Skip to comments.Once again, we learn appeasement doesn't work
Posted on 09/04/2006 12:56:04 PM PDT by frankjr
We are at war. Our country is on an elevated security alert. Islamofascists are poised to hurt us, kill us and kill those they call infidels...Under President Bush, the nation now has the tools to intercept the international conversations of those who, for years, have been plotting heinous ways to kill Americans and others around the world. We also have a system of tracing international monies that would fund terrorist activities.
Yet there are those in this nation -- in the Senate, the ACLU, the far left -- who have opposed these protective measures. They've stated that the Patriot Act infringes on our right to privacy. They've stated that we should rely on diplomacy, more talks, more meetings and more appeasement of these rabid enemies.
Jimmy Carter was president when our embassy was ambushed by Muslim terrorists. Instead of taking action immediately, he wrote a letter to the Ayatollah Khomeini telling the ayatollah that the action would not harm relations with America.
That was the beginning of the strengthening of Islamofascism. America was perceived as weak. The ayatollah stated that America was a paper tiger without a bite. How appropriate to hear last week that Carter had expressed an interest in meeting with former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami when he visited Chicago over the weekend.
As you read this and rest on this Labor Day, do not forget that thousands of miles away, in the backwaters of the world, in Iraq and Afghanistan, there stand American men and women who are not resting. Instead, they are standing at the barricades, fighting the Islamofascists over there so that we will not have to meet them here, in our streets.
Before you grill that burger, stop for a moment and say a prayer for them.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Dang, how did THIS make it into the MSM? The editors must have been on vacation.
Much as I'm surprised to see it, I got a quibble with it; namely you don't have to be soft on terror to be jealous of your privacy.
Yes you do.. You just don't know it.
To my mind, privacy rights were as important to the Founders as the rights to property, due process, equal treatment under the law, free speech, free worship, arms, and the vote.
These rights are granted us by God, and I have not forgotten how precious they are. If we cede any one of them to goverment in the name of safety, we will one day find that, when we want it back, it won't be given back to us.
And that's true whether some Semtex-wearing camel jockey is trying to blow me up or not.
Now, if you would, please explain to me why I'm soft on terror.
And when will the war end? Or will it, ever?
I am surprised to see this in the Sun Times. A good read in any case.
I'll agree with you there.
I don't think the right word is "learn." "Learn" implies that you accepted the lesson. Clearly we have not.
Actually, Beria responded to a foreigner's observing that innocent people were arrested as often as the guilty, thus:
"Of course we arrest the innocent!! If we arrested only the guilty, the innocent would have nothing to fear!"
Not a Chitown resident. Is the Chicago Sun-Times considered a liberal paper?
Whenever I see an article like this in a liberal newspaper, I suspect that the editors are really getting worried about their loss of subscribers and are throwing conservatives a bone by, once in a while, publishing a patriotic pro-America editorial.
5 Minute Video
Warning: Graphic Content
Let's call a spade a spade here:muslims are poised to hurt and kill; it's a fundamental part of their religious teachings that non-muslims are less than human, and are to be treated accordingly.
Not all muslims are fully observant of these teachings, but they remain the underpinnings of their beliefs.
Let's be clear that we're in a struggle between good and evil that started with Mo Hammed, and won't be over until the last of his followers are dead or converted.
Are you willing to own that reality because the bad guys certainly do.
Monitoring incoming communications in time of war is beyond reasonable, imho it is the duty of the administration to do so. Scotus recently ruled that police entry into homes under certain (reasonable) circumstances without a warrant is constitutional.
By the way, speaking of "papers and effects", if you keep any assets in any kind of financial institution, your finances are wide open to the IRS. Do you protest that as well Oberon?
The Constitution does not bear your opinion out. Judge Bork pointed that out during his Supreme Court appointment hearings and was torn apart for doing so, but he was right. Privacy is not listed as a right in the Constitution. How can you say that it is "as important" as the others you list? The others all show up. Privacy doesn't.
Jacquerie rightly attributes the interest of privacy to the fourth amendment...but be that as it may, I do not require the Constitution to define my rights. It was the understanding of the founders that the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the prerogatives of government, not enumerate the rights of the people. Indeed, many argued against their enumeration in the Bill of Rights specifically because it would appear to set the precedent that the rights of individuals were limited to what was specifically listed in the document.
I say no, emphatically no. Yes, there is a limit to rights...but my limit to this one is further than our current administration would have it placed.
Not under the historical understanding of what the term "war" means, no. Under those conditions, Congress has declared war against a sovereign nation, and it is conceivable that the war can be won. The end of the condition of war is measurable, and there is general agreement on when that condition is met.
However, a nebulous "War on Terror" can, equally conceivably, never be won. How can anyone be sure that the last terror cell has been neutralized? If we do declare victory, how do we know it isn't mere political posturing? In such a scenario, the condition of quote-unquote "war" can easily become a pretext for the government siezing more power than it can legitimately claim during peacetime.
I am concerned that that is what is happening here. Before we grant the government power to single out any group for sanctions or summary justice, remember...if they can do it to anyone, they can do it to you. What will you think one day down the road when it's your name on the list?
Enjoy your utopia
I don't...believe me, I don't.
In other words, is there any personal information that pertains to you that, absent any due process or probable cause, the government should not be able to get its hands on? What I'm asking is, where do you draw the line?
Jac, you never told me if you even believe in a nominal right to privacy. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't. Is that where you stand?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.