A Matter in Bad Need of Attention

[Adam's Apple]

Mosque Matters
By Michael A. Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute
June 22, 2006

Maybe We'd Tackle the Tough Issues If We Got that We're at War

Some day we will be forced to deal fully with the war we are in, and when that happens we’re going to discover a lot of very nasty problems about the future of America. One of them has to do with, of all things, the First Amendment. Consider this story from Wednesday’s London Times:

for full article
http://aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24586/pub_detail.asp

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Mosque Matters
By Michael A. Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute
June 22, 2006

Maybe We'd Tackle the Tough Issues If We Got that We're at War

Some day we will be forced to deal fully with the war we are in, and when that happens we’re going to discover a lot of very nasty problems about the future of America. One of them has to do with, of all things, the First Amendment. Consider this story from Wednesday’s London Times:

for full article
http://aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24586/pub_detail.asp

The argument that we are losing lives and therefore must curtail freedoms does not hold water. We have given lives in order to protect these freedoms. We hold these freedoms to be quintessential for our existance. Why the sudden change of pace? No one ever said living in an open society would be easy. Our founding fathers understood this. Why have we lost this mentality?

 

[insein]

The argument that we are losing lives and therefore must curtail freedoms does not hold water. We have given lives in order to protect these freedoms. We hold these freedoms to be quintessential for our existance. Why the sudden change of pace? No one ever said living in an open society would be easy. Our founding fathers understood this. Why have we lost this mentality?

Exactly right. We have laws that are on the books currently that can tackle this problem. We dont need new ones created to infringe upon more freedoms.

The FBI, CIA and numerous other government agencies can investigate mosques, churches, synagogues, temples, etc at anytime if they have suspicion of wrong doing. Wiretapping mosque telephone lines is being done already if they are suspected of giving aide to known terror suspects. We dont need to create new sweeping laws to infringe upon the rest of American society for a problem that only encompasses less than 1% of the population. Not to mention we dont need a precedent set for future leaders of this country to abuse.

Let the FBI, CIA, etc do their jobs under the current laws. Don't create worse problems.

 

[CSM]

The argument that we are losing lives and therefore must curtail freedoms does not hold water. We have given lives in order to protect these freedoms. We hold these freedoms to be quintessential for our existance. Why the sudden change of pace? No one ever said living in an open society would be easy. Our founding fathers understood this. Why have we lost this mentality?

Just about the same time we decided that it is more important to capture the moral high ground, be PC, etc. than it is to preserve the nation and do what is right for ALL the citizens of this nation....when we decided that special interests, minorities, illegal immigrants and animals had more rights than the majority of citizens.....that's when and why.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Just about the same time we decided that it is more important to capture the moral high ground, be PC, etc. than it is to preserve the nation and do what is right for ALL the citizens of this nation....when we decided that special interests, minorities, illegal immigrants and animals had more rights than the majority of citizens.....that's when and why.

Another partisan snipe without addressing the points that I made in my post. Come on man, if all you can do is cry about liberals, then go cry about them. When you want to have a rational discussion come back.

 

[Gunny]

Another partisan snipe without addressing the points that I made in my post. Come on man, if all you can do is cry about liberals, then go cry about them. When you want to have a rational discussion come back.

Which partisan snipe? His or yours? At least CSM's is logical. Yours is not. You place your individual convenience and ideals above the collective right of the people of this Nation to continue to exist.

Yet was it not the liberals who cried the loudest post-9/11 for Bush to "protect us?"

You demand protection; yet, you refuse to be invonvenienced of have any of your perceived rights so much as altered in order to do so. I've heard that most called "wanting your cake and eating it too."

 

[insein]

CSM and gunny,

We have laws that can take care of these problems. Don't let them fool you into making new ones that will take away OUR rights as well. All the time we are faced with decisions of Freedom or security. I for one choose Freedom because security is NOT guaranteed by anyone.

 

[Gunny]

CSM and gunny,

We have laws that can take care of these problems. Don't let them fool you into making new ones that will take away OUR rights as well. All the time we are faced with decisions of Freedom or security. I for one choose Freedom because security is NOT guaranteed by anyone.

I doubt anyone is fooling us into anything. Rather than one extreme or the other, I believe in a happy medium based on logic and common sense.

And maybe it's just the military in us, but I for one, don't feel that my personal inconvenience at times is that big a sacrifice for soem common sense security.

