Just So You Don't Think I'm Biased

[Fidoohki]

Epsilon wrote:




The really morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest part of your question is that warrantless wiretapping would have been utterly unneccesary to prevent
the attacks you are so hung up on. "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within United States", does that title sound familiar? How about the memos
regarding suspected terrorists at flight schools and all the other evidence Bush et al ignored?

First off this was to prevent OTHER attacks, not 9/11 and you can throw Clinton into that 'et al'. You are also

using hindsight again.

Epsilon said:




Here's the thing, Fidoohki. You are trying to claim some sort of moral high ground, as if obeyin our government is the highest moral conviction we can
have. This is bullshit. In the case of the United States the ultimate authority in your country is not the president, it is the constitution and you should
obey that. Soldiers on the battlefield are required to disobey illegal orders and they have taken oaths of obedience to the government. We,
as citizens, should do no less.

Moral high ground? I didn't claim that. I jsut remember what post 9/11 was like. We were at war and if the president asked me

to take a look at my records at that time to see if any information in them to stop and potential attack then I'd let him.

Epsilon wrote:


If the president (or prime minster or governor general in my case) ordered me to kill someone I would say NO. If they ordered me to steal, I would say no.

That is your call to make and you are welcome to it but if that person you were supposed to kill killed someone else? Can you live with

that knowledge that you could have done something but didn't?

Epsilon wrote:




And this isn't just about them being at a wartime footing. This is about teaching a lesson. The lesson is "if the government asks you to do
something, you make damn certain they ahve the actual authority to do so or we will sue your ass into the ground." Punishing the telecoms for this
egregious violation of people's civil rights is not just about punishing them, but about making every telecom company in the future think twice before
they capitulate to demands.

.. So you want to punish these companies because they choose not to live by your view? Look, if you place your values above innocent

life that is your choice but be forward about it.

[Fidoohki]

M Fnord wrote:

---

In a time of peace yes but what about war?

As a wise man said, if you don't stick to your values when they're being tested - they're not values.

Yeah...but again where's the line? As far as yourself goes I'm all for keeping your values but should someone else suffer for your values?

That's the point I've been admittedly clumsily trying to make.

[Ayiekie]

Fidoohki, the hole in your argument is that this did not prevent any attacks and wasn't necessary to prevent the attacks that did occur (and the memo in
question was pertinent to the 9/11 attacks - as well, Clinton made fighting terrorism a higher priority than the pre-9/11 Bush administration did, all of which
is on the record and basically indisputable).

But to turn it around another way... where's YOUR line? If you're willing to sacrifice a constitutional right and the law of the land in order to
achieve some undefinable level of safety against a terror attack... what won't you sacrifice? Is there any rights you think Bush shouldn't have been
able to take away from US citizens to fight his undeclared war? This is not an idle question. The Constitution is the highest law of the land in the U.S. If
you're okay with ripping it up, do you think there are any limits at all that the president should not be able to cross due to "being at war"?

[Epsilon]

Fidoohki wrote:

---

.. So you want to punish these companies because they choose not to live by your view? Look, if you place your values above innocent


life that is your choice but be forward about it.

I refuse to accept that I have to choose between my ideals and innocent life (mine or other peoples). Your very premise that leads to asking that
question is false.



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

Epsilon

[M Fnord]

See, you're not supposed to *have* "values" in times of war; that sort of effete, ivory-tower thinking gets people killed. Instead you must use
pragmatic ruthlessness to determine all your actions. You must be a Hard Man capable of doing Hard Things or else the subhuman creatures that are your Enemy
will destroy everything you claim to love.

...I hang around way too many places/people who actually think shit like this. Xenu help me. %P
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Fidoohki]

M Fnord wrote:

---

See, you're not supposed to *have* "values" in times of war; that sort of effete, ivory-tower thinking gets people killed. Instead you must use
pragmatic ruthlessness to determine all your actions. You must be a Hard Man capable of doing Hard Things or else the subhuman creatures that are your Enemy
will destroy everything you claim to love.




...I hang around way too many places/people who actually think shit like this. Xenu help me. %P

You need to hang around a better crowd That mentality is strictly WW2ish at least. The nature of war is change. You either adapt

to those changes or lose.

[Fidoohki]

Epsilon wrote:

---

Fidoohki wrote:

---

.. So you want to punish these companies because they choose not to live by your view? Look, if you place your values above innocent


life that is your choice but be forward about it.

I refuse to accept that I have to choose between my ideals and innocent life (mine or other peoples). Your very premise that leads to asking
that question is false.




