Posts
One of the first things President Messiah is going to do is to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and CIA detention centers around the world. For those of you who don't know, this is where the U.S. is keeping terrorist prisoners. But liberals are hell-bent on closing these facilities because they think it sends a bad message to the world.
The question then is where are these terrorists going to go? Messiah doesn't seem to have a plan and is actually considering letting them go. Ya, smart idea, just set free a bunch of terrorists. Here's an example of what one former prisoner has done - he's taken over an Al Queda cell.
I have an idea, how about release all the terrorists to Hollywood, New York City and D.C. since all the liberals there want these people released. They can sit down and have tea and discuss their differences. I'm sure it will end peacefully. Or maybe liberals around the country should agree to take in a terrorist and let them reside at their house.
38 comments:
well if they didn't hate america before, i'm sure years of being held without a trial has changed their mind. so yes it would be dangerous to let them just leave, but if we don't have any evidence against them or any proof at all that they have done something, what do you propose we do? keep them in guantanamo forever just in case they would have done something bad upon release? since when do we have the right to do that? I'm not saying they are all innocent, i'm sure some of them should be tried for their crimes and then imprisoned, but we can't hold people indefinitely without a trial.
They are all there for a reason. It's not like the military just rounded up some people and threw them in GITMO.
You want to hold trials for them, fine. But there is no reason to release them.
I'll be curious to see how the media reacts the first time one of these terrorists kills an American. They'll probably blame it on Bush.
And I doubt if these people will be "worse" just because we held them in prison. They were put in prison becuase they were terrorists, leave them there.
These people don't care about anything except blowing up America and this liberal belief that being nice to them and releasing them back to their countries will cure them is an absolute joke. That's not the world we're living in.
This is typical liberal behavior by the way - do something before you think it thru. Hey, let's set a date a year from now to have these prisons closed. What will we do with the prisoners? Uhhh, not really sure, we'll figure it out. But get them out of there and rehab our image with the Arab world!!!!!
I don't think liberals are the only ones who don't always think something through. How's the rebuilding of Iraq? How did that well thought out plan work? were we greeted as liberators, with it last "6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months"?
A year is plenty of time to figure out what to do with the prisoners and more than just the arab world is angry over guantanamo.
America should be a leader in human rights, not an exception, that's what obama is working towards.
My view, for what it's worth. Kill them. If they were "tortured", then killed, no one in the world would ever know. We're too f'ing nice. While we watch our prisoners' throats slit, we put our opponents in easy chairs. One thing I believe, is that if someone tries to rob your house, you generally have the right to shoot him, but make sure he's dead. If he survives, he'll be able to sue you, and in our messed up legal situation, he's likely to win. The lesson I get from all of this, kill your opponent, so they can't contest you. Liberals are insane. They have some illogical believe that if you are nice to others, they will stop hating you. However, if they hate you, there is nothing you can do to eliminate that hate other than extermination. They are like roaches, or termites!!!
1. If Messiah was really worried about working towards being a leader in human rights he would be working on reducing killing babies rather than making abortions easier to come by. It amazes me that the same people that are sooooo worried about human rights have no problem killing off babies because the woman decided to sleep with someone and now doesn't want the responsibility of taking care of the baby.
God forbid we waterboard a terrorist, but kill a baby, sure why not!!
2. WHO CARES what the world thinks of us. If we want everyone to like us then we should become like Sweeden and stay out of everything. The price of being a leader is that not everyone likes you or agrees with you. They all come crawling back at some point anyways.
3. The rest of the world uses interrogation methods much worse than ours and for some reason that's ok. But we waterboarded someone!!!!
4. Messiah's method of trying to be nice to everyone won't work. Terrorists look for weaknesses and they now know we have a weak president in charge. Why do you think they didn't attack our country since 9/11 - because they knew Bush wouldn't screw around with them.
