Member Rara Avis
Balladeer You feel that one can't be cautious without shedding ideals? Don't you feel that one can, and should show caution when faced with a threat? Your sentence reads like if we are cautious we are going to set aside our ideals. that if we show caution we will do anything, right or wrong, to stay alive. Again i consider that to be an unfair statement.
Mike, I think we can and should be cautious without shedding ideals. That isn't what I've seen in this thread, however, as evidenced by these quotations:
LeeJ I have nothing to hide, and they can wire tap me all they want, or anyone else for that matter, if it's going to help deter another 9-11. ... So, if a little wire tapping is going to save some lives, then I'm all for it!
Christopher Would preventing another attack on American soil justify an illegal action by the President? I'd say so.
Denise Life is of much greater importance than "the law" anyway, even if the accusation could be made to stick that the President broke "the law."
Balladeer No, I don't mind any searches that are intended to protect me at all.
Huan Yi I think it comes down to relative risks ...
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "any cost," but I nonetheless have to stick with much too high of a cost. People are apparently willing to surrender liberties that other Americans have died to protect. And why? So they can be safe? That's not caution, Michael. At best, it's misplaced priorities and, at worst, it's cowardice. Why should Marines and soldiers die for this country if the very people who sent them into harm's way are unwilling to do the same? Everything we have in this country was paid for in blood. And if we want to keep it, we need to be willing to keep making the payments. Not just the young men. All of us.
If our only goal is to protect American lives, we should surrender immediately. I, uh, don't know to whom we can surrender, right off hand, but I'm sure we'll find someone if we look hard enough. There has to be someone somewhere who will promise us safety and security in exchange for ... what? Just how much freedom are you willing to give up to feel safe again?
This entire thread is such a knee-jerk overreaction, in my book. Bush didn't follow protocol....ok...butlet's get a grip on reality here. Reading this thread one would think that the country is disintegrating. Everyone is running around scared, stripped of whatever personal freedoms they once had, willing to sacrifice whatever morals they once had just to be safe, the country now being run by a dictator, the constitution a shambles, everyone being wire-tapped and having their mail read, all of what America stood for destroyed and an end to life as we know it right around the corner.
My God, I know that poets tend to exaggerate and it's much easier to do so on the internet but come on....
Mike, this isn't about Bush. I stopped caring about Bush the day after he won the last election. I don't know if he broke the law and, beyond wanting to see it handled through due process, really don't care. This, too, shall pass. However, any knee-jerk overreaction, in my opinion, is coming from those who are willing to surrender our Rule of Law in exchange for personal security.
You attempt to trivialize concern by exaggerating it (as you so often do), but you've got to realize, Mike, that has to work both ways. Have you been killed by a terrorist, yet? Anyone been killed in your city yet? Heck, do you even know anyone who has taken a day off work because they were too afraid to go out their door in the morning? If concern can only be justified by extremes, Mike, you clearly have nothing about which to be concerned. Let's talk about throwing Law and Order out the window when another twenty or thirty states have been attacked, okay?
Of course, unlike you, I'm not going to trivialize the potential for another attack. I don't think we have to wait for extremes to be concerned about extremes, and I honestly don't believe you think that either. People are going to die, and yes, that concerns me. Of greater concern, however, is whether America is going to survive as a country ruled by Law and not by men. People are going to die in the future, as they've died in the past, and I'd honestly like to believe the deaths were for something worth preserving.
Some 230 years ago, the people of this fledgling country wanted to crown George Washington the new King of America. Washington, of course, was far wiser than the people and he declined. Sadly, it seems the people haven't learned a whole lot in two centuries. They are still far too ready to surrender what others have died to earn for them.