I'll have the last laugh, however, even though it will be kind of like a Mauthausen inmate getting a chuckle out of the SS guard stubbing his toe on the other side of the barbed wire. I'll get much amusement out of the sudden dim light coming on in the surprised faces of the Conservatives when they realize that all the nifty tools afforded to the government (USA-PATRIOT, NSA wiretapping, and so on) will be left in the toolshed when the next Democrat moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
If you think the Constitution has been gang-raped since 9/11, just wait until the other guys are done with it. -Marko Kloos
My more traditionally conservative friends always seem so placid whenever any of the current laws put in place seem sketchy on the Constitutionality front. "It's all for hunting the terrorists," they tell me, over and over again. Are our memories that short? Do they forget that they screamed bloody murder and fought tooth and nail against them when so very many of these exact same things were proposed by the previous administration back in 1994; back when "terrorists" were white guys who owned guns and listened to Rush Limbaugh?
As Marko says, these shiny new tools will still be in the shed when the people are back in power who think that members of GOA and JPFO are terrorists.
12 comments:
I've always wondered why Rudolph and McVeigh aren't mentioned when people talk about terrorism these days.
All enemies foreign and domestic, etc.
A-yup.
The important thing to remember is that when you give power to government, you don't just give it to the folks currently in charge. You give it to anyone who might ever be in charge. So whenever anyone is all gung-ho for some new expansion of government power, they should ask themselves:How much would I support this if it were in the hands of my enemies? Would I trust them with this authority?
My question to this type of logic is that it ignores that there really is a terrorist threat from Islamists who really want to kill us. Yes, I understand that giving a policemen a gun is to run risk a chance he might shoot me. But what if he shoots someone trying to steal my dog or rape my sister? Or shoots some goblin perp trying to kill me? I understand the need to defend real actual rights. But I get bothered by "libertarians" who defend the "right" to use public libraries and have their Internet records held private, even though the computers they use are funded by tax dollars.
What scares me is all of these anti-war libertarians who are siding up with ACLU-Democrats, the same communist jackboots who would steal your REAL rights to own a firearm, free speech, etc. And why are these "libertarians" making this "united front" with communists? Because they feel (illogically) that they have a "right" to use tax-funded libraries in "private"... and also a holy mission to stop a war which overthrows actual dictators. BE SCARED and not just about the naivete of Dittoheads.
"And why are these "libertarians" making this "united front" with communists?"
Why are the Republicans passing the VERY SAME legislation they opposed when it was proposed by Clinton? Who's allying with who?
"Because they feel (illogically) that they have a "right" to use tax-funded libraries in "private".."
Personally, I oppose tax funded libraries. Hell, I'm not that keen on taxes in the first place. You wanna read? Go buy a fricken' book.
How many church compounds have burned down by the ATF because of under Bush? How many women and children shot in gun-grabbing raids? The difference is in application.
There is a difference between illegally spying on a terrorist (who would murder millions of Americans) versus burning up a bunch of women and kids. Especially if the stakes are nuked US city verus taking away someone's right to bear arms. These are ugly times. It's dump to pretend otherwise
I can't believe anybody with even only two brain-cells knocking around would give more power to Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein simply out of spite.
"I don't understand why people would object to tracking devices placed in every privately owned vehicle. After all, the roads are tax funded."
Riiiiight.
To argue that one loses all rights the instant one interacts with government is folly. Indeed, the reverse is true -- what might be legitimate for a private citizen or company to do can be illigetimate when done by the government. For example, I have every right to deny protestors access to my front yard -- but the government cannot deny them access to public parks.
The anonymous posters here continue to miss the main point -- regardless of the reality of the terrorist threat, the powers granted to the government will remain when the terrorists are gone, or when the government decides it needs someone new to use as an enemy. I remember when Bill Clinton blamed "right wing radio hosts" for the OK City bombings. Doesn't anyone else?
Historically, far more people have been killed by their own government than by any outside agencies.
This historical argument ignores the fact that a small-group of people could possibly explode a nuclear device in a large city and deny millions their rights by incinerating them. This probably isn't the US government, most likely its the people who are sawing off the most heads lately.
This isn't a moral argument, it's a fact that this is highly likely to occur somewhere, sometime soon. No talking points cribbed from the LP website will solve this issue. You can go ahead and defend to the death the "rights" of people who want to kill you. I'm sure you will get your wish.
anonymous,
do you think there might be a middle ground between forking over our dearest civil liberties, and mushroom clouds in American cities?
Oh, and I am not defending the rights of terrorists. I am defending my own rights.
Anonymous,
Then write your damned legislation tighter.
If you pass a law that the government can, at will, butt-rape anybody they deem a Terrorist forevermore, then you have no right to shed a tear in four years when Nancy Pelosi decrees that anybody who owns an AR-15 is one, and comes after you using the very same legislation you are rah-rah-ing over.
"Then write your damned legislation tighter."
Damn good advice; trying to write legislation that encompasses too many situations also leaves too many loopholes that can be abused by the next group of people who have an axe to grind.
More government and more legislation is NEVER the answer to any problem. Never has been, never will be.
I'm far more afraid of the occupying force in this country, than of some terrorists. The cops can't protect me from them anyway; that's MY job and the government only restricts my right to do so, and my right to attend to my own affairs in all things.
How can a few people terrorize a group of people who are free to go armed? They can't. OTOH, it's easy to terrorize people who are disarmed and have been violated to ensure they remain so.
All the legislation in the world cannot protect us, nor is it intended to. It is designed to control- not terrorists, criminals, gangbangers, or illegal aliens- but US.
Tracy in north Alabama
Post a Comment