Of Subways and Suspects

[Zhukov]

Of Subways and Suspects

Curtailing Civil Liberties Does Not Make Us Safer

.....

Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

In my opinion this post boils down to a complete misunderstanding of this quote.

Ben Franklin was correct. You are wrong.

Having your purse searched as a prerequisite to riding the public subway system is not in fact an essential liberity. If you want to ride the subway, we want to make sure you aren't carrying a bomb. If you don't like it, you are free to walk. No one is violating your civil liberties.

The way the the world is today, with the means to travel quickly and the means to cause widespread death and destruction cheaply and easily, is not a temporary situation. It is our reality. Procedures put in place to prevent terrorism are not there to provide temporary safety, they are responses to real world truths that should have been instituted well before 9/11 and should be continued indefinetely into the future.

When I get on a plane I want to know there aren't terrorists or bombs on board. I leave it to the government and the airlines to make sure, on my behalf, that such is the case. The method by which they assure themselves is their perogative just as it is mine to decide whether I choose to subject myself to their methods in order to ride their plane, or if I would rather walk.

If they decide they want everyone the endure a strip search with a full cavity examination NO ONES CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE VIOLATED.

You either subject yourself to it willingly, or you avoid it all together.

Do you understand that?

While terror attacks are horrific - like plane crashes - they are also statistically insignificant.

Statistically insignificant? Have you forgotten what 9/11 did to the economy? That particular terrorist attack affected more than just the people killed. If you don't know anyone who died that day, I'd be willing to bet you know someone who did know a victim.

What about Madrid? That changed the direction of a democratic state.

To imply terrorism is unimportant just because it is unlikely you yourself will be killed by a terrorist is monumentally.....I have nothing nice to say.

On the other hand, lets look at governments that have complete power over your lives. If you live in such a nation, are you less likely to be a victim of terrorism? Perhaps. In Iraq, Saddam had a hard line against terrorists, and kept his country free of them. He also murdered, oh, hundreds of thousands of other citizens at his whim. And China? Okay, little or no terrorism. But did that make the students of Tieneman Square "safer" when the government of China decided to execute thousands of them?

You say on the other hand, but what was the first hand? You provide no example of a government or governments which have absolutely no power over their citizens lives. Such a country does not exist, as far as I am aware, but are you suggesting that anarchy would be completely safe?

Also, you are bordering on the old slipperly slope argument: today we are looking in old lady's handbags, tommorow the gulag archipelago. It's a silly argument because it's entirely unsustainable. Be sure to keep away from it.

You get into the 2nd ammendment later on. Our 2nd ammendment is where the slippery slope argument collapses.

In the wake of the recent terrorist bombings, a jittery London police force shot first and asked questions later - questions that will likely go unanswered.

Baseless conjeceture. I wonder, do you really believe there will be no consequences for the officers responsible for the shooting death of that man?



Finally, I've seen you write much more coherently, more cogently, more aesthetically pleasing, and less innundated with banalities before.

Is this a rough draft because I could probably offer a whole slew of grammatical corrections and sentence structure rearrangement suggestions, for a moderate fee of course.

 

[dilloduck]

In my opinion this post boils down to a complete misunderstanding of this quote.

Ben Franklin was correct. You are wrong.

Having your purse searched as a prerequisite to riding the public subway system is not in fact an essential liberity. If you want to ride the subway, we want to make sure you aren't carrying a bomb. If you don't like it, you are free to walk. No one is violating your civil liberties.

The way the the world is today, with the means to travel quickly and the means to cause widespread death and destruction cheaply and easily, is not a temporary situation. It is our reality. Procedures put in place to prevent terrorism are not there to provide temporary safety, they are responses to real world truths that should have been instituted well before 9/11 and should be continued indefinetely into the future.

When I get on a plane I want to know there aren't terrorists or bombs on board. I leave it to the government and the airlines to make sure, on my behalf, that such is the case. The method by which they assure themselves is their perogative just as it is mine to decide whether I choose to subject myself to their methods in order to ride their plane, or if I would rather walk.

If they decide they want everyone the endure a strip search with a full cavity examination NO ONES CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE VIOLATED.

You either subject yourself to it willingly, or you avoid it all together.

Do you understand that?

Statistically insignificant? Have you forgotten what 9/11 did to the economy? That particular terrorist attack affected more than just the people killed. If you don't know anyone who died that day, I'd be willing to bet you know someone who did.

What about Madrid? That changed the direction of a democratic state?

