Just So You Don't Think I'm Biased

[Epsilon]

Clinton years: He never faced a successfull attack on US soil, however did not effectively go after them . The oppertunity to take Bin

Laden out was under his watch and he refused to take it, which I will always feel was not a wrong decision at the time.

[[Citation Needed]
--------------------
Epsilon

[robkelk]

Okay let's take them one at a time:

Oklahoma City bombing: No foriegn ties. This was a home grown and entirely internal matter that fell squarely under the juristiction of US Law.

Are you claiming that wiretapping of US domestic media outlets does not also fall squarely under the juristiction of US Law?

First WTC attack:Because it failed. Imagine if it had succeeded....

That's all we can do - "imagine".

War of 1812: Different times different rules ((Just thought I'd throw that in there.)

Same Constitution, though.

Clinton years: He never faced a successfull attack on US soil, however did not effectively go after them .

Why should he go after somebody that hadn't effectively attacked the country under his watch? Is it the policy of the USA to attack countries that have not yet attacked it?

(looks at the current mess in Iraq)

Never mind... stupid question.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Fidoohki]

Okay let's take them one at a time:




Oklahoma City bombing: No foriegn ties. This was a home grown and entirely internal matter that fell squarely under the juristiction of US Law.

Are you claiming that wiretapping of US domestic media outlets does not also fall squarely under the juristiction of US Law?

Did you read what the wiretapping controvery was about? However if this did happen then the media outlets have the recourse

of suing the goverment. BTW can someone point me to which specific media outlets were

wiretapped?

First WTC attack:Because it failed. Imagine if it had succeeded....

That's all we can do - "imagine".

While you may be comfortable with lucky breaks I'm not.

War of 1812: Different times different rules ((Just thought I'd throw that in there.)

Same Constitution, though.

No it wasn't. The Constitution of 1812 considered only White males as 'free'. We've come a long way since then.

Clinton years: He never faced a successfull attack on US soil, however did not effectively go after them .

Why should he go after somebody that hadn't effectively attacked the country under his watch? Is it the policy of the USA to attack
countries that have not yet attacked it?




(looks at the current mess in Iraq)




Never mind... stupid question.

In 1998, Two US embassies in Africa were attacked by grenades. The attackers members of Al Quaeda.

[robkelk]

While you may be comfortable with lucky breaks I'm not.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

The Constitution of 1812 considered only White males as 'free'. We've come a long way since then.

Yes, it guarantees even more freedoms than it did then... which makes what the previous administration did even worse.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Fidoohki]

Please don't put words in my mouth

.

Okay then answer this:

Are you alright with keeping all the freedom you have at the price of an increased risk, even if that risk is small ((1-2%)),

that someone else might die because of it and a EQUAL reduction ((1-2%)of your freedom could reduce that?

[robkelk]

Are you alright with keeping all the freedom you have at the price of an increased risk, even if that risk is small ((1-2%)), that someone else might die because of it and a EQUAL reduction ((1-2%)of your freedom could reduce that?

Yes.

Everybody dies - one death per person. There's no way to increase that number. An increased risk that somebody might die is only an increased risk that somebody might die sooner rather than later.

And the proposed reduction in freedom doesn't apply to just me - it applies to everyone, including people not yet born. What right do I have to impose restrictions on somebody I don't even know, just to be allowed to live one more hour that I wouldn't have?

Reduced freedom for everybody just to get a few more years of life for a few people - that's too high a price, in my opinion.

(If there was a way to get that few more years of life for a few people without trampling on the freedom of everyone, then I'd say "go for it"... but that isn't what we're discussing here.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Rev Dark]

Fidhooki pulled some numbers out of his arse, and waved them about like a fine Cuban cigar.

Are you alright with keeping all the freedom you have at the price of an increased risk, even if that risk is small ((1-2%)),


that someone else might die because of it and a EQUAL reduction ((1-2%)of your freedom could reduce that?

The term is defeat in detail. You lose that 1% here. You lose that 1% there. Every time you feel threatened and your fear fuelled sphincter takes a bite
out of your chair, you give away a little more freedom. Soon you are left with none. You are giving up a real and tangible freedom, for a double dose of long
odds probability; the probability that an attack will occur, and the probability that the freedom you gave up will be instrumental in detecting and preventing
that attack.

It is like buying a lottery ticket, but instead of your money, you are buying it with your freedom - and not just yours, everyone elses.

And what is truly fucking sad, is that you are not getting the protection that your think you are buying with your freedom. You are no safer. As you stand in
the line to board the plane with your shoes in your hands, your liquids in small containers, and your balls long absent; you are no safer than your were before
those rules were put in place.

You seem to have a hard-on about saving lives. This in and of itself is laudable; but instead of slamming this laudable focus somewhere of benefit to all
parties, you are waving it about futiley, and introducing it where it is both unwelcome and unwarranted.

Shayne

[Bob Schroeck]

Are you alright with keeping all the freedom you have at the price of an increased risk, even if that risk is small ((1-2%)), that someone else might die because of it and a EQUAL reduction ((1-2%)of your freedom could reduce that?

Yes. One of the Founding Fathers themselves, Benjamin Franklin, said it: Those who would give up some of their liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

We do not serve the government. The government serves us. That is a founding principle of this country. When it starts taking away freedoms to make its job easier, it has betrayed both the people and the Constitution.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Epsilon]

What RevDark said.

