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.
Rush used to say the same thing. I remember how he insisted over and over again that the right of privacy did not exist.
Funny thing is that it will probably be the only thing that keeps him out of prison.
All the more reason to restrict their movements in the US. Who is better equipped to do that, the American people or the government.
I think we should be given the authority to refuse service to Muslims or anyone we don't trust. We should be allowed to put whatever conditions we want on our dealings with these people. Flight schools should be allowed to refuse to train them. Motels and hotels should be allowed to turn them away. Truck rental companies should be allowed to flip them the bird.
What do you mean? Faith that they will do what?
You're talking about a leftist liberal city. They don't like guns. You can bet any other city you're talking about is a leftist one in a blue state.
That's right but, in the meantime, what happened to the 2nd amendment? How long will it take before they get their gun rights back? Once you lose liberty, it will take a long time to get it back, if ever.
But close only counts in horseshoes.
If someone throws a horseshoe at me and misses, I'm putting on my helmet and brass jockey shorts.
Their goal, as they have repeatedly stated was to turn the US into a Caphilate.(spe?) They can't do it, but, they can cause a lot of damage on their way down. If listening to their calls would stop that, I'm for it.
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 many loose nukes are there? You can answer this question? You know how many North Korea has? You know how many Iran has? We have a great economy now, let loose a couple of nukes and you won't be able say the same thing.
Pretty much the same thing happened to Japan. But today they are a major economic power.
Japan? WE rebuilt Japan and started them on the road to democracy and wealth. I can just see europe and the rest of the world throwing zillions of dollars at us to help get America back on her feet./sarc
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.
But, it didn't happen. We're still standing. And history will show what an appeaser clinton was and how corrupt he was. History will look back on Bush and not understand why the world hated him so much. That he is possibly one the greatest presidents that we have had. His one deserving zero will be illegal immigration and our open borders. But other than that, he will be right up there along side Reagan and Lincoln. History will give Bush all the glory the world refuses to give him now. And, when that history is told, my children and grandchildren, and by then my great grandchildren will know that we were on the right side of history.
Let 'em listen to al queda.
All I can say is WOW!
there are actually people out there so consumed by fear of a few terrorist thugs that they are willing to give up, without question, essential liberties. Liberties that made and keep this country great, liberties without which this country would cease to be great.
Disheartening and disappointing indeed that we have become such cowards...........
I ask all of you - What good is temporary life if you do not have lasting freedom?
This was an important debate at the founding of our great Republic, and I though it had been settled. Apparently I was wrong.
I think most Americans agree that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan did more than anything to stop terror attacks in the US. Only in the last year have the Democrats tried to make an issue of the war, (they had to invent the "Bush Lied" mantra), and they lost that battle because the president responded to this bogus charge.
Maybe they just can't decide which thing will get them less bad press.
Yep, that may be true.
But one thing they don't do, and what few people are talking about, is returning rights to Americans so they themselves can defend against terrorists.
What have we given up in this war? What rights have we lost specifically because of the war?
Absolutely. But doing that is easy. People who aren't free don't have as much to lose. They hope the next tyrant will treat them better. That's why a lot of Soviet people welcomed the Nazis as liberators.
They hate us because we are not them.
The same ethic as the anthrax microbe. The idea is to make more anthrax.
Because we elect our politicans to do our work for us.
Why don't we start thinking in terms of trusting citizens to do the right thing instead of trusting the government?
In a utopian world that could happen, but not in reality. Our government people come from our pool of Americans.
It did rule on Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in Ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861) and Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 1 (1866), finding the suspension to be unconstitutional.
FDR's removal of Japanese from the west coast (supported by Congressional action and funding) was ruled constitutional in Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States, 323 US 214 (1944), but SCOTUS deftly avoided the question of the constitutionality of forced internment in Ex parte Endo, 323 US 283 (1944).
What if they're American muslims?
IMO, this is a war against civilizations where there can only be one winner. Islam is a cult in my eyes. A death cult.
Who says we didn't declare war? That authorization for Bush looked like a war declaration to me.
Yes. And my guess is that the spawn of the most fearful parents are the worst offenders.
I remember a discussion once between two parents (not on FR) about how they can get their kids categorized as ADHD. I was amazed but I guess that gives the kid immunity from expulsion because of the Americans with Disabilities act. They are like, untouchable no matter what they do.
That we will do what needs to be done. We aren't living in a dictatorship, Americans will never stand for it.
What freedoms have we lost to date?
What good is life without them.
What good is freedom if you have no country and no life?
If it happens, that's the way they will do it if we have enough cowardly leaders to accommodate them. But not if we keep our freedoms and the right to say no to their "cultural shifts", and the right to criticize them without being charged with a hate crime, unlike the Europeans. And if we restrict the right of government to impose this new culture on us and to monitor us if we go against the political winds then we will be able to withstand them.
While we are at it, let's not put out free snacks to these rats in the form of welfare benefits and earned income tax credits.
I've already asked a couple of people this question and neither have answered it. What specific right or civil liberty have we lost in this war?
Your hysterics aside tortoise, and the fact that you find 3000 people killed by terrorists acceptable, we have lost no freedoms during this war. So your very premise is flawed. We lost more freedom from campaign finance reform than we did in the war on terror.
As long as you bring up legalities, Bush's actions are legal.
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.