No, we are not guaranteed security, but when you have knuckleheads calling us "the Great Satan," calling for our destruction, and flying our own planes into our buildings full of noncombatants, I don't need an acorn to fall on my head to tell me I might want to watch them.

I also would like to point out a significant point here: You cannot have ultimate individual liberty AND security. One will always be at the expense of the other. The liberals want both, and that was the point of my statement.

 

[Annie]

I doubt anyone is fooling us into anything. Rather than one extreme or the other, I believe in a happy medium based on logic and common sense.

And maybe it's just the military in us, but I for one, don't feel that my personal inconvenience at times is that big a sacrifice for soem common sense security.

No, we are not guaranteed security, but when you have knuckleheads calling us "the Great Satan," calling for our destruction, and flying our own planes into our buildings full of noncombatants, I don't need an acorn to fall on my head to tell me I might want to watch them.

I have to agree with you Gunny. If the government wishes to watch for weird patterns with phones or computers, I just don't find that so crushing on my privacy, if it will help them perhaps find a cell in the country.

The banking deal, well I don't have money in Belgium or anywhere but down a couple blocks from my home. Yeah, so it's now Chase, but if they are watching my account, hopefully they'll take pity and add to it.

All kidding aside, I haven't found the government oppressive in what is literally wartime. I think that is the problem many are having, it doesn't seem like wartime, perhaps the government should shoulder some of that blame?

I know that during WWII calls were literally monitored. Gasoline was rationed, today we'd hear people say, "The government is trying to control our movements." Seriously.

 

[Gunny]

I have to agree with you Gunny. If the government wishes to watch for weird patterns with phones or computers, I just don't find that so crushing on my privacy, if it will help them perhaps find a cell in the country.

The banking deal, well I don't have money in Belgium or anywhere but down a couple blocks from my home. Yeah, so it's now Chase, but if they are watching my account, hopefully they'll take pity and add to it.

All kidding aside, I haven't found the government oppressive in what is literally wartime. I think that is the problem many are having, it doesn't seem like wartime, perhaps the government should shoulder some of that blame?

I know that during WWII calls were literally monitored. Gasoline was rationed, today we'd hear people say, "The government is trying to control our movements." Seriously.

If the government has nothing better to do than look at my bank account and phone calls, someone is in serious need of job validation.:rotflmao:

And you are correct. Yje US faced far more restrictions on personal liberties during WWII, and during the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus altogether.

As I've said before, seems to me the only people who should really be worried are the ones calling terrorists and/or moving large, unaccounted for sums of money through their accounts.

Besides all that, I have always gone under the assumption that someone was always listening, and the IRS can comandeer your home and sift through every penny you ever made.

SO there really isn't anything new going on, IMO. Just something more for the left to sensationalize.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Which partisan snipe? His or yours? At least CSM's is logical. Yours is not. You place your individual convenience and ideals above the collective right of the people of this Nation to continue to exist.

Yet was it not the liberals who cried the loudest post-9/11 for Bush to "protect us?"

You demand protection; yet, you refuse to be invonvenienced of have any of your perceived rights so much as altered in order to do so. I've heard that most called "wanting your cake and eating it too."

Let me just ask you something. Was the internment of hundreds of thousands of innocent American citizens necessary during WWII? (Japanese Internment Camps) Moreover, was it legal? Would you take the same steps today?

 

[Annie]

Let me just ask you something. Was the internment of hundreds of thousands of innocent American citizens necessary during WWII? (Japanese Internment Camps) Moreover, was it legal? Would you take the same steps today?

Tough one there. I think the government acted in a way they thought the times demanded. Innocents were hurt. Were they all innocent?

There hasn't been an incarceration of Muslims, heck even the airports aren't profiling, instead skipping young, male, Muslims from inspections, but hitting the Swiss 75 year old grandmother. Go figure.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Tough one there. I think the government acted in a way they thought the times demanded. Innocents were hurt. Were they all innocent?

There hasn't been an incarceration of Muslims, heck even the airports aren't profiling, instead skipping young, male, Muslims from inspections, but hitting the Swiss 75 year old grandmother. Go figure.

Its not like there werent calls for the incarceration of all Muslims after 9/11. Hell I remember the commentators talking about it. The point is, the more power the government is allowed, the more it will take. Unless we prevent the government from abusing its authority, then we will never regain the freedoms that our grandfathers once charished.

A true patriot believes in liberty and freedom. A false patriot believes in control.

