We are engaged in a global war

The Toronto Sun ^ | August 21, 2003 | SALIM MANSUR

[BlackbirdSST]

An open society, like ours, cannot survive in this environment without some BIG changes. There is absolutly no reason why we cannot suspend certain rights until this scourge is over - be it 10 or 20 years.

Oh really! Exactly what right's are you referring to here? Blackbird.

[StriperSniper]

BTTT

[Just another Joe]

There is absolutly no reason why we cannot suspend certain rights until this scourge is over - be it 10 or 20 years.

Exactly what right's are you referring to here?

I think that would be my question also.

[l33+h4x0r]

The members of the lib-left political class, certain of their own virtues and ideological convictions - built on the notion of an inexorable progress of humankind while remaining contemptuous of the idea of evil as real

If he's making this claim (true today) about the governing parties in post WW1 europe, I think he's wrong. WW1 shattered any notion of inexorable human progress, and absolutely woke people up to the idea of evil as real.

[Mark17]

As you point out, I may be naive in thinking that they actually do have in their hearts the best interests of nation. I don't even wish to consider if they don't; it's rather frightening.

Well, I hope you are right. They certainly are playing politics with the security of the nation. I think many Americans are finally figuring out that the Demon Cats cannot be trusted with national security.

[Eighth Square]

Any established right that will aid our goverment in the rapid location and apprehension of terrorists. A broad brush, but one cannot fight an unconventional war with conventional tactics. The idea is to prevent the act before it happens. After all, these bums have found our Achilles heel, an open society loaded with plump civilian targets and an abundence of lawyers willing to tie up the courts indefinately. Unless we are prepared to accept unending attacks, we just don't have time to follow the rule book.

This is of course, one persons opinion and I am open to alternative solutions.

[BlackbirdSST]

Well, you certainly have the right to entertain John Ashcroft in your house, invited or otherwise, you have no right to invite him into mine. Despite what these fool's espouse about our open society being our achilles heel, it's not. If you believe that, we've already lost. If the idea truely is to prevent the act before it happens, then why are our border's wide open, ssssssstilll? The one thing these duffus' are required to do by the Constitution, and they are still failing miserably. There would be no threat of unending attack's, if they would simply do their job, it's more productive for them to keep the "Fear Factor" ratcheted up! They don't mind telling us how they've foiled literally hundred's of attacks since 9/11, I say prove you've stopped one to the Public, just one! All we get is, Trust us we're from the Gubermint. No thanks, I'll keep my Freedom! Blackbird.

[Just another Joe]

Unless we are prepared to accept unending attacks, we just don't have time to follow the rule book.

Whether we are prepared, or not, we face unending attacks.
Do you really believe that once a right, or liberty, has been taken away by the government, any type of government, the government is going to give it back without a fight? If you do, you haven't read a whole lot about governments in the past.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin
The quote is as valid today as it was then.

[Eighth Square]

The boarder problem exists because inept and/or gutless politicians, on both sides, will not act. Do you have alternative solutions to in-country terrorist activity, beside belittling John Ashcroft?

[Just another Joe]

Do you have alternative solutions to in-country terrorist activity, beside belittling John Ashcroft?

I don't belittle Ashcroft. He has a hard job.
IMO, he's going about it in the wrong way. Taking more rights and liberties from citizens is not the way to stop terrorism. What is the oath of office for the Attorney General? Doesn't it have something in it about supporting the Constitution of the United Staes?

The DOJ also has control over the INS so why doesn't the DOJ do something about the porous borders other than prosecute citizens that stop illegals from entering the country?