We need a positive liberty-AND-security agenda.
Please build on other's ideas here, in preference to attacking them.

ping

Ideas requested.

Well, as I said in another thread, we must first have a formal declaration of war.

Then, I think most of us could agree on some legitimate domestic security measures, as long as they automatically become null and void upon completion of the war (i.e., surrender of the enemy, completion of objectives, etc.).

Sadly, I suspect that the people pushing this stuff would not accept such limitations on their schemes.

You people talk as if you are going to be expected to live like the "Taliban women" with your incessant whining about your liberties. The realistic worst case scenario is that we will have to live like the Israelis. Which of the civil liberties that the Israelis have given up are you so unwilling to, that you are willing to have innocent women and children murdered? Or innocent men? Or innocent civilians? Or innocent police officers? Or innocent firemen? etc. Get a grip. So there will be armed sky marshals on flights. HOW DOES THAT CONSTRAIN YOUR LIBERTY?

The Constitution and Bill or Rights does not have an "in case of War" exemption.

The Constitution and Bill or Rights does not have an "in case of War" exemption.

Agreed. Not only that, but I honestly feel that the reason we have no WTC today is precisely because too many of our freedoms have been compromised and cancelled because the folks we trusted to honor their oaths violated those oaths. How far would those murdering terrorists gotten with their little knives if couple of Americans had their personal weapons with them on the flight? How far would Colin Furguson gotten on the Long Island Railroad massacre? How many kids would have died at Colombine? We've lost too much freedom now.

Benjamin Franklin said:
  "Those who would give up
essential liberty to purchase a
little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."

I think most of us could agree on some legitimate domestic security measures...

Such as letting people use their judgment, carry arms, etc.?

We need a positive liberty-AND-security agenda.

The 2nd Amendment puts it pretty clearly. The security of a free state depends on the right of the people to be armed.

You people talk as if you are going to be expected to live like the "Taliban women"
with your incessant whining about your liberties.

The simple question was how liberty, the source of our strength as a nation,
can aid security today. No whining here, I think.
Care to help us think about strengthening America?

How far would those murdering terrorists gotten
with their little knives if couple of Americans
had their personal weapons with them on the flight?

"But what use could little old civilian handguns possibly be in a modern war..."
Yes, the rules just changed.
War has come home, and domestic law is interfering with defense.

Which of the civil liberties that the Israelis have given up are you so unwilling to, that you are willing to have innocent women and children murdered? Or innocent men? Or innocent civilians? Or innocent police officers? Or innocent firemen?

I see that you have elevated safety over freedom. That's fine, but don't ever ask anyone to fight wars for freedom anymore. You see, wars are very dangerous things and people get killed, and since safety is worth more than freedom, dangerous wars for freedom don't make sense anymore. Since safety is now our biggest concern, you'll have to ask people to fight and die for safety, and that is a self-contradiction.

Your statement is a slap in the face of every American who made the ultimate sacrifice for our LIBERTY, not safety.

So there will be armed sky marshals on flights. HOW DOES THAT CONSTRAIN YOUR LIBERTY?

In case you haven't been paying attention, there's serious talk about lots of other measures including fingerprinting, national ID cards (internal passports), registration of citizens with local police, wiretaps without warrants… The list goes on and on and is only getting longer.

But how can MORE American freedom INCREASE our security?

But how can MORE American freedom INCREASE our security?

Revoke gun control laws so that we may protect ourselves. All the restrictive laws already in place after previous incidents didn't stop this attack, and more restrictive laws won't stop the next one.

What's your suggestion?

Too many principles/ideas, not enough specific solutions.

Heres a couple.

Allow CCW carry by peace officers or citizens that pass peace officer training. Training to be provided by municipalities.
Allow open carry by citizens unless prohibited by private individuals in their own property.
Allow lawsuits against legislators when they pass laws that hamper citizens from protecting themselves against criminal attacks.
Eliminate foreign aid, loans to foreign countries secured with real assets only.
Mandatory service in the armed forces for every able-bodied citizen performed in the community they live in, for a few weeks out of the year.

All good points; but I don't have the time to detail all of the solutions that I could list. The main point that most intelligent and knowledgeable citizens would agree with is follow the Constitution. We are in exactly the same straits that our Forefathers were, internal dissidents planted and/or created by those who would see America fail. What don't you understand about the oath taken to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? That venerable document has all of the detail we need to handle this crisis; the laws in violation of the precepts therein are the real problem, and must be revoked. Any suspension, in accordance with the Constitution, of any Citizen's liberties must have a certain end point -- not established by bureaucrats -- but by the elected officials.

Notice that this applies to Citizens; not immigrants or illegal aliens or tourists. It's high time Citizenship in this country was granted privilege as in all other countries.

