Permanent Patriot.
Question: If war time measures become permanent, are we permanently at war?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Flipping through the news channels over the last few days, it seems the reaction to Obama is binary. So which one are you?
Hydrablog is
Posts
Followers o' the Blog
Find Hydrablog at these fine establishments
Friends o' the Blog
Sites we like
Labels
- "discussion" legislation (1)
- "War" on Drugs (1)
- 2008 General Election (3)
- 2008 Presidential Election (27)
- abortion (6)
- abuse of power (2)
- Accountability (1)
- Al Davis (1)
- Al Gore (1)
- al-qaida (2)
- anti-war protestors (1)
- atheism (1)
- Barack Obama (12)
- Big Government (1)
- Big Pharma (1)
- bikinis (1)
- Bill Clinton (3)
- Bin Laden (1)
- Bizzarro world (1)
- blacks (1)
- blogging (1)
- blow hards (1)
- Bob Dylan (1)
- Border Wall (1)
- Boxing (1)
- boycott shell oil (1)
- brilliant (2)
- Bureaucracy Woes (1)
- Bush (22)
- business (10)
- C. S. Lewis (1)
- capital punishment (1)
- Caroline Kennedy; Rod Blagojevich (2)
- Carter (1)
- Check and Balances (3)
- child abuse (2)
- child pornography (1)
- China (1)
- chit chat (1)
- Church (1)
- civil liberties (19)
- civil rights (2)
- climate change (2)
- Clinton Lies (1)
- College (1)
- colorado (17)
- condoms (1)
- Congress (19)
- Conspiracies (1)
- contest (1)
- courts (2)
- crackle (1)
- Creepy Idea of the Year (3)
- Crime (5)
- cuddly cuties (1)
- Currency (1)
- current events (8)
- Daschle (1)
- death (1)
- death penalty; democracy (1)
- Debt (1)
- Deficit (1)
- defunct liberal institutions (1)
- Democrat sell outs (1)
- Democratic Party (8)
- Diplomacy (1)
- dollar coin (2)
- Don Imus (2)
- drug enforcement (8)
- drunk driving (1)
- Due Process (1)
- economics (12)
- Economy (3)
- education (3)
- Election (1)
- elections (3)
- Elton John (1)
- Emenent Domain (1)
- employee issues (1)
- energy (1)
- entertainment (1)
- environment (2)
- environmentalism (2)
- Ethics (5)
- European Union (1)
- family fun (2)
- Farfour (1)
- fascist (1)
- FDA (1)
- Federalism (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- flat tax (1)
- Florida (1)
- follow-up (1)
- Football (3)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- FOX (1)
- free speech (5)
- free will (1)
- Freedom of Information Act (1)
- freemarkets (20)
- Gas (2)
- Gay Marriage (2)
- Geithner (1)
- Germans (1)
- Gisele Bundchen (1)
- Gitmo (1)
- Global Institutions (1)
- global warming (5)
- Golf Clap (1)
- GOP (5)
- gossip (3)
- Government Interference (1)
- Government Waste (1)
- Greenspan (1)
- Grow Up (1)
- Guys and Dolls (1)
- H-Blog Ahead of the Rest (2)
- habeas corpus (2)
- hard truths (1)
- hate (1)
- hatred (1)
- health (1)
- Health Care (2)
- health insurance (2)
- Helen Lovejoy Law (2)
- Hillary Clinton (6)
- history (3)
- Hollow Apology Awards (2)
- homosexuality (7)
- humor (2)
- hurricanes (2)
- Hypocracy Alert (3)
- hysteria (1)
- immigration (5)
- Imus (1)
- insightful (1)
- insurance (2)
- Iran (6)
- Iraq (11)
- Iraq war (7)
- Is This Realy News? (1)
- Islam (1)
- Jews (1)
- Judging from the Assembly (1)
- Judicial Activism (1)
- JUNO (1)
- justice (1)
- Karl Rove (1)
- kooks (1)
- Ladies Night (2)
- Lame Excuses (1)
- law (17)
- law enforcement (5)
- libertarian (7)
- local news (1)
- Los Angeles (1)
- lunch meat (1)
- lyrics (1)
- McCain (5)
- media bias (3)
- meteorologists (1)
- Michael Vick (1)
- Mike Huckabee (3)
- Military (1)
- Mitt Romney (2)
- money (1)
- moral depravity (1)
- mortgages (1)
- movie review (2)
- muah ha ha (1)
- mullah (1)
- Murtha (1)
- music (5)
- Muslims (1)
