The U.S. is its Own Terrorist

UB, yes, Americans are afraid. Read the comments about the aftermath of Katrina. Read comments from other weather disaster areas of the US. Yes, many Americans fear many things, but mostly they fear where their government will turn next against them.

Yes, UB, you are afraid. Where is your bio? What does it say? Are you ashamed? I doubt that since you flaunt yourself behind your user name. No, you have fear. Fear that someone may know you. Fear of standing up behind your brave words.

Yes, UB, I am afraid. I fear for our country. Ours, not mine, not yours, but ours. I fear for our citizenry which has become so apathetic and uncaring. Fear has made them that way.

These terrified people are your neighbors, your friends, and probably even your family. Wake up before it is too late. They need you.

If this is not example enough, then I am sorry. There comes a time to give up on a lost cause.

The best way to recognize fear is through actions, not words. Some Americans (e.g. Ugly Bastard) deny that America is being ruled by fear. Truth is, though, that one needn't look too hard to see evidence of fear in Americans, even the ones who deny being afraid. Americans have held their civil liberties dear for more than 200 years, but have recently decided to allow some of those liberties to be stripped by the Bush administration.

We have been told that we will receive protection in exchange for giving up those liberties. If we didn't feel that we needed this protection (i.e., if we weren't afraid), we would surely be up in arms. Because we have been convinced that we need to be afraid of a bunch of criminals and thugs, we have complied. Americans don't say we're afraid, that would make us seem weak. Instead, we demonstrate our fear by way of a completely unjustified willingness to limit our own freedom in exchange for dubious promises of safety.

oh, and the other one that has to be quoted here:

people should not be afraid of their governments... governments should be afraid of their people.

-V

too many people have become afraid of their governments lately.

FL Independent, great comment.

A meteor could strike the Earth any time and wipe everything out. Is it possible? Yes. Will it happen again? Most likely. Should i stay up at night worrying about it in fear? No.

Here I think you make a very interesting point. I consider the possibility that the United States will be "wiped out" by a terrorist attack to be approximately equivalent to the possibility that Earth will be "wiped out" in my lifetime by a giant meteor. If someone suggested to me that I should move to Antarctica in order to be protected from a possible meteor strike, I would not be very likely to comply, as I have very little fear that the strike is going to occur.

I feel about the same way when someone suggests (did I say "suggests?" I meant "demands") that I give up any of my civil liberties as a means of protecting myself against having my country destroyed by terrorists. There is a small (extremely small) chance that I might consider it if I had any reason to believe that giving up some freedom was actually likely to provide any real security, and if I knew that every other means of providing increased security was being utilized, and if I believed that despite all those other measures, the likelihood of having my country wiped out remained high.

My tolerance for giving up my freedoms might be somewhat lower if I were actually afraid that this were going to happen. This is the reason that I believe that Americans are afraid - not because anybody admits to being afraid, but because we are Americans, we live in (what has historically been) the freest nation on Earth, and we don't just go around giving up our hard-earned liberties willy-nilly without being afraid of something.

Do you realize that we already have "given up certain freedoms" in the name of the War on Terror? Well, I say given up because that's the word you use, but I believe they were taken from us.

This is from the ACLU, and I know how some of you feel about that organization but I think it's important. This is their interpretation of some of the text written into the Patriot Act.

Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.

This means they have to right to judge your character, essentially, based on the book's you check out from the library or the websites you visit. They can make a "judgement call" on anyone they want based on assumptions. This makes you guilty, until proven innocent.

They claim that Section 215 of the patriot, which is where the previous opinion was derived from, violates the Constitution in many ways.

Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

These are just a couple their arguments, and can you find the rest here:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17326res20030403.html

Both parties use fear to try and get your votes. Thats nothing new.

And I dont think its fear that causes Americans to give up these freedoms. I think they feel they arent really giving up anything. And to some extent they are correct. Has you life changed in any way because of the provisions of the patriot act? Probably not. It hasnt for most Americans. They see no change in their lives. That is why they are willing to give up these rights so easily.

However, it is a dangerous road to be on. It is also a road we will always be on. Those in power will always seek to have more control while the people fight to retain control. Im not sure that will ever change.

The masses go about their lives relying on people like us to speak up and speak out when we think they have gone too far. The same way most gun owners rely on the NRA to protect their gun ownership rights. They dont have to the time, energy, interest, etc to fight every battle they believe in so they rely on others giving occasional silent nods of encouragement. Similarly here, Im sure there are plenty of lurkers who read articles, make no comments, but vote for items they agree with.

