Indeed, you are correct, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" should not be construed to mean "Give me Safety at the Expense of All Liberty." Rather, it is logically the opposite, "Give me liberty at the expense of safety."

I understand that it is not popular to say so in these "post 9/11" days when everything is supposedly so very different than it was on September 10, 2001, but terrorism is not the worst threat the American people are facing right now, even if it is a very real and serious danger to life and property.

For instance, the following is far more frightening than any terrorist threats I can think of:

Washington needs to step up to the plate and take the gloves off with respect to MSM's apparent mission to stoop to new depths in order to throw obstacles in front of the FBI, the NSA, the CIA and this Administration. They say they do this in the name of protecting our individual rights -- but most every thinking American knows there's also a political agenda behind it.

What I was suggesting is contained in my last sentence...if you took time to read it. "...put your politics aside and search your souls for the right balance!"

B A L A N C E !!! You know the "Zen" way of thinking instead of the radical approach.

[quote]Are you suggesting that Mr. Bush unilaterally repeal the First Amendment in the same manner in which he has seemingly repealed the Fourth?
[/quote] Show me where I suggested that???

I was not sure of what was being suggested here, so I asked.

There is no rational balancing of civil liberties and safety from terrorist attacks. If we want to be safe from terrorist attacks, then we cannot have wishy-washy civil libertarians getting in the way of those efforts with their talk of "balance."

If we're not going to go all the way and make ourselves really secure, then why sacrifice even one small shred of our civil liberties? Isn't our freedom worth the risk?

There is no political balance, either -- except in the minds of the understandably frightened majority for whom a false sense of security with regard to terrorism is a fair trade for their submission to tyranny (as long as it is imposed with some mythical consideration for civil liberties).

Freedom or safety? Unfortunately, we cannot have both, so we must decide which is more important, our posteriors or our principles.

Z.Z. sez...
*Show me where I suggested that???*

well in the Post you state...
*Washington needs to step up to the plate and take the gloves off with respect to MSM's apparent mission to stoop to new depths in order to throw obstacles in front of the FBI, the NSA, the CIA and this Administration.*

which seems to imply your advocacy for "controlling" the press in tthe name of "security"

i have to side with Ben Franklin and Margaret here

it is NOT the job of the Press to conceal anything, rather, it is their task to expose as much as they can, in any free society

as for me...i go with Principles, it's a dangerous Path to choose

but i have no stomache for quislings

Excelsior!

What's with this TYRANNY bit? Do you really believe that the Administration is tyrannical? Give me a break! If there were another significant attack in the US your side would be the first to blame this President for NOT doing ENOUGH to prevent it !!!

I guess the majority of Americans don't see it your way... check Rasmussen Report just released:

"Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree."

P.S. There are controls on the media when the national security is at risk. Check your facts.

"With respect to governmental information, a government distinguishes which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest."

well ZZ..i have held a security clearance..i damn sure know what it means

firstly...i don't give a flying fuck how many folks "think" it's ok for the president...or anyone, to break the Law

it ain't...and it's most egregious from the Oval Office..so your Rasmussen Report means shit...a worthless poll

next you quote from wikipedia...
*"With respect to governmental information, a government distinguishes which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest."*

emphasis mine...this is talking about government RELEASE of sensitive material..and states quite clearly that it is up to the government to control that flow of info, and that the sensitivity is directly proportional to "relevance of the information" when it comes to national Interest

what you would have to prove to bolster your claims against the Media is that what they released into the news was pertinent to national interest as opposed to the political interest fo those involved, and they must defend that what they released was in the public Interest to know

interesting that the Tikmes sat on this Story for a year, and then cleaned it up to pass the NSA's scrutiny to ensure no ongoing operation was jeapordized

ooOOoooOOooppps...that's right, such inconvenient Facts void the venom of your little rant

fair enough..you take the position that the Press should be muzzled, i take the position that it is Free Speech and that the real concern is over any Federal Laws were broken, and if so...by whom

can we Agree that if a willful violation of Federal Law (it appears that FISA is applicable, but i am no lawyer) has occured, then a prosecution shoudl be undertaken as befits any violation?

Excelsior!

"Freedom or safety? Unfortunately, we cannot have both, so we must decide which is more important, our posteriors or our principles."

Sounds real good, Margaret - till the next bomb blows up about 150 meters from your posterior.

I picked that distance so that you'd live through the bomb attack. At least you will if it is a suicide bombing like the one that killed a soldier here this morning.

I have never had a 'security clearance' like Gonzo, but I know very well what feeling insecure riding a bus means. And as a police volunteer, I practice 'Arab' profiling when seeking out ID's to check. You want to call me a racist for that? Go ahead - it's no skin off my nose.

You Americans have no clue what it means to live where there is terror - with the exception of those who have served in Iraq over the last couple of years.

I'm not suggesting that you are wrong in condemning the Bush administration for trying to take away your civil liberties. It is, and succeeding very nicely. They haven't gotten as far as Ariel Sharon, but they are getting there.

But the point of ZZ's article is that the media in your country chooses to attack Bush rather than to expose the many terrorist connections that CAIR - and Bush have. Your media are lying to you just as your government is.