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


Epsilon

All the beliefs and well wishes in the world won't stop a bullet in flgiht. It's a matter of Reality trumping Idealogy and if you refuse
to acknowledge

the former it will most likely end in another 'y'... Tragedy.

[M Fnord]

You need to hang around a better crowd That mentality is strictly WW2ish at least. The nature of war is change. You either adapt
to those changes or lose.

And then in the very next post...

All the beliefs and well wishes in the world won't stop a bullet in flgiht.

So which is it? Sacrificing ideals for "pragmatism" is an outdated mentality or the cold equations of A=A?

It's almost Zen, watching the contradiction there...
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Rev Dark]

While I am getting used to flat out ignorance from you Fidoohki - I will be addressing
that shortly, I think your poisonous, immoral, and overwhelmingly trite statement, as reproduced below, should be addressed first.

All the beliefs and well wishes in the world won't stop a bullet in flgiht. It's a matter of Reality
trumping Idealogy and if you refuse to acknowledge


the former it will most likely end in another 'y'... Tragedy.

Reality trumping ideology? Ending in another
tragedy.



While personal attack is not a telling argument, I will at this point note that you would
be unable to find your arse without both hands, a flashlight, and a highly trained, and motivated ass seeking dog.



You seem to be laboring under the false impression that the world is both fair and
safe. Fair is where you go on the pony rides and safe is what inevitably falls on Wile E. Coyote. The safe is Acme. Which you are not.



You are willing to give up the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the constitution so that
innocents will not suffer and tragedies will not occur. This is the basis of your argument. Sorry bubble-boy the world
is not, nor has it ever been a safe place.



Let us step away from your bare faced cowardice for a moment and examine where this line
of thought takes us. Drunk driving deaths accounted for 17, 941 deaths in 2006.
More than died in the 911 attacks. By your tortuous logic, steps should be taken to prevent this, even if it
means wiping your ass with the constitution and stripping your freedom away and tossing it naked and wriggling to the roadies.
All vehicles should be fitted with breathalyzers, GPS locators, and constant monitoring. Every movement of the
vehicle tracked at all times, in all places. Better add constant Finger print/DNA identification and retention on vehicles, to ensure that the driver is
identified, with a national tracking database of both bits of information in order to close the loop on the process.



Why not? If you don't you then have to
explain to every single victim why you did not take these actions.



This is the crux of your argument, applied to a different, even deadlier,
scenario. With the appropriate inflation of response.



So on to the flat out ignorance part of this message.
You noted that I belabored the point of your personal laziness. With good reason, and doubly demonstrated in your response, even after you were called
out on that deliberate ignorance.

Fair enough. It was around right after 9/11 and it was at the request of a sitting 'wartime' president.
Now since Wartime powers weren't


really defined til a few years after this happened should they be retroactivey punished for it? I mean this isn't much different than those idiots


in California that want to nullify gay marraiges. Retroactively punishing people because the rules changed is just nuts.

I will leave off for a moment your analogy to California and marriage, as it is an inappropriate comparison. Marriage in California at
the time was legal. At no point, at any time, was warrantless wiretapping - in the manner conducted - legal.



Wartime powers not being defined until after this happened? You ignorant twat. No, seriously. Ignorant, lazy, twat.
Wartime powers are laid out in the fucking constitution, the individual roles of the President as Commander in Chief (Hint ARTICLE II), and the
Congress. They were not subject to debate or not defined. You lazy, deliberately ignorant choad. Perhaps you are confused about the AUMF. Perhaps you are confused by awareness of sound
and light and Big Bird.



What the Constitution, and the AUMF do not allow for is the President to break the
fucking law. Any act that he authorizes under either of those powers much be constitutional. Period. Full-fucking-stop.

Yes yes. You chastized me before on that. Point made. No need to spike the ball.

Yes. Yes there is an obvious need to spike the ball.

Wise and profound words but cold confort to the loved ones of people that died in an act that might have been prevented


if you didn't want to be 'inconvienced.'

What a load of shit with a side order of chips. As I pointed out in the drunk driving
analogy before, your overreaching trite statement can be achingly applied to any preventable tragedy; with the same Constituion raping results.

[Fidoohki]

M Fnord wrote:

---

Fidoohki wrote:

---

You need to hang around a better crowd That mentality is strictly WW2ish at least. The nature of war is change. You either adapt


to those changes or lose.

And then in the very next post...

Fidoohki wrote:

---

All the beliefs and well wishes in the world won't stop a bullet in flgiht.