As another example, where I live, just about every intersection with street lights has cameras on it. 2 Cameras for each direction. I find this ridiculous. Im sure it was very expensive and it is quite costly to maintain. It was never voted on both the residents but very few people speak out about it. I find it incredible that felt it was ok to just watch and probably record everyone, without even asking if its ok and it we feel its ok to spend our money on such a project. Of course, they know the answer would have been a resounding NO, which is probably why they didnt ask.

FL Independent, how interesting it is that twice now you've made reference to "both parties." This shouldn't be a partisan issue, and we haven't really been discussing it on the basis of partisanship (have we?). Believe me, if a Democrat were doing this I'd be just as concerned. The possibility that you are not concerned because you are not a Democrat (not saying you aren't, I don't know you) or that you imply that only people who belong to one party are concerned about this is what I find most distressing.

It seems as though you are concerned that people are going to vote in a particular way, and you're trying to discourage them from using this abridgement of civil liberties to inform their decision. This "road," or as I would prefer to call it "slippery slope" that we are on certainly is a problem, no matter who you are or what party you belong to. The possibility that another politician may not help us get back on track is certainly not a good reason to simply stick with what we've got. If this issue brings down the current administration, so be it. If the next administration, Republican or Democratic, doesn't do the right thing, I'll be advocating for their removal as well.

This is an issue that transcends partisanship. Whether or not it affects you now, as long as we leave the door open to endless war and the expansion of the definition of "enemies," every single American should be concerned. You may not be included in the target group today, but as long as we allow our government to restrict the civil liberties of any group, we run the risk of waking up one day to find that our group is the new target.

I said both parties each time to point it is not a partisan issue. However, many on here like to blame the Republicans for things like this, where I like to point out its a problem with both parties, they just do it in different ways.

I am, as the name states, an independent. I will have to update my bio to give people a little more reference on my beliefs so they can understand the source and where Im coming.

Not sure how this got switched to partisanship but lets get back to the talk of the fear and giving up freedoms. Mainly I was discussing the fact that I dont think people are afraid. They arent afraid of their liberties being taken away, via such things as the patriot act, because they dont see any affect on their lives.

Where is the other evidence that the masses are in fear? The allowing of eroding freedoms can be attributed to many causes; being uninformed, laziness, apathy, thinking it has no impact on them, etc. So what else is there?

I'll definitely agree that this is not a partisan issue. Let me just address this, though:

I said both parties each time to point it is not a partisan issue. However, many on here like to blame the Republicans for things like this, where I like to point out its a problem with both parties, they just do it in different ways.

The problem with this idea is that the Republicans are running the show right now. Complaining about the way the show is being run is not the same as saying that only Republicans might be guilty of this. Republicans are guilty of it right now - someone else might have been in the past or might be in the future, but it's not fair to equate criticism of the current administration with partisanship, at least not with respect to this particular issue. Try and give some benefit of the doubt to people on this. I'm a Democrat, and a liberal one. I gripe about this all the time, but it is completely separate from my more general griping about the Bush administration, or my (slightly) less frequent griping about the Republican party.

The allowing of eroding freedoms can be attributed to many causes; being uninformed, laziness, apathy, thinking it has no impact on them, etc. So what else is there?

I think it comes down to fear anyway, but let me ask you this. If you have something which you value, and I ask you for it, won't you require a reason before you give it up? If, for example, I notice that you are not using an antique vase sitting on your mantle and ask you for it, I doubt very much if you'd simply give it to me without at least asking me why I wanted it, or that I give you something in return. If we ask Americans if it's OK to restrict their civil liberties, we have to give a reason, whether we do that explicitly or implicitly. If we create a climate of unjustified fear and apprehension (by, for example, characterizing the threat of a terrorist attack as a serious threat to America's existence) it is easy to obtain implied consent, particularly when we say (when asked) that we are going to do "whatever it takes to protect Americans." The administration has done these things over and over again. Anyone who, at this point, is not aware that they have been asked to trade liberty for security is truly not paying attention. I guess I'd agree that those people may not be "living in fear," but by and large I'd suspect that those people aren't likely to be the ones doing the voting.

They have been given a reason. For just about all the liberties they have tried to take they have given reasons, when asked, why they need them. You may not like the answers, but they have given them.

For example, many would feel that the government being able to scan call history in large masses for numbers connected to suspected terrorists is a small sacrifice if it saves even 1 life. To be honest I would would make that trade. I would not wont to be the person to have to tell a parent, your child died because I wouldnt let the government scan my phone records to try track down terrorists and because of that they were able to succeed in their mission and your child died because of it.