Your enemies are just as much in the editorial offices of the NYT and Washington Post as they are in the White House. This is not a "liberal" issue, a "conservative" issue, a "libertarian" issue. Waking up to the enemies around you is an issue of saving your lives.

decent points, Ruvy...

the Concern here revolves around the Principles of the American Ideal as set out in our Constitution

the Media is a market force, it needs to be dealt with in one manner

our Government is held to a MUCH higher standard, and is dealt with in a different manner

the whole apples and palm trees thing, ya know?

Excelsior!

It is the role of the media to report on current affairs, which these newspapers seem to have done by reporting public information.

It is the role of the authorities to investigate if CAIR is involved in illegal activity.

Ruvy: Israel will not know peace UNTIL it can work out some kind of deal with its neighbours. Sure, by all means, keep increasing the security levels until all life is squeezed out of Israel, if that's what you want. Frankly I'd rather die than live like that.

Life is inherently dangerous. Waking up to the world we all live in is an issue of saving everybody's lives, not just our "own".

It always amazes me how mean spirited the left becomes when they sense they don't have the majority of Americans seeing it there way.... rant? Give me a break.

You know, on a purely technical level I know that monitoring the radiation level at my home or place of work is a violation of my right to privacy, but that's actually one area where I really don't mind.

Dave

ZZ, partisanship is the elevation of party over principle to the detriment of both. I do not have a "side." I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I am a non-partisan independent who has both agreed and disagreed with Mr. Bush's ideas, policies and actions.

I have given the president every benefit of my doubt since he took office back in 2001 and I have tried to believe him and to understand his point of view on various issues (I did the same for Mr. Clinton, the first Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan, Mr. Carter and Mr. Ford, even though I became politically aware during the last gasps of Mr. Nixon's administration, in which that "-gate" suffix was invented), but my credulity has been strained to the breaking point in the wake of various revelations that have given rise to the specter of numerous domestic and international scandals.

I cannot say whether or not I believe Mr. Bush's administration is tyrannical as that matter has yet to be fully investigated. However, that business about Mr. Bush allegedly ordering the NSA to spy on Americans without first obtaining the proper FISA warrants must be looked into -- and sooner rather than later.

It is a good thing that our Constitution protects us from the tyranny of that frightened and angry mob we call "the majority" because there exists a cowardly majority that would impose tyranny upon itself as well as the entirety of the nation, just because it is afraid of terrorism.

Tyranny is apparently less frightening to the masses than terrorism because it is not as immediately visible and obvious as the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

However, that majority needs to ask itself -- nevermind defending its fear as that is quite understandable -- what exactly they are trying to preserve with their willing submission to tyranny.

If these terrorists "hate us for our freedom" as Mr. Bush has said on numerous occasions (and I do believe he is sincere in that sentiment), then wouldn't our submission to tyranny be a form of surrender?

Personally, I prefer to not surrender to the likes of Osama bin Laden and his minions. I'd rather not say that 9/11 "changed everything" and that we now live in a "different world" because of that terrible day.

I'd rather demonstrate to those terrorists who hate us for our freedom that we are not afraid of them, that we are not going to do things differently just because 19 of them somehow managed to seriously wound our pride (yes, I know they killed almost 3000 people and destroyed billions of dollars worth of property in the process, but that is the source of our sorrow, not our fear).


Ruvy, I cannot even begin to understand what life is like in Israel. If I had been born there and lived there, I would likely have a much different point of view.

But I am an American, raised with American principles and ideas such as "Give me liberty or give me death" and "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Margaret sez...
*But I am an American, raised with American principles and ideas such as "Give me liberty or give me death" and "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."*

Quoted for Truth

nuff said?

Excelsior!

"I'd rather not say that 9/11 "changed everything" and that we now live in a "different world" because of that terrible day. " - #12

Spoken like a self proclaimed Idiotarian.
You are a fine spokesperson for this new brand of idealism. God bless you, you are entitled to your perspective. Peace... and to all, enjoy a safe and Happy New Year.

correction ZZ..she is speaking about a very old type of Idealism..the kind our Nation was founded upon

might i suggest you actually read the Constitution, Declaration of Independance, the Bill of Rights, perhaps even the Federalist Papers, some Tom Paine, Ben Franklin even Jefferson

this may help to show where her Thoughts come from

most of mine too

Excelsior!

ZZ, your comment #14 skirts the comment policy.

Emperor PalpatineThe current administration is the Senate and the Courts. Thus the restraints are only symbolic, and the tyranny of the majority is trumped by the tyranny of the oligarchy. Which is worse?

Allow me to give you one example that Americans may not be familiar with - Indira Gandhi, Nehru's daughter, ruled with an iron fist, and when things did not go her way, she imposed an emergency that took away every right possible. The trains did run on time, though.

Aaman sez...
*Allow me to give you one example that Americans may not be familiar with - Indira Gandhi, Nehru's daughter, ruled with an iron fist, and when things did not go her way, she imposed an emergency that took away every right possible. The trains did run on time, though.*

Quoted for a higher Truth

and Aaman, we prefer to refer to His Majesty and Emperor Shrub the First

but i digress...

Excelsior!

So many interesting points arise from such a confused screed.