But if you want to sit down for tea with a terrorist and talk about your differences go right ahead, just don't do it in my neighberhood.
to julio
yes that's exactly what we need as a nation, become a little more like pinochets argentina, let's just extinguish everyone who disagrees while you're at it! I hope you're kidding.
also, generally if someone robs your house you don't have the right to shoot everyone who ever knew them. it's not like there's enough evidence that the people in guantanamo had anything to do with 9/11 or they would be on trial right now.
1. Obama is making sure that women continue to have the right to choose what to do with their bodies, that does not violate human rights in my opinion, and is a completely different issue than guantanamo bay. Abortion is completely legal. Torture on the other hand is not.
2. We should care what the rest of the world thinks, this whole going it a alone thing is not going to work forever. The entire world does not always have to like us, but they will never come crawling back unless we show that we haven't lost a sense of what's right and wrong.
3. Waterboarding is torture. Yes some other countries torture, countries like Afghanistan, China, Iran, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Great company we keep right? The U.S. is supposed to have credibility as a moral country, but torturing prisoners is not the act of a moral country.
4. It's ridiculous to say that there weren't any attacks after 9/11 because Bush prevented them. How many years did we go without a serious attack before 9/11? do you think all of those presidents prevented them? do you think that the terrorists were scared of all those presidents? These ppl are willing to die as long as they take some Americans with them, so i don't think that fear of the repercussions are really going to change their mind. There hasn't been an attack either because of good counter terrorism efforts or because they are planning and plotting. Not because they are scared of Bush. Counter terrorism ppl will continue doing their job, so i don't think you have too much to worry about.
Also let us not forget that 9/11 happened while bush was president. Do you blame him for that? Do you think that he seemed weak to the terrorists?
If the U.S. were to capture Bin Laden, does that now mean we can't interrogate him and also, where in the hell will we now put him? Think any federal prison will want him.
I may have gone a little extreme on my prior post, but I stand behind the point. I fully believe in Capital Punishment. These are individuals that have forfeited their right to life through there actions, unlike an unborn fetus that is ALIVE. I personally don't think we should make abortions illegal, but there shouln not be abortion on demand, as we have it now, and it should NEVER be funded with my taxes. I do not believe abortions are ever o.k.
As a side not: If a pregnant woman is killed is it 1, or 2 murders?
capital punishment still involves a trial, they can't just execute someone without proving anything. I am all for charging these guys with something, if they had anything to do with 9/11 they deserve to be severely punished, but i would like it to be within the law.
so you believe the moment of conception is when it's considered a baby? if a pregnant woman is killed two weeks into her pregnancy before she's showing maybe even before she knows, is that a double murder? does the killer have to know she's pregnant for it to be considered a double murder?
it is an interesting question, but it's not going to change my mind. I don't think anyone wants an abortion, or likes the idea of an abortion, but sometimes and for some women circumstances call for it. A woman shouldn't be forced to carry it, she should have options it is her body. The goal should be less unwanted pregnancies (reducing the need for abortions) through better sex education, not outlawing abortion and making young girls forfeit their lives because of one mistake.
We can interrogate whoever we want as long as it's not torture. Obviously there's enough evidence against bin laden that his guilt is not a question. I'm sure they have somewhere else to hold him. There are plenty of prisoners not in guantanamo.
I absolutely believe life begins at conception, and the reason that I ask about the double murder is that it is a double murder in some states (I don't have an immediate example, but I know it to be true). I also believe that if a woman can 'choose' abortion, a man should be able to 'choose' not to pay for a child, although I abhore those kind of weasels. On another side note, I find it amusing how some of the same people who accuse concervatives of ignoring science in Global Warming, would disagree with science in abortion. And, if they aren't contradicting themselves, they would be against late term abortions, which have absolute proof that those babies are viable out of the womb.
