I can live with the occassional innocent person being left to rot in jail without an offical charge raised against them if it helps prevent against 9/11's and little girls getting raped and murdered.
How many innocent people should we be willing to sacrifice? You willing to be the first?
Look man. If I was a baker working for the Taliban in Afghanistan and I was a Pakistani and I had a the whole turban and beard thing, I would expect to be detained. It is not unreasonable for the U.S. to think maybe he was posing as a baker, or whatever.
You bask in the freedom and security of every day life in America, yet vilify the people that give it you. I'm sure the families of the 9/11 victims wish there was a Patriot Act five years earlier and maybe, just maybe, that particular event could have been prevented.
There is a price for freedom. I'm willing to pay for it. I'm willing to give up my "right" to go to an airport and not be searched. I'm willing to give up my "right" to carry handguns where ever and when ever I want.
I'm willing to give up my right to walk the streets with a turban, a beard, attending mosque's, changing over to muslim, and choosing to make friends and associations with known terrorists organizations. If I do those things I may finally feel ther wraith of the Patriot Act. But, I would deserve it.
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I'm sure the families of the 9/11 victims wish there was a Patriot Act five years earlier
I'd take that bet.
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:and maybe, just maybe, that particular event could have been prevented.
You're also taking for granted that the Taliban actually is responsible for 9/11.
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:There is a price for freedom. I'm willing to pay for it. I'm willing to give up my "right" to go to an airport and not be searched. I'm willing to give up my "right" to carry handguns where ever and when ever I want.
I notice you don't say you're willing to give up your own freedom and sit in a jail for a year and 8+ months to pay the 'price for freedom'.
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I'm willing to give up my right to walk the streets with a turban, a beard, attending mosque's, changing over to muslim
My suggestion.. quit now. You're stereotyping and sounding rather racist and prejudiced.
Look man. If I was a baker working for the Taliban in Afghanistan and I was a Pakistani and I had a the whole turban and beard thing, I would expect to be detained. It is not unreasonable for the U.S. to think maybe he was posing as a baker, or whatever.
For 14 months?
You bask in the freedom and security of every day life in America, yet vilify the people that give it you.
Give it to me? And for reference I only vilify those who would take it away. I have not vilified the first soldier or FBI agent sir...I have vilified a policy that would take it away from me and those responsible for that policy.
I'm sure the families of the 9/11 victims wish there was a Patriot Act five years earlier and maybe, just maybe, that particular event could have been prevented.
Ya know I lost a good friend in that bombing. But she would not have sacrificed freedom for "maybe, just maybe".
You ask how this "affects me". These are my rights too. The only thing that keeps me from being Mohammad Shah is the Constitution (though apparently that does not protect me under the current regime). And that sir is the only thing that protects you.
Last edited by Arborealus on February 13, 2004, 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I can live with the occassional innocent person being left to rot in jail without an offical charge raised against them if it helps prevent against 9/11's and little girls getting raped and murdered.
How many innocent people should we be willing to sacrifice? You willing to be the first?
Look man. If I was a baker working for the Taliban in Afghanistan and I was a Pakistani and I had a the whole turban and beard thing, I would expect to be detained. It is not unreasonable for the U.S. to think maybe he was posing as a baker, or whatever.
You bask in the freedom and security of every day life in America, yet vilify the people that give it you. I'm sure the families of the 9/11 victims wish there was a Patriot Act five years earlier and maybe, just maybe, that particular event could have been prevented.
There is a price for freedom. I'm willing to pay for it. I'm willing to give up my "right" to go to an airport and not be searched. I'm willing to give up my "right" to carry handguns where ever and when ever I want.
I'm willing to give up my right to walk the streets with a turban, a beard, attending mosque's, changing over to muslim, and choosing to make friends and associations with known terrorists organizations. If I do those things I may finally feel ther wraith of the Patriot Act. But, I would deserve it.
Wait wait wait, so the price of freedom is freedom itself?
-xzionis human mage on mannoroth
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
You know Arb, that quote of yours has been bugging me since I first saw it. It's a great quote and really pertains to the subject well. But something about it bugged the hell out of me. I think I finally figured out what it was.
That quote, taken in the context of the time in which it was said, relates to "temporary safety" in terms of reprieve from heavyhanded British rule, or Indians, or even say the French, to round out the threats of the time.
The freedoms that Franklin was talking about might be equivilent to the freedoms that we sacrifice for security today, but the threat is totally different.
This isn't about a colony uprising against it's founding government. This isn't about land claims in an "unclaimed" territory. ("Unclaimed" because I don't want to pussyfoot around Native American rights to land claims or any other politically correct BS. Please don't attempt to pick apart my argument based on my description of land ownership at the time.)
The Patriot Act revolves around threats to American citizens from a countryless army. Widely accepted to be religious fanatics who see our industrialization of their lands, our dependance on their oil, our largely "liberal" ways as a threat to the authority of their Secular-centric governments and way of life. They are waging a holy war, and instead of attacking the militaries of the countries they target, they attack the citizens.
9/11 was an attack on our citizens and our Economic foundation. This isn't the type of security that Franklin was speaking of protecting. He's speaking of the security of the young nation to remain a nation when much of the population was still loyal to the British Empire. He's not referring to the security of a nation of non-military personnel that have to worry about being targets of military-like strikes for the simple fact that we are attempting to live our lives in this country.
