Is the "War on Terror" wrong? Why?

by 2escaped lifers 125 Replies latest members adult

• 

  Yerusalyim

  San Fran,

  That doesn't sound like an overwhelming majority in favor of government surveillance under the Patriot Act to me.

  The items you talked about...searching purses...monitoring phone calls...etc...are not part of the Patriot act is so far as there is no provisions for random searches of cars...houses..or monitoring of phone calls...it's all got to be done with a Supeana.

  What you and those oppossed to the Patriot Act don't seem to understand is that the powers given to the federal government to combat terrorism have already existed for them to battle Drug Dealers...the Mafia...Pro-Life Activists...spouse beaters...etc. Shouldn't the government have as much power to fight Terrorists as it does to combat the Pro-Life Activist and Wife Beater?

  To monitor phone calls...check library records...etc the Feds MUST GET A SUPEANA...and one of the unique features of the Patriot Act is that the Feds must report back to Congress every six months to report on it's activities under this act.

  Now then, given these facts...what's so bad about the Patriot Act as it only extends power the Feds already have into the arena of Combatting Terror?
• 

  patio34

  The way I understood it Yeru, was the feds can get a subpoena on the basis of "an ongoing investigation." Under the patriot act, that's the only grounds needed. If it's so harmless, why have communities, cities, and some states refused to enforce it.

  Pat
• 

  Yerusalyim

  The way I understood it Yeru, was the feds can get a subpoena on the basis of "an ongoing investigation." Under the patriot act, that's the only grounds needed. If it's so harmless, why have communities, cities, and some states refused to enforce it.

  Because they're idiots? The powers granted by the patriot act are exactly those that they already have to battle the other things I've mentioned. A judge still has to grant the subpoena.
• 

  Simon

  If you give law enforcement agencies power then they will use it.

  An example is in the UK. Police have just used new anti-terrorism laws to remove people who were demonstrating against an arms trade-fair.

  Were they terrorists? No

  Were they a threat? No

  Were there existing laws that could have been used? Yes

  Why did they use the new laws? Because they are more 'convenient' and they don't have the hastle and inconvenience of having to justify things.

  There is a sanger giving people new and far-reaching powers because such things have a history of being misused. In fact, I'd go as far as suggesting that such things have always ended up being misused.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Simon et al

  There is a sanger giving people new and far-reaching powers because such things have a history of being misused. In fact, I'd go as far as suggesting that such things have always ended up being misused.

  This is the point...these aren't "NEW" powers...the government already has this authority in battling organized crime, wife beaters, and pro-life activists...shouldn't they have the same power to battle terrorists...who present a much greater threat than all the above combined (with the exception of the Pro-Life activist of course).

  Ask these survivors and family members if the War on Terror is wrong!

  http://apnews.excite.com/article/20030915/D7TJ2GRG0.html

  Mid East • Europe • Asia • Africa • Latin Amer & Caribbean Powell Visits Mass Grave of Iraqi VictimsEmail this Story Sep 15, 5:00 PM (ET) By GEORGE GEDDA (AP) US Secretary of State Colin Powell, left, and Suhayba Abdul-Rahman, who lost her husband, all of... Full Image HALABJA, Iraq (AP) - Standing near rows of white grave markers, Secretary of State Colin Powell on Monday honored 5,000 Iraqi Kurds who died in a chemical weapons attack and pledged such brutality was gone along with Saddam Hussein. With relatives of victims standing before him, Powell said: "I can't tell you that Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant - you know that. What I can tell you is that what happened here in 1988 is never going to happen again." Powell added that Saddam is "running and hiding. He's going to be running until we catch him or he dies." After Powell dedicated a memorial and museum to commemorate the victims, women wearing black thrust bouquets of flowers toward him. Many in the audience wept, holding pictures of family members killed in Halabja. The massacre on March 15, 1988, in this northeastern Iraqi city, seven miles from the Iranian border, has been cited repeatedly by President Bush as evidence of Saddam's brutality. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld visited the site of another mass grave this month, in Mahaweel, where lie bodies of an estimated 3,100 Shiite Muslims, killed as Saddam's forces smashed a rebellion after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Despite the public high-level attention, human rights activists contend that for all the focus on the atrocities, the American response to the mass graves has been slow, disorganized and inadequate. In particular, crucial evidence for any possible criminal trials already has been destroyed. "It's rather shocking, in fact, the investment ... of very, very little into this area - not only of the mass graves but everything the mass graves represent," said Joe Stork of Human Rights Watch. Saddam's government killed an estimated 300,000 Iraqis, said Sandy Hodgkinson, the top human rights official in the U.S.-led civilian administration. As many as 500 mass graves are spread across Iraq, and coalition authorities have received formal reports of 151 sites, Hodgkinson said.
• 

  blacksheep

  "The best way to fight terrorism is to stop participating in it" (or the 1st thing to do) -- Noam Chomsky

