Poll: Four in Five Americans Would Give Up Some Freedom for More Security (MORON ALERT)

Tampa Bay Online (AP) ^ | 6-11-02 | Jennifer L. Brown

[Who is George Salt?]

"If we are at war, then why don't we put up our first line of defense and close the borders."

A rather odd little war it is. No military draft? Why, if we're all going to die, if the nation itself is in peril, then one would think that we would have able-bodied young person in uniform.

Ask your parents or grandparents about WWII - people were asked to make real sacrifices. Other than relinquish our civil liberties, what does our government ask of us? Why, shop till you drop for democracy!

[First_Salute]

Yep.

[FreeTally]

If America is at war, what is being done to protect americans: 1. Closing our borders 2. Restricting immigration 3. Rounding up and deporting of all illegal immigrants 4. Developing civilian defense procedures 5. None of the above

Well, we all know that "5" is the answer. This is what makes me so mad about the "Reaganman" types. They claim we are "in a state of war" to dodge the Constitutional requirements for war, but then support a government who has done nothing that a country who is "at war" would do.

I knew the government was not serious when they didn't deport all known(and yes, they know who is and where they are) terrorists, supporters, foreign nationalists and sympethizers. They have not stopped imigration from countries who support terrorists. These would be the first two steps done by any country at war.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

I agree.

[steve-b]

If there was imminent threat of getting the chair for people like john walker and this latest traitor, I suspect you would have to do alot less pre-emptive spying on innocent people.

I would add that if there was imminent threat of getting the chair for COINTELPRO-style abuses, I suspect there would be less resistance to expanded surveillance targeted at the real bad guys.

(Yes, I'm quite serious. I fail to see why the misuse of federal power against law-abiding citizens is not considered an act of treason, given that it undercuts the Constitutional Republic and undermines support for measures against legitimate targets.)

[tiki]

Okay, let's give up our privacy and freedom so the government can take care of us. And then let's give up our guns so the government can take care of us. Then we can give up our jobs so the government can take care of us. Gosh, that could be fun, nothing to do, nothing to worry about just kick back and let the government do everything for us!!!!!! I wonder what kind of car they'll get me.

[FreeTally]

If you can't legislate a change of heart, how do you enforce what some have obviously chosen to ignore?

I believe this statement comes from your naieve understanding of laws. Laws protect rights by outlining punishments for violating the law/rights. We as a country, do not "vigorously" enforce our laws. If we did, we would not have 70% of violent crimes committed by prior felons and felons on parole.

You can not legislate a change of heart. That's exactly why laws have punishments for violating them.

[gunshy]

Other than number 5, which of 1 thru four has been implemented.

[bloggerjohn]

No one is seeing the point. It's Nixon to China. Everyone who would normally fight is willing to give up freedoms becasue our man is in. But this is a two party system. All those excessive executive powers Remain if and when a dem is again President. Geez. No one is thinking ahead.

And some of these assaults on freedom seem to have little to do with catching terrorists. As is becoming increasingly evident our multibillion dollar spy apparatus had Excellent ability to collect information on terrorists. It just didn't go anywhere. This latest dirty bomber was shadowed and caught under old rules, not new ones. We already have the tools. Instead of new laws we need good old Attention and Analysis.

[First_Salute]

God Bless You.

[poet]

"how do you enforce what some have obviously chosen to ignore?"

Huh? Would you care to re-think your question?

Is your answer more and more laws for them to ignore? That will put more restrictions on those of us who obey laws.

Put them in prison whey they break the law and get rid of parole boards relative to violent offenders!

There is one basic reason politicians pass laws and that is to make us "feel good" and shows us they are doing something about it. Why do you suppose that many criminal laws have "loopholes" in them?

You do know the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. law was passed overwhelmingly by both houses and they didn't even read it because it was not in PRINTED form when they voted on it?

Politiciana, at best, are self-serving and, at worst, are duplicitous.

[First_Salute]

You can not legislate a change of heart.

Exactly; and thank you.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

Exactly. So, let's enforce the laws as they are written with the punishments exact and the prosecution of the accused by the book. What do you do when the prosecution of the accused gives information to his co-conspirators? We have an open record of trials. If you don't want the co-conspirators to be in the "loop," how do you hold a suspect for interrogation, prosecute and convict. If convicted, how do you keep the convicted away from the co-conspirators who indoctrinated him in the first place? How do you implement prosecution and punishment in short order and secure our safety? I think John Ashcroft is working with what he's got within the bounds of his understanding of the Constitution. I don't think he's channeling Jefferson. I think he has some fairly competent conservative Constitutional lawyers advising him. My advice is to wait, vigilently watch and be prepared to speak out -- not here -- but to your representatives in Congress and the Senate. Lord, if that doesn't work, then we are in a world of hurt.

[First_Salute]

[The "Patriot Law" was] "passed overwhelmingly by both houses and they didn't even read it because it was not in PRINTED form when they voted on it?"

Yep.

[gunshy]

I grew up during WWII, to young for military service but old enough to remember civil defense wardens coming through the neighborhoods telling us to close our blackout shades. I remember detention camps for suspected fifth columnists, shore batteries up and down the west coast, rationing of strategic materials and a constant barage of propoganda about keeping security. I remember that anyone that spoke a foreign language or with a foreign accent were immediately suspect. I also remember that we weren't searched when we travelled by car or train or bus, airplanes were not available. The US government asked of americans many sacrifices and their support. Our current government has done none of these things, all it has wanted is to spy on americans in secret and to ignore the Constitution in the name of security.

[mconder]

[The "Patriot Law" was] "passed overwhelmingly by both houses and they didn't even read it because it was not in PRINTED form when they voted on it?"

That seems as treasonous as any terrorist attack.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

I did not insult you, nor call you a moron, though you have questioned my ability to read.

What I do say is that there is a vast difference in making sacrifices and giving up freedoms. Governments by their nature wish to gather more power, sometimes with the best of intentions. People like you make that possible, and take no offense, most are like you.

We must stand fast against both the enemy and the weak willed friend.

BTW My IQ tests between 132 and 141 and I did very well in reading comprehension, but thank you for your concern. Now my typing is another matter entirely .......

[bloggerjohn]

Who was that Republican Congressman who has been pushing safer borders for decades? Everyone kept ignoring him. In fact, I think they're Still ignoring him.

[FreeTally]

I understand your concerns for they are valid. The answer to your question, IMO, is one that many do not want to hear because of emotions.

The people who are here in this country, who are "suspected" con-sonspirators or sympethizers are here because the government let them in via work or student visas. Most of them, that is. Most will never talk, and there obviously is not enough evidence to link most of them to a crime. So, they must be deported. If they "get back in", then it should be because they sneaked in.

Some people say, "But FT, these people are more than likely terrorists; we can't give them another chance to act!" Well, what we have then is one of these "I know, but I can't prove it" hunches. It may be valid. We have two choices in that case. 1) We disregard the rule of law, and imprison or execute anyone the government "claims" is a terrorists, supporter or sympethizer. Or 2) We deport them, and don't let foreign nationals and radicals in our country.

I'll go with number two.

[Dan from Michigan]

These people are stupid idiots. That's an undisputable fact.