Its a slippery slope taking ones rights away even a terrorists rights for one day for any reason it could be you or me no we civilized societies have give them every right that we expect for ourselves give them their rights give them a cicvilian trial show the world that we are better and that our democracies are strong and cannot be broken by these loosers but once the trial is over and hopefully the accused has been found guilty no appeals should be allowed and the death penalty should be carried with 24 hours
I see it as protecting our liberty and refusing it to those who are on a mission to destroy it for the rest of us. There needs to be realization that extending such liberty is like turning the other cheek to be struck by someone who has no respect, no intention of backing off, regardless of how civil we behave. Our Constitution is precious to me, so precious that I refuse to believe it should be extended or wasted on terrorists. That's my opinion.
Frankie, If we give up essential liberties to those terrorists as you propose, what is stopping the government from declaring you a terrorist and taking away your inalienable rights? You cant give up your rights to protect or persecute others.
Where DID I accuse you of being a "conservative" and where do you come off telling me that I am arguing, or "refuse to keep it within reasonable parameters"?
What I said, was that that there was a certain "Conservative enthusiasm for denying "Constitutional Rights" to anyone it determines is an enemy of the state". That statement is true in accordance with reported views expressed in the past week by some of the politicians. I did NOT mention you or even hint at YOU. Your only view as far as I'm concerned is that you want something done that focuses on these kinds of terrorist acts. My comments in turn was to express possible avenues and the challenges that they present.
So, you made a post expressing your opinions, and I thought we were all having a respectful discussion about that. None of us belittled you or even told you that you were wrong in your feelings; only that there were limitations and concerns for treating this in a manner that might be somewhat discriminating based on existing legal rights. So where and how do you consider any of that as "unreasonable"?
(I don't know what it is about this kind of thing, but it seems all too often you make a statement and if we don't get in line behind you, you get defensive and go on the attack and start telling us that you "think for yourself", as though all the rest of us are sheepishly quoting from the last hour of news. There is nothing that I've said [or that I feel] that was taken from anybody else... on the contrary, my writings are based on the knowledge that I have garnered over my years. I can be wrong in my perceptions, but rarely am I wrong in what I have learned from either my readings or my training. While I don't expect that we will agree on many things, I certainly don't expect to be drawn into argument misconceptions or over-sensitivities.
To the subject at hand though: The Constitution and the laws that define our liberties, are done so to prevent any one person or group of persons from distorting them simply for the satisfaction of their revenge of the moment! We cannot warp or re-define our laws to suit the perceptive needs of the moment. We have done so in the past, and it ill-effects far too many people unjustly and to the shame of our nation and all of its people. The list of such injustices is long, shameful, and does not befit who we are and certainly does not meet the expectations that our forefather's defined for us in the Constitution.
Too much to quote guys, so I'll wing it. Killavolt, I am not giving up my rights, and the government won't be coming after you and I any time soon. I said if an individual is identified as a terrorist, and this could be done by evidence of statements made on facebook, or other internet sites. Evidence in the form of video cameras or other photos of terrorist behavior in which the person can be clearly identified. these two scumbags were undeniably identified and tied to radical statements. I am not implying our government could indiscriminately without "proof" label anyone a terrorist, there would be a legal process.
CWS, I mentioned once again that I objected to the suggestion that I was a conservative because it seems when someone disagrees with a liberal view, or anti President Obama view, they are not free thinkers, or dissidents, they are quickly called conservative. That said, I'm having a great day, and if no one here agrees with my suggestions, I am still convinced it is both foolish and counterproductive to extend Constitutional rights to terrorists. We can most certainly re-define our laws, rights and freedoms when the situation demands it! Remember the Patriot Act? as for thinking for yourself, PipestoneKid quoted Ben Franklin to make his point, McCarthism was mentioned as part of a fear tactic, and other references to the slippery slope were used to make an opposing argument. We are debating or for loss of a better word arguing a point of view, are we not? Above you suggest my denying Constitutional rights to terrorists as some sort of "revenge" tactic, I see it as a survival tactic no revenge intended. I also think denying immigration and college access to certain folks who may be islamic extremeists is not revenge, but smart. When I say "reasonable parameters" I mean sticking to the facts and not inflating things to suit your point of view.
I don't believe there is any denying the fact that radical islamic terrorists are among us, and a certain number are becoming radicalized. I am not making a fear, or revenge based jump to suggest more scrutiny.
No one has to get in line behind me, or agree with me, but I am allowed to respond to posts that I see as making flawed or misleading assertions. America is not in jeopary of a return to McCarthyism. America is not in jeopary of weakening The Constitution by denying it to terrorists in my opinion. I'm pretty sure our forefathers would not support cow towing to terrorist killers of a religion that calls for the extermination of nonbelivers, the killing of homosexuals, and beating of women!Freedom of Speech is not protected for morons yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness should not be extended to those who seek murder, maime and strike fear into Americans who do not swear allegience to their religion and God! When I see pedophiles who have raped children released back into the general public, mass murderers smiling in a courtroom, terrorists given the same rights as an American who believes in those right; I have to wonder who and what is "warped"?
I think part of the problem with US discussing issues is that you appear to take coversation as a personal attack on your views. No body said you were a "conservative". Nobody said you are wrong in your views, except to explain WHY we couldn't take steps that you think or wish we could take.