  Interesting. So how would you apply this advice to 9/11? Should we have done nothing? Promised the Taliban and their supporters that we don't intend ever to hurt them so as to set some sort of example?
• 

  blacksheep

  Hey, BS, I am sorry that I didn't keep the paragraphs short - my bad. Of course, I never called it "precise" or "succinct", in fact, I apologized about the length right away at the beginning. I'm sorry you still feel the need to complain.

  Sorry, just a little frustrated. I have two young toddlers running around and don’t have a lot of time to read through all the posts. I wanted to read it to try to understand how you felt your liberties were/will be violated, and got lost in the sheer volume of info.

  “Is your position to trust the government to know what's best for us? We are the government, last time I checked - it rules with "the consent of the governed", and I'm one of the governed, and my consent is a bit conditional at the moment.”

  When it comes to international and domestic safety, I certainly DO rely on the government to protect my life and wellbeing. No, I don’t expect them to regulate how I live my life, but I do expect them to prevent terrorist from bombing a public building I’m in, from crashing a commercial flight into a skyscraper, from allowing terrorists free access to the USA to kill its citizens.

  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  I don’t consider protecting me and my family from being bombed by terrorists or the victim of an horrific hijacking resulting in the death of thousands to be “temporary safety.” Nor do I consider the government taking steps to prevent the likelihood of this happening in the future to make them undeserving of liberty and safety. I wonder what ol’ Ben would say about how his quote is being used.
• 

  Jayson

  Abba I don't know why you begin with the snive choir comment. I agree with most of what you say. If laws were enforced and the CIA, FBI, worked closer together maybe 9/11 could have been stopped. (your point right?)

  Americans believe in the 9/11/Saddam connection. But, there is no proof, not as Bush sells it. At best if one wants to believe that then it is a moral connection. (whats that?) Al Capone was put in prison for tax evasion. Is that what the government was after him for? No. But I think that getting rid of him any way they can is great. Same with the war on Iraq. America did it there because it could. More people need to just say it.

  Simon I would love to see the UK come back to individual rights as opposed to surrendering rights to the State.

  I doubt that anyone here is an expert of the Patriot Act. The ACLU is spoon feeding "what if" situations. Like the "would you let them strip search you without cause." The ACLU is not imo the champians of free speech. The Patriot Act seems to help the Government in preventing terrorism in America. I'm down with that. I'm not for people being violated and when that happens I hope people take it to court. As Jim points out the media will be there.

  Last, why have communities and cities refused? Political reasons. Not free speech, "I hate Bush" politics and "We are defying this evil Administration" gets votes. 9 people running for President have made their entire campain on it.
• 

  Man Dingo
• 

  Aztec

  Ugh! I've read through the posts thus far and most of what I see is anger and emotional responses. Fighting against terrorism is not a bad thing. Looking at what caused someone or a group to feel they needed to lash out at someone is a good thing. I'm not going to say that the US deserved to be hit by a terrorist attack. 3,000 people dying is an atrocity but, looking into what made someone so angry that they would want to do it is important. We have to do alot of looking at our foreign policy and it's repurcussions before we can place blame. I won't point a finger at any particular politician or their policies. They've all screwed up time and again.

  A good book to read on beaurocracies and their "do nothing, blame everyone else" attitude is "The Death of Common Sense" by Phillip K. Howard. Americans are drowning in their own lack of personal responsibility.

  Jayson, I think you made very balanced statements.

  Yeru, you're a nut honey. Could you please try to look at things from another perspective? I promise it won't hurt too much. :-)

  I don't think this site is predominantly run by "lefties". I think the mods are very "ahem" liberal in their moderation and tolerance. I happen to be friends with a few of them and I think they are very careful of what they moderate and what they don't. This site is very UN-jwish. Please don't go around bashing them. They do a good job.

  ~Aztec