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.
A terrorist is as a terrorist does....
I'll get you some links for my FDR claims.
Apparently, they are winning in the sense that "our way of life" is that of an open and free society which is being slowly circumscribed. Or I guess we have to destroy liberal democracy in order to save it.
"Win and become what? A country where the rule of law is only adhered to when convenient?"
You are tying disconnected arguments. Thus, your question is meaningless...
Actually we will be fine if we just destroy the liberals (socialists/communists) and keep the democracy
You mean to say it's not clear to you? Well, in that case, happily, you're not in charge!
susie
I reject the notion we must trade freedom for security. The 9/11 attack happened because our 2nd amendment rights were taken away. If the passengers on those planes had had the right to carry firearms, the terrorists would never have attempted to hijack them.
and if my Aunt had gonads she would be my Uncle.....
A free society carries some inherent risks. If our soldiers are willing to die for our freedom, why can't our civilians be prepared to make the same sacrifices?
At one time in America, passengers were allowed to carry weapons on commercial airlines. I suggest we would be safer if that were allowed again.
And you aunt could still be your aunt if she had gonads. Look it up.
LOL!!! Of course not...Don't come complaining to me about this invasion of privacy. The current administration is using that leader as an excuse for this. And yes, he violated the law as well. Remind me, what did SCOTUS rule in 1866?
And who decided who is a terrorist?
That would be those within the Executive Branch. You remember, the Branch that was supposed to be the weakest branch? Wonder which former executive changed that, particularly in times of 'war'?
What I find humorous is the belief that the revelation of this is some sort of 'breach of national defense'. As if Abdullah and his band weren't already aware of their questionable conversations being recorded. However instead of going after the government for overstepping some serious bounds, 'conservatives' are upset it became common knowledge and even more upset he isn't going further. Anything to support the cause don't you know. Reminds me of another group of Radical Republicans.
And because the three most worthless men to occupy the Executive office did it, that makes it A-OK to do it again right? What better role models than men who completely ignored the Constitution if it got in their way?
And were those rights taken away in the 1960's - 1970's in response to Communist pig-fornicators and the Kremlin-funded groups committing hijackings worldwide? Just wondering...
We should have nuked Stalin back in 1946.
No cheers, unfortunately. But you are correct.
That's a good question. Maybe some things have to be decided after the fact. For example, when you use a gun to kill an attacker, you made a decision that he was a criminal. Afterward, though, a judge or a jury may decide you were wrong and make you pay the price. Likewise if the administration guesses wrong about a terrorist, they should have to suffer the consequences.
And apparently, there will be a lot fewer civil liberties if we win this war.
It is rare that "temporary measures" by governments ever get rolled back.
Lot of you people that work in the White House showing up here lately.
No surprises here. The Left actively supported Communism, which would have wiped out individual rights upon gaining power. That's because, in my opinion, the Left simply doesn't believe in individual rights at all. Group interests, certainly, starting with the "workers" and continuing through "minorities" and "women." The inevitable flow of history, yes. Their own destiny as the elites who will determine equality in society and establish a better world for "children and other living things." But individual rights? Not in their playbook. Now the Left tacitly supports terrorists because their interests are the same - the destruction of the "bourgeouis state" as exemplified by the United States. Once the destruction of the United States takes place, then the elites can take control here and deal with the disorganized and undergunned Islamists whose minds are clouded by the "opiate" of religion. Think of Lenin and his phrase "useful idiots." The great Leftist revolutions have one common thread - social and political chaos first, then a grab for control. Osama is their ally, so to speak. Not that they would admit it. Anything that leads to social decay will do - which is why so many Leftists pine away for a world ruined by global warming or environmental disaster. Like I said, no surprises here.
President Bush's policy only applies to international calls.
When an enemy of this country makes a phone call from overseas into our country, the president, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, has the constitutional right and the duty to examine that phone call. It all falls under the current war being waged against al-qaeda.
If you support monitoriing the containers coming into our ports, you should have no objections to monitoring of communications into our borders.
In my lifetime my generation faced down a nuclear threat from a major world power without flinching or even surrendering as many civil liberties as we seem to want to against this non nation conglomeration of religious fanatics. This is a war without end...Big Brothers "Goldstein".
PT Barnum was right. We are a nation of suckers.
All members of the Court joined in rejecting the government's argument that the Bill of Rights simply did not apply in wartime. The majority opinion contains a somewhat rhetorical passage for which it is justly famous:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
Supreme Court 1866
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.