I absolutely believe life begins at conception, and the reason that I ask about the double murder is that it is a double murder in some states (I don't have an immediate example, but I know it to be true). I also believe that if a woman can 'choose' abortion, a man should be able to 'choose' not to pay for a child, although I abhore those kind of weasels. On another side note, I find it amusing how some of the same people who accuse concervatives of ignoring science in Global Warming, would disagree with science in abortion. And, if they aren't contradicting themselves, they would be against late term abortions, which have absolute proof that those babies are viable out of the womb.
I absolutely believe life begins at conception, and the reason that I ask about the double murder is that it is a double murder in some states (I don't have an immediate example, but I know it to be true). I also believe that if a woman can 'choose' abortion, a man should be able to 'choose' not to pay for a child, although I abhore those kind of weasels. On another side note, I find it amusing how some of the same people who accuse concervatives of ignoring science in Global Warming, would disagree with science in abortion. And, if they aren't contradicting themselves, they would be against late term abortions, which have absolute proof that those babies are viable out of the womb.
Where to begin ... all I can really say to anonymous is that you are not living in anytihing remotely resembling reality. Your abortion argument is hilarious ... so life doesn't begin at conception, huh? Then I guess we don't need birth control! That baby just magically appears in the womb a month or so down the road. It's like something a five year old kid would think. So basically, its ok to kill babies, but lets hold off on adults who have sworn to kill every single American they can. Do you honestly think these people would show you or anybody else an ounce of mercy? They believe that it is God's will to destroy America! I personally could care less if you think we are being too harsh on terrorists or that other countries don't like us. The fact is, we need people like President Bush to make the hard decisions to protect this country...decisions that people like you don't have the stomach, balls, or brains to make. The very fact that he makes those decisons gives you the right to run your mouth about fantasy crap like "life doesn't begin at conception" or "waterboarding is torture." Of course it's torture! You think that these type of people are going to give in to Brisco and Green from Law and Order?
And as far as 9/11 happening while Bush was in office .... you know why? Because Bin Laden knows that stupid people like yourself would automatically blame whoever was in office at the time. And why is that important? Because they are sacred of people like Bush .. people who have the resolve to fight them until the battle is over.
Honestly, anonymous, you're going to have to do better than regurgitate CNN headlines ....
Julio
yeah i have looked up some of the laws about in utero murder or whatever it's called. I actually don't agree with most of those laws especially the most recent one in 2004 that bush signed into law, because i feel that they are just trying to build a legal argument against abortion rather than trying to protect the pregnant woman and her baby. I think that a woman being pregnant should be a special circumstance, but the fetus should not be considered a person separate from the mother. The emphasis should be on protecting the rights of the pregnant woman. I am against late term abortions because the baby is viable outside the womb as you mentioned. But late term abortions do account for only 1% of abortions, so it's not enough reason to outlaw the procedure.
As for the guy choosing not to pay child support, I see your point and it is a difficult issue. The guy has the choice to use protection, as the woman does. They can choose either abortion or adoption, together but ultimately i think if the woman chooses to carry and keep the child the man should help. He cannot have a mental abortion, and decide to pretend he didn't have a child. If that were the case there would be no protection for women who have a baby with the man who says he will help her raise it and then decides not to. It's a difficult issue and I know it's somewhat unfair but ultimately it is the woman's body and her choice.
Reid
I actually asked if it should be considered a baby from the moment of conception, and i didn't really state my position. I believe that it's a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, and is not viable outside the womb until around the 6th month give or take a few weeks. Personally I am against late term abortions at the point that the baby could survive outside of the womb because i feel like the woman had her chance to decide not to have the baby, now it's grown enough to survive without her and is no longer her choice.
