 |
Posted on 03/10/2003 7:05:39 AM PST by dts32041
Whenever someone like me complains about the assault on freedoms launched by current Attorney General John Ashcroft, someone will rise up and scream that all of Ashcroft?s extremism is justified by the war on terrorism.
?We have to take these steps to prevent another September 11,? some flag-waving, Johnny-come-lately patriot will proclaim. ?I?m willing to make the sacrifice to keep America safe.?
Well I hate to break it to all you duct-tape hoarding, canned food stockpiling sheep who don?t mind following somebody into oblivion as long as he waves the American flag, but surrendering your freedoms to Uncle Sam ain?t gonna save you.
The Federal Government had all the tools in place to save the 3,000 plus Americans who died on September 11, 2001. They had all the information they needed to stop the attacks. But like Pearl Harbor nearly six decades earlier, an incredible series of intelligence lapses, bureaucratic snafus and outright stupidity allowed Osama bin Laden?s murderous thugs to pull off the horror of that day.
The FBI had reports in hand that said young Arab men, many of them already on the terrorist watch list, were going from flight school to flight school, trying to find an instructor who would teach them how to fly a commercial jet.
Analysts from the CIA filed memos about suspicious transfers of cash, money that was used to finance the hijacking of four airliners that day and send three of them crashing into buildings and the fourth into a field in Pennsylvania.
If our government had been doing its job in the fist place, the attacks could have been prevented. Both the FBI and CIA have already admitted to Congressional hearings that they dropped the ball.
They got that information without the USA Patriot Act, which gives the FBI broader, rights-infringing wiretap powers. They got it without the Pentagon?s new Total Information Awareness System, a giant computer tracking system that will keep tabs on the financial transactions and travel of all Americans. They didn't need a new, bloated, federal bureaucracy called the Department of Homeland Security.
Most of all, they didn?t need to rip the Bill of Rights to shreds and flush it down the nearest toilet.
All they needed to do was their jobs.
But America usually faces disaster by overreacting. On the afternoon of September 11, George W. Bush pulled John Ashcroft aside and told him to do whatever it takes to ?make sure something like this never happens again.?
Turning Ashcroft loose with such an order is like giving a drunk a credit card to a liquor store. He?s gonna have one hell of a good time but God knows how many people will get hurt and how many laws might be broken in the process.
Instead of weeding out the FBI bureaucrats who sat on their asses and did nothing about the warnings that could have prevented 9-11, Ashcroft started writing new laws that expanded police powers to levels just short of Marshall law, ignoring traditional constitutional protections against unlawful detention, circumventing the usual safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure and giving the federal government the right to pry into the lives of anyone it pleased.
With emotions still running high from 9-11 and the smoke not yet cleared from the World Trade Center or Pentagon, Ashcroft rammed the USA Patriot Act through Congress so fast that most members of the House and Senate now admit they hadn?t even had time to read it before voting for it.
Only now, with the second-guessing that comes from hindsight, are some members of Congress taking a second look and saying ?we did what??
I?m a longtime member of the National Rifle Association. I own guns, lots of guns. I use guns. I believe every American has the right to own a gun and have fought many times to keep Uncle Sam from passing new laws that restrict an American?s right to own a firearm.
One of the cornerstones of the NRA?s legislative platform has been that America does not need new laws on guns. We only need to rigorously enforce the laws that are already on the books. If we did that, criminals who use guns to break the law would be put away and not have a chance to use them again.
The NRA has also always warned us that once we allow any encroachment into our rights as gun owners, that march will not stop until every last gun is taken away from every gun owner in America.
Extreme? You betcha. But necessary to protect our rights.
Once you let the wolf in the door, you might as well prepare to be kibble.
Just like stepping back and allowing the federal government to siphon away our rights under the false pretense of preventing another 9-11 horror.
New laws won?t stop terrorism, not as long as the same idiots who allowed the last attack are still standing post and sleeping on the job.
It's Monday Morning and Doug's going to save yesterday's game.
Analysts from the CIA filed memos about suspicious transfers of cash, money that was used to finance the hijacking of four airliners that day and send three of them crashing into buildings and the fourth into a field in Pennsylvania.
If our government had been doing its job in the fist place, the attacks could have been prevented
I believe the point that Thompson is missing is that the government was "doing its job" under the restrictions set up at the time. Yes, they could have prevented the attack had they utilized the very methods that were illegal then and legal now. Unless Thompson thinks that the government could have gotten away with arresting some Arabs for having cash and taking flight lessons. Hindsight is particularly acute for someone with their head up their ass....
