Freedom vs. Security

[Zetetic11235]

“Any society which chooses to loose some freedom to gain security deserves neither and will loose both" -Benjamin Franklin



What, then, are we to make of the present situation concerning hypothetical terrorism. How do we ensure our freedom and security when the measures must be preventative rather than punative, and offenders are not defined until they have offended. The offenders cross all possible boundries, they are citizens, and non citizens, they are muslim and not muslim, but they are united generally by goal and ideology (or are they?).

How do you perceive the threat? Do you consider it of the same importance that those who support the patriot act do? Would you rather keep your freedom in light of the danger, do you not believe that the danger is as great as some would have you think and suspect that ulterior motives are in play?

Essentially the goal of this thread is to address the methodology for dealing with the current situations and attitudes surrounding the issue of terroristic activity.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

“Any society which chooses to loose some freedom to gain security deserves neither and will loose both" -Benjamin Franklin

'Freedom' (a feeling)) is diametrically opposed to 'security' (a feeling). The more of one, the less of the other.

How do you perceive the threat?

I perceive no personal threat.

Do you consider it of the same importance that those who support the patriot act do?

The fearful rarely are rational in response to their fear. As evidenced in the mentioned 'act'.

Would you rather keep your freedom in light of the danger, do you not believe that the danger is as great as some would have you think and suspect that ulterior motives are in play?

It is obvious manipulation.
'A frightened people is an easily controled people.' - Niccolo Machiavelli

Essentially the goal of this thread is to address the methodology for dealing with the current situations and attitudes surrounding the issue of terroristic activity.

When I see some, I'll address it. I already suffer from the hallucinations of the manipulated and frightened sheeple. I'm not of that ilk.

[Didymos Thomas]

“Any society which chooses to loose some freedom to gain security deserves neither and will loose both" -Benjamin Franklin

While I think everyone deserves freedom and security, the wisdom of his words is clear. This American, at least the equal of Cicero, deserves our attention.

How do you perceive the threat?

The threat is our own creation. The 'terrorists' have been pretty clear about their agenda - get the US out of Muslim nations. Militarily, politically, and economically, except, of course, when the US involvement in one of those areas benefits the 'terrorists'.

I use quotations because I believe the use of 'terrorist' to label our 'enemy' is the most underhanded, hateful and deceitful practices ever design by the US government - and that's sayin' something.

Consider the use of the term - a terrorist is anyone who would see the US government collapse. At least, the accusation is enough to have someone arrested and 'detained' (government speak for imprisonment, interrogation, psychological abuse, and in some cases, torture) indefinately, all without legal counsel.

The threat is, in my mind, clear - the military industrial complex and major corporations.

Do you consider it of the same importance that those who support the patriot act do?

Supporters of the Patriot Act are either dumb, strangely apathetic, violent nationalists, or abusive perverts. These four classifications fairly categorize everyone I've ever encountered who supported the legislation (either bill, the first or second) - if there is some other group who supports this legislation, let me know.

The offenders cross all possible boundries, they are citizens, and non citizens, they are muslim and not muslim, but they are united generally by goal and ideology (or are they?).

Not even ideology unites them - how could ideology unite violent, fundamentalist Muslim nationalists with peaceful, law abiding American Christians? Both sorts of people have been detained (for disambiguation, see above) by the US government as terrorists.

Would you rather keep your freedom in light of the danger, do you not believe that the danger is as great as some would have you think and suspect that ulterior motives are in play?

We don't have any freedom.

I think the danger is not only greater than proclaimed, but also of a different nature. Again, I suspect hunger for money and power in our own ranks to be the root of the problem.

Essentially the goal of this thread is to address the methodology for dealing with the current situations and attitudes surrounding the issue of terroristic activity.

I fear we've gone too far. We shocked the world with our absolute incompetence in Vietnam, only to prove in Iraq that we are capable of far worse.