To imply terrorism is unimportant just because it is unlikely you yourself will be killed by a terrorist is monumentally.....I have nothing nice to say.



You say on the other hand, but what was the first hand? You provide no example of a government or governments which have absolutely no power over their citizens lives. Such a country does not exist, as far as I am aware, but are you suggesting that anarchy would be completely safe?

Also, you are bordering on the old slipperly slope argument: today we are looking in old lady's handbags, tommorow the gulag archipelago. It's a silly argument because it's entirely unsustainable. Be sure to keep away from it.

You get into the 2nd ammendment later on. Our 2nd ammendment is where the slippery slope argument collapses.

Baseless conjeceture. I wonder, do you really believe there will be no consequences for the officers responsible for the shooting death of that man?



Finally, I've seen you write much more coherently, more cogently, more aesthetically pleasing, and less innundated with banalities before.

Is this a rough draft because I could probably offer a whole slew of grammtical corrections and sentence structure rearrangement suggestions, for a moderate fee of course.

It DOES get old having to edit all your shit for ya,ANDY.
Run it past some other board before you submit this garbage.

 

[GotZoom]

While terror attacks are horrific - like plane crashes - they are also statistically insignificant.

Statistically insignificant.

Ask the survivors of terrorist attacks if they are insignificant.

Ask the family members of people who have died during terrorists attacks if they are insignificant.

With these searches...and the cooperation of those being searched, maybe terror attacks could go from statistically insignificant to non-existant.

Now wouldn't that be nice?

 

[Annie]

I like Andy's posts. He brings a different perspective to the board and unlike Gabby's et al, there is substance to what he writes. Now that doesn't mean it's correct, but at least there needs to be some thought to the replies.

 

[dilloduck]

I like Andy's posts. He brings a different perspective to the board and unlike Gabby's et al, there is substance to what he writes. Now that doesn't mean it's correct, but at least there needs to be some thought to the replies.

Cmon K--you're not really gonna admonish people for dimissing some of his stuff as outright bullshit, are ya? The substance of his post is liberal drivel. We've heard this crap a million times and it takes very little thought to respond to it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Cmon K--you're not really gonna admonish people for dimissing some of his stuff as outright bullshit, are ya? The substance of his post is liberal drivel. We've heard this crap a million times and it takes very little thought to respond to it.

She said he wasn't correct.

And Kathianne only has admonishment power over those who give it to her.

He is a higher calibre poster than gabby fer shur. At least he TRIES to argue a point. Of course, he's usually wrong, but he sticks with it longer than gabmoedee.

 

[Annie]

Cmon K--you're not really gonna admonish people for dimissing some of his stuff as outright bullshit, are ya? The substance of his post is liberal drivel. We've heard this crap a million times and it takes very little thought to respond to it.

Regarding the bold, where?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What makes you think he understood the "atmosphere"? You're assuming facts not in evidence. HE had no reason to believe that he would be executed - no reason to believe that HE was a terror suspect - I'll venture that he ASSUMED that it was just about his visa, and therefore had NO reason to assume that he was targeted as a terror suspect, thus no reason to think that the 3 PLAIN CLOTHES MEN that were cashing him were thinking that he WAS a terror suspect.

This is so self evident, I find it hard to believe you can't see it.


Andy

It's self evident that running from police is idiotic. He deserved to die. Anyone who runs from cops should be shot.

 

[GotZoom]

I'll tell you a little story. I lived in Italy for a while. I drove a Saab. I was driving to town one day when 4 Carabinieri (police) cars came up on me, lights flashing and basically ran me off the road.

They all jumped out with UZI's in hand, shouting at me to get out of the car and lay on the ground. I speak Italian so I understood what they said.

While I'm on the ground, two guns pointing to my head and one barrel digging in the middle of my back, (yes, and nearly going to the bathroom all over myself) I hear them on the radio saying the "caught him."

They are searching my car, screaming at me not to move, and also screaming "Where is the money, Where did you put the money?"

I'm telling them I don't know what they are talking about ,etc...

The guns digging into me deeper..screams getting louder. I hear the two guys talking on the radio about a bank robbery that just took place. They are verifying the description of the guy; 5 foot 9, about 155, short brown hair, dark coat, driving a Saab, etc.

Yes...that is me.

I then ask the police officers if the suspect is American - first in Italians and then in English.

It was only then that they pulled me up, checked my I.D., saw that I worked for the U.S. Government, apologized and let me go.

