And while hands are wrung...

[Alaska Darin]

Bring a flashlight.

628327[/snapback]

I'm trying, I'm trying!

[Ghost of BiB]

I'm trying,  I'm trying! 

629683[/snapback]

 

Most of the people who B word, don't have a clue about what they are bitching about. They saw something on TV flicking through something that distracted them from the New Nashville Star. Some get more articulate, they are still wrong.

 

I've done this sh-- for 25 years. I've also quit. I'm not doing it anymore. Time to move to Europe.

[Adam]

I'll be wringing my hands over my private life as long the government can eavesdrop on me without a warrant. The administration STILL has no justification for their unconstitutional eavesdropping. None.

 

You can't google my telephone calls. You can't google my personal emails.

627354[/snapback]

Sorry, but the government will not be listening in to your instructions to your next door neighbor on how to set up the fondue....they may want to, because its not the easiest thng to do, but they have other things to take care of.

 

Now if your neighbor is a terrorist, they may drop by to try out the chocolate, and have every right to.

[John Adams]

Now if your neighbor is a terrorist, they may drop by to try out the chocolate, and have every right to.

629728[/snapback]

 

I'm sure that's in the Constitution somewhere.

 

You trust 'em. I'll pass and try to stick up for the Constitution.

[Adam]

I'm sure that's in the Constitution somewhere.

 

You trust 'em. I'll pass and try to stick up for the Constitution.

630041[/snapback]

You stick up for what you think is right. I'm sure it'll be written somewhere after the terrorists take over- USING OUR RIGHTS!

[Mickey]

Most of the people who B word, don't have a clue about what they are bitching about. They saw something on TV flicking through something that distracted them from the New Nashville Star. Some get more articulate, they are still wrong.

 

I've done this sh-- for 25 years. I've also quit. I'm not doing it anymore. Time to move to Europe.

629708[/snapback]

Come to Syracuse Bib. You'd be close enough to see the Bills and could get seasons to SU basketball. We are known hereabouts as the "Paris of Central New York".

 

As a bonus, you could continue to re-educate me in the ways of the Force.

[Mickey]

You stick up for what you think is right. I'm sure it'll be written somewhere after the terrorists take over- USING OUR RIGHTS!

630161[/snapback]

First question:

 

Mr. Bauer, do you really think that effective law enforcement and terrorist nabbing can only be done in the absence of a meaningful constitution?

 

Second question:

 

Why did you just shoot me in the knee caps?

[Campy]

You stick up for what you think is right. I'm sure it'll be written somewhere after the terrorists take over- USING OUR RIGHTS!

630161[/snapback]

So your problem is with the 14th Ammendment then?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

First question:

 

Mr. Bauer, do you really think that effective law enforcement and terrorist nabbing can only be done in the absence of a meaningful constitution?

 

Second question:

 

Why did you just shoot me in the knee caps?

630398[/snapback]

 

The glibness of your response is appreciated...but he's fundamentally correct, in that asymmetric tactics and operations (i.e. terrorism) are designed to take advantage of the protections provided by the society such tactics are used against. That is, one of the very reasons terrorism is a successful tactic against Western liberal democracies is BECAUSE of the nature of Western liberal democracies.

 

That doesn't mean that our freedoms should be trashed in the interest of combatting terrorism (as you liberal whiners characterize the conservative Nazis), anymore than we should cave in to terrorism to protect our freedoms (as you conservative whiners charactize the liberal cowards). It does mean that a good solution is probably somewhere in between, however...and that, as I've said before, part of prosecuting the war on terrorism (which, as an aside, is NOT a war on "terrorism", but a war on the transnational political variety of fundamentalist militant Islam) should be to decide what kind of a society we want and expect to be at the end of said war.

 

Naturally, that discussion hasn't happened. And won't. It requires more thought than can be packed into a 90-second news story; sound bytes are much more effective.

[Mickey]

The glibness of your response is appreciated...but he's fundamentally correct, in that asymmetric tactics and operations (i.e. terrorism) are designed to take advantage of the protections provided by the society such tactics are used against.  That is, one of the very reasons terrorism is a successful tactic against Western liberal democracies is BECAUSE of the nature of Western liberal democracies. 

 

That doesn't mean that our freedoms should be trashed in the interest of combatting terrorism (as you liberal whiners characterize the conservative Nazis), anymore than we should cave in to terrorism to protect our freedoms (as you conservative whiners charactize the liberal cowards).  It does mean that a good solution is probably somewhere in between, however...and that, as I've said before, part of prosecuting the war on terrorism (which, as an aside, is NOT a war on "terrorism", but a war on the transnational political variety of fundamentalist militant Islam) should be to decide what kind of a society we want and expect to be at the end of said war. 