- NAACP (1)
- Nanny State (4)
- NeoGOP (1)
- News that isn't really news (1)
- NFL (1)
- nuclear energy (1)
- nuclear weapons (1)
- Obituary (1)
- Oil (2)
- open government (2)
- Orwell (2)
- Party Every Day (2)
- Patriotism (1)
- Patriots (1)
- Pepsi (1)
- physics (2)
- pig (1)
- poetry (1)
- police (2)
- political strategy (4)
- Politics (1)
- Polls (1)
- ponderings (1)
- pop (1)
- Pork (1)
- powerful (1)
- predictions (2)
- President Bush (3)
- presidential rankings (1)
- privacy (1)
- prognostications (2)
- propaganda (1)
- psychics (1)
- public transportation (2)
- pump it up (1)
- punishment (1)
- race (4)
- racism (3)
- rainstick cowbell (1)
- random (2)
- Ranting Kooks (1)
- rebuttle (1)
- recession (1)
- religion (2)
- Republicrats (1)
- rich vs. poor (1)
- Rock and Roll All Night (1)
- roid raging truths (3)
- Ron Paul (1)
- Ronald Gates (1)
- Rudy Guiliani (1)
- Rush Limbaugh (1)
- schools (1)
- science (4)
- Second Amendment (3)
- signing statements (3)
- slavery (3)
- slur (2)
- Smoking (1)
- snap (1)
- socialized medicine (1)
- sports (17)
- Stalin is Always Right (1)
- Stalin Is Always Wrong (1)
- state government (26)
- State of the Union 2006 (1)
- State's Rights (1)
- stem cells (1)
- strategy (2)
- Super Bowl XLI (1)
- Super Bowl XLIII (1)
- super geniuses (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- t-shirts (1)
- tax-code (2)
- Taxes (1)
- technology (5)
- term limits (1)
- terrorism (6)
- terrorist (1)
- the American way (4)
- The Market (1)
- the press (1)
- the Raidahs (1)
- Three Branches of Government (4)
- Tobacco (1)
- Tom Brady (1)
- Torture (3)
- Trade (1)
- truth (1)
- TV (1)
- Ublo (1)
- unions are for losers (4)
- universal health care (1)
- Unknown Blogger Returns (1)
- update (5)
- US Constitution (12)
- US Senate (2)
- USA PATRIOT ACT (1)
- Vaclav Klaus (1)
- Veto (1)
- voting machines (1)
- War (3)
- We All Mus (1)
- We Report (1)
- Wealth Redistribution (1)
- weather (1)
- Weekly Round-up (2)
- White House (8)
- white man (1)
- winston churchill (1)
- word values (1)
- wusses (2)
- You Decide (1)
- You Mus (1)
12 comments:
Answer: War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terrorism, Cola Wars...I'd say we've been at war for most of our lives.
Does the continuation of peacetime measures imply the continuation of peace?
Stalin’s done a great job of illustrating my point. The “war” on drugs, the “war” on poverty, and the “war” on illiteracy… none of these were wars, and, arguably they’ve all failed. Drugs are still around, but many of my 4th Amendment rights are gone. The “war” on terror isn’t a war. Wars are about turf. Iraq is a war, Afghanistan is a war. They are related to the war on terror because their turfs are terrorist hotbeds, but ultimately Binny doesn’t want to own America. We are waging a battle of ideals. Notice that they are not sacrificing their ideals to win, but we readily are. We gave up real rights for the “war” on drugs. How long has that lasted, and when do we get our rights back? If this is a “war” on terrorism, when is V-T day? When does Binny sit across from Bush on an aircraft carrier and sign the peace treaty? When do we get back what we surrendered? Each of these “wars” has not lead to victory; rather they led to yet more loss of freedom and more governmental power. Both of those stand in stark contrast to what makes America so fantastic. The ideals are “temporarily” sacrificed, yet as Stalin points out, we’ve been “temporary” for all of our lives. Ultimately, how can you protect what you sacrifice and how can you win when you surrender?