By the way, I'd defend the fact that I am a patriot so far that I might end up in a fist fight if pushed far enough. But I recall the words of another great American statesman: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I believe the use of 'terrorist' to label our 'enemy' is the most underhanded, hateful and deceitful practices ever design by the US government - and that's sayin' something.

We could think of a loooong list of worse practices by our government. Besides, the perpetrators of 9/11 WERE terrorists. The word has been generalized (and therefore its meaning completely stripped away) to label a heterogeneous group of people who use terrorism as a tactic. Though let's be fair, when it comes to the Taliban and Al Qaeda are pretty cruel, merciless extremists. The Taliban could have been the worst government in the world since the Khmer Rouge.

But we all see the ulterior use of the word, which subtly reminds us 24/7 that they're threatening us here at home.


By the way, is anyone else irritated (for reasons I can't quite articulate) by the name "Homeland Security"? It seems to warm and, well, Bushy, and it somehow smacks of old Stalin-style Soviet Realism. It makes me picture the couple with the pitchfork from the American Gothic painting. I'd prefer "Domestic Security".

[Didymos Thomas]

We could think of a loooong list of worse practices by our government.

Ah, but name one that has sought to intentionally defraud as many. The US treatment of Native Americans has probably been our most abhorrent policy, but I cannot for the life of me recall such a complete and blatant attempt to deceive the American public. At least LBJ honestly thought his efforts in Vietnam were for the best.

Besides, the perpetrators of 9/11 WERE terrorists. The word has been generalized (and therefore its meaning completely stripped away) to label a heterogeneous group of people who use terrorism as a tactic.

That's the thing, though, isn't it? Sure, the people who hijacked the airplanes and killed so many innocent lives were terrorists - but what nation bears more responsibility for terrorism in the world than the United States?

The Taliban could have been the worst government in the world since the Khmer Rouge.

Maybe, but at least they were honest. The Taliban didn't play around with their convictions. Meanwhile, despite our war on drugs rhetoric, Afghanistan went from producing virtually no opiates to producing (roughly) 80% of the world's supply of illicit opiates - all after the US released the drug lords from prison and allowed them to take control of the nation. The brother of the President of Afghanistan is that country's most prominent drug lord.

By the way, is anyone else irritated (for reasons I can't quite articulate) by the name "Homeland Security"? It seems to warm and, well, Bushy, and it somehow smacks of old Stalin-style Soviet Realism. It makes me picture the couple with the pitchfork from the American Gothic painting. I'd prefer "Domestic Security".

I would recommend to these bureaucrats the wisdom of Confucius who spoke of the rectification of names. Instead of Homeland, or Domestic, why not be up front and honest - Department of Domestic Persecution. Ah, but then they (various government officials) might hear of honesty and run from that ancient sage's wisdom.

But, yeah, I catch your drift. I hear 'Homeland Security' and I start thinking of various Nazi propaganda phrases referring to the Fatherland.

[urangutan]

If you look at this point contradictoraly as you do, the outcome is obvious. Do you lock your own door, do you carry or support people holding a gun, then what is the difference that the government undertakes in its measures to perform the same task. If you give a key to all people you would allow to enter your house or you give your only gun to your partner when they leave the premises then you could be said to be non contradictive.

Aedes, I can see how homeland rings of fatherland and so on but doesn't domestic sould like cattle herded or sheep herded as with all domesticated animals. Which does the government see in its purpose.

The forefathers in their infinite wisdom forgot to add the fact that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Today you complain that the world you live in does not live up to the expectations depicted in the Constitution but when did it. Hasn't it always been in some form of conflict as to the interpretation of the said peice. Isn't it a guideline designed to adapt to the circumstances. Is it not like a Bible to the freedoms and expectations of citizens who live under its context.

When this incident took place and hence forth, to protect the citizens from inflicting revenge on a scapegoat or being the scapegoat, the government has taken it upon itself to do the work of the people. This does not say that I agree with what was done but I see nothing but hypocrasy and contradictions spouted from the mouths and minds of those who would live under the protection of the actions undertaken.