So which is it? Sacrificing ideals for "pragmatism" is an outdated mentality or the cold equations of A=A?




It's almost Zen, watching the contradiction there...

I never said it was an outdated mentality. It's a different mentality than what is needed, in my opinion anyway.

[M Fnord]

It's the exact mentality you're promoting. That you don't seem to grasp this is the most amazing part of this entire thread.
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Fidoohki]

Ayiekie wrote:

---

Fidoohki, the hole in your argument is that this did not prevent any attacks and wasn't necessary to prevent the attacks that did occur (and the memo in
question was pertinent to the 9/11 attacks - as well, Clinton made fighting terrorism a higher priority than the pre-9/11 Bush administration did, all of
which is on the record and basically indisputable).




But to turn it around another way... where's YOUR line? If you're willing to sacrifice a constitutional right and the law of the land in order to
achieve some undefinable level of safety against a terror attack... what won't you sacrifice? Is there any rights you think Bush shouldn't have been
able to take away from US citizens to fight his undeclared war? This is not an idle question. The Constitution is the highest law of the land in the U.S. If
you're okay with ripping it up, do you think there are any limits at all that the president should not be able to cross due to "being at war"?

First off, why do you insist on using 'we found nothing' to justify not looking in the first place? It neglects the mindset and situations

of the time that the decision was made, which could have been a contributing factor.

Where is my line? I'm close to it as far as what can and can't be done. And I am not talking about ripping the constiution up, jsut a limited,

heavily monitored and regulated, loosening of protections As I said here:

So you are willing to give up the freedom and protection of the Constitution, and are willing to see others also lose that freedom in the process?






And you are willing to put others at an most likely higher risk of losing their lives just so you won't be inconvienced? I am and have been


talking minor loosening of protections not a total suspension of them. Heavily watched and monitored though.

[Fidoohki]

M Fnord wrote:

---

It's the exact mentality you're promoting. That you don't seem to grasp this is the most amazing part of this entire thread.

maybe I don't see it or am not conveying what I mean well enough...Explain what you mean by 'the exact mentality'.

[Epsilon]

Fidoohki wrote:

---

All the beliefs and well wishes in the world won't stop a bullet in flgiht. It's a matter of Reality trumping Idealogy and if you refuse to
acknowledge


the former it will most likely end in another 'y'... Tragedy.

I'll say this in small words then:

If you take away our rights, that will not give us safety.

Allow me to reinterate, more verbosely:

Your warrantless wiretapping will not stop bullets in flight either. We live in a world where our lives are constantly in danger. There will always be assholes
who want to kill people and won't care who and no amount of law-making will ever prevent them from killing you. Period. Tomorrow you could be run over by a
car, or mugged and killed by a guy with a knife, or hit by a falling piano, or blow up by a nuclear explosion or the Yellowstone supervolcano could erupt and
wipe all of North American civilization out.

What you have succumbed to is the politics of fear. You fear the speeding bullet only because someone has pointed out that the bullet exist. the bullet was
always there, and it was always seconds away from killing you and it always will be. The people who sell you fera have no way of deflecting that bullet, their
efforts can not possibly make that bullet go away or delay it. They are lying to you, plain and simple. You are buying it. You are eating it
up because you are afraid and they are cackling in glee because you are a stupid, frightened little man.

Freedom does not require that we ignore the bullet, or wish it away. Freedom requires that we accept the bullet. That we stop fearing the bullet. Because it
will always be there. Someday, I will die and I may very well die in my old age home or tomorrow at the hands of some desperate
heroin-addicted mugger. And I'm okay with that.

This is because I am not concerned with length of life, but quality of life. Freedom is one of those qualities that makes my (and everyone elses) lives better.
Even if, EVEN IF, it was proven that lifespans are on average longer in a hellish draconic tyrannical dictatorship where I have no freedom from being spied
upon or vanished without a trace I would still choose to live in a world where i was free to think and say and associate with whomever i wish.

But the choice the fearmongers are offering you is false. They can not gaurentee your safety, they never could. The only safety the fearmongers are concerned
with is their own. And if they have to kill you to feel safe, then they will. And that is the choice you make when you choose between freedom and
"safety". You are choosing between having an enemy who is far away and less able to hurt you and having your own government as your enemy. Repressive
regimes are not, and have never been, better for the lifespan and happiness of everyone involved.

