Posted on 01/01/2006 2:55:51 PM PST by SunSetSam
December 30, 2005 - The argument over whether President Bush has the authority to direct the National Security Agency to listen in on the conversations of suspected terrorists on US soil is split primarily into two camps; those who believe we are engaged in a war for our very survival against radical Islam and those who believe – and always have – that terrorism operates under a set of rules that govern its actions and therefore should be treated as a law enforcement issue. This is just another example of why there should have been a formal declaration of war after September 11, 2001.
It needs to be repeated as many times as necessary until every single American acknowledges this supposition as a distinct possibility; should we lose this war against radical Islam and the terror it uses to breed fear and submission, our way of life, our government and our country, will cease to exist as we know it.
Those on the “progressive” left have just begun mentally chewing on what for them is a gargantuan idea, that the military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are but battles in a much more monumental war. Those who understand the danger facing our country have come to the realization that there are two major fronts in our struggle for survival; the physical front (locations of armed conflict) and the ideological front (where the battles for the mind of a society take place).
It is very important to be victorious on the physical battlefields and so far we have been successful. As much as the “progressive” left and the mainstream media would have us believe that we are struggling to achieve victory, the evidence of our success is overwhelming and validated by the millions of purple fingers we have seen in Iraq over the course of three truly free elections. It is further evidenced by the free elections in Afghanistan and accurate polling of both countries that indicate their people believe that their “future’s so bright they have to wear shades.”
If we are to compare Iraq to Vietnam in any way at all it would have to be in contrast. US military efforts in Iraq stand as testimony to the idea that if allowed to do their jobs, and complete their mission devoid of interference from the “progressive” elite in Washington DC and their blind followers who haven’t the vision to see past the daily protest march, the US military will always be victorious. They are superiorly trained and equipped, and motivated by the desire to fight for the freedom of oppressed people rather than, by gutless default, pave the way for tyranny.
More difficult than armed conflict, the ideological front is a battle for the will of our society and is already taking place on our own soil. The controversy over the NSA directive issued by President Bush is a prime example.
Again it needs to be repeated as often as need be; should we lose this war against the oppressive mandates of radical Islam our country will cease to exist as we know it. There will be no civil liberties. There will be no judicial recourse. There will be no petitioning of our government. There will be no First Amendment rights, or Second, or Third. If we fail to be victorious over the fundamentalist zealots who promote radical Islam, not only as a religion but as a totalitarian way of life, this “experiment in democracy” that is our government will be, if texts other than the Quran are even allowed, a short chapter in The History of Infidel North America Before Islam.
It is ironic then that an organization such as the American Civil Liberties Union is fighting for the “rights” of those who would dismantle and outlaw the ACLU, if not behead its leaders, should radical Islam be victorious.
It is paradoxical then that defense lawyers are attempting to have courts overturn the convictions of confessed terrorists and self-avowed al Qaeda operatives. For these lawyers to stand on principle is one thing, for them to stand on principle only to see their freed clients return to the battle against the very principles used to free them is quite another.
It is reckless for “progressive” politicians and activists to be arguing points of order regarding the president’s execution of this war effort when the same points of order, directives and tactics have been used by past presidents and validated by established courts and authorities. In fact, their obstinate refusal to acknowledge recorded history can very well be considered aiding and abetting the enemy and there are consequences for those actions written into the Constitution, unlike the mounting number of fictitious rights frequently referred to by the “progressive” left.
In an effort to safeguard the ideological liberties the Framers had in mind at the writings of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, the “progressive” left is willing to enable our enemies to use our own system to bring about our country’s demise. If the “progressive” left is truly supporting our troops and if they truly want to win the war against the encroaching influence of radical Islam and the terror they use to victimize all who stand in their way, if they are really on our side then it is time for their actions to speak for them instead of their words. So far their words have been selfishly divisive and irresponsible. It is beyond naïve to believe that their words are not being put to good use in the ideological battle our enemy is ruthlessly waging against us.