--------------

Epsilon

[Acyl]

Sacrificing freedom for...well, let's call them pragmatic reasons... is more than an academic conundrum.

There's practical implications as well.

The thing about the United States is that... US legitimacy stems from being right. Internationally speaking, the US is supposed to be the good guy. That's where justification to act comes from.

Now, if you start saying that...to catch the bad guys, we gotta play hardball ourselves - ie, we start throwing aside some of our own morals...

Then you lose some of your legitimacy. People are gonna look at you and think, well, aren't you going against your own principles? Aren't you being hypocritical? Why should we trust you? To an increasing degree, I think...a lot of US citizens are looking at the government that way. And, well, if you widen the scope, a lot of other countries look at the US that way as well.

There are, honestly, quite practical reasons to stay true to one's own principles. Basically, that's the course you've set yourself, and thus it becomes the standard you're judged by.
-- Acyl

[Fidoohki]

Yes.




Everybody dies - one death per person. There's no way to increase that number. An increased risk that somebody might die is only an increased risk that
somebody might die sooner rather than later.




And the proposed reduction in freedom doesn't apply to just me - it applies to everyone, including people not yet born. What right do I have to
impose restrictions on somebody I don't even know, just to be allowed to live one more hour that I wouldn't have?

But you aren't deciding who lives longer or not. It is trying to prevent someone else from forcing thier

choice on a third party.Now while I understand your position a lot better, I reject it strongly

because... for lack of better terms ..I believe it is very self centered. I don't see the difference between

your statement and 'Why help anyone else since we all are gonna die anyway?'

Reduced freedom for everybody just to get a few more years of life for a few people - that's too high a price, in my opinion.

But where's the cut off number then? 10000? 100000? 1000000? For me it is one. Unreasonable maybe but ..I've always beieved

that the worst thing you can have is regrets on something like this. If you do the best you can and still fail then you can honestly say

you have none and I honestly believe the US gov. was striving to do their best in this.

(If there was a way to get that few more years of life for a few people without trampling on the freedom of everyone, then I'd say "go for
it"... but that isn't what we're discussing here.)

Same here. Thanks for the response overall.

[Wiregeek]

I honestly believe the US gov. was striving to do their best in this.

Well THERE's your problem!

the post 9/11 security bullshittery had nothing to do with security, and everything to do with removing rights from the American people, and conditioning them to Obey.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[robkelk]

Fidoohki, if you can honestly read what I wrote and come to the conclusion that it's self-centered, then either I'm not writing well or you missed something I did write.

Here's the important bit again: What right do I have to impose restrictions on somebody I don't even know, just to be allowed to live one more hour that I wouldn't have?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Fidoohki]

Because to me that is like saying you wouldn't report a murder plot agaisnt a third party because it might

let that third party live longer. Which is not what I think you mean but that is all I am coming up with.

[Rev Dark]

Because to me that is like saying you wouldn't report a murder plot agaisnt a third party because it might


let that third party live longer. Which is not what I think you mean but that is all I am coming up with.

Well there is a reason that is all you are coming up with Fidoohki.

You are an idiot; and a bit of a coward.

Yes, that is a personal attack, always suspect, but let us look into your position, as illustrated above.

How did you hear about the murder plot? How many private conversations did you have to listen to? How many times did the greasy, illegal choad of that
surveillance thrust itself into the privacy of others, before stumbling onto that one conversation? Do you think it will stop at murder? With that level of
surveillance? Of course not. All actions vetted against the laws; including I might add, the ones in the Southern States that ban sex toys. Terrorism and
vibrating magic twangers; all prevented under the wonderful world where Big Brother has an argus eye glaring into everyone's business.

You seem perfectly comfortable to live your life under a microscope, where every motion, conversation, internet transaction, e-mail, is monitored on the
preposterously miniscule chance that you are about to end an innocent life.

As I noted above, that is the position of a coward. You know you are innocent; but it is not about your actions. It is all about keeping your yellow striped
back and piss stained keks safe from everyone else. You try and dress it up with the illusion about other innocents; but that sort of fear fuelled reaction is
not about others. It is about you.

Cowardice. Pure, fucking, cowardice. Ready to roll over and offer your throat to a bigger dog, in the hopes of a little more safety and protection. Fuck the
rights of others; you want to be safe.

Shayne

[Ayiekie]

You know, it would be totally awesome if "my" side could hold a discussion without throwing around personal attacks and ridiculous shit like
"conditioning them to Obey". I hate Fidoohki's position and I don't buy his reasoning, but he's being polite and respectful about it. It
would be wonderful to do him the same courtesy.

[robkelk]

Because to me that is like saying you wouldn't report a murder plot agaisnt a third party because it might let that third party live longer. Which is not what I think you mean but that is all I am coming up with.

I have no idea how you're getting there from what I'm saying.

Try this, instead: "That is like saying you wouldn't want a third party to report a murder plot against you."

(And since we're obviously talking past each other instead of to each other, this will be my last post in this thread. I can waste my time in more productive ways than this.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Fidoohki]

Sorry to hear that but it finally got through... mind you I don't agree with it but now I understand it better.

I think that'll be it for me as well on this thread. It was interesting despite the insults.