Now I would require them to get a court order, even up to 24 hours after the fact, in order to use that evidence. Sometimes you dont have time to get a court order when you stumble upon a lead or evidence, so I will give them that leeway in order to effectively do their job, which is not an easy job.

Now I would not do this out of fear. I do it because the potential privacy of who I call means little to me, at this particular time, in order to save someones life. 20 years ago I would not have given up that right because terrorism was not the problem it is now. Right now I probably would. In the future my answer will change based on what I feel is the greater good at the time.

I have to say Brad, I wish more newsviners were like you, and frankly more liberals. I encounter too many that let their feelings rule and are unable to have a calm discussion so compromises ideas can be fleshed out and compromises reached.

Your logic is flawed. First of all, if monitoring your phone calls stops the death of one person, then your calls need to be monitored. However, monitoring the calls of millions of people that are not a threat to anyone makes them guilty without charge. It's an invasion of privacy.

Second, obtaining a court order to monitor phone calls, for example, after they have already been recorded, makes obtaining the court order irrelevant. It also violates the Constitution.

The fact that you allow an attack on the American people justify a domestic attack on the Constitution shows that the terrorists won that battle. They aren't attacking individuals, they are attacking our way of life. When you change your way of life, the American way of life that is covered and protected by the Constitution, because of an attack by an organization that attacks our "freedoms" you are giving them victory.

20 years ago I would not have given up that right because terrorism was not the problem it is now.

And there you have it, FL Independent. Fear. You may not like that, you may not want to define it as fear, but it is fear nonetheless. If we lived in a time during which you believed that a terrorist attack was unlikely, or even if you believed that a terrorist attack was unlikely to destroy our way of life, you would never consider giving up that freedom. That is the essence of fear, FL Independent. Fear is not demonstrated when you say "I am afraid." Fear is demonstrated when you trade something you value for a promise of protection from something you, well, fear. That is exactly what I'm trying to get at. I can see that you don't see this as being afraid, but in my view I can't see it any other way, and that is why I believe that we are living in fear.

PS: I'd like to think that there are lots of liberals who, like me, are more interested in exploring issues than in laying out talking points. I'd also like to think that there are plenty of conservatives with the same goals. Here at Newsvine we have a good number of each, but I'll have to admit that we also have people on both sides who seem to be primarily interested in reinforcing their own point of view. We can only hope that more will follow your example and that, over time things here will get better and better.

Martin you are making no sense.

If my phone calls were the ones that need to be stopped, how would the government know? How do you know who is the threat. It is not making them guilty. From my understanding they are scanning millions and millions of calls to see who dialed certain numbers. Although why they cant get a court order for that I dont know. If the have the target numbers that shouldnt be a problem.

Does making everyone take off their shoes when you board an airplane and them searching through your bags and xraying your luggage make everyone who flies guilty? No. Does it invade your privacy? Absolutely. Does it stop you from boarding a plane? I doubt it.

For your second point, no it does not make the court order irrelevant. It was actually standard practice that they had a 24 hour window after the fact to get a court order. Bush decided that wasnt good enough and said he didnt need one at all. Without the court order the evidence obtained is inadmissible and any further discovery based on that information becomes inadmissible. However, things like this these days tend to protect criminals more than it protects innocent people.

You can tell all the people that died in the WTC that they were not attacked, our way of life was. As I had said before, I am not in favor of giving up civil liberties for the sake of safety. However, there are times I am willing to compromise on some things for short periods of time for the greater good.

And Ill tell you what, if there comes a time where I am given a choice to give a little on my civil liberties for a short period of time in order to save your life, Ill remember your words and let the terrorists kill.

Brad

I dont view it as fear at all. I view it as dealing with reality. It is the same reasoning I lock my door at night. I dont lock my doors because Im particularly afraid someone is going to rob my house or kill me in my sleep. I do it because its something minor to do and practical in order to avoid those outcomes. I know how much its going to suck to deal with the repercussions if it happens and Id rather not have to go through it.

If I take the logic you outlined, there is nothing in life we ever do that isnt out of fear. But many philosophers have said that anyway.

There are times that we must sacrifice in order to accomplish certain goals. We have had to do it many times in this countries history but have not had to do much of it in recent history. Which is partly why this country is filled with fat, lazy, whiny, people.

I do it because its something minor to do and practical in order to avoid those outcomes.

Minor, is the keyword here. When the world, in a sense, is in your hands, much more scrutiny needs to be applied before decisions are made. When you are lock your doors, you are not invading someones personal life to make yours more sound.