One example:

Would you feel safer on an airline that flies only
"good risk" passengers, as judged by the company?
I would.

Are airline executives now free to offer this safer service?
I think not.

So here, we're sacrificing BOTH liberty AND security.
Here, greater liberty would strengthen security.

ping

I don't know. We seemed to have come out of WWII pretty strong and with out liberties entact; despite the many restrictions placed on them during the war.

"In case you haven't been paying attention, there's serious talk about lots of other measures including fingerprinting, national ID cards (internal passports), registration of citizens with local police, wiretaps without warrants… The list goes on and on and is only getting longer."

Put things into perspective. Right now the FBI can be tapped into bin Laden's personal computer taking down everything he does, UNTIL he establishes communications with his cells in the U.S. at which time the law requires the FBI to stop monitoring him.

Excellent suggestion! I like your idea a lot.

Put things into perspective. Right now the FBI can be tapped into bin Laden's personal computer taking down everything he does, UNTIL he establishes communications with his cells in the U.S. at which time the law requires the FBI to stop monitoring him.

Are you suggesting that probable cause does not exist to get a search warrant for his communications? There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that would prevent authorities from pursuing him now that they have evidence leading to a real crime. I think you are suggesting otherwise, that you feel the 4th Amendment is an obstacle to justice and should be ignored or revoked. This is incorrect. The 4th can and does allow for legitimate investigations.

Following the tragic Oklahoma City bombing, the "Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995" was passed, giving investigators wide powers that most definitely allow for wiretaps. From thereof:

"5) Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the peace initiative in the Middle East, and the fall of communism throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, international terrorism has become a more complex problem, with new alliances emerging among terrorist organizations."

(9) International terrorists, violating the sovereignty of foreign countries, attack dissidents and former colleagues living in foreign countries, including the United States.

(10) International terrorists, both inside and outside the United States, carefully plan attacks and carry them out in foreign countries against innocent victims.

b) The purposes of this Act are to provide--

(1) Federal law enforcement the necessary tools and fullest possible basis allowed under the Constitution of the United States to address, pursuant to the rule of law, acts of international terrorism occurring within the United States, or directed against the United States or its nationals anywhere in the world;

(2) the Federal Government the fullest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution, of the United States, to prevent persons and organizations within the jurisdiction of the United States from providing funds, directly or indirectly, to organizations, including subordinate or affiliated persons, designated by the President as engaging in terrorism, unless authorized under this Act ;

(3) procedures which, consistent with principles of fundamental fairness, will allow the government to deport resident and non-resident alien terrorists promptly without compromising intelligence sources and methods;

(4) provide Federal law enforcement the necessary tools and fullest possible basis allowed under the Constitution of the United States to combat the threat of nuclear contamination and proliferation which may result from illegal possession and use of radioactive materials;" .

Law enforcement already has the powers you suggest it needs. With all due respect, your statement was incorrect.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. bin Laden is not a citizen of this country and not within our borders. The FBI does not need a warrant to tap into his communications outside the U.S. If he makes contact with someone in the U.S., the FBI needs permission to tap into the account that is in this country...not bin Ladens.

But there is no way to identify the person on this end without breaking the law by tapping in. So you can't get a search warrant because you have no clue as to who to get it on.

I don't know. We seemed to have come out of WWII pretty
strong and with out liberties intact;
despite the many restrictions placed on them during the war.

Some wartime restrictions are surely necessary, and some are surely foolish.

WWII brought (temporary) price controls.
Economists regard this restriction as an act of national sabotage.
Popular, though, and we won anyway.

Perhaps you are advocating a restoration
of a traditional liberty: that of listening.

Liberty lovers fighting surveillance too often are fighting
both a rising tide of technology and a natural right.

We seemed to have come out of WWII pretty strong and with out liberties entact; despite the many restrictions placed on them during the war.

That turns out not to be the case -- see the Don't Let Your Guard Down section of yesterday's Nealz Nuze.

"Ideas requested.

Stop bombing Iraq, apologize big-time, send emergency medical supplies and make *******brown and root rebuild the infrastructure at starvation wages.

But unless and until we stop going around the world killing people for reasons which may be from the heart (blood-lust, genocide) or are perhaps profit-driven (military-industrial-congressional complex enriching itself), we should not be surprised when we reap the whirlwind.

Liberty lovers fighting surveillance too often are fighting both a rising tide of technology and a natural right.

There exists no natural right to snoop. Quite the opposite in fact. The Bill of Rights enumerates natural rights, it does not grant them. And found within this list of natural rights is the 4th Amendment, which to even the most obtuse reader, clearly forbids unrestricted snooping.

"There exists no natural right to snoop."

This is no longer September 10th, 2001.