I'm not sure that monitoring radiation isn't just a Public Health issue, in which case the Unenumerated Right To Privacy must yield. But of course permission to snoop ought proceed from a judicial entity, e.g., FISA, assuming it still exists.

"Thanks, US News. Next time, why not just hand over whatever classified information you obtain directly to al Qaeda?"

I didn't get the point. Presumably US News reported info available somewhere in the public domain. They didn't blurt out Top Secret info related in Secret by a government official, did they?

Anyhow, this old claim that the "MSM" is leftwing is getting pretty tired. Repeating it over and over is a good tactic to impress dunderheads, but only if you seek to recruit dunderheads. One might make a better case for rightwing domination based on the successful peddling of the Iraq WMD myth in the NYT as well as the successful subornation of Miller, Novak, Woodward and others in the Plame/Wilson affair, which I would rank as more serious offenses than the CAIR thingee. Anyway, when I researched CAIR myself a couple years ago, MSM sources led me to conclude that CAIR had much too cozy a relationship with suspicious outfits so I took them off my GoodGuys list and put them on the VerySuspicious list. Based on ordinary MSM available reports. If the MSM were the monolithic leftwing outfit they are persistently portrayed as I would not have found the info and opinion pieces I found easily in the MSM. Give it up, guys: when you say the old MSM charge it provides the reader a rant alert.

As for the old "Safety vs. Civil Rights" dichotomy, every US citizen must realize that The Founders set our feet on an arduous trail that will require bravery. Both physical bravery and intellectual bravery. The Founders proposal is bold, but the potential rewards, as we see from the evidence all around us, are great. Our chore is to find a way to secure our safety within our Civil Rights. That's going to take intelligence, reason, negotiation and compromise as well as bravery. Personally, I am VERY suspicious of people who reach for suppression of Civil Rights upon the least provocation: it seems to me they are using security as a pretext for dictatorship.

Aaman: "Allow me to give you one example that Americans may not be familiar with - Indira Gandhi, Nehru's daughter, ruled with an iron fist, and when things did not go her way, she imposed an emergency that took away every right possible. The trains did run on time, though."

Did the trains run on time? Did you check it out?

When I was a lad people often said "Musolini was a bastard but he made the trains run on time". Well, a few years ago some fellow went through the train records from Musolinis time and found just the opposite: trains ran worse under Musolini! I suspect that train punctuality is subject to the same forces that undermine every dictatorships civil society: no one makes decisions because they're afraid of getting their heads cut, so every decision is bucked up the chain of command and the dictator is overwhelmed. Even when he makes a decision it gets sabotaged on the way back down.

The trains did run on time. And forced sterilization, mainly of Muslims, was a model approach to family planning.

Of course, many people, my father included, were 'investigated' by RAW, the Indian FBI for allegedly being agents of the CIA. Others were imprisoned for being against the 'State' and fomenting 'internal rebellion' But we won't talk about that, because only 'bad' people need worry about being investigated, I guess.

From wikipedia, a woefully incomplete rendition of the Indian Emergency, some aspects of which will appear similar to recent events:

Criticism and Accusations of the Emergency-era may be grouped as:

(1) wanton detention of innocent people by police without charge, without notification to families.

(2) abusive treatment and torture of detainees and political prisoners.

(3) The use of public and private media institutions, like the national television network Doordarshan as propaganda tools.

(4) The forcible vasectomy, and even castration of thousands of men and women under the infamous family planning initiative. Indira's son, Sanjay Gandhi was blamed for this abusive and forcible treatment of people.

(5) The arbitrary destruction of the slum and low-income housing in the Turkmen Gate and Jama Masjid area of old Delhi. The action, purportedly conducted under the personal orders of Sanjay Gandhi by the officials of the Delhi Development Authority, killed hundreds of people and displaced tens of thousands of poor people, mostly Muslims.

So, basically, idiotarians are "...blame-America ideologues hopelessly stuck in a pre-September 11 mindset?"

I don't "blame America" for 9/11, like some people do. I blame the terrorists who perpetrated that terrible crime (yes, I know that calling 9/11 a "crime" rather than an "attack" is extremely unpopular with almost every sort of partisan, but why elevate savages to the status of soldiers?).

We were the victims and it is beyond contempt to suggest that victims of crimes must've somehow "asked for it."

However, I suppose that I do have a "pre-September 11 mindset" because I refuse to allow terrorists (who are really little more than murderers and vandals with political agendas) to terrorize me.

The purpose of terrorism is to use violence to frighten people into submission, to make them so paralyzed with fear that they lose all sense of reason and act irrationally. Let's not let it work on us!

For us to proclaim that "things are different now" or that "everything has changed" is tantamount to proclaiming that 9/11 was effective to a small degree and that the 9/11 terrorists attained a partial victory over us.

The mere addition to our national vocabulary of such memes as "pre-September 11 mindset" gives terrorists satisfaction that their actions had more than a passing effect upon us.

Osama bin Laden (remember him?) and his cohorts, wherever they may be, are very likely feeling quite gratified that we continue to fret over 9/11, four years later.

I don't know about anybody else, but that bothers me almost as much as the fact that so many Americans -- both liberals and conservatives (and even the ACLU!) -- have bought into the logical fallacy that our civil liberties can be "balanced" with our safety.