Hey I am just another outsider, a non American and what do I know of what you talk about and who am I to interpret the purpose of the Constitution. Frankly I don't to give two hoots about one thing or the other. Like Missers Niggerbatter, people die everyday and that it was you that this happened to and not the usual makes no difference to me. So give me your backlash or ignore me, my mind is made up and this point is out in the open.

So I lied there are the two hoots.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

“Any society which chooses to loose some freedom to gain security deserves neither and will loose both" -Benjamin Franklin



What, then, are we to make of the present situation concerning hypothetical terrorism. How do we ensure our freedom and security when the measures must be preventative rather than punative, and offenders are not defined until they have offended. The offenders cross all possible boundries, they are citizens, and non citizens, they are muslim and not muslim, but they are united generally by goal and ideology (or are they?).

How do you perceive the threat? Do you consider it of the same importance that those who support the patriot act do? Would you rather keep your freedom in light of the danger, do you not believe that the danger is as great as some would have you think and suspect that ulterior motives are in play?

Essentially the goal of this thread is to address the methodology for dealing with the current situations and attitudes surrounding the issue of terroristic activity.

Let me suggest that societies do not choose anything, and that every society is made to defend rights. It is indiviuals in a position of power who choose for their benefit to endanger rights for others, and this would not be possible in a democracy, but a republican or representative government is not a true democracy. We also have the separation of church and state which in fact limits the ability of government to interfere with religions, but in no sense does it limit the ability of religions to interfere with government. So, if our government is hamstrung by those guided by faith, and the government as much as it is free from interferance from the people chooses to limit the rights of the people, it both weakens its ability to do good, and the ability of the people to defend themselves. As for the people, they go along as long as they can follow. As Jefferson said: That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. And also that when governments become destructive of these end, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principals, and organizing its powers in such form as to seem to them most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Government is a mere form, and a form of relationship. If one relationship goes sour; try another. All forms degrade as people grow up used to the idea that they can feed a little on the body politic. All people in power think they are justified in their actions, and that they are there on merit. And they always become corroded, and dull in their thinking. As Bob Dylan said once in a song of lessons: Sometimes you have to flush out your house, if you don't want to be housing flushes. Our government is full of flushes.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Ah, but name one that has sought to intentionally defraud as many. The US treatment of Native Americans has probably been our most abhorrent policy, but I cannot for the life of me recall such a complete and blatant attempt to deceive the American public.

You give them too much credit -- I don't think it's been intentional, I think it's been mostly dishonesty by default -- they let it happen because they don't care enough to prevent it -- and they're too dumb.

but what nation bears more responsibility for terrorism in the world than the United States?

That's a pretty specious argument. That's like saying that Japan bears the most responsibility of any nation in the world for nuclear arms. Besides, there's been a lot more terrorism directed at Spain by Basque separatists, at England by the IRA, and at moderate Muslim governments (like in Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia) by Muslim extremists. Not to exonerate US policies, but that doesn't excuse the deliberate targeting of civilians as a commensurate response. The attack on 9/11 was a public relations move by Al Qaeda, not a battlefield tactic.

Maybe, but at least they were honest. The Taliban didn't play around with their convictions.

Do you seriously think that the idea of "honesty" can include a totalitarian oligarchy that brutally suppresses all dissent; and that exacts deliberate policies to keep its populace ill, underfed, and completely uneducated? That's not honesty, it's just corruption and brutality. It's about as honest as Robert Mugabe's "elections" in Zimbabwe.

[Didymos Thomas]

You give them too much credit -- I don't think it's been intentional, I think it's been mostly dishonesty by default -- they let it happen because they don't care enough to prevent it -- and they're too dumb.

Sure, they don't care enough to prevent the mistake - but they also further the mistake in their rhetoric to the people.