Ill remember your words and let the terrorists kill.

Ouch, I read that post second. My words say nothing about letting terrorists kill people.

There are times that we must sacrifice in order to accomplish certain goals. We have had to do it many times in this countries history but have not had to do much of it in recent history. Which is partly why this country is filled with fat, lazy, whiny, people.

As a fat, lazy, whiny person, I have to say that I don't find this very moving.

;-)

I am moved, however, to remind you of the great sacrifices made by many of our finest young men and women over the past couple of hundred years in defense of the civil liberties which the President now sees fit to do away with. In my opinion, taking away American freedoms is like telling those brave Americans (posthumously) that their sacrifices weren't really important, that we really didn't need them to protect that particular civil liberty. Further, I believe it sends a message to those who would consider serving our country in the future that even though we have asked them to give their lives for, e.g. our freedom of speech, we may in the future decide that freedom of speech is not that important - much as some of us have made that determination now about other freedoms.

Believe me, FL Independent, I understand and respect your point that we have only just taken a few very small steps down the slippery slope, and that the top of the slope is still within reach. How many more steps, however, will we allow our government to take before we start trying to claw our way back to the top? How far do we have to go before there is no turning back?

I didnt mean offense by it but that is the logical outcome of a hardline view like that. That is the terrorists goal, to kill you. I dont know if converting would even satisfy them. So if I can sacrifice a little to save a life for a short time I will.

And you are correct, by locking my doors I am not invading someone elses personal life. And I believe many of the polls at the time showed the American people were not that concerned as a whole with the government scanning massive lists of phone calls to search for who called certain numbers.

Part of the problem is the terrorists are not bound by any laws and our laws are not equipped to deal with many of the modern technological advancements. It would be better instead of just saying this or that is bad, providing some solutions as to what can help law enforcement catch these people without eroding civil liberties.

Brad, as always that is our (the American people's) choice to make. We will decide that. When the government goes too far we will let them know. Additionally I would not equate the whole phone records thing to giving up freedom of speech. It is not a valid comparison.

And remember, those brave men and women who have sacrificed, gave up all of their rights in order for us to have ours. Sometimes sacrifices must be made for the greater good and not only by the men and women in uniform. Americans have rights but with those rights come responsibilities.

Brad, as always that is our (the American people's) choice to make. We will decide that. When the government goes too far we will let them know. Additionally I would not equate the whole phone records thing to giving up freedom of speech. It is not a valid comparison.

I certainly wish, FL Independent, that I was as confident as you are in the ability of the American people to extricate themselves (ourselves) from the slippery slope. You are correct to point out that there is a difference between having our telephone traffic patterns monitored and our freedom of speech abridged. They lie, however, in two different positions on the same slope. That is the only thing which distinguishes one from the other.

And remember, those brave men and women who have sacrificed, gave up all of their rights in order for us to have ours. Sometimes sacrifices must be made for the greater good and not only by the men and women in uniform. Americans have rights but with those rights come responsibilities.

Again, you'll get very little argument from my about either point. In addition to their rights, they gave their lives, which is what I was trying to point out. They did not do so as a means of protecting only the rights which you feel are important, FL Independent. They did not do so in order that you could decide at some future time that the threat of a terrorist attack is so significant that you are willing to give up a few rights. You're OK with giving them up, I'm OK with your willingness to do so. The problem is, when the President makes the decision for us we are deprived not only of our 4th Amendment rights, but of our right to determine for ourselves what freedoms we are willing to give up.

I'm pretty sure that in your first paragraph you were making a point about the upcoming elections, and how the American people can decide at election time when the government has gone too far. It is a correct observation, and I am sure that we will do the right thing at the next opportunity (assuming, of course, that we can get this whole "Diebold" thing straightened out by then).

Exactly.
I remember being told, back in elementary school, that the best way to deal with a bully is to simply ignore him. We were taught that what the bully wants is attention, and so by reacting we allow him to accomplish his goal.
It seems to me, our government has done exactly what its schools teach us not to do. We've given the bully our attention, and what began as just an attack (not to minimize it, of course) has turned into something much, much larger thanks to that.
It is brilliant. And we fell right into it.

I'm not saying, necessarily, that ignorance was the best solution (I never had much bully trouble, myself), but I do think that we have given it far too much attention. Regardless of what the right choice would have been (if there even was one), I definitely feel that the one we made was wrong.

I ask this jokingly of course. ;-)

Wow. An invisible "grammar nazi" ... odd