"The Nation", 3/25/96, argues passionately against anti-terrorist legislation

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Troll-free Private Saloon : One Thread

"Terrorizing the Constitution"

-- (roland@hatemail.com), May 24, 2002


The civil rights argument against anti-terrorist legislation is powerful. But this article proved to be wrong. A nation's first responsibility is to protect its citizens. Make every effort to protect civil rights as well but ultimately a healthy organism defends itself when attacked.

Justice Goldburg was correct when he said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".

-- (roland@hatemail.com), May 24, 2002.

"Some say that America's open society makes it especially vulnerable to terrorist attack. But one of the principal benefits of an open society with substantial political freedoms is that it provides peaceful ways to express opposition and to work for political change. Repressive governments tend to breed rather than contain violence. The United States has been relatively free of terrorism, I believe, largely because of, not in spite of, our political freedoms."

Gollies, didn't Al Qaeda know that our open society "provides peaceful ways to express opposition"?

-- (roland@hatemail.com), May 24, 2002.

You bunghole

-- lol (repugs@bitch.moan), May 24, 2002.

Good find, rolo. The Left has no shame. Their rationale changes from year to year. All that is consistent is their hatred of America.

-- (Bull shit detector@Unk's.saloon), May 24, 2002.

Roland, I just hope you aren't trying to build a case that "the liberals" are somehow responsible for the PATRIOT Act.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 24, 2002.

Of course he is. Haven't you heard? "Liberals" are responsible for everything that the conservative pugs don't like. Rush Limbaugh said so, and his word is as good as gold. Of course when you actually try to find someone who fits his description of a "liberal", no such person actually exists, but that doesn't concern Rush. As long as he has someone to point his finger at for all of the world's problems, it doesn't matter whether or not it is based in reality. It sounds good on radio, and ditto dimwits like Rolo idolize the fat pig, that's all that matters.

-- (the truth is not as simple @ as morons. like to make it), May 24, 2002.

Your fixation on Limbaugh is not relevant to this thread. I posted an article from Nation magazine that was written six years ago. At that time they were quite alarmed over the possibility of an anti-terrorist bill.

And what is their position now? They are probably tearing Bush a new one because he didn't respond to an FBI agent's warning last summer of suspicious behavior by some Arabs in the US. Is that about right?

I don't know much about Limbaugh's physiology but I'm pretty sure that he is no longer fat. Why don't you pick on him for being deaf?

-- (roland@hatemail.com), May 24, 2002.


I don't know the status of the "Patriot Act". Do you? It was passed by Congress on Oct 25, 2001. Was passed by the Senate?

-- (roland@hatemail.com), May 24, 2002.

The article is generally right, but for mostly the wrong reasons. The real problem with anti-terrorism legislation is that it will do little to stop terrorism. Sweeping police powers will no more stop terrorism than the "War on Drugs" has stopped crack cocaine.

The "Nation" article is full of predictable hand wringing about firearms, speed limits and an Orwellian "police state." Oh, let us not forget my personal favorite, "It's only terrorism when the other side does it."

I'm not ready to trust the "best hope" that terrorists will suddenly be bound by the principles of civilized society. "Wishful thinking" is not a sound defense.

The only effective way to deal with terrorism is 1) develop superior intelligence capabilities... know who the terrorists are, where they live and what they are planning; 2) strike preemptively... identify and target known terrorists; 3) repeat as necessary.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), May 24, 2002.

you forgot,

4) Have the determination to accept career ending political damage when your "superior intelligence capabilities" fall a little short at times or even when they don't but your efforts are paraded as bloody madness lacking gravitas. Even ravens know that.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 24, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