They gave us an enemy that can be anyone - and use this to terrorize the American people with domestic policy like the Patriot Acts. They even manage to tie the war on terror to the supposed war on drugs, which was a preexisting campaign of terror by the US government against the American people.

That's a pretty specious argument. That's like saying that Japan bears the most responsibility of any nation in the world for nuclear arms. Besides, there's been a lot more terrorism directed at Spain by Basque separatists, at England by the IRA, and at moderate Muslim governments (like in Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia) by Muslim extremists. Not to exonerate US policies, but that doesn't excuse the deliberate targeting of civilians as a commensurate response. The attack on 9/11 was a public relations move by Al Qaeda, not a battlefield tactic.

The US is not the primary target of terrorists, the US is most responsible for terrorism around the world.

Not only do we have a nasty habit of funding and supplying terrorists, but the US also consistently uses terrorist tactics.

I'm not trying to remove blame from Al Qaeda - they are extremists who make a habit of targeting civilians to further their political ends. The problem is that this is exactly what the US does - we're just a different sort of extremist.

Do you seriously think that the idea of "honesty" can include a totalitarian oligarchy that brutally suppresses all dissent; and that exacts deliberate policies to keep its populace ill, underfed, and completely uneducated? That's not honesty, it's just corruption and brutality. It's about as honest as Robert Mugabe's "elections" in Zimbabwe.

No government is entirely honest with the people, and the Taliban was what it was (or is, I guess they are still fighting), brutal and oppressive. Mugabe is pretty straightforward as well - he happily warns of using violence to defend his Presidency regardless of election results, which as you say, could never be a fair election anyway.

The Taliban wanted to implement a fundamentalist understanding of Islamic law, and succeeded. The Taliban wanted to end opium production in Afghanistan, the world's largest supplier of opium - and succeeded. The US claims to want democracy, and then establishes dictatorships. The US claims to fight a war on drugs and allows Afghanistan to produce the vast majority of the world's opium - chaos of war doesn't help, but neither does giving the Afghani drug lords political authority. Iran-Contra comes to mind, wherein the CIA promotes the import of cocaine.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

They gave us an enemy that can be anyone - and use this to terrorize the American people with domestic policy like the Patriot Acts.

Come on -- terrorize? The worst 99.999% of us will ever know of the Patriot Act and similar measures is inconvenience at the airport security points. That's not to defend the Patriot Act, which I feel is unconstitutional and an egregious potential abuse of power. But seriously, do you wake up every day feeling terrorized?

They even manage to tie the war on terror to the supposed war on drugs, which was a preexisting campaign of terror by the US government against the American people.

Drugs are a major public health crisis in the United States and no one has figured out what to do about it. I'm sure there will be a million opinions about how legalizing them will work, but that's frankly an opinion that's devoid of any supportive data so I can't take it seriously. US drug policy has been terrible, but it's multifactorial and it's difficult to deal with without intervening in the affairs of other countries -- which is why the DEA is reviled in all of South America.

The US is not the primary target of terrorists, the US is most responsible for terrorism around the world.

Terrorism is a tactic, Thomas, it's not an aim. The US is not responsible for tactical decisions made by adversaries except in the few SPECIFIC instances where a terrorist group is directly supported by the US. Examples would be the Sandanistas. Otherwise, what's going on is we're playing global politics, and terrorism is a common tactic among the adversaries we have -- but just because we create adversaries doesn't mean we create terrorism.

No government is entirely honest with the people, and the Taliban was what it was (or is, I guess they are still fighting), brutal and oppressive.

Yes -- as I said perhaps the worst in the world since the Khmer Rouge, or maybe the current government in Sudan. They were never open and honest about their policies because they were basically inaccessible -- but even if they were, I hardly give that a pass in light of the giant human rights abomination that Afghanistan became under the Taliban.

Mugabe is pretty straightforward as well

No he's not, I've been following their politics for years and he's never been honest about it. He jails opposition figures for manufactured crimes, he sends thugs into the street to intimidate voters, and he claims all the while that he's standing up for democracy.