9/11 may have changed a lot of things. It may even have changed the world we live in. But it didn't change basic natural law and the rights we have just for being alive, nor did it change the nature of the Constitution or the principles our nation was founded on.

It may have given us a new perspective on what our nation needs to do in order to continue to enjoy those rights. They need to be defended against external threats as well as internal abuses, and it reminded us of the balancing act that we have to perform as a nation every day between the power necessary to protect the people and their rights and the preservation of those rights.

Dave

"Ruvy, I cannot even begin to understand what life is like in Israel.....

But I am an American, raised with American principles and ideas such as 'Give me liberty or give me death' and 'They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'"

Margaret, I was raised in Brooklyn, NY and lived for a number of years in the Bronx and in Minnesota. I as active in politics in the Bronx and in Minnesota, in both major parties (different ones in different states). I understand these concepts as well as you. Like you, I am an American citizen.

Now I live here. Therefore, I am able to see things with a very different lens and that is the only reason my comments might have some value. An Israeli, ignorant of your institutions and ideals, and many are, would have little to contribute.

I learned how to read newspapers by reading the New York Times every day I was in 5th and 6th grade.

The New York Times has been distorting news for at least thirty five years that I can tell, since the Biafran rebellion against the Nigerian Federation. And it is distorting the news you read now. It distorts it terribly from Israel, and it distorts it terribly from Iraq. You can't afford to ignore this because the New York Times and the Washington Post are semi-official papers in your country, just as Haaretz is a semi-official paper here. That is the significance of David Mark's piece on newspapermen being bought off by the government. That is also a factor involved in the terrible shrinkage of journalistic news outlets in your country. The fact that these papers are semi-official outlets creates a whole new variety of toadstool growing in your garden that Gonzo's standard methods of categorization just can't deal with.

What I've been trying to tell you in various comments at different points is that your nation doesn't belong in Iraq at all, it belongs in Saudi Arabia. But since your president is just a head waiter for the ibn Saud thugocracy, your soldiers die in Iraq. Your president needs a war and he needs terror to terrorize you all out of your civil liberties. What you are really seeing is a dispute on very high level between to opposing parties in the governing plutocracy in your country. The semi-official media represents one group - the bankers. The government represents the oilmen. Your civil liberties are not at issue - they are all on the way out.

Chris, I'm going to quote you from some of my e-mail correspondence so you can get a much clearer picture of what is going on here and what the issues are.

The writer was a garden variey Jewish Italian leftist in 1979 or 1980 when this occurred, but a very well read one.

First he quotes me.

On 27 Dec 2005, Ruvy wrote:

"[...] And it must always be remembered that in one sense or another, all of us here in
Israel are soldiers, whether we like it or not, and whether we want to be or not. [...]"

Then continues on with a story he first told me while he visited me in hospital two years ago.

"This is EXACTLY, word by word, what I heard during my stay as a guest WITH THE ARABS of Gaza in 1980.

I was 'cured' of all my DELUSIONS about the Arabs.

From Han Yunis to Jabaliyah, from Gaza City to Rafah, I told ALL of them as a broken record, 'I sympathise with your struggle against occupation. Yet, during my brief stay here, I almost blew-up on a bomb in Eilat , there were attacks on markets, kindergarten were targets of attacks, and so were buses... Why don't you kill soldiers, attack soldiers, not civilians?'

The response I received to my statement repeated like a parrot to every arab I spoke to (from doctors to fellahin) was the SAME from EVERYONE, since they spoke freely in English to this Italian leftist: 'for us the Jews are ALL soldiers, children, women, elderly, young, men, women. Either they go or we kill them all.'

I became REALLY sick from all that (my delusions were shattered and it is painful!), and it took me months to recover, and then I started learning BETTER about the history of the place and the people here, not just the leftist, or democratic, or liberal-democratic, or republican, or Christian democratic, State Department or UN 'bull'... (be-qitsur [in short]: not just the stories told by goyim or by those who, consciously or unconsciously, wish they were goyim).

Within two years I was doing fine and nobody could sell me the lies of the commonly accepted 'truths'...

As soldiers, we should NEUTRALISE the enemy, WHATEVER it means! Any pity on them is cruelty against ouselves."

total War for Total Peace, Mao, Che, etc.

There's ideals and then there's reality.

The highest, most lofty ideals are worthless to a dead man.

I think a lot of Bush haters are using the guise of ideals to bash the administration.

We are doomed.

Ruvy, whether it is because of circumstances or choice or a combination of both, you have a unique perspective of the world, and your viewpoint is always a fascinating read.



Which reality and which ideals, Bing?

What is life worth if we are not free?

Do you fear terrorism more than you fear tyranny?

Whatever happened to "Give me liberty or give me death?"

Ruvy sez...
*The fact that these papers are semi-official outlets creates a whole new variety of toadstool growing in your garden that Gonzo's standard methods of categorization just can't deal with.*

egoist that i am, i'm very curious what my "standard method of categorization" is...and flattered to be utilized as some kind of standard...weird tho it may be...

