Quote:
Originally posted by LessinSF
Sure, up to a point, but one cannot hide behind the "war" justification forever. Which is what Bush is trying to do. This is not a "war" in the historic sense and it this so-called "war"will probably be perpetual, so does that mean that - forever - we suspend what makes us unique and attractive, our beliefs in indivdual civil rights, our beliefs that the protection of the status quo is not supreme? Are we going to let fear, as justified by a "war" against fear, erode what acually made us the freeest society ever?
Bush is using this "war" against "terror," as most obviously manifested by police actions against shitwads (Iraq, the Taliban) who never really threatened us, to justify spying, mistreatment of prisoners, secret facilities in countries that we otherwise despise, and blatant attacks against what we have traditionally believed the Constitution protected (to the point that even the current Supreme Court gets pepsis) . And it is all in the name of security. But security always fences liberty, and we have almost always chosen liberty as the primary ideal. Despots hide behind "security" as a justification for their actions. Way back, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and he was wrong to do so, but at least he was up front about it. Bush is making the same sort of challenge against rights/beliefs that are the cornerstone of our society, under the pretext of this so-called "war," but this is a "war" that will not end in during the next couple of generations.
I may be more pessimistic about our future than others (as human intolerance achieves technoligal ability), but I would prefer that we go down fighting. To do otherwise reminds me of saying, "Hey, at least Mussolini made the trains run on time."
Lessin (War is Peace) SF
|
And so far I have heard a lot of screaming but nothing that substantive. Lincoln threw US citizens (not even ones that were rebellion) into jail without a trial. So did Wilson and Roosevelt. What has Bush done to a US citizen that even comes close to this?
Listened to some phone calls? And if these phone calls originate outside the US or end up outside the US there should be no expectation of privacy anyway. An international letter or monetary transaction is not protected, why should an international phone call?
And cell phone calls. They are almost like making a radio call. All sorts of people can listen in so why should there be an expectation of privacy there?
What is the horrific transgression on our rights that has occurred in the name of National Security?
Threaded Mode