But the cola wars, now that was for real. Anyone who survived those, well this younger generation owes them something. Something they can never really repay.
Especially insidious is the rationale offered repeatedly by officials and commentators last week re: random train searches: They make us FEEL safer.
More after supper . . .
UB seems put out over our loss of freedoms for a war that isn't technically a war. Agreed. There has been a trade off and some freedom has been bartered. But there has been a return and that return is increased safety. Now, we can argue effectiveness and say our efforts have not been fruitful so no safety has in fact been received. But, the real issue is the idea of safety as M3K brought up in the past. Is the idea of swapping freedom for safety legit?
I think we have made the only proper choice by moving down the path of less freedom given the current situation: a borderless enemy who will strike in non-military ways. I'm open to the debate of which liberties have to go and to what extent. But to decry the loss of any freedom given what we are currently up against seems extreme.
Here's the deal, fellow travellers: Our government's been exchanging cherished principles for the promise of safety since the first standing army in peacetime. Our Navy and Marines as we know them were instituted to fight not the French and the British forces directly, but to ensure free trade against Berber pirates. The question should always be: Was it a worthy trade? In New York last week, where a coercive random check could rightfully be refused before a bomber could walk two blocks to another platform to detonate himself and everyone he or she could take along, it's no.
On a plane, whole 'nother thang, g's.
Keep in mind I’m all about extreme, but I think this is the time to reclaim lost liberty, not sacrifice more. We are fighting an enemy that continually proves that they are willing to die for their ideals. While we send our troops to foreign lands to fight and die for our ideals, at home, we quickly surrender those very ideals in the face of any threat. Post 9/11 our government was is such a rush to cast aside our ideals that many politicians didn’t even take the time to READ the Patriot Act. The rush to cowardice was so intense that the pols didn’t even read the surrender document. There is no guarantee of safety, but there is a guarantee of loss of freedom. Looking back at the Continental Congress, one idea that truly stands out is that they built the protections of the 4th Amendment immediately after fighting a war. The protections they gave us enabled a war for freedom. To prohibit random, unwarranted searches, after using secrecy to transport important revolutionary documents, is unheard of. Any other group would have immediately outlawed the means that brought them power. This is the depth of commitment to an ideal, a commitment that, 200+ years later of prosperity, we no longer have. We are not fighting a turf war; we are fighting a battle of ideals. We’ve lost our edge and our leaders a falling over themselves to sacrifice our ideals, to sacrifice America. Not Americans, but America. A fight requires risk. The only people who are safe during a fight are cowards, willing to sell out whatever and whoever to stay safe. Sacrificing the 4th Amendment, while banning flag burning is the ultimate symbol of surrender. Keep the pretty picture, but erase everything is stands for. So, I disagree with Stalin. Now is the time to demand more freedom, to take back what we’ve acquiesced in the “war” on drugs, to show those that operate on fear that we are brave. To show those who think we’re hollow and soft, that in this fight all Americans are willing to take risk, and are resolute in our beliefs. To show those that think we hold nothing dear but the dollar that we will indeed sacrifice in order to protect, not ourselves but, our ideals.
Binny can’t beat that, no one can.
That's certainly a noble speech, but I wonder what all that looks like in practice. Would padding down baggy coated Arabs in the DC underground be fair or foul? What about trunk searches at the airport or the Lincoln Tunnel? Where are you willing to make your trade offs?
Everyone seems to have a different line in the sand, but I'm not sure where or how those lines have been drawn. What is principle and what is preference? How does M3K distinguish between trains and planes?