I suppose in that kind of convoluted way you are right. But, they will also take over a non-free people as well. They hate us because we are not them. I notice alot of people don't seem to understand that.
susie
Well, I'm glad you set me straight. I really was all set to use my time machine!
susie
What kind of insanity would lead a person to believe that the jihadis can win in the US? How much liberty will you have should winged pigs win in the US?
Yes I know! But that's another thing I suspect. The real troublemakers are not punished because the administrators are afraid of them and their families. The ones who are disciplined are the ones who aren't likely to fight back with violence.
Actually, for the most part the kids had to do something pretty bad to even get the parent's involved. Really, most schools are afraid to tick parents off. I know it doesn't seem like that from the news, but it seems (in my experience, both as a teacher and a parent) to be true.
It's NOTHING like when I was a kid. We were afraid of the teachers and principals (in a respectful sort of way). The kids today aren't afraid of much.
I'm sure there is some abuse, there always is when anyone has power over another, but I think the problems with schools are more subtle than that.
susie
Hmmm...winged pigs might actually be a good defense against the terrorists!
:)
Actually, I don't think it depends on your definition of them winning. I do think it's quite possible to be totally outnumbered and lose our way of life in the future. But, I don't think they could invade our shores tomorrow and win a war of that sort.
susie
Information is liable to used by anybody years later because it is stored. But a search of your luggage (just as unconconstitutional) does not get recorded.
The information in the 900 FBI files wasn't meant to be used for political purposes, but we can be sure it was.
We can get search warrants against terrorists. And I'm not sure that monitoring overseas communication requires a search warrant (I'll let the lawyers battle that one).
They're taking over Europe without hardly firing a shot. I bet you never thought that would happen. I also bet you never thought they would fly planes into buildings either...did ya? A few well placed bombs here, taking out a few more thousand Americans, and Pelosi, kennedy, kerry, schummer, the old media, and all the other leftist and terrorist sympathizers in this country would try to hand this country to them on a silver platter.
They are terrorist, they spread terror.
Listen to the calls and prevent another 9-11 or something more catastrophic. All my freedoms won't do crap for me if I'm DEAD.
What I find amazing is the carping over the "loss of freedom" when we are at war, when the reality is that we have lost more freedom with election law changes and over religious expression at Christmas than we have during the entire war on terror.
I agree. Amazing.
Yeah, well, that is Europe. This is America. If the Europeans can't keep their country, then there was nothing there worth keeping. It is a battle of character and constitution -- he who has the biggest balls will win (metaphorically). Americans still clank when they walk.
Though some days I do wonder. There are an awful lot of pathetic timid souls in America, as is in evidence on this thread. Living is inherently dangerous -- we all die sometime -- and people need to stop pretending like they can change this fact if they just give the government more power.
I also bet you never thought they would fly planes into buildings either...did ya?
Oh, I've been expecting far worse for decades. This kind of thing is going to happen in the real world. An American is many orders of magnitude more likely to die at the hands of another American, intentionally or otherwise, than at the hands of a jihadi jackass. The jihadis are statistical noise, and should be treated as such. Smack'em hard if you happen to find them, but don't reorganize the bloody world on their account.
A few well placed bombs here, taking out a few more thousand Americans, and Pelosi, kennedy, kerry, schummer, the old media, and all the other leftist and terrorist sympathizers in this country would try to hand this country to them on a silver platter.
The craven left-wing speaks for themselves, not for your average American. Americans are venal, but nowhere near as venal as those talking hand puppets. The psychotic left can do quite a bit of damage, but they do not have the power to hand this country over to the jihadis, even in their best wet dreams.
They are terrorist, they spread terror.
Terror is a voluntary response that never killed anyone.
Listen to the calls and prevent another 9-11 or something more catastrophic. All my freedoms won't do crap for me if I'm DEAD.
Whether or not you are dead is really irrelevant. Your eating habits are more likely to kill you than a terrorist, but we are not asking the government to inspect our shopping lists.