Ruvy..much of the time you make a lot of sense to me, yet there are some things i just can't wrap my head around( Soudi Arabia i agree with)...but that is a large part of why i am "here" ...to Learn

Bing sez...
*The highest, most lofty ideals are worthless to a dead man.*

tell that to Nathan Hale...or ANY posthumous medal winner who gave their Lives for an Ideal

Bing sez...
*I think a lot of Bush haters are using the guise of ideals to bash the administration.*

and i think a lot of Rovians are hiding behind calling folks "haters" when it's about the Actions, not the politics

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Margaret: "(yes, I know that calling 9/11 a "crime" rather than an "attack" is extremely unpopular with almost every sort of partisan, but why elevate savages to the status of soldiers?)."

I'll second that.

So if the news media gets wind of a story that is news worthy and people would be interested in they should do what? Hold it while they check it out? Wait while the goverment says it wants to address loose ends?
Oh, wait, the New York Times did that and they were still attacked for giving away the farm.

What kind of democracy are we modelling for other nations when we argue that the free press should not be free during war.

Ruvy sez...
*The fact that these papers are semi-official outlets creates a whole new variety of toadstool growing in your garden that Gonzo's standard methods of categorization just can't deal with.*

egoist that i am, i'm very curious what my "standard method of categorization" is...and flattered to be utilized as some kind of standard...weird tho it may be...

Gonzo, read your own post #8.

Chicken Little.... I mean Margaret..........

The reality is that Islamic terrorists want to kill as many American civilians wether they hail from red states or blue states. We're all just bulls eyes to them. The present reality also dictates that the one of the most effective ways to lessen the chances of these terrorists in being successful is more scrutiny of any individual in this nation who is suspected of being a terrorist, regardless of being a citizen or not.

You have quite the flair for the dramatic don't you Magaret? You're sound like the type that compares Bush to Hitler and the current government to the gestapo which is to be quite blunt......fucking stupid.

The government must do what it must do to protect us. If that includes spying on a suspected terrorist without a warrant or torturing a couple of al queda members so be it.

I know many of you hate Bush and you're trying to use scare tactics to promote the idea that our liberties are being taken away but it's quite frankly bullshit. I dare any of you loons to provide a couple of examples where innocent private citizens have had an unreasonable infringement on thier liberties in the name of national defense.

Bing, you don't know any Muslims, do you?

Bing: The reality is that Islamic terrorists want to kill as many American civilians wether they hail from red states or blue states. We're all just bulls eyes to them.

and

I know many of you hate Bush and you're trying to use scare tactics...

Irony much?

I don't believe anythign I said is ironic when you consider the evidence JR.

911

USS Cole

Embassy bombings

93 WTC bombing

and the expressed hatred for America by many radical muslims

Bing sez...
*I dare any of you loons to provide a couple of examples where innocent private citizens have had an unreasonable infringement on thier liberties in the name of national defense.*

ok..on another Thread i get into the whole Padilla case...there's one example

the entire NSA "data mining" operation should count...since it is sifting all kinds of traffic in it's Search...NONE of it with a Court order

and how about the NSA admitting there were at least 30 cases of purely domestic wire taps involved since the order by the President to bypass the FISA rules (ya know, silly federal law stuff)

is that enough from this "loon"?

while we are at it..i do want to take a second to state for the Record that i am sick, tired,offended and disgusted by the common tactic used by some folks to try and paint ANYONE who is critical of this Administration and their policies as " america haters" or "anti-american"

Ruvy...thanks for the clarification, but i think my point still stands...what you seem to be raising concern about is when the Government uses the Media as it's bitch for Propaganda purposes (see buying Iraqi journalists/printspace, Judith MIller printing what Libby tells her to so Cheney can quote it on sunday morning chat shows, etc)

that one i lay on the Government MUCH more than the Media (tho both bear some blame)...why you saY

simplicity...the Media is out to make a living, each and every Government official, espcially Elected Representatives take an Oath to "defend and uphold the Constitution" as well as Federal Law...so when THEY break it...i get a bit harsher

is that wrong?

Bing sez...
*The government must do what it must do to protect us. If that includes spying on a suspected terrorist without a warrant or torturing a couple of al queda members so be it.*

sorry to be the one to cash yer Reality Check here, but what our Government CAN do is clearly delineated in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Federal Law...

and THAT is what makes us a Republic and governed by the Rule of Law, and not some tinpot oligarchy wiht totalitarian power residing in the "State"

so me..i'm with Margaret, and an American who values and will defend the Rule of Law , NOT any particular "gang" who is running it at the moment...after all, isn't adherence to that Rule of Law what makes our system "better" than...oh Saddam's, Fidel's, Stalin's, etc?

you rant all you want for the State and complete Power, Comrade Bing...and some of us will water the Tree of Liberty with our Blood as required

nuff said?

Excelsior!

So you know for a fact that Padilla has no terrorist ties Gonzo?

Do you know who shot JFK too?

The taps were conducted to obtain information to prevent further 911's. I'm for anything that helps do this.


Those with nothing to hide should have no gripes gonzo.