 

Naturally, that discussion hasn't happened.  And won't.  It requires more thought than can be packed into a 90-second news story; sound bytes are much more effective.

630494[/snapback]

I think we want the same society we have always had. I don't know anyone who is arguing for a fundamentally less free yet more secure society. I have to beleive that the reason that argument is not being made, overtly at least, is because it would be dead on arrival.

 

I am not sure that the premise that less freedom results in better security is even valid. It always seems to be presented that way almost as if it were a truism that needs no proof. It may be true, but I don't accept that it is at face value hence my question about whether sacrificing freedom is necessary in order to nab terrorists.

 

Breaching one freedom in one instance might prevent one particular attack but these people are not drooling morons, they will simply change tactics. Russia hasn't been shy about how they are dealing with Chechnya and have they really bought any more security than we have?

 

It works the same with torture hence the "24" reference. It is assumed, another truism apparently, that torture will extract meaningul information. Every one here who has posted in support of the use of torture/humiliation tactics has done so primarily based on their belief that it works and will ultimately save lives. I don't accept that on face value. Back in the day, they tortured women accused of witchcraft and eventually they confessed even though it meant death. Either they were really witches or people being tortured will tell you whatever they think you want to hear regardless of whehter it is true or not. I know that is a simplification but the basic point I think holds.

 

I know torture works great for Jack Bauer but in real life I am not so convinced.

 

If less freedom and more torture does not make you any safer, only an apparatchik with a repressed tendency towards sadism would support that approach to anti-terrorism.

 

There are those who would willingly leave us more open to terrorist attacks for the sake of preserving constitutional liberties but there are plenty on the other end who don't care a fig for such liberties if it means being any less safe. I'd be wasting my time talking to them about the important balance between freedom and security, ie, the type of debate you correctly identify as being so often avoided. To engage them you have to get them thinking about the premise that less freedom really does make them safer.

 

Maybe it does but maybe it doesn't. Whether or not that fundamental premise is true is a critical point. After that, its adherents are not really approachable on the issue. There is almost no loss of liberty that can't be justified, minimized, sacrificed or enthusiastically relinquished.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I think we want the same society we have always had.  I don't know anyone who is arguing for a fundamentally less free yet more secure society.  I have to beleive that the reason that argument is not being made, overtly at least, is because it would be dead on arrival.

 

You think. You don't know. And your mischaracterizing my statements to the point where I won't even bother quoting the rest of your post, as it's simply bull sh--.

 

What I said, simply, is that terrorism works against western liberal societies because western liberal societies provide protections under which terrorism can work. Period. You want to fight terrorism (in this case, specifically meaning transnational Islamic fundamentalists bent on marginalizing through direct and indirect conflict the US role in the world with the ultimate goal of establishing a new pan-Islamic Caliphate), you have to look at how we enable terrorist tactics to work. Period.

 

That does not mean saying "I don't think anyone wants to lose their freedoms", because 1) you don't know that, you only think it, 2) that's not what I said, and 3) that's not the point. The point is determining how to effectively prosecute the poorly-named "Global War on Terrorism"...part of which determination should be figuring out how to do it so as to minimize both the impact on civil rights AND the protection such civil rights grant to terrorists.

 

And that's why your post was bull sh--. That's a far cry from your overly-simplistic "I don't think anyone wants to lose their freedoms" Sesame-Street feel-good knee-jerk lack of comprehension.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

You think.  You don't know.  And your mischaracterizing my statements to the point where I won't even bother quoting the rest of your post, as it's simply bull sh--. 

 

What I said, simply, is that terrorism works against western liberal societies because western liberal societies provide protections under which terrorism can work.  Period.  You want to fight terrorism (in this case, specifically meaning transnational Islamic fundamentalists bent on marginalizing through direct and indirect conflict the US role in the world with the ultimate goal of establishing a new pan-Islamic Caliphate), you have to look at how we enable terrorist tactics to work.  Period.

 

That does not mean saying "I don't think anyone wants to lose their freedoms", because 1) you don't know that, you only think it, 2) that's not what I said, and 3) that's not the point.  The point is determining how to effectively prosecute the poorly-named "Global War on Terrorism"...part of which determination should be figuring out how to do it so as to minimize both the impact on civil rights AND the protection such civil rights grant to terrorists.

 

And that's why your post was bull sh--.  That's a far cry from your overly-simplistic "I don't think anyone wants to lose their freedoms" Sesame-Street feel-good knee-jerk lack of comprehension.

