it doesn't matter, unless you think you win by calling names.