This is no longer September 10th, 2001.

I was unaware the Constitution had an expiration date like an old carton of milk. Unalienable rights do not change over time. Usually I hear the opposite from liberals when, for example, they tell us that the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed or relevant because we live in different times than the Founders. They tell us that we have a 'Living Constitution' whose meaning changes relative to the times we live in.

I understand the events of last week have shaken everyone up, but I expect more from Conservatives, even in times of crisis.

Yes. I'd distinguish listening and watching
from forcible search and seizure, though.
Face-recognition systems, for example, will surely spread and increase security --
unless our freedom to use them is somehow restricted.

Perhaps, but how does this leverage freedom to increase security?

Allow CCW carry by peace officers or citizens that pass peace officer training.
Allow open carry by citizens unless prohibited by private individuals in their own property.

Since it's for national security, who could object?

You remind me of those people who ran around screaming their lungs out when the government wanted to start a national ID card...and are now running around screaming how could we have let so many illegals run around free for so long.

Because we didn't start using national ID cards.

You remind me of those people who ran around screaming their lungs out when the government wanted to start a national ID card...and are now running around screaming how could we have let so many illegals run around free for so long.

Because we didn't start using national ID cards.

Face-recognition systems, for example, will surely spread and increase security -- unless our freedom to use them is somehow restricted.

While I admit that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents it, I don't think massive biometric surveillance is wise. I've been to England, and seen this firsthand, and I don't care for their love of Big Brother.

Besides, they have millions of cameras attached to biometric systems, and they still have terrorism. If we're not careful, we'll end up like some perverse version of "1984", and we'll have gotten nothing in return.

Another thing, you spoke of "our freedom" to use them. Government will be operating biometrics in public places, not individuals. Freedom and rights belong to citizens, not governments. Governments have powers and authority, not freedom or rights. This is a very important distinction. Government and all its powers and authority are granted by the consent of the governed. If government had 'rights', that cannot be deprived by the governed, the consent of the governed would not be needed, and by definition we would no longer be a free country.

That said, if individuals or businesses wish to use biometrics on their own property, that is their right. And it is our right to disassociate and not patronize those that use them.

You remind me of those people who ran around screaming their lungs out when the government wanted to start a national ID card

Yes, that would be me. I'm not accepting a national ID card. If I'm issued one, I'll burn it on the spot, right in front of the issuer. I shit you not.

...and are now running around screaming how could we have let so many illegals run around free for so long. Because we didn't start using national ID cards.

Please enlighten me, how exactly will national ID cards have prevented any of this?

I share your unease.

"Please enlighten me..."

That would be impossible...light cannot penetrate that far.

That would be impossible...light cannot penetrate that far.

Oh, come now. Surely you have some logical explanation, don't you? You wouldn't be suggesting that we give up rights without at least some logical explanation to justify it?

I'm very receptive to logic and reason, even to that with which I disagree. If you've got some to back up national ID cards, I'm listening.

"...without at least some logical explanation to justify it?"

As I said, light cannot penetrate that far. It seems to have escaped your attention that this nation is at war.

this nation is at war.

And…

What I'm looking for here is some explanation, some mechanism of how national ID cards will help. If I'm expected to get one, I deserve an explanation of exactly why, and most importantly exactly what they will accomplish.

"Because we're at war" isn't satisfactory. Not even close.

Well-spoken, my friend! Well spoken. Thanks!

Freeeee, the not-so good mr jackson cannot enlighten anyone because his brand of darkness is like a black hole, sucking in ALL light and life around it. He is a first-class statist thug who thinks his precious fedgov can do no wrong. If EVER you question ANYTHING fedgov does, this world-class maroon will jump on you with both feet. The only thing he wishes to CONSERVE is his and fedgov's power over the rest of us. It's a shame that when I am recalled to the Marine Corps I will be fighting to save HIS sorry a$$ along with the GOOD people of my country.

Thank you for your compliment. And much more importantly, thank you for your service to our country. I understand serving in the Marines is very difficult. For you to volunteer for such service is commendable.

My thanks also goes to Mr. CWOJackson for his service, even though he doesn't appreciate the liberty he is supposed to be defending.

Would you feel safer on an airline that flies only "good risk" passengers, as judged by the company? I would.

What are you suggesting? Is it okay with you to provide your personal information to an airline? Profiling is fine if done by a private company? You're comfortable with your information stored in some database for airlines to access and share? What would stop the airlines from sharing that information with whomever they choose? What else are you willing to give up in order to feel safe?

Just some initial questions.

Perhaps you won't have to worry about recall...the Marines tend to have higher standards and can usually weed folks like you out.

Actually I appreciate these freedoms very much, that is why I understand what may be necessary to preserve them. It is apparent that you do not.