The United States is supposed to be a civilized and moral country and i don't think that we should make an exception when it comes to the terrorist threat. It doesn't matter if they would show us any mercy, that's why we are the United States and they are a group of terrorists, we have laws and rights in our society and if we decide they don't matter now, then what are we fighting for? Torture is illegal, the U.S. is violating international law by torturing ppl, and it is just plain not helpful. Yes, everyone breaks eventually when tortured, but the information they give is usually wrong they will say anything to make it stop and that usually means lying. Also if we as a nation allow torture in the hypothetical ticking time bomb situation, eventually everything will become a ticking time bomb situation. Studies have shown this in israel. Torture has no place in a modern society, especially in the worlds only superpower. Torturing another human being should not be allowed period.
You completely mistook what i said about bush and 9/11. Cub fan was saying that the terrorists knew obama was weak and so now they would attack us. So I asked him if that was the reason that they attacked when bush was president. I don't blame Bush for 9/11, i don't think many people do, i think it would have happened no matter who was in office and was not his fault. but do you honestly think that bin laden cares who our president is? You said yourself that they believe it is god's will to destroy america so they are going to try and do it no matter who is in office. They are willing to die to kill americans so i don't think they are really scared of retribution. In reality the Bush administration has done wonders for their recruiting. Nothing like two American wars in the Middle East to drum up support for antiamericanism.
Honestly do you think you sound like anything other than another Oreilly?
What's wrong with O'Reilly? I love how O'Reilly is painted as this angry, arrogant a-hole. Yet Keith Olbermann is held up as a respected journalist.
Give me a break, that guy is the most arrogant ass on the air. At least O'Reilly will have liberals on his show and debate them. I don't think I've ever seen a conservative on Olbermann's show. He just has people on that agree with him and rip on conservatives.
And then you have Maddow who's getting to be just as bad (I actually used to like her when she would just show up on shows and make some comments) and has that smug smirk everytime she talks. Bush is out of office and she still can't stop talking about him.
You got your Messiah in office, move on!
It drives me nuts when liberals and the media rip on O'Reilly or Limbaugh, yet they've never watched or listened to their shows (not saying that directly to you Anon. since I don't know if you have or haven't). If anyone watches or listens to these shows you'll see that they are more balanced in their guests than any liberal show that's on the air. So what if O'Reilly or Limbaugh takes the conservative point of view, that's who they are. The ponit is that they bring on members of the other party to debate them and let them give their point of view.
Limbaugh lets Democrats talk on his show more than Republicans and it's usually a pretty civil discussion.
As I said, I don't think Olbermann or Maddow EVER have a conservative on their show.
To Anonymous:
Assuming you are a man: I do not know if you are a father or not, but it completely amazes me to hear men say that a pregnant woman has "the right to choose because it is her body". When you have a 5 year old child, will you then also think that is 100% the mom's right to say what is best for your cihld? A baby is 1 part the mom and 1 part the dad from the day it is conceived until the day that it dies. My son's father has every right that I do to decide what is best for him - this was true from the day we conceived and will be true forever. I was blessed to be able to carry him in the womb, but our child is no more mine than he is my husband's and with that means I have no more rights regarding his well-being than does my husband.
I said the oreilly comment in response to reid saying i was regurgitating cnn headlines. He does sound just like oreilly and so do you. I personally dislike oreilly very much because i don't agree with anything he says. He does have liberals on and then he shouts at them for half the interview and doesn't actually listen to anything they say. I have watched Oreilly a lot but never for more than about 15 minutes because that's all i can stand. I would agree that i actually can't stand olbermann either because he gets incredibly overdramatic, so i don't watch him or madow much either.
I can honestly say i've never listened to limbaugh, but he was the one who said that he wanted obama to fail so i don't think that he is someone i would want to listen to. or someone that has anyone could consider objective or fair.
Yeah, DNA speaking, yes, the baby is 1 part man 1 part woman. However, the man is not the one to carry the child for nine months. I am a man (the anonymous from earlier is not me, however) and I understand what the woman has to go through during those nine months. If there are any health risks to the mother than there should be little question as to what happens before the fetus begins to develop.
Why are so many people on this post against the legal rights of an individual.