631969[/snapback]

 

It is hard to respond to this when I generally agree with both of you. My problem with your argument and I don't think Mickey extracted it enough in his post, is that if I have to give up freedoms even perceived to my own government, I want two things, one a grievance process and the ability of a check against the the arbitrary imposition of a police state.

 

I know that you will argue that this is not happening, but I beg to differ, more cameras have been set up in intersections to monitor comings and goings, the internet is one big bug and to certain extent we have to tolerate that crap, but I want an independent monitor that looks into abuses and a process that are followed.

 

Yes, I want terrorists caught, but I don't trust this Administration or any other to not have some power hungry mini Hoover types to use that power for his/her personal vandettas.

 

I worked in the Clinton Admin and have plenty of friends in the security business that can tell you B.S. about some schmuck getting power hungry. I worked with a few and don't trust some especially the political people further than I can throw them.

 

Recent news posted on the board worries me further, so who is worse? The Libertarian values you often espouse are becoming smoke and mirrors if you can't agree with this.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It is hard to respond to this when I generally agree with both of you.  My problem with your argument and I don't think Mickey extracted it enough in his post, is that if I have to give up freedoms even perceived to my own government, I want two things, one a grievance process and the ability of a check against the the arbitrary imposition of a police state. 

 

I know that you will argue that this is not happening, but I beg to differ, more cameras have been set up in intersections to monitor comings and goings, the internet is one big bug and to certain extent we have to tolerate that crap, but I want  an independent monitor that looks into abuses and a process that are followed.

 

Actually, I wouldn't argue that it's not happening; it is happening. We're more heavily watched than we know, generally.

 

Yes, I want terrorists caught, but I don't trust this Administration or any other to not have some power hungry mini Hoover types to use that power for his/her personal vandettas. 

 

I worked in the Clinton Admin and have plenty of friends in the security business that can tell you B.S. about some schmuck getting power hungry.  I worked with a few and don't trust some especially the political people further than I can throw them.

 

Recent news posted on the board worries me further, so who is worse?  The Libertarian values you often espouse are becoming smoke and mirrors if you can't agree with this.

632026[/snapback]

 

 

And you'd probably be very surprised to find out that I agree more with Mickey than with you. I don't think freedoms should be sacrificed for the sake of security. The difference is that, whereas Mickey seems to think that terrorism can be fought effectively without sacrificing freedoms, I believe the risk of further terrorism is an acceptable risk for preserving our freedoms. The REAL issue I have is with Mickey's reasoning...or lack thereof, as he seems to think some Braveheart-like display of standing around shouting "FREEDOM!" at the top of his lungs somehow constitutes an informed opinion on the subject.

 

My problem isn't Mickey's opinion. It's that he arrives at it via a process that's, at best, idiotic.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Actually, I wouldn't argue that it's not happening; it is happening.  We're more heavily watched than we know, generally.

And you'd probably be very surprised to find out that I agree more with Mickey than with you.    I don't think freedoms should be sacrificed for the sake of security.  The difference is that, whereas Mickey seems to think that terrorism can be fought effectively without sacrificing freedoms, I believe the risk of further terrorism is an acceptable risk for preserving our freedoms.  The REAL issue I have is with Mickey's reasoning...or lack thereof, as he seems to think some Braveheart-like display of standing around shouting "FREEDOM!" at the top of his lungs somehow constitutes an informed opinion on the subject. 

 

My problem isn't Mickey's opinion.  It's that he arrives at it via a process that's, at best, idiotic.

632039[/snapback]

I stand corrected, didn't understand your arguement...then how do you address personal abuses of power, tolerate more potential terrorism to preserve freedoms, hmm.

 

I guess you would argue that no independent monitoring of FEDs would prevent grave personal abuses. Knowing the folks I know on both side, I guess I can't argue with that, doesn't lend itself to an easy solution unless you just surrender to the Matrix.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I stand corrected, didn't understand your arguement...then how do you address personal abuses of power...

 

I prefer gunfire. Realistically...among elected officials, campaign reform so that !@#$s with large war chests can't get reelected just because they have large war chests. Among the vast slew of worker bees...wish I knew, my client would be easier to deal with then.

 

...tolerate more potential terrorism to preserve freedoms, hmm....