I don't want to sound too fanatical about this subject. I think it's a great quote and probably something that lawmakers should have been mulling over while they were writing the new security laws we live under. However, if the fact that I can't park in front of an Airport when I pick my father up from a business trip, or having to be searched before getting on a plane, or having my package from Taiwan take an extra day or two in customs to ensure that it's safe to enter the country, I'm willing to endure the restrictions of those freedoms in order to maintain the security of our nation and the protection of our citizens from attack.
I don't agree with holding non-combatants outside of American soil with no rights, inditements or access to attorneys. I think that's going overboard. However, if the nations that those people belong to weren't supporting the people who propogated those attacks, I feel confident that we would not have needed to detain these people.
Some day we'll be a planet of nations. At some point, people will live with an understanding of differences and beliefs that doesn't include having to kill people to prove that your god is better than my god. Christians, by and large, learned this lesson in the last 400 years. I eagerly await the time when Middle Eastern Islamics come around to this fact as well.
You know Arb, that quote of yours has been bugging me since I first saw it. It's a great quote and really pertains to the subject well. But something about it bugged the hell out of me. I think I finally figured out what it was.
That quote, taken in the context of the time in which it was said, relates to "temporary safety" in terms of reprieve from heavyhanded British rule, or Indians, or even say the French, to round out the threats of the time.
The freedoms that Franklin was talking about might be equivilent to the freedoms that we sacrifice for security today, but the threat is totally different.
This isn't about a colony uprising against it's founding government. This isn't about land claims in an "unclaimed" territory. ("Unclaimed" because I don't want to pussyfoot around Native American rights to land claims or any other politically correct BS. Please don't attempt to pick apart my argument based on my description of land ownership at the time.)
The Patriot Act revolves around threats to American citizens from a countryless army. Widely accepted to be religious fanatics who see our industrialization of their lands, our dependance on their oil, our largely "liberal" ways as a threat to the authority of their Secular-centric governments and way of life. They are waging a holy war, and instead of attacking the militaries of the countries they target, they attack the citizens.
9/11 was an attack on our citizens and our Economic foundation. This isn't the type of security that Franklin was speaking of protecting. He's speaking of the security of the young nation to remain a nation when much of the population was still loyal to the British Empire. He's not referring to the security of a nation of non-military personnel that have to worry about being targets of military-like strikes for the simple fact that we are attempting to live our lives in this country.
Sorry, Franklin was very specific and precise in his wording. It still applies directly. He was not speaking in the abstract. He did not say some freedoms nor some forms of security. Fundamentalist extremisim is exactly what he was dealing with.
I don't want to sound too fanatical about this subject. I think it's a great quote and probably something that lawmakers should have been mulling over while they were writing the new security laws we live under. However, if the fact that I can't park in front of an Airport when I pick my father up from a business trip, or having to be searched before getting on a plane, or having my package from Taiwan take an extra day or two in customs to ensure that it's safe to enter the country. I'm willing to endure the restrictions of those freedoms in order to maintain the security of our nation and the protection of our citizens from attack
Ummm these aren't rights...I havent talked about any of those things. It is perfectly legal to rule where one may and may not park etc. These restrictions were largely in place before the patriot act and having nothing to do with it...The parts of the patriot act that applies to these is simply increasing funding for them...
I don't agree with holding non-combatants outside of American soil with no rights, inditements or access to attorneys. I think that's going overboard. However, if the nations that those people belong to weren't supporting the people who propogated those attacks, I feel confident that we would not have needed to detain these people.
Mohammad Shah is a British Citizen. We are also holding French and Australian Citizens and perhaps more nationalities (I don't know offhand).
Arborealus wrote:
Sorry, Franklin was very specific and precise in his wording. It still applies directly. He was not speaking in the abstract. He did not say some freedoms nor some forms of security. Fundamentalist extremisim is exactly what he was dealing with.
He does say "essential freedoms" however.
I don't agree with holding non-combatants outside of American soil with no rights, inditements or access to attorneys. I think that's going overboard. However, if the nations that those people belong to weren't supporting the people who propogated those attacks, I feel confident that we would not have needed to detain these people.
Mohammad Shah is a British Citizen. We are also holding French and Australian Citizens and perhaps more nationalities (I don't know offhand).
Richard Reid was/is an American Citizen....
I was speaking in a broad sense about Middle Eastern countries that either support, or support by feigned ignorance, the proliferation of terrorist organizations. A small handful of exceptions in the form of Eurpoean, American or Australian nationals doesn't undermine the legitimacy of my original statement.
Yes those are clearly defined in the constitution.
I was speaking in a broad sense about Middle Eastern countries that either support, or support by feigned ignorance, the proliferation of terrorist organizations. A small handful of exceptions in the form of Eurpoean, American or Australian nationals doesn't undermine the legitimacy of my original statement.
Ok so the residents of a country in which a war is fought should be subject to imprisonment with out probable cause? Or is residence in a country probable cause? I'm not sure when you want to say its ok to detain someone. How do we determine what feigned ignorance is as opposed to actual ignorance?