The original poster posted because of torture. Everyone who is reading this should look at anyone they know. Imagine if that person was to be tortured by the US or another country for information about terrorism. If the US has any good reason to "talk" to you, they will. The Patriot Act gives them that right. Are you going to say that the US has the right to torture my brother because he "possibly" could have information about a terrorist attack? I sure the hell will not stand for anyone who does that. If the military has enough information to know that someone has ties to a terrorist group they should have enough information to stop the threat.
Finally, I do not recall any terrorist getting hold of the US Constitution. Until that piece of paper is destroyed everyone in this country has the right to say any damn thing that they please. Drop the stupid argument that we are defending our rights when we are attacking terrorists. We are defending our LIVES. My rights will never go away until the Christians take control and refuse my right to live how I want.
Thank you original Anonymous poster for speaking out.
Interesting that you feel Christians are trying to refuse rights though they are the ones sticking up for defenseless babies. If you, by exercising your "right", infringe upon someone else's right - is it still your right? I guess the bottom line is who's "right" is more important and who gets to decide that? By torturing people who have done wrong (infringing on others' rights to LIVE by participating in a terrorist group) in order to protect our country - I agree, we are infringing on their rights BUT it is so we can continue to exercise OUR right for freedom and for security. I guess you're saying that the terrorists' rights are more important than mine and that pregnant women's rights are more important than babies. I, however, think my rights are more important than terrorists and that babies' rights are more important than pregnant womens' rights. I guess we have now solved the difference between conservatives and liberals - it really just comes down to whose rights are more important - conservatives side with the defenseless and more-deserving. Liberals side with the selfish. Similar to how they feel about social programs - conservatives would like to allot money to those deserving (sometimes due to hard-work and sometimes due to extenuating cicrcumstances) while liberals would like to allot to the selfish (those who would rather take money and make irresponsibles choices without thinking they have to pay the consequences).
Why aren't you sticking up for Gay rights? Where were the conservatives the day that the Suffrage battle was won?
There are way too many "Anonymous" people on here!! We need Anon. 1, Anon. 2, Anon. 3. Ha!!!
But in regard to the comment about Rush hoping Obama fails. The context was about Obama enacting socialist policies. Rush said that if Obama is going to enact socialist policies then he hopes they fail because he doesn't want socialism to succeed.
I would guess that most Republicans share that view. We don't want socialism and a lot of what Obama, Pelosi and Reid are proposing are socialist policies. Sorry, but I don't want those policies to suceed either.
Succeed, not suceed.
To anonymous 2
I am not a man, not sure why you would make that assumption. I do feel that after the child is born, both parents have a responsiblity and a right to raise and support the child. But for the time that the child is a part of the womans body she has the final say. Obviously if the woman is married or in a serious relationship she will consult her husband or s/o and they will make the decision together because if she cares for the guy she will want him to have a say. But the majority of abortions are not by married women. They are by women in tough situations where there wouldn't be a family for the child to be born into. The woman and man are usually not capable to care for the child, and some times they are not even in a relationship. The guy can put in his opinion, but she has the final say because she is the one who would have her life disrupted for 9 months even if they agreed on adoption. The guy cannot force the woman to carry the baby because at that point it is a part of her body and is dependent on her to live.
I am not saying that it shouldn't be a joint decision. If i were to get pregnant I would feel that the father should be a part of the decision, and i wouldn't do something he wasn't comfortable with, but not everyone is able to do that. Ultimately it is a woman's body and a woman's choice until it is no longer a part of her body and no longer relies on her physically to survive.
Your other post begs the question, where do you draw the line? What if these guys were American? Are an American's rights worth more? How about if he's not arab, he's your cousin or someone you know and they decide he knows something about terrorists. Do they need to prove that he knows something before they torture him? How would they do that? Torture is where we should draw the line as a society, not because I feel so much sympathy for Bin Ladin or other actual terrorists who would be tortured, but because there's no way to insure that it would only be used when absolutely necessary. Basic human rights include the right not to be subjected to physical or mental pain amounting to torture. Every human being has those rights, and a suspicion that they have done something bad does not mean they lose their rights. No one persons rights are worth more than anothers, and torturing those guys does not make you any safer than you already were so there is really no point.