I didn't resist. I let them do my thing. I explained who I was and what I was doing.

They let me go.

I didn't run. Had I run, I'd probably be dead.

I didn't do anything wrong so I had nothing to worry about.

If you don't do anything wrong, you don't have to worry about the police.

If if you don't run, regardless if you have done something wrong or not, you won't get killed.

Again, No Brainer.

 

[dilloduck]

I like Andy's posts. He brings a different perspective to the board and unlike Gabby's et al, there is substance to what he writes. Now that doesn't mean it's correct, but at least there needs to be some thought to the replies.

Wouldn't that apply to any post or is Andy just special ?

 

[Annie]

Wouldn't that apply to any post or is Andy just special ?

I already explained why it didn't. Have you caught Gabbey's reading problems?

BTW, I disagree with Andy's point of view, if somehow you missed that too.

 

[dilloduck]

I already explained why it didn't. Have you caught Abbey's reading problems?

BTW, I disagree with Andy's point of view, if somehow you missed that too.

How do you come to the assumption that I missed the fact that you disagree with Andy?
Just don't see it as really necessary to tell people to think before they post but if you do, by all means tell us how we should do things.

 

[Annie]

How do you come to the assumption that I missed the fact that you disagree with Andy?
Just don't see it as really necessary to tell people to think before they post but if you do, by all means tell us how we should do things.

Thanks for the permission and again, I didn't tell anyone to do anything.

 

[dilloduck]

Thanks for the permission and again, I didn't tell anyone to do anything.

No --you just suggested what you thought people should do

now where was it made the assumption again? I'll be real bold and suggest that people should answer questions presented to them.

 

[Annie]

No --you just suggested what you thought people should do

now where was it made the assumption again? I'll be real bold and suggest that people should answer questions presented to them.

No one, including myself, has to answer your questions that have nothing to do with any topic or conspiracy you manage to dream up. Get real.

 

[dilloduck]

No one, including myself, has to answer your questions that have nothing to do with any topic or conspiracy you manage to dream up. Get real.

A post was made
it was responded to
you suggested that there

at least there needs to be some thought to the replies.

I know what the thread is about
I questioned your post
No conspiracy--just don't think posters need to be told what to do
It's not a bunch of school kids here
If you can't answer a challenge then so be it but don't accuse me of missing things I didn't. My PM works just fine if there is a problem.
I'm real--trust me.

 

[Annie]

A post was made
it was responded to
you suggested that there
I know what the thread is about
I questioned your post
No conspiracy--just don't think posters need to be told what to do
It's not a bunch of school kids here
If you can't answer a challenge then so be it but don't accuse me of missing things I didn't. My PM works just fine if there is a problem.
I'm real--trust me.

Ya know, you are just creepy. You were the only one that gave any 'commands', which I pointed out. Get over it.

 

[Said1]

A post was made
it was responded to
you suggested that there
I know what the thread is about
I questioned your post
No conspiracy--just don't think posters need to be told what to do
It's not a bunch of school kids here
If you can't answer a challenge then so be it but don't accuse me of missing things I didn't. My PM works just fine if there is a problem.
I'm real--trust me.

SHe wasn't telling ANYONE what to do. Like his posts or not, there is more to them than Bush=Hitler.

Now both of you, back in your seats!

 

[Bonnie]

Hey - been busy!





I'm not saying that gun toting citizens would necessarily be useful against suicide bomber per se, but an armed citizenry *would* lend strength and stability to the nation/society at large.


Andy

Hello Andy welcome back!

Now to your point, I do agree that the right to bear arms is essential as one of our freedoms most specifically for me in safeguarding one's home and family from intruders or to protect oneself out on the street from an assault. It would put people in charge of their own security and destinies to an extent. Im just not sure it would be all that effective in helping to defeat terrorism unless there was a known bomber in a crowd and someone shot them before they could kill anyone, my fear would be the shooting of innocent people brought on by paranoia or mob rules mentality.

Regarding your point about our civil liberties, I don't think it needs to be an either or proposition. I would hope we could maintain a reasonable amount of privacy without the government going too far in either direction, while still allowing those protecting us to not be so hamstrung that they become ineffective. From what I know about the Patriot Act it does just that, giving government a little more leeway to investigate while not becoming big brother.

 

[dilloduck]

Ya know, you are just creepy. You were the only one that gave any 'commands', which I pointed out. Get over it.

LOL--creepy----Commands??? please post em again .
You need to accept that some folks are gonna challenge you in spite of your reputation.