 

[manu1959]

Its not like there werent calls for the incarceration of all Muslims after 9/11. Hell I remember the commentators talking about it. The point is, the more power the government is allowed, the more it will take. Unless we prevent the government from abusing its authority, then we will never regain the freedoms that our grandfathers once charished.

A true patriot believes in liberty and freedom. A false patriot believes in control.

what freedoms have you lost?

 

[Annie]

Its not like there werent calls for the incarceration of all Muslims after 9/11. Hell I remember the commentators talking about it. The point is, the more power the government is allowed, the more it will take. Unless we prevent the government from abusing its authority, then we will never regain the freedoms that our grandfathers once charished.

A true patriot believes in liberty and freedom. A false patriot believes in control.

And there are calls right here for Jews to be sent to Israel, doesn't mean it's going to happen. You are right to be concerned, but in all honesty, history is rife with examples of restrictions on individual rights during war or other national 'crisis'. Those periods are followed by an expansion of rights. So complain, call, write, whatever you feel the need to do. Just don't advocated the release of intel, that would be used to prevent more attacks and speed up the end of the threats.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

And there are calls right here for Jews to be sent to Israel, doesn't mean it's going to happen. You are right to be concerned, but in all honesty, history is rife with examples of restrictions on individual rights during war or other national 'crisis'. Those periods are followed by an expansion of rights. So complain, call, write, whatever you feel the need to do. Just don't advocated the release of intel, that would be used to prevent more attacks and speed up the end of the threats.

But the question is, are they really gathering intelligence? The vast majority of terrorist networks are incredibly smart, they don't use phones that can be traced, they use encryption etc etc. So then what does tapping our phones gain us? Unchecked power is rife for abuse, which is everything that they have asked from us so far.

 

[Hobbit]

But the question is, are they really gathering intelligence? The vast majority of terrorist networks are incredibly smart, they don't use phones that can be traced, they use encryption etc etc. So then what does tapping our phones gain us? Unchecked power is rife for abuse, which is everything that they have asked from us so far.

All phones can be traced, and you give the terrorist too much credit. The wiretapping 'scandal' caught many terrorists in the act. It also didn't tap domestic phones without warrants. It tapped foreign phones, some of which happened to be talking to domestic phones. This is nothing new and has been going on since there was such a thing as wiretapping. However, this 'abuse' has yet to show itself except in a couple of scandelous congressional races, which ended in the abuser being prosecuted.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

All phones can be traced, and you give the terrorist too much credit. The wiretapping 'scandal' caught many terrorists in the act. It also didn't tap domestic phones without warrants. It tapped foreign phones, some of which happened to be talking to domestic phones. This is nothing new and has been going on since there was such a thing as wiretapping. However, this 'abuse' has yet to show itself except in a couple of scandelous congressional races, which ended in the abuser being prosecuted.

Really now? Because the last time I checked they were doing the tapping without a warrant. Which is my main problem about it. I don't care if they have a warrant to tap, because they have probable cause. When you don't have a warrant or can't be bothered to get a warrant, thats when I have major issues, because there is no oversight.

 

[Annie]

But the question is, are they really gathering intelligence? The vast majority of terrorist networks are incredibly smart, they don't use phones that can be traced, they use encryption etc etc. So then what does tapping our phones gain us? Unchecked power is rife for abuse, which is everything that they have asked from us so far.

No, they stopped repeated use of the cell phones, when newspaper articles mentioned that was how they were able to track and bomb them. Their 'power of encryption' from what I've read, has been mostly to write in Arabic, our studpidity is in not having enough translators.

We keep seeing 'they know that their phones and accounts are monitored.' Whoopdeedo! They didn't know 'how to prevent that', until it was spelled out for them, in NYTimes.

I work in a bank part time. While I was unaware of the program described, there are others that also send red flags. Again, these do not cause the loss of privacy so many are kicking about, but do point out possible criminal transactions, such as money laundering.

 

[CSM]

Another partisan snipe without addressing the points that I made in my post. Come on man, if all you can do is cry about liberals, then go cry about them. When you want to have a rational discussion come back.

Well, it's nice that you think my post only applies to liberals. I didn't mention liberals at all. That tells me that you believe the stereotype is true.

My point was that you cannot have individual freedoms AT ALL unless you allow the government some latitude in protecting those rights. It is obvious that we (at times) sacrifice individual rights for the greater good. It is an individuals right to have private conversations. When that conversation between individuals conspires to commit a crime does the right to privacy still apply? I know you will say "get a warrant" but that is not the point...the point is that we all have agreed that a warrant trumps the individuals right to privacy.