Lastly your comment that "conservatives side with the defenseless and more-deserving" do you have any examples besides protecting fetus's? Seriously I can't even believe that was said. Since when have conservatives sided with the defenseless? African American rights, gay rights, women's rights, all of the fights were waged by liberals, not conservatives. Liberals fight for the disadvantaged and defenseless groups. Even now, we are fighting for the rights of the detainees in guantanamo, they are a defenseless and un popular group, but they still deserve basic human rights and that's what liberals are about, everyone is equal everyone deserves basic human rights. And i know what argument you will make, but a fetus is not a separate person and does not have rights until being born.
I would like to know what Shawn Fay thinks about all this.
Abortion - Simple solution, don't have sex. If you don't want the responsibility that could result from sex, then don't do it. Seriously, it's not that hard of a concept to grasp.
Interrogation - Using the "brother" analogy - say your brother lives in Chicago. They capture a terrorist who is about to do something dangerous and something soon. He's not giving up info under the Obama method of sitting down for coffee though. Do you want them to waterboard him and get the info to prevent tomorrow's attack or do you want them to just give up. Then the attack happens and your brother dies.
By the way, to those that disagree with harsh interrogation methods on terrorists I suggest reading the Vince Flynn books. They'll give you a picture of the real world and what it's really like. He has access to many people in the spy agencies and this is how it really works.
The problem with many of the arguments agains aggressive interrogation methods, is that they assume that they are the first instinct. These methods are only used in special circumstances. If your brother doesn't mingle with terrorists, doesn't talk about building a bomb, and doesn't otherwise indicate that he's up to no good, He's in good shape.
On the other side. If your brother was on a train that was known to be equipped with a bomb that was on a collision course with a nuclear vacility and you knew someone that might have information to stop it, what would you do? Seriously, what would you do? What about if it was your mom, your kid, Your gay lover? Would you ask them nicely?? Seriously, think about it. What would you do??
Honestly, reading this blog drives me crazy because of all the idiot liberals who refuse to put their name on their posts. If you don't have the strength of conviction to stand behind what you say, then do us all a favor and go chime in on the CNN comment page. What a joke. I can honestly say that I totally disregard everything you say as complete horseshit because you don't even have the balls to stand behind "your" opinion.
And who is Oreilly?
To cub fan
exactly! it's a great idea to use fictional characters like mitch rapp and jack bauer to show you what is really happening in the world. Yeah torture always works out in the fictional land of 24 and vince flynn books, but it should not become reality. In the last one I read Mitch shot a foreign national 4 times, in his hands and knee caps, without ever having met him or have any kind of conversation with him. That's exactly what we want our government to do right? Be a bunch of cowboys shooting who they want? It's fun fiction, but I don't think it's very close to reality nor should it be.
Did you have sex before you wanted a baby? Did your friends? Did anyone you know have sex for the first time when they wanted and were prepared for a baby? No probably not. That's just not a solution to any problem. Everyone in the world is not going to abstain until they are ready to have a baby. There are many forms of birth control that should be more accesible and more talked about. And abortion should still be legal for the worst case scenarios. Hopefully Plan B will help drastically reduce the need for abortions, but it should still be an option.
