These political games should not be tolerated by the American public, especially when precious freedoms are at stake.
Oh, but Congressman, the American people are sheep, just waiting for big daddy government to come and make it all better. Oh please help me...
When I am next in the States and arrested as a freigner for an undisclosed reason without charge and without recourse to law and have to look forward to spending my 85th birthday in a prison in an undisclosed location, would you be so kind to send Mr Paul a message saying that there surely must have been some mistake? Many thanks in advance for all your help,
Yours sincerely,
NewAmsterdam
The federal government has made no showing that it failed to detect or prevent the recent terrorist strikes because of the civil liberties that will be compromised by this new legislation.
Well at least someone in government is speaking against the Sovietization of our society.
At that time all law enforcement was local. There was no FBI. But someone could kill a person on one state and escape to another and be free.
Killing someone like Ron Paul was a piece of cake. Kill him in his home state and escape to another was all that it took. Then the FBI was created and crossing state lines to avoid prosecution became a federal crime. The traveling gangs of criminals were stopped. But the Ron Paul types back then were as opposed to the formation of federal officers as the Ron Paul types are today. Partially to appease them they did not call them federal police or federal sheriffs. They called them investigators. The Federal Bureau of Invesigation was the name.
But largely at the loss of the right to be killed and your killer get away with it, the FBI was formed.
I wonder how many of the passengers in those 4 hi jacked planes said as the planes crashed,
Well, elected officials and those who actually call the shots ... like Henry Kissinger.
| But I raised it in the context, and I don't want to delay all of this, but I raised it in the context -- I came back from a conference on terrorism back in 1980. I was over in, not Berlin, I was in Bonn, and I went to a conference on terrorism and I spoke there, Henry Kissinger was there, Helmut Schmidt was there, and as I came out of the hotel I saw the hotel was surrounded by APCs, armored personnel carriers. And all the soldiers or policemen had automatic weapons. I looked at that and I said, I wonder, would any American city allow VIPs to be protected by virtual tanks in the street? And it had been just after a guy named Schleier, a banker, had been assassinated, stuffed in his trunk of a Mercedes car, so there was real tension over there, and there was some real protection underway. I said no, it will never happen in the United States. Then I said well wait a minute. What happens if the terrorists come to the United States and the bombs start going off, the killing starts here? Would we as the American people, say protect our liberties or protect our lives? We've never had to have that debate at this point. And so when you have an Oklahoma City bombing that's taken place, and you have others who may not be domestic but international, what will be the reaction of the American people? Will they say the government's responsibility is to protect us, and we say absolutely, but how do we do that? Do we do it through the local police? The National Guard? The Guard and Reserve? Or do we call upon the military in extremists to provide protection and to help with what they call consequence management? DefenseLink -- Cohen Breakfast Meeting with Reporters in Washington, D.C. (1/11/2001)
|
The Message They're Sending is Essentially the Same Thing
I find myself thinking of the St. John Statue on Chartres Cathedral. He jumps out from among all the conforming stone faces and makes you wonder who the anonymous artist was who fashioned him. So expressive. So moving. Just one guy hanging up there year after year--always out of step, always saying something profound.
Never getting anywhere....
A point that often escapes pacifist libertarians though is this: the public will demand greater perceived safety at the price of security inasmuch the war on terrorism is viewed as a domestic law enforcement problem.
Liberty has a chance of surviving if the problem is viewed for what it really is: a war on foreign governments to install rule of law in foreign lands, so that terrorism becomes a foreign law engorcement problem. Let the Afghani government wiretap the Afghanis and the Arabs in their midst, and send the FBI over there to lend its expertise.
Are you truly free without security or do you become a slave to fear?
Can one imagine what life under a Hillary Rodham Clinton regime might be like if the then Party and individuals in power are unrestrained in their ability to decide who are the "terrorists"?
Yep.
People, the Great American Experiment, started 225 years ago, is basically over. It was a failure because succeeding generations simply were not of the caliber, morally or intellectually, that those who founded this country were.
The only real question in my mind is "how much is it going to hurt when it all comes crashing down?" Or, perhaps more accurately, "what will it be like to live in a total police state?"
We're well on the way to finding out, and there really is no stopping it at this point. The election of "conservative" Dubya has, in fact, sped up the train. It's a pity, but truth is simply truth.
This thread should have ended after post #1, Mr Ron, Mr Paul, or whatever your name. The answer is a big YES. Absolute freedom is exchanged for security, and you Libertarians ought to know that better than anyone (or is this question really a bait?) You want security, any level at all, you get yourself a gubmint. I love anarchy and all (in theory of course) but we do exchange freedom for security, with or without military tribunals. Geez!