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.
This is a winner.
You posted right and you posted good.
Welcome to Free Republic.
If you ever get set upon by some of the appeasers here, please don't hestitate to call on me or the others here who are agreeing with you.
We can not live in fear or be governed by the fears of others.
Why do you have a problem with that? Do you support McPains bill of rights for terrorist?
Somebody has to make the decision Champ, we're at war. I'm eternally thankful the decision maker in this case is not some anti-American, brain dead arsehole like yourself and your idol, John F'ing Kerry.
In Israel they search you car before it can be parked in a garage.
You have to open your brief case when even asked.
You visit certain locations and the IDF is on the adjoining roofs aiming down.
Frankly monitoring calls from known terrorists to people inside the US is just plain common sense.
Thanks. I'll go there next.
3000 deaths didn't satisfy you.
What does it take 300,000. Can we try to intercept them before they act then or do we still have to be reactive instead of proactive.
You are plenty welcome to make that choice for yourself but I would like to say one word:
Beslan
Constitution never contained anything about a right to privacy.
It is a found right.
Still got them back though.
You said once lost never regained.
How much liberty will you have should the islamofacist win in the US? What rights will they guarantee you? Will you be able to worship God or only allah? Will you be able to speak out against the injustices that islam brings, or will they simply cut your head off?
It's a paradox, the question of liberty vs safety.
See what? You have made no point beyond expressing your feelings of paranoia that the President of the United States can't be trusted with defining who our war-time enemies are. Your assinine post clearly reveals you as a paranoid leftist whose wobbly little mind is easily manipulated by allegations from the New York Times, that liberal bastion of overt political bias.
As a libertarian, I am very sensitive to loss of freedom. But I'm not sure how NSA phone taps denies people freedom. If I learned that someone was listening in on phone calls of mine, I'd consider it rude, but their listening doesn't prevent me from living my own life.
Our president says that they hate us for our freedom, well why give them what they want, and make ourselves less free?
In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued a declaration of war against all Americans everywhere and called on all Muslims to kill as many of us as possible.
It isn't just our freedom he despises. He called for us to be dead, and anything short of that is not giving him what he wants.
I say a praywr daily.
We love our Vets!
JLO
If you will accept that destroying is the same, or as bad as, conquering, yes. They are just part of a larger effort. They can certainly do their part to accomplish the goal. They can do more damage and do it quicker than their fellow travelers since they are not even partially constrained by morals, values, or law.
It is a found right.
Sheesh. All rights are inherent in the people. They do exist even without being enumerated in the BoR. The right is so anxious to over ride Roe v Wade that they will destroy our liberty. We have a right to privacy else we wouldn't have the 4th Amendment. What we don't have is the right to harm another (rape, rob, murder, or abort) in private.
D'uh.
We got them back 60 and 150 years ago. Have you noticed that government has expanded since then and that liberty and the public's understanding of liberty has receded?
Now that we are always at war and against a real but hard to pin down and identify enemy, the government will not be as willing to relinquish any power ceded to them.
The government's security measures are aimed at protecting the government, not us, or haven't you noticed that either?
"I don't ask for handouts, so why should I handout to others??"
- Proverbs 19:17, if you can receive it.
Do you really believe that they can defeat us?
Oh ye of little faith.
The Japanese didn't invade us because they knew that they American public would be as formidable a foe as the American military. We are an armed populace. Do you think that we'd just sit by and let them -- or any invader -- just roll over us?
Do you realize that the only proven (publically known) attack against us that was thwarted was thwarted by civilians? I know that there there are reports of 'this plan' or 'that plan' was disrupted and they might even have existed. It's to the enemy's advantage to cause fear. It's to our protective force's advantage to claim that those threats are real.
Cynical? You bet I am. Do you remember the ATF's need to be relevent about ten years ago? Do you remember Waco and Ruby Ridge? Yes. I am cynical. I do not trust my government as you do. They will protect themselves at any and all cost -- to the taxpayer.
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.