there is an old quote stuck in my head which goes like “when fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”. does anyone else recall this quote?
There’s also a quote from the Bible that reads something like “Many people will say the end of the world is here, when no one knows when that will be.”
The simple fact that there ARE scandals in America proves this. If the US were Fascist, there would be little dissent…reported.
[quote=“skeptic yank”]there is an old quote stuck in my head which goes like “when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”. does anyone else recall this quote?[/quote]Yeah…I think some self-aggrandizing wack job on the internet has been saying that in chat rooms. Thinks it makes him sound ‘cutting edge’ or something. 
There’s also a quote from the Bible that reads something like “Many people will say the end of the world is here, when no one knows when that will be.”
The simple fact that there ARE scandals in America proves this. If the US were Fascist, there would be little dissent…reported.[/quote] Unless the Fascists learned the valuable lesson that propaganda must be believable, plausible, and not obvious, but still controlled so that by all appearances it is a free press, except that it’s… not.
I fully support the right of Muslim terrorists in America to make phone calls to their commanders overseas without having to worry about the US Gestapo listening in.
yes, let grandma get radiated off the map, but for god’s sake don’t let george listens into the kids’ call to her.
if i can’t trust my own government to listen into phone calls that potential terrorists make, what’s the point of living in a democracy?
The US is in decay.
The police state already exists and it is going to get worse (especially when the next attack is allowed to happen to justify an attack on Iran or Syria).
In Oregan they want to label everyone who commits a crime as a terrorist that will result in life imprisonment.
mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Te … 7feb03.htm
rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo … read=84232
Download music - you’re a terrorist (an insane US polititian said this a couple of years ago)
Write a bad cheque - you’re a terrorist.
Block traffic - you’re a terrorist.
This bill never got introduced, but a slightly refined one will.
Of course the blind neocons will just say it wasn’t introduced so it doesn’t matter. (You have to question anyone who fails to criticise their so called leader).
The point is, these are laws Stalin would’ve been proud of. They’re laws the so called polititians want introduced.
The founding fathers fought for nothing.
(insert Chicken Little graphic here)
The great Ben Franklin vs. Bush debate:
[quote]Bush: The fact that somebody leaked this program [of illegally spying on Americans without a warrant] causes great harm to the United States. There’s an enemy out there.
Franklin: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.[/quote]
The readiness of the Bush government to use the Patriot Act immediately upon its enactment in a whole slew of non-terror cases shows that these are guys who exert no control over their own actions. On what basis should we trust them to do the right thing? This is a government that relies heavily upon opinions from White House counsels that tell them the president is above the law and can do as he pleases. Sorry, but we American citizens aren’t buying into this monarchy crap.
That pretty much matches in with the Republican way of seeing things – by using the shrill cry of “9-11!” as a fear-inducing justification for all sorts of crap, they feel that they can do anything they want.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”]
if I can’t trust my own government to listen into phone calls that potential terrorists make, what’s the point of living in a democracy?[/quote]
:bravo: :bravo:
[quote=“mofangongren”]The great Ben Franklin vs. Bush debate:
[quote]Bush: The fact that somebody leaked this program [of illegally spying on Americans without a warrant] causes great harm to the United States. There’s an enemy out there.
Franklin: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.[/quote]
[/quote]
Sorry, MFGR, but both of your quotes are a crock of BS. Are you now telling me that everyone should have the liberty to carry a concealed weapon of any sort? If we all don’t have that right, then I’m sure we’ll lose our liberty and security.
[quote=“Jive Turkey”][quote=“mofangongren”]The great Ben Franklin vs. Bush debate:
[quote]Bush: The fact that somebody leaked this program [of illegally spying on Americans without a warrant] causes great harm to the United States. There’s an enemy out there.
Franklin: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.[/quote]
[/quote]
Sorry, MFGR, but both of your quotes are a crock of BS. Are you now telling me that everyone should have the liberty to carry a concealed weapon of any sort? If we all don’t have that right, then I’m sure we’ll lose our liberty and security. 
[/quote]
The quotes are accurate from each man, so I suppose you’re complaining about the content.
Why try to switch the argument over to gun control? Have you read the 2nd Amendment? I’m a gun owner back stateside and even I don’t think I’m likely to be part of any “well-regulated militia”. Here, just to get things back on track, I’ll try another one out on you:
Recognize it? It’s the 4th Amendment, also part of the “Bill of Rights”. See a problem right away with regards to the POTUS doing up illegal extra-judicial wiretapping on U.S. citizens. Is wiretapping a “search and seizure”? You bet your sweet keister it is.
Is it unreasonable to try and wire tap people who may be planning to blow things up?
hmm, let me think.
The real issue here, of course, isn’t whether the government has the right to monitor and record communications between suspected terrorists anywhere on earth. Anyone who would frame this as the central issue here is either a lame brain or a liar.