To cubfan and julio
What you described is the often cited ticking time bomb situation. And yes everyone can see the usefullness of torture in a ticking time bomb situation, and most ppl would say he should be tortured to prevent the attack. The problem is if that is allowed inevitably torture spreads from only being used when they know it's a ticking time bomb situation, to being used to see if there is a ticking time bomb situation, to being used if they think the person might know another terrorist who is involved in a ticking time bomb situation, and on and on until ppl are being tortured without an imminent threat and too often. That is what happened in Israel the only country in which torture was legal, eventually they were torturing everyone to see if they knew or had family members who were terrorists. It's difficult to say that we shouldn't torture someone in a ticking time bomb situation, but making an exception on something like torture opens a dangerous door. Another problem is also it gives away some of our freedom, if we support it as a people we are telling the government that they can torture ppl when they see fit. You might trust the people in power now to only use it against terrorists, but what about 20 years down the road or 40? Do you trust that they will always use it the way it was intended? It sacrifices something we all have and that's a right to not be subjected to physical or emotional pain amounting to torture by the government especially without a trial or anything. Who knows what they would do with that down the line, or who would be considered a terrorist then.
It's all about security vs freedom, you really can't have perfect security and perfect freedom at the same time. Liberals tend to fall more on the freedom (personal freedom) side and conservatives value national security more. Personally I don't feel that it's possible to be completely safe or completely secure as a nation, so it's better that we keep our values and freedoms, and give up a little security.
I understand that to some Club Gitmo is a symbol of what certain people think is wrong. What I don't understand is why you would sign an order before even exploring the consequences of closing it! I wonder if he actually favors giving them full-blown constitutional rights?! If that is the case then his national security team should have their heads checked!!
Once you ask yourself that question the next logical step for the BiG O is to move back toward a pre 9/11 mindset. Put the blinders back on, say your sorry for protecting the motherland, and stick your head back in a fricking hole!
I think, as do many others, the logical answer is that Obamie is more worried about his image with the wacky far leftist and far left kooks then our image internationally that he claims..
Better yet, why don't we close Club Gitmo...send them over to our friends who run the best summer camps over in Turkey or Egypt. You should see some of the fun exercies they run...it would make you giggle..
Sadly, there are some who think their freedoms will be maintained without difficult decisions being made. I often wonder if those same people would truely have the stomach to make the difficult decision in a dark moment for our country.
I may joke some, though when it comes to these clowns I'd rather take very little risk. No one has ever had to say sorry for protecting ones family or country...I'd rather not start now.
-Viva La Resistance!!!
Well said Dave. The slippery slope argument is never a good argument in a debate, yet the same people worrying about torture, and using the slippery slope, are arguing for the 'Fairness Doctrine'. Which one is more detrimental to our Freedom???? Also, security vs freedom??? Most concervatives I know want less government, more accountability, and the ability to stop those that want to hurt us. How are those anti freedom?
freedom would include the right to not be tortured. as i stated in my argument. Also although not included in this debate, security is usually cited for things like the patriot act and other supposed anti terrorism provisions which infringe on our right to privacy etc.
Sometimes something really is a slippery slope, it's not like saying that gay marriage will lead to polygamy and then to people marrying objects. Allowing torture in any instance will lead to torture being more accepted and eventually to torture in many instances.
Can you give me one instance of how the Patriot Act has personally infringed on your rights?
Can you give me one instance of how the Patriot Act has infringed on the rights of someone you know?
Can you give me one instance of how the Patriot Act has infringed on the rights of someone that wasn't suspected of being involved with terrorism?
Well with sneak and peek warrants i wouldn't know would I? No, I don't actually think anyone I know has been affected by the Patriot Act, but I don't have to know someone to think that it's wrong.
People suspected of terrorism have rights too. I'm sure there have been plenty of suspected terrorists who turned out to be innocent, just happened to be in the wrong place, or look like a terrorist.
The patriot act doesn't just affect those who it is used against, it takes away a little of everyone's right to privacy because at any time they could use it against you. Like i've said previously who knows further down the line, who will be considered terrorists. We shouldn't give up some of our rights without really thinking of cost vs benefit. I feel that the dimished right to privacy because of warrantless wiretaps, sneak and peek warrants, inclusion of domestic terrorism and other parts of the patriot act are not worth the amount of security it adds. That's just me.
Post a Comment