If you fly, you and yours are screened at least minimally and also, of course, you're liable to be asked to provide additional info and access. Bottom line: All flyers should be prepared to waive their 4th amendment rights, for reasons I can live with.
NY subway riders are being asked to waive their rights for the mere appearanace of safety (again, to FEEL safer). The odds of entering a subway car armed, wired, whatever, remain high when evasion is as easy as ambling over to one of the many other stations in which passengers at that hour are not being checked.
The city of NY simply cannot assure passengers any additional measure of safety, and they should say so. Riding the subway is a risk leaders must insist we take, along with the responsibility to do more than open our bags and let the police do "their" jobs. Safety in a subway car--or a plane, for that matter--must begin with passengers aware and prepared: aware of others' actions, and prepared to phone up or throw down as necessary.
This sounds terribly glib, and I'm sorry. What I'm suggesting is no easy thing, and I often wondered whether I'd have had the wherewithall of the Flight 93 passengers; truth is, knowing now that their fight then was the only way to go, all that matters is what I and any able-bodied passenger must be ready to do.
All drivers through the Lincoln Tunnel, however, should not be prepared to waive their rights, simply because it'd be impossible to allow for the time lost during a 1-in-a-1,000 search. It'd be, in every sense of the word, unwarranted.
Trunk searches at the airport? OK
What I wonder is, since your team (what I like to call "Team Sissy-Pants") has the momentum, when do you plan to stop? What level of your beliefs are you willing to sacrifice to "feel" safe? In practice. When we get hit again how many more freedoms will you demand in the name of safety? We could pat down Arabs, but we could also pat down ex-Army soldiers living in the Midwest to catch future McVeighs, or infiltrate pro-life organizations, and pat down their members, wire tap them, and search their houses to catch Olympic Bomber's like Rudolph. Marginal infringements on our civil liberties are always easily justified by the line, "this will save lives." The margin just keeps expanding. The state cannot guarantee safety, so the question becomes, "how important are our ideals and beliefs?" I get that, for many, safety is more important. That's a very rational opinion. I have to admit, until 9/11 I felt basically the same way. But when I looked around after that, the ideal became more important to me. I realized what we’re fighting for, and why. But I go back to my earlier question, where does team Sissy-Pants draw the line, and why?
To echo M3K's point. We trust the soldiers to win wars abroad and we trust the police to protect us at home. However, in America, the citizens are sovereign. We must take more responsibility for ourselves. And that starts with taking back that right from the state.
As spokesman for Team Sissypants let me just say that limp-wristed face slaps won't keep America safe (believe me, we've tried). I like the idea of an empowered citizenry bearing much of the burden for safety very much. This is one of the reasons why the drive to ban guns is so foolish. If you are calling on people to defend themselves, I hope you will also be supporting their right to arm themselves. Now, big burly men like me don't need weapons to defend ourselves, but I'm trying to think what's best for you guys.
It is true that searches are not perfect tools of safety, but they are not ineffective either. They should be coupled with all the other tools at our disposal including, but not limitied to: more rigorous immigration controls, criminal background checks, monitoring of high risk individuals, etc. All of these reduce civil liberties. However, I trust that they will not be haphazardly applied and will only reduce the liberties of those who deserve it. If you are an Imam preaching Jihad in NYC, I'm not too concerned with you being monitored.
We need to adjust immigration policy in this country. For one we need to increase the number of legal spots handed out every year as our economy desperately needs cheap labor from the south and tech-skilled labor from the far east. Then we need to get tough on illegals. Getting a better handle on people flows will increase safety at no cost to American's freedoms.
Finally, America is team. We should all have matching jersey's with our numbers on the back. If a great American dies we can retire his number. Wouldn't that be cool? Also, we should hang championship banners in the White House for every war we've won. And everyone gets to play...how egalitarian! "Life is not a spectator sport" that would be the new national motto. Much better than the current, "What are you looking at?"
Post a Comment