Bing sez...
*Those with nothing to hide should have no gripes gonzo.*

spoken like all the petty totalitarian dictators in all of History, just before they gank anyone they feel like

such a bullshit attitude, but i understand Comrade Bing that anything the authoritarian State says is ok is ok by you..just pick a scapegoat and send them to the ovens

as for Padilla..i NEVER sid ANYTHING about his guilt or innocence...

what i DID say was that he is an american citizen that has been held for over 3 and a half years without Due Process in violation of his Constitutional Rights

i don't give a fuck if he is Lucifer Incarnate...he still gets his Rights under our Constitution

it's called the Rule of Law

look it up sometimes, Comrade

Excelsior!

So you know for a fact that Padilla has no terrorist ties Gonzo?

Whether Padilla has terrorist ties or not, as a US citizen arrested inside the US he is absolutely guaranteed basic constitutional rights.

However, Padilla has been getting legal counsel and been allowed to pursue a remedy to his situation through the courts, which is why it's going to the Supreme Court this session.

Rulings already delivered in the case have supported the administration's rationale for holding him this way.

The basic theory is that when he left the country and trained with Al Qaeda he became an enemy combatant and effectively gave up his US citizenship, so that under the powers granted by the AUMF - which the court declared was equivalent to a declaration of war, btw - the government had the right to treat him as if he were an enemy combatant not a US citizen, so that merely entering the country was effectively an act of war against the US.

Keep in mind that Padilla has not been held incommunicado. He's had access to lawyers, they are pursuing his case and it has already been heard by a couple of courts.

The catch in all this for me is the idea that he can just be declared an enemy combatant without THAT decision being made through a court process with evidence presented on both sides. That's where the whole thing falls apart, IMO. But the court believes the AUMF gives the president the power to make that determination unilaterally without a court being involved.

Dave

Bing: I don't believe anythign I said is ironic when you consider the evidence JR.

Okay, then it's hypocritical. Particularly when you say, "We're all just bulls eyes to them", and then accuse Margaret Romao Toigo of having a flair for the dramatic.

Regardless of whether you have valid examples of Islamic terrorism, you are still using scare tactics. The risk of being a victim of a terror attack are well below the risks of driving, smoking or eating junk food, not to mention being the victim of any number of regular crimes. More women are raped in America than killed or injured by terror attacks. We know who's committing the crimes; what must the government do to protect women from men?

And maybe you should look up the case of Brandon Mayfield, who had nothing to hide but plenty to gripe about.

Bing, I do understand that "Islamic terrorists want to kill as many American civilians whether they hail from red states or blue states." Foreign terrorists have no interest in our internal politics.

I believe that the threat of terrorism is credible and that the dangers are quite real. And I know that America has enemies. Enemies who hate us for our freedom as well as our prosperity. Enemies that wish to destroy us and our way of life. Indeed, "We're all just bulls eyes to them."

See, Bing? We are in complete agreement with regard to the threats and dangers of terrorism.

I also agree that suspected terrorists should be thoroughly investigated. However, I believe that this can be done without infringements upon our civil liberties.

I have never compared Mr. Bush to Adolph Hitler, nor have I ever compared any government agency or entity as "the gestapo" because that is, as you so eloquently put it, "fucking stupid."

The people who make such comparisons think they are being clever, but what they are really doing is demonstrating their ignorance of history.

Indeed, the government must do what it can to protect and defend our rights from terrorists, specifically our right to life and property.

If the government violates our rights while protecting our rights from terrorists, these terrorists who hate us for our freedom will win because they will have effectively terrorized us into sacrificing our civil liberties for the sake of our safety.

You didn't answer the question, "Do you fear terrorism more than you fear tyranny?"

But when we show willingness to sacrifice our civil liberties to the cause of fighting terrorism we have effectively answered it for terrorists, letting them know that we are more afraid of them than we are of tyranny.

Personally, I'd rather these terrorists not get that impression from us. I'd rather have them know that we find them contemptible rather than intimidating.

I do not hate Mr. Bush. I have certainly disagreed with him (about as often as I disagreed with Mr. Clinton while he was in office), but disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as hating him, or even disliking him.

The people who seem to want all of these allegations against Mr. Bush to eventually turn out to be true are appalling. It is one thing to express dissent or to even make allegations of misconduct, but it is quite another to actually hope our president is guilty of something just because they wish to satisfy their selfish political ambitions.

Scare tactics are what the terrorists use, and they appear to be working because our civil liberties are being violated by the Patriot Act -- that post 9/11 knee-jerk legislation that was cobbled together so quickly and sloppily that it required an expiration date -- already.

These allegations that the president ordered the NSA to spy on Americans without first obtaining the proper FISA warrants must be looked into because, if they are true, then our civil liberties have been significantly diminished.

The other reason why this matter must be looked into is because these allegations may be wrong and a thorough investigation could show that and restore the peoples' faltering faith in Mr. Bush's administration.

Either way, we need to know. We have a right to know.

For my part, I hope that our president did not do the things of which he has been accused. I really want to believe -- even need to believe -- that Mr. Bush has our best interests in mind, but at this point, I do not feel that I can take him at his word, I need to be shown.

Bing: "The reality is that Islamic terrorists want to kill as many American civilians wether they hail from red states or blue states. We're all just bulls eyes to them."

and

"I know many of you hate Bush and you're trying to use scare tactics..."

JR: "Irony much?"

Bing: "I don't believe anythign I said is ironic when you consider the evidence JR."