The real issue is whether the executive branch now has the unlimited power to listen to and record the private phone calls and emails back to the U.S. and from the U.S. of everyone here at Forumosa anytime it wants and for as long as it wants without restriction.
I for one am not willing to give up this time-honored right to privacy unless a probable cause or a properly issued warrant exists which overrides it. Apparently others here have no problem surrendering their personal privacy freely in the illusion that it’s the necessary price to pay their government in exchange for survival.
Is it reasonable to wiretap people or organizations who are NOT trying to blow things up?
I’m looking for a line in the sand. Where are civil liberties infringed upon and where aren’t they? Somebody please make it clear to me. I ask because I’m a bit ignorant. When 911 happened I was sitting in a pub on Davies Street in Vancouver, BC, and there was a hubbub around the TV. I looked, and I thought two things:
- OH MY GOD ALL THOSE PEOPLE!!!
and - SHIT! THERE GOES THE END TO A GREAT DEGREE OF CIVIL LIBERTIES FOR PEOPLE!
I’ll withhold my comments on the war in Iraq and other things because I have to admit; I am not informed.
I am a bit afraid in spite of things, however.
Spook, I hear you on the privacy issue. I really do. But for me, to selfishly hold one’s privacy as more important than what is going on in the world, for me, is to deny the larger picture.
There ARE people in and ouside of the USA who want to destroy the government, or at least disrupt it enough that the US will “leave them be.” Whether this is done by flying planes into buildings, inciting riots, attacking nuclear plants etc, doesn’t matter.
It’s been a looong time since US citizens were asked to sacrifice something for the greater good of their country. Wire taps on international calls and emails: Is that a greater sacrifice than food rations and meatless friday? Face it. Your discomfort is cognitive and emotinal, not physical.
Now we can argue about the severity of the threat posed by Islamic terrorists, for sure. IMHO the threat is quite real, and the TEMPORARY sacrifice of privacy (wire taps) is worth it.
peace
jds
Is it unreasonable to try and wire tap people who may be planning to blow things up?
hmm, let me think.[/quote]
First, no one is saying George Bush shouldn’t go after terrorists.
Second, is it unreasonable to go through the proper legal channels and submit a request for a warrant up to 72 hours after doing the wiretap? I just don’t see how following the rules set by FISA could be problematic unless of course the requests for warrants would be rejected.
Is it unreasonable to try and wire tap people who may be planning to blow things up?
hmm, let me think.[/quote]
First, no one is saying George Bush shouldn’t go after terrorists.
Second, is it unreasonable to go through the proper legal channels and submit a request for a warrant up to 72 hours after doing the wiretap? I just don’t see how following the rules set by FISA could be problematic unless of course the requests for warrants would be rejected.[/quote]
OK, fine. I’ll buy that. But this is AFTER a target has been identified. How would the target be identified?
BTW, I prefer to say that the US government is going after terrorists. The next president will hopefully do the same and keep the pressure up.
[quote=“jdsmith”]There ARE people in and ouside of the USA who want to destroy the government, or at least disrupt it enough that the US will “leave them be.” Whether this is done by flying planes into buildings, inciting riots, attacking nuclear plants etc, doesn’t matter.
It’s been a looong time since US citizens were asked to sacrifice something for the greater good of their country. Wire taps on international calls and emails: Is that a greater sacrifice than food rations and meatless Friday? Face it. Your discomfort is cognitive and emotional, not physical.[/quote]
And I know where you’re comiing from, jdsmith, but thinking through the implications of what you’ve stated, and what I’ve highlighted of those statements, it doesn’t take long before it becomes pretty messy.
There are some good arguments for government interference in the everyday lives of people. Many of those arguments are no longer voiced by republicans, but they’re there. There are fewer good arguments for unrepresentative (because foreign) governments interfering in the lives of everyday people, but there are still a few good (and evolving) ones. Government interference in the lives of criminals and terrorists is a no brainer… provided that government policies haven’t fostered or buttressed criminal conditions in the first place; no one really roots for Javert to catch Valjean, afterall. (Which isn’t to say that the US is responsible, it’s just one of the limits to keep in mind.) Anyways, it’s always interesting to see where the line is drawn re: acceptable spheres and limits of government interference.
But that last statement, “Your discomfort is cognitive and emotional, not physical,” is r-e-a-l-l-y a l-o-n-g way from “Live Free or Die”, isn’t it? Reads more like, “Live and Let Die,” but I’ve never known McCartney possess a deep political intelligence. It’s also difficult to square with a robust reading of other goodies, for instance “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Yes, “Life” comes first, but in the constant pursuit of a more perfect union, is it wise to allow any of these to eclipse the others?
A curious balancing act. I imagine that it requires a subtle skill.