Agreed. But what policy changes have been proposed that might threaten some of our constitutional rights?
Let's see. Just ONE?
Seems I cannot use AIR TRANSPORT without going through all but a cavity search.
I can't fly across the U.S. with a pair of nail clippers or a simple jacknife (pen knife) in my pocket.
I can't make comments about drunken pilots, bombs, guns, or the rude and abusive behaviour of those highly trained security experts. ( unless I enjoy facing federal charges. )
If I need to make sure my bladder is suitably empty 30 minutes prior to landing, or choose between facing federal charges, being shot by an air marshall while fighting my way to the bathroom, or simply urinating right there in my seat.
I have to put up with strange security people searching my wife, my children, and wondering, which ones are taking just a little too long, their hands lingering over certain parts of my loved one's bodies.
I have to wonder which one of those goons enjoys having such power over other people and their lives, and which take advantage of it.
Because, You know, if I object to any unnecessary or undue attentions, I will be detained, questioned, possibly arrested, most definitely miss my flight.
You can't THINK of a SINGLE ONE?
Then You are blind, my friend.
I didn't have to do any research to list this stuff.
It's off the top of my head, things You should know.
In Your Lust for Revenge ( against Osama, the arabs, Islam, whoever, ) You're willing to turn a blind eye to assaults on american freedoms.
Doug is right, for the most part.
Only thing I really disagree with is about enforcing the laws we have concerning guns.
It sounds nice, but it ain't.
What we need is to get rid of a BUNCH of those gun laws, and THEN enforce the few common sense laws that are left.
I support Bush and our war on terrorism. "Terrorism".. not a war on American Freedoms, not a war on the Bill of Rights, not a war on the Constitution.
( And I am NOT accusing Bush or Ashcroft of actually doing those things, at least not on purpose. I am saying I don't support actions that deny our freedoms. )
I support removing Saddam Hussein and "freeing" Iraq, and installing a representative government. ( NOT a "democracy", I would prefer a "representative republic", such as the United States is supposed to have.
I am not eminently familiar with Doug Thompson, maybe he's a total Leftist/Socialist or something, I really don't know, or care.
But many on these threads are far too ready to attack someone, according to who they are, rather than what they say, or what their argument is.
Seems to me, in Your disregard for Doug, You are missing the message.
It is ALWAYS in the interest of the people to be Vigilant regarding their rights and freedoms.
Sound familiar, I think HL Mencjen, stated that was his working basis.
Nice try but flying is not a right. Traveling is a right. Flying is a privilege. I expect the sheeple who fly to endure those searches so they don't come plummetting out of the sky and wipe out an office building. If they don't like it, they can find other transportation (but they won't).
A thorough reading of the Patriot Act reveals it to be merely an extension of powers under certain circumstances; not the wholesale slaughter of individual rights many think it to be. It addresses roving wiretap rules, it addresses data disclosures by non-federal entities of alien residents, it addresses previously prohibited cooperation between federal law enforcement agencies.
The media and their pants-peeing liberal brethren demonized Ashcroft during confirmation. The logical extension is to demonize anything he espouses or enforces.
Just as many circumvent Constitutional restrictions through the corruption and expansion of the "interstate commerce" and "promote the general welfare" clauses, some seem to want to do the same by claiming the "pursuit of happiness" phrase as the "right" not to be inconvenienced. Like the right to a joyful and uneventful flight, the right to unimpeded access to the john at any time desired, and I suppose even, if you can imagine, the right to free, healthy, and delicious hot airline food served by a happy, smiling, well paid, and beautiful flight attendent. Oh yeah, and no flight dealys or weather related cancelations. It is our right!!
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I can't believe I have to explain the CONSTITUTION to a Freeper.
The Right to Travel Freely is not "specifically" noted in the constitution, but is recognized by the government, courts, and the people.
We, the People, have Many Rights not specified in the constitution.
Many historical texts and documents note the controversy over the Bill of Rights, with those opposed claiming that listing or specifying ANY of the people's rights would become the weak link needed for a federalist government to "deny or disparage" those rights.
Many people of the day insisted that no list was needed, as the people knew full well what their rights were.
Just 'cause it ain't listed on some piece of paper don't mean You don't have the "Right".
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.