As an impartial observer, perhaps I should step over to the Irony Whiteboard and diagram this out in X's and O's:

Bing (X) advances: "...terrorists want to kill...we're just bulls eyes to them..."

Pretty scary!

Followed by,

Bing(X): "...you're trying to use scare tactics..."

JR(O): "Irony much?"

See how it works? First the deadly threat, then the accusation of being threatening. Then the parry. Get it? Let me know if you need some more help.

Dude, since when is Wacky Malkin a reliable source on political analysis? She can't even talk about the left without using juvenile terms like idiotarian, moonbats and other low-brow name calling and anyone that question Bush's divinely guided leadership suffers from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

If she were a comedian, I might be inclined to let this pass, but she's not, she takes herself very seriously as a crusader of conservatism and to me that's scary thinking. Come to think of it, most comedians like Stewart and Maher are more balanced in their opinions.

JELIEL sez...
*Come to think of it, most comedians like Stewart and Maher are more balanced in their opinions.*

Quoted for Truth

Excelsior!

To JR: What on earth does "regular crime" such as rape of women have to do with this discussion? Those crimes come under local agencies. Take it up with your city police, county sheriff or state police if you are not getting proper protection.

All this screaming about liberty v. tyranny and civil rights v. safety is just so much hot air. Bush explained why he feels he is within the law in what he is doing. Protecting the public from terrorism is the duty of the federal government. He thinks he is doing his job. The problem comes when some people disagree about whether he can use a war crimes act to achieve this goal.

Maybe he is right, maybe he isn't. Maybe the law just isn't clear enough and needs some clarification. That would be a job for the courts to settle.

Why can't we all just relax a little and let it all get sorted out legally?

decent points SonnyD...

might i suggest that a large part of the Concern revolves around a single Political Party controlling House, Senate and WH and so there is a worry that a proper Investigation will not occur

just flip the Script for a second...if it was the Dems who controlled everything and shit liek this came out...don't ya think the GOP folks and concerned INdependants woudln't be screaming just as loud?

might i postulate that with the propensity of right wing AM talk show hosts and Fox news...the screaming woudl be non-stop 24/7 ( before you say it ain't so...remember Clinton's impeachment and all the hollering there was about that...then compare the circumstances)

so..while i am more than willing to let this get sorted out, i would ask your Pardon if i seem a bit worried...i am an Independant(who trusts NEITHER Party)

i hope that helps

Excelsior!

JELIEL sez...
*Come to think of it, most comedians like Stewart and Maher are more balanced in their opinions.*

Quoted for Truth

Excelsior!

Maher, Balanced? He's not even funny.

And Gonzo please, please, pleeeeeease stop accusing others of ranting. It takes an average of two craps to get through most of yours.

And Gonzo please direct me to where you have shown a 10th of the vitriol you have shown for the devil neocons...and lay off the "topshelf"...your paranoia is showing.

heh..it ain't paranoia when they ARe after ya

as for Maher being funny, well Funny varies from person to person and there's no accounting for Taste...

as for the neocons, yep..they get the majority of my venom...it's MY vitriol after all, and i will gladly spew it anywhere i fucking well please

Free Speech and all that

have you actually read the PNAC site and their Agenda? if so, and it doesn't bother you, then there's not much we can discuss rationally

where have i "accused" anyone of ranting?..stated it, yep..including about myself

Bog and JuJu nkow i rant, and rave, and screed and snark

ya don't like it, then skip my Stuff...

nuff said?

Excelsior!

i actually like your stuff...but i really want to know what else besides the conservative agenda gets your ire?

it doesn't scare you at all that such institutions as the NYT sets so much of the social agenda/concience?

the NYT is a business, traded on the exchange for christ sakes...methinks you've vaunted them a little too much.

well now...can you show, out of my close to 3000 comments when i have EVER said anythign nice about the NYT?

bet ya a cookie ya can't

and i make a distinction between paleocon (who i don't have as much a problem with, being a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian myself) with them, as i do with the Straussian bred NeoCon agenda

it may seem that i light off on the GOP an inordinate amount, and as i have stated elsewhere, i go after them more because they have a totalitarian hold over the House, Senate and White House...

so they control ALL the committees, all the floor agenda, all the budgets...

basically everything on the Hill

so they get to be held Accountable for shit i consider to be fucked up

if/when the tide shifts and the Dems hold the reigns of Power, rest assured i will tear into them just as vehemently when THEY fuck up

i have no allegiance to either political "gang" , i distrust them both, and will chomp on the exposed bits as they come along, spitting out the icky parts

as for the NYT...nah, they don't scare me...they don't have guns and wiretaps and the ability to chuck my ass in jail for sedition or some such nonsense...they can't take away my Rights or property...they are just part of the Free Press and can be just as silly as Fox News

both have their own Right to publish as they like, the beautiful thing about the Net coming along is that regular folks like you and i can now shout out our own Views...discuss them without the filters of some publisher's editorial policy...and on occasion have it all read by someone who might actually be made to think for themselves for a minute

and THAT concept is the buzz fer the likes of me

nuff said?

Excelsior!

yeh, screw the sweatshops in Calcutta! The NYT built it's entire business on the backs of minors! Child Labor, for 90% of that rags history has been responsible for everything from disribution to collection! HOLIER THAN THOU GOOBER-SMOOCHERS!