I'll sum up my thoughts:

Fidoohki, you were living in a world the was exactly the same before 9/11 as after. Exactly. The. Same. Yet before that time you felt safe and happy, with no
need for warrantless wiretaps. Why then, should you feel safer now? Simple, because you bought into the politics of fear. You let them make you afraid, and you
let them tell you what wouuld make you not afriad. They lied to you Fidoohki, and they are still lying to you. They can't keep you safe, no one can.
Anybody who tells you different is selling you something.

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

Epsilon

[Fidoohki]

I'll sum up my thoughts:

Fidoohki, you were living in a world the was exactly the same before 9/11 as after. Exactly. The. Same. Yet before that time you felt safe and happy, with no
need for warrantless wiretaps. Why then, should you feel safer now? Simple, because you bought into the politics of fear. You let them make you afraid, and you
let them tell you what wouuld make you not afriad. They lied to you Fidoohki, and they are still lying to you. They can't keep you safe, no one can.
Anybody who tells you different is selling you something.

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

Epsilon



...

Look at the New York city skyline and try to tell me that again. Things have changed, in attitudes, in landscape, in how we

live our lives. Some for the better. Some for the worse. Now if you can't see that then you are either willfully ignorant or

delusional.

[Fidoohki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._surveillance_controversy

Just thought I'd throw that up there.

[robkelk]

Look at the New York city skyline and try to tell me that again. Things have changed, in attitudes, in landscape, in how we live our lives. Some for the better. Some for the worse. Now if you can't see that then you are either willfully ignorant or delusional.

I have to agree with Epsilon here.

Before 9/11, there was a chance that aircraft could be hijacked. After 9/11, there is a chance that aircraft could be hijacked.

Before 9/11, some buildings fell down. After 9/11, some buildings fall down.

Before 9/11, people were willing to help each other out in times of trouble. After 9/11, people are willing to help each other out in times of trouble.

Before 9/11, there were scheming terrorists and unsung heroes. After 9/11, there are scheming terrorists and unsung heroes.

Before 9/11, there were a few people in government offices who wanted to use fear to control the populace. After 9/11, there are a few people in government offices who want to use fear to control the populace.

Did I miss anything important?
--
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

[Bob Schroeck]

Might I note that this 9/11 was not the first time enemy action on American soil took American lives? But I never saw anyone advocating a police state after
the war of 1812...
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[robkelk]

I suspect the big reason 9/11 hit everybody so hard was that it was the first terrorist act against civilians on US soil. You weren't used to that...

(To be fair, we aren't used to it either. But the first acts of terrorism against civilians on Canadian soil were back in the late 1960s, and lead up to
the second assassination to take place in Canada - we've had time to get used to the concept of terrorists acting against us.)
--
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

[M Fnord]

Amazing how everybody forgets that incident in Oklahoma City back in the early 90s. You know, the one where terrorists blew up a federal office building, killed a couple hundred people? Or that one terror attack during the '96 Olympics; didn't cause that much damage but it did freak out a lot of people. Strangely enough, the Fidoohkis of the country weren't demanding we become a police state then. I wonder why?
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[Bob Schroeck]

How http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing]about the first attack on the World Trade Center, the one that failed? Why did no one think the wholesale gutting of the Constitution was the only proper response then?
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Evil Midnight Lurker]

And how about how, with the Clinton administration in office, Al-Qaeda was unable to pull off another attack on US soil? Without any warrantless wiretapping
or incredibly invasive airline security? And how about how that administration kept track of Al-Qaeda's plans and warned the incoming Bush administration
that they were planning another big push, probably involving airplanes?

And how about the part where the Bush administration completely ignored those warnings and, once the attack had
happened, used it as an excuse to invade a nation that had little or nothing to do with 9/11?

Can you see why we don't think much at all of your worldview, Fidoohki?

--Sam

"Absolute power is a sticky wicket."

[Logan Darklighter]

M Fnord wrote:

---

Strangely enough, the Fidoohkis of the country weren't demanding we become a police state then. I wonder why?

I'm not getting into this discussion, really. Just a point of clarification. Why the links? What's the point? I thought you were going to
point to some article or something. But they're just the IDs of the perps. I don't get it.

[robkelk]

Amazing how everybody forgets that incident in Oklahoma City back in the early 90s.

Sorry, I didn't realize that was (supposed to be) a terror op, rather than a "lone crazy-man" incident. And the others mentioned didn't kill civilians...

But they're just the IDs of the perps. I don't get it.

Note the nationality of each of those three.
--
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.

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

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

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. In hindsght

however can you still say it was?((I can but I don't put hindsight in the equation unless the other choice was on an equal footing

which given the implications of assassinating someone was a greater risk was not the case.))