Posted on 02/06/2002 5:05:45 AM PST by francisandbeans
When Attorney General John Ashcroft told the nation, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists," he wasn't blazing any new trails. He was merely doing what despots and would-be despots always do: attempting to intimidate into silence those who dare to question him.
Ashcroft's statement is one of the most astounding things to be said by a U.S. official in many years. To read it carefully — letting its full message sink in — is to be overtaken by a sense of horror that is otherwise hard to imagine. Every American should be offended to hear the government's chief law enforcement officer equate public expressions of concern about the threats to liberty from drastic "anti-terrorism" measures with joining al-Qaeda. Does Ashcroft have such a low estimate of the American people's intelligence?
Perhaps he needs to become acquainted with Thomas Jefferson. It was Jefferson who said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." That's true in the best of times. It's doubly true during war — especially an Orwellian undeclared, open-ended crusade against an enemy as nebulous as "international terrorism." Ashcroft is a perfect Orwellian character. In 1984, Big Brother told his people that "freedom is slavery." It follows that slavery is freedom. Ashcroft refuses to concede that the Bush administration is seeking to curtail liberty in the least. Those who see diminished liberty must be hallucinating, seeing "phantoms of lost liberty."
So when the president unilaterally abolishes due process for noncitizens, we are only imaging an erosion of liberty. And when Congress passes, without even reading, the administration's alleged anti-terrorism bill, which expands the government's powers of surveillance, permits secret searches of homes, and weakens judicial oversight of law enforcement, again, we are deluded if we think freedom is evaporating. I write "alleged anti-terrorism bill" because the new law does not restrict the expanded powers to suspected terrorists, but applies them to any criminal activity. This is a classic power grab under the cover of an emergency. September 11 has given policymakers a chance to bring down from the shelf every new police power they have wanted for years. They assume no one will question the need for such broad powers, and if anyone does, they can shut him up by portraying him as an ally of the terrorists. The game is rigged in favor of power.
It is no comfort that the erosion of liberty in the name of fighting terrorism has a bipartisan cast to it. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York has given his blessing to oppressive government with an op-ed in the Washington Post titled "Big Government Looks Better Now." As Schumer puts it, barely concealing his glee, "For the foreseeable future, the federal government will have to grow... The era of a shrinking federal government has come to a close." Of course, the senator was trying to enlarge it long before September 11.
Schumer insists that only the federal government "has the breadth, strength and resources" to keep us secure. Forgive me for asking, but did we not have a federal government on September 11? Was it not in charge of our security on that date? Then what is the senator talking about? And if it isn't impolite to ask, just where does the federal government get all those resources? Last time I checked, it didn't produce anything. It simply took resources from the people who did produce them.
Once we understand that all government possesses is the power of legal plunder our whole perspective changes. Schumer insists that "the notion of letting a thousand different ideas compete and flourish — which works so well to create goods and services — does not work at all in the face of a national security emergency. Unity of action and purpose is required, and only the federal government can provide it." But he’s got it wrong. Security is a service. Competition and innovation are valuable in the effort to keep ourselves safe. The last thing we need is central planning. That’s what we had on September 11.
Not if I can help it buddy. I hit the abuse button on your post 50 times, once for each state in this great union, in a symbolic gesture of my disgust at your audacity to make such a statement in this time of war. Don't you know that you're supposed to act like a lemming now?
</even_greater_sarcasm>
I suspect that may be because most folks are kindof sick and tired of the circle jerks you unappeasables tend to run on your threads.
I get a mental picture of polyster plaid shirts, stretch slacks and too-wide ties. I see balding, paunchy men and camo-wearing women knodding earnestly at each sage remark recorded for posterity by a fellow "patriot".
What *will* it take to convince you folks that this isn't some kind of game we're playing with the terrorists? Another WTC?
Oh, who cares? You guys are fringe playazz anyway, right there next to the Chomskyists and Howard Zinn fanatics. I don't know why I bother.
I've been saying for a while that this is just Doublethink or avoidance of ThoughtCrime. These people can refuse to believe that which is obvious if they have been told to. It is really that simple. I spent two days trying to convince two such good outer party members that the USA allowed the Pakistani ISI to evacuate Taliban and Al Quaeda. The incident was well documented. I posted three stories (AP, NYT, WSJ) and another guy on the thread posted a fourth (MSNBC) all confirming that it happened. But instead of accepting that this happened or even that it COULD have happened, they chose to believe bald assertions from the FedGov.
In sum, they believe everything. They cannot not believe everything because they have been conditioned to believe everything and they want to believe everything. They love Big Brother.
I would love to hear how, and perhaps without the condescention and name calling. That's the funny thing about some folks, they act like saying that ashcroft is over the line is some sort of blasphemy.
You can repect someone and still acknowledge that they had an idiotic moment.
If it wouldn't put people at such great risk, I just wish ONE WEEK you armchair warriors and know-it-alls had to put your money where you mouth was; maybe if you ever had to be in charge, things wouldn't be quiet as easy as they appear to you from that computer chair.
As for me, I'd rather DO something, than WHINE about something. I'd rather TRY to do something, rather than continually mock the people who are trying to SAVE our freedom, whether they find the best path the first time or not.
BTW, anybody who threatens MY FREEDOM is a terrorist in my book. I'll come down on the side of those trying to protect our freedom every single time.
How can it come to a close when it never existed ?!!!
Sure, the Soviet method.
Obviously, anyone who's hallucinating about "phantoms of lost liberty" is mentally ill and must be treated as such.
Well, with proper treatment I suppose eventually they can be reintegrated into the minimum security camp along with the other grateful inmates.
But still be carefully "monitored."
I'm surprised it functions. But I can assure you that whatever picture you get, it isn't yours.
polyster plaid shirts, stretch slacks and too-wide ties. I see balding, paunchy men and camo-wearing women knodding earnestly at each sage remark recorded for posterity by a fellow "patriot".
Sorry, none of the above.
What *will* it take to convince you folks that this isn't some kind of game we're playing with the terrorists? Another WTC?
I'm perfectly aware of that. But you see, I'm not the mental midget that refuses to actually do anything about the threat that resembles common sense. Like closing off our borders. Stopping immigration from the Middle East. Fighting people that actually are the threat like the Saudis or Pakistanis. No its serious business alright. It's a shame that our government isn't treating it as such.
I don't know why I bother.
Me either.
I need to be productive today.
But this comment (and my observation of your excellent sense of humor and wit on other threads) makes me feel better about your critique of Ashcroft:
You can repect someone and still acknowledge that they had an idiotic moment.
I try to apply that both to politicians and posters I admire.
Best of luck with this krew.
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.