We are all dead one way or another -- there is nothing special about dying. What makes life special is what we do while we live, and the amount of freedom we have determines the limits of what we can do while we live. I'd rather have a life of boundless opportunity with the freedom to make or break it as I see fit than to gain the weak promise of a few more days of a drab life under heavy-handed government.
I'll take quality over quantity, thank-you-very-much. Though you will notice that average quality of life tends to correlate with average quantity of life, historically. Freedom generates wealth generates power.
I can't imagine how the terrorists could take our country by armed force. I can imagine that we could lose our freedoms.
How do you suggest that we rebuild buildings should the worse scenario happen? Our economy will be destroyed. No money.
We have the strongest economy in the world. If half of it were destroyed, we would still have the GDP of Sweden. But they couldn't even do that because there really aren't that many loose nukes.
How long would we stay rich? Let's say for the sake of argument that New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and any large city was wiped out.
Pretty much the same thing happened to Japan. But today they are a major economic power.
There will be no tyrant in the United States. I have more faith in our citizens to believe that for a second.
I don't. We came within a gnat's eyelash of having a President Gore or a President Kerry. They elected Bill Clinton president -- twice! Clinton did more to appease the terrorists and empower evil regimes than anyone else. He and his cronies were digging though the dirt in those FBI files and God only knows what he found. Why do you think he wasn't removed from office?
A few thousand out of 300 million. Three thousand is mere statistical noise, as much as it sucks to be one of those three thousand. Ironically, we ignore the tens of thousands that died that same day from other unfortunate causes that had nothing to do with terrorism.
You would condemn 300 million Americans to a life under heavy-handed oppressive government to save the lives of a few thousand unlucky people. That is an immoral and disgraceful position that reeks of cowardice. How do you get out of bed in the morning?
Fortunately for us, our Founding Fathers were willing to step up to the plate and risk many thousands of lives for the freedoms of a couple million. They would find your "if it saves one life" argument to be an appalling and disgusting calculus. Apparently inflation has taken a horrific toll on the value of our freedoms.
I would like to know too, but the phone company and I and everyone else is prevented by law from listening to those calls. So why don't we do this? Instead of giving the government the power to listen in, why not give Americans that right?
Why don't we start thinking in terms of trusting citizens to do the right thing instead of trusting the government?
A private citizen does not become more trustworthy just because they take the title of "government bureaucrat".
Don't want the government reading or listening to your correspondence...use snail mail. Nothing is private anymore, to think so is being either naive or dense.
As long as we're in this war, the government needs to do what it needs to do to protect us.
Ask Carter and Clinton. They also had domestic spying programs.
Banks have been robbed before while the robbers got away. That doesn't make it legal. OJ Simpson hacked up his wife and he was acquitted. Doesn't make it right.
The fact that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on whether Lincoln and FDR's transgressions were constitutional doesn't make them right. The court has refused to judge on a lot of unconstitutional gun control legislation but that doesn't mean the 2nd amendment doesn't apply anymore.
I am in a position to be far more aware of this fact than most people.
The NSA has been doing this kind of thing for ages; my argument is not specific to that at all. I am arguing against the underlying idea that it is constructive in the long-term to give up civil liberties for the appearance of minor improvements in safety. Losing civil liberties to the government frequently creates at least as many problems for the private citizen as it eliminates, and rarely in a fashion that was envisioned when first implemented.
For example, guns were eliminated from airplanes to keep people safe from "bad guys with guns", though not because so many people actually died from "bad guys with guns". But I guarantee you that 9/11 would have been a much less significant event if we had not eliminated guns from airplanes to make the grass-eaters feel safer from "bad guys with guns". In the final calculus, making people feel "safer" probably needlessly cost many American lives, net. I'll bet there were an awful lot of American citizens on those planes that dearly wished the government would have let them carry a gun on board. Eliminating civil liberties inevitable has negative consequences for life and liberty down the line that the proponents of these "safety measures" never foresaw.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.