 

How do I tolerate it? I accept at any moment that the freedom to go to Borders and buy a compilation of bin Laden's statements and some Arabic language tapes comes with the slight risk that some gomer's going to drive a car bomb through the front door of the store while I'm shopping. Speaking societally...teach people that life isn't TV, that risk is inherent, and that it's up us as a society to understand and choose what risks we want to take. That'll never happen, people are too busy watching "America's Next Top Bass Fisherman" or whatever the new, hot "reality" show is.

 

I guess you would argue that no independent monitoring of FEDs would prevent grave personal abuses.  Knowing the folks I know on both side, I guess I can't argue with that, doesn't lend itself to an easy solution unless you just surrender to the Matrix.

632056[/snapback]

 

Well...we could always lobby the government to institute some sort of "ethics reform". I'm sure that would limit personal abuses of power...

 

I almost typed that with a straight face. Almost.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I prefer gunfire.    Realistically...among elected officials, campaign reform so that !@#$s with large war chests can't get reelected just because they have large war chests.  Among the vast slew of worker bees...wish I knew, my client would be easier to deal with then.

How do I tolerate it?  I accept at any moment that the freedom to go to Borders and buy a compilation of bin Laden's statements and some Arabic language tapes comes with the slight risk that some gomer's going to drive a car bomb through the front door of the store while I'm shopping.  Speaking societally...teach people that life isn't TV, that risk is inherent, and that it's up us as a society to understand and choose what risks we want to take.  That'll never happen, people are too busy watching "America's Next Top Bass Fisherman" or whatever the new, hot "reality" show is. 

Well...we could always lobby the government to institute some sort of "ethics reform".  I'm sure that would limit personal abuses of power...     

 

I almost typed that with a straight face.  Almost. 

632067[/snapback]

LOL, run away, LOL

[Mickey]

You think.  You don't know.  And your mischaracterizing my statements to the point where I won't even bother quoting the rest of your post, as it's simply bull sh--. 

 

What I said, simply, is that terrorism works against western liberal societies because western liberal societies provide protections under which terrorism can work.  Period.  You want to fight terrorism (in this case, specifically meaning transnational Islamic fundamentalists bent on marginalizing through direct and indirect conflict the US role in the world with the ultimate goal of establishing a new pan-Islamic Caliphate), you have to look at how we enable terrorist tactics to work.  Period.

 

That does not mean saying "I don't think anyone wants to lose their freedoms", because 1) you don't know that, you only think it, 2) that's not what I said, and 3) that's not the point.  The point is determining how to effectively prosecute the poorly-named "Global War on Terrorism"...part of which determination should be figuring out how to do it so as to minimize both the impact on civil rights AND the protection such civil rights grant to terrorists.

 

And that's why your post was bull sh--.  That's a far cry from your overly-simplistic "I don't think anyone wants to lose their freedoms" Sesame-Street feel-good knee-jerk lack of comprehension.

631969[/snapback]

Funny, I thought I was agreeing with your main point that the proper discussion isn't being had when I said:

 

"I'd be wasting my time talking to them about the important balance between freedom and security, ie, the type of debate you correctly identify as being so often avoided."

.

 

I also pointed out that in terms of what kind of society we want, I think people know what they want, the same one they always have had. I then went on to state my own opinion as to why that is and gave an explanation as to why I presented the question I did about kneecaps, freedom and nabbing terrorists.

 

I don't know what everyone in America's position is when it comes to trading freedom for security so you got me there. I never claimed to "know" any such thing. What I did say is that I haven't heard anyone overtly making the argument that we should give up freedom for security. Let me state clearly though, to forestall any accusations from you, that in making that observation I do not claim to have surveyed personally every politician in the United States to determine if my opinion is factually correct. In short, I have done what "I think" everyone else here does, offer my opinion.

 

I am not sure what in the world you mean by screaming "freedom". I have posted pretty extensively for example on NSA wiretapping, FISA and related issues. I don't know why you would reduce my opinions and analysis of such issues to "idiotic process" or "screaming freedom".

 

You may have reached the conclusion that it is not worth trading constitutional freedoms in this context for an enhanced ability to defeat the type of terrorism you identified. I was trying to explain why I thought there were those who have the absolute opposite position, that we should trade them. For the sake of brevity I am not going into details about what freedoms so please don't reduce this to "screaming freedom". For those people anyway, the only argument that might get through to them is that it doesn't even work.

 

I never said for certain that such tactics don't work:

 

Maybe it does but maybe it doesn't. Whether or not that fundamental premise is true is a critical point.

 

I am not willing to accept at face value that they do which is why I asked the poster to explain why we couldn't nab terrorists without such trade-offs. He clearly believed that so I asked him to justify that belief.

 

It is just another way to persuade people to the end result of your viewpoint.