Understand (please) that I'm all for doing whatever we can to "terrorists".... BUT how do you identify them? What parameters do we set up and what rules do we put into place that defines that "potential" in a person or a group of persons? We can all wish the utmost penalty, the most extreme of methods to locate, identify, and remove "terrorists"... but how does one do that without discrimination against the many who are not terrorists? Maybe you think that we ought to just deport or imprison ALL Islamists (I've certainly given a lot of feeling to that), as that seems to be where most all of the "terrorists" thinking and belief seems to be. Do you know any Islamists, Muslims, or whatever label we wish to use?
The "slippery slope" that we have referred to is that indeed... because once you put a label on something like that, what measures do you take to ferret them out? Do we double the size of the FBI; do we extend surveilance to Mosques and perhaps to all centers of religious teachings in the process. Do we extend our phone taps and Internet surveilance to look for key words, beyond what we might presently do. And in that process, do we pick up key words used and then send agents to further examine, interogate, interview neighbors and employers, teachers, librarians, grocery clerks and maybe even ticket takers at the theaters that such "finds" might visit. And surely in all of this, YOU and I would be picked up... because we're talking and mentioning "bombs" "Extemists" "Terrorists" "Islam" and "Muslims".... could YOU and I then become a wasteful use of some agent's time and money, because we mention those things in conversation?
Or maybe we do like we did in WWII... we just round up every single person of that religion, that heritage, that nationality AND PUT THEM IN DETENTION CAMPS!!!! (like we did with generations of Japanese Americans, back then). It wouldn't matter how many generations that were born here, or how old or how little, or how many had sons serving in our military. It wouldn't make any difference...once they were declared "enemies of the state".
The conventional thinking is that the problem can be easily fixed with more security, with more penalty, and perhaps with changes in our laws that would allow "agencies" to go forth without all the restrictions of Constitutional Rights.... But how much harm comes with it? Worst perhaps, is that once the conflict is over, how do you go back? How do you give back to the innocent what you have taken? And how many "innocent" do you collect in the effort to extinguish the guilty. And IF the "Rights" of the many are cast aside, for the sake of finding the few... at what point do we give those Rights back?
The fact is, you don't; and the fact is, that when the government presses too hard, it creates more enemies and often creates them for generations. This is what we have today, because a decade or so ago, the Islamist extremist, as we label them, were NOT our problem!
And imagine too... which isn't at all hard, at least for me, that as we tighten things up a bit, what kind of backlash will there be. Hey, already you can't buy bullets because of the hoarding, we have vigilanty militia groups more than ever before, we got guys on national TV who are screaming of government's intention to kill rioters by the millions, to put armoured vehicles on every street corner, and to send forth Homeland Security Agents with millions of rounds of "killer bullets".... AND THAT, was before the Boston bombing!
But whatever... don't take the conversation personally!! We differ in ideas and the point of conversation, or even argument, is to bring light to the things we think. It is rare that one's ideas are perfect... conversation is the process by which we build and change to something that can work in order to meet the challenges that that we see.
CWS, I think it's part of human nature to take things peronally in these debates and that's not to say it's a bad thing to do. These are my personal opinions, they may be flawed and deserving of harsh critism. I enjoy the spirited back and forth, I find it stimulating and it's good to have ones thoughts challenged. We can continue to debate the broad or minute details of what should or should not be done in response to terrorism in our country, but for the sake of a happy Forum I will stop by saying, something more needs to be done to deter terrorism. I look towards a legal resolve that addresses the problem so that it is the terrorists that live in fear of death and loss of liberty, not free Americans Frank
I couldn't agree more, that something has got to be done. In this particular case, I think we ALL need to become good citizens ans start being a bit suspicious, or at least aware of the things that we confront in our daily routines.... that alone may have saved the day for some, if not all.
Personally, I was deeply concerned with the fact that this guy, with the very foreign name, walked into a fireworks store in New Hampshire and bought two of the biggest fireworks objects that he could buy. His criteria, according to the sales clerk that waited on him (as reported on CBS) was not what it does, or what kind of display it might present, BUT, how much "powder it had"... he specifically asked that question and wanted the fireworks with the most "powder".
Sweet Jesus, shouldn't that have raised somebody's concern? Are we that stupid, unaware, or innocent of world events that such a person, a stranger with an obvious foreign name, would ask for and openly received, without question the largest fireworks "with the most powder"??? The girl had to be either an idiot or living in a cave all of her life.
The other thing is much more innocent of course and in the excitement of the marathon would obviously be overlooked. But learning from experience, should we all heighten our awareness of people carrying backpacks in crowd situations... and especially be aware of such things being dropped or left and the carrier "walking away". In this case, I can see that no one would pay attention, but I think we had all better start being "on our toes". This is what the Israilies do and what much of Europe has become aware of. If we in the U.S. start showing a little more awareness, and also becoming a little more responsive to such concerns, we'd stop carrying backpacks ourselves into public events where we also should be raising suspicions. Problem with that however, is that there are too many of us who are insensitive to such things, and full well feel that their "Rights" are more important than public safety concerns.
Security is always a challenge, but the first line of defense in many cases is simply public awareness and the courage to question things that just don't look right.