[Talkhard]

Looking back at the history of tragic times often reveals that many -- or most -- of the people of those times were often preoccupied with things that look trivial, or even pathetic, in view of the catastrophe looming over them. Will later generations looking back at our times see a similar blindness, and even frivolousness, in the face of mortal dangers?

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...07/185446.html

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Are we blind to the terrorist threat?

No.

Looking back at the history of tragic times often reveals that many -- or most -- of the people of those times were often preoccupied with things that look trivial, or even pathetic, in view of the catastrophe looming over them. Will later generations looking back at our times see a similar blindness, and even frivolousness, in the face of mortal dangers?

This is quite right. But the mortal danger is not the terrorist threat, which is something we can handle if we don't act like hysterical babies at every mention of the name "Osama." (Or is it "Saddam"?) Which one was the threat again? I just... can't... remember.

The mortal danger is the collapse of our free democratic system. It's already happening. This quote captures the dynamic perfectly -- future historians will look back with wonder and disgust when they ponder how one horrific attack, which cost >2000 lives, so terrified the American people that they completely lost their nerve and threw away a brilliant 200-year-old heritage of constitutional freedom. They will not admire us.

Stepping Razor

[Talkhard]

The mortal danger is the collapse of our free democratic system. It's already happening.

A good example of the "hysteria" you were talking about.

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

A good example of the "hysteria" you were talking about.

I'm happy that you're so confident in the beneficient rule of the government.

I'm also happy our founding fathers didn't feel the same way.

Stepping Razor

[Talkhard]

During the Civil War, President Lincoln twice suspended the right of habeus corpus (in 1861 and 1862), and had many war protesters arrested because he felt that the state courts would not convict them. He also proclaimed that anyone who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law!

Yet, miraculously, we didn't perish as a nation. The right of habeus corpus was reinstalled after the war and the country actually emerged stronger because of Lincoln's actions.

The most important "right" of all is the right to life--and it is under serious threat from our terrorist friends. The U.S. Constitution is a grand and wonderful document, but it is not a suicide pact.

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

I'm not overly trustful of government, but I also recognize the need for certain measures in times of crisis. During the Civil War, President Lincoln twice suspended the right of habeus corpus (in 1861 and 1862), and had many war protesters arrested because he felt that the state courts would not convict them. He also proclaimed that anyone who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law!

Re: Lincoln. He did suspend habeas corpus. Unconstitutionally. Three times, actually. This was a serious threat to the constitutional republic; thank God it was Lincoln, rather than a lesser man, wielding that power, and he allowed us to return to constitutional rule after the war.

But Lincoln is a terrible analogue for Bush. Why?

1. Lincoln officially declared his actions, and subsequently worked with Congress to codify them in law. (Habeas Corpus Act of 1863.) Bush has simply ignored the law, secretly doing whatever the hell he wants, and only admitting it when he gets caught.

2. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the middle of a Civil War. If you are seriously equating the threat posed by a handful of murderous jihadists with the threat posed by civil war, then you've seriously lost your head in the wake of 9/11.

The most important "right" of all is the right to life--and it is under serious threat from our terrorist friends. The U.S. Constitution is a grand and wonderful document, but it is not a suicide pact.

Huh?

1. The right to life is not under "serious threat from our terrorist friends." The threat is real, but tiny in magnitude. Terrorists' aim is to whip up hysteria and, er, terror. But don't forget: There's not very many of them. They're not very strong. Even their most awful "victory" -- 9/11 -- killed fewer people than die every day from mundane things like traffic accidents, obesity, heart disease, street crime, etc. We should absolute take every serious measure to strengthen our defenses, and make a much more serious effort than we have to capture and punish the terrorists responsible. But to argue that the terrorists seriously threaten our continued existence is to surrender to fear.

2. Even if you choose to believe that terrorists are the great threat of our age, why can't we fight them under the constitutional rule of law. None of the Bush Administration's illegal and unconstitutional actions (chiefly: mandating the use of torture on prisoners and warrantless spying on Americans outside the already-lenient provisions of the FISA law) have done anything to make us safer from terrorists.

Stepping Razor

[SodaPopinski]

Absolutely agree wholeheartedly with Stepping Razor. Well said on his or her part.

-Pop

[alchemist]

This is why I like the Blazers board. You guys are smart. I see this terrorist problem much like the boy who cried wolf situation. We are bombarded by terrorism talking points every single night and day that most people won't be able to filter out an actual threat.

[Talkhard]

Bush has simply ignored the law, secretly doing whatever the hell he wants, and only admitting it when he gets caught.

Nonsense. Bush consulted with several lawyers before approving of the wire taps, and he also told members of Congress about it. Bush is doing what is necessary to monitor and curtail the constant and very real terrorist threat that this country is facing, which is his job.

If you are seriously equating the threat posed by a handful of murderous jihadists with the threat posed by civil war, then you've seriously lost your head in the wake of 9/11.

A "handful," eh? There are jihadist training camps all over the Middle East, and many in South America and Latin America. Not to mention hundreds of radical Muslim mosques right here in this country, all of them preaching anti-American hatred. These groups are backed by radical Shiites in Saudia Arabia, as well as bin Laden and others who are making their money through the drug trade. They are well-organized and hell-bent on destroying us. This is no secret to anyone, with the possible exception of you.

to argue that the terrorists seriously threaten our continued existence is to surrender to fear.

Our continued existence, which we all take for granted, is not guaranteed. Imagine what would happen if the jihadists could deliver just one nuclear weapon in a city like Los Angeles. The economic and political consequences could be staggering. Foreign investors and companies could close up shop and go home, the stock market could crash, and public confidence could be devastated.

These are very real possibilities. Uncomfortable to think about, yes, but still real. It's not "fear mongering" to bring them up--it's a rational and realistic response to what is happening in our world. Our enemies are real, and they may already have nuclear weapons. The sooner we wake up to this and deal with it, the better off we will be.

As for "surrendering to fear," I would argue that you are doing exactly that when you say that our democracy is crumbling because our President is trying to protect us.

[SodaPopinski]

I don't know what's a funnier thought:

1) Talkhard running around his backyard trying to build a bomb shelter to protect him and his from the imminent terrorist threat on New Jersey, or

2) That Bush is doing what's best to protect Americans, considering he's taken more vacation than any other president in U.S. history.



With the impending disaster that we're sure to face without his leadership, don't you think he might curb the horseback riding with Condy at the ranch in Crawford for a few years while he figures out this whole homeland security thing?

I don't know, just a thought.

-Pop

[Talkhard]

The day that terrorists detonate a nuclear device in one of our major cities, SodaPop will be telling us all that everything is fine and there is nothing to worry about. That's what's funny to me. Hysterical, in fact.

[SodaPopinski]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

The day that terrorists detonate a nuclear device in one of our major cities, SodaPop will be telling us all that everything is fine and there is nothing to worry about. That's what's funny to me. Hysterical, in fact.

Somebody's watching too much 24.

Listen, terrorism is a threat. But I'm not running around here suggesting we ought to suspend everyone's civil liberties to prevent an attack. That's absurd. We screwed up on 9/11 because we got lazy and complacent. Not because we respected people's privacy too much.

-Pop

[Stepping Razor]