Yeah, Gonzo, I, too, am an Independent,(who trusts neither party), but I just can't see why people have to get so extreme in their language. What is all this "Give me liberty or give me death" crap about? Can you honestly give me an example of any aspect of your life where you are not under the thumb of the government? Every single thing you do is legislated in some way. You can't work, drive a car, own property or anything else without somebody telling you what you can or can't do.

And I don't think you are so naive that you aren't aware of all the secret stuff that goes on in Washington under any administration. Once in a while, somebody gets careless and something gets brought to public attention, then they all have to act so shocked and indignant. Right! They are all a bunch of Boy Scouts just trying to do their best for the country. Sure!

Do you really think we have any control over what goes on in DC behind closed doors? In fact, as long as we spend our time screaming at each other we are not changing anything. Well, maybe we relieve our frustration a little by telling off somebody we disagree with.

Oh, well, it's 1:30 AM here and I'm rambling. Guess I had better call it a day.

SonnyD, drama is as drama does. Just read some of the rantings of the cowards who actually believe that terrorists are more dangerous than tyrants.

They go on and on about how terrorists hate us and want to kill us, and how another 9/11 could happen any minute now, unless we give the government a free hand to ignore the Constitution whenever it sees fit.

I am not angry with such people, I feel sorry for them, for they are so overwhelmed with fear they do not know what they are sacrificing. All they really want is to feel safe and secure and they're so desperate for it that they're willing to do anything to get it.

But freedom is not about comfort. In fact, freedom is a most decidedly uncomfortable state in which to live and some people simply do not have the tolerance and fortitude for it. They forget that one of the most discomforting aspects of freedom is that it could be lost.

Perhaps that is partly why "Give me liberty or give me death" keeps coming up. It is often intended as inspiration for our fellow Americans whose fear of terrorism is getting the better of them.

When people are afraid, they often speak and act irrationally, which is quite understandable. When our fellow Americans have had the reason and logic scared right out of them (and its no great wonder that the horrors of 9/11 did that to a lot of people), we have a responsibility to help them remember the courage of those who came before us and fought for the freedom they are now taking for granted because of their fear.

And we must send a message to the terrorists of the world who would kill us and destroy our property in order to terrorize us into submitting to tyranny: It won't work!

I'd be curious to hear a response to my comment about the news media.

And it's true, Gonzo Marx not a fan of the NYT.
In fact, Groucho or Karl Marx are neither fans or regular readers of the Times.

Being dead and all does that to you.

Scott: "So if the news media gets wind of a story that is news worthy and people would be interested in they should do what? Hold it while they check it out? Wait while the goverment says it wants to address loose ends?"

Of course, this is the crucial question. Possessed of delicate secret info should the newspaper report it or suppress it or confer with The Feds? I think we have an example to guide us: during WW2 many reporters had close formal relations with admin officials and they knew what to do. The admin usually prepared them with background info and established a trust relationship. The admin trusted the press not to reveal info vital to national security, and the press trusted the admin to be straight with them and to provide the info fairly when the time was right. And it worked. But this admin has established an adversary relationship, except when they want to suborn the easily manipulated (through vanity), i.e., Novak, Miller, Woodward. As for the press, they start to resemble a pack of baying hounds looking for blood. Now the two sides are mutually manipulative. Too bad.

Give me liberty or give me death.

This is a false argument, since, as we all know, there is not and was ever not absolute liberty. For example, you don't have the "liberty" to molest a child or marry a 12 year old girl, despite the fact that some perverts will claim the right to do so. Liberty was never intended to be absolute, and Patrick Henry's phrase needs to be understood in the proper context, where, as a British subject, he was deprived of some basic citizenship rights.
The NSA surveillance does not, except to the most narcissistic, curtail anyone's "liberty" or even civil rights, since its use is limited and targeted. If you do, however, believe you have any privacy today, in an age of paparazzi, private surveillance cameras, license plates, SSNs, and credit checks...you must live on a compound.

I do live on a compound, loon, and I still feel like my privacy is being invaded. People can go on google and get a pretty close aerial view of my swimming pool ferchrissakes.

Dave

loon sez...
*The NSA surveillance does not, except to the most narcissistic, curtail anyone's "liberty" or even civil rights, since its use is limited and targeted.*

and here i take Exception

you see, we only have the WH's word that this is so

the Problem arises from this exact Circumstance NOT being reviewed by another branch of the Government( meaning the Judiciary)

our Constitution provides security for our Liberty by requiring more than ONE branch of our Government's say so when it comes to these matters

and the possibility of this being bypassed on only the Executive Branch's say so is NOT satisfactory...by Law and by Definition

nuff said?

Excelsior!

and the press trusted the admin to be straight with them


oops. I bet much information and history was lost as a result. How did it work, as you say. I'm not being confrontational, just curious if you had more in mind.


- temple

Gonzo, no comment on my Marx joke?

Biffle, so it's ok for the government to manipulate the media but not for the media to do its job?
Was the media doing its job when it let the government tell them what to write and what not to write?

You are making the assumption that the people were better off not knowing whatever matters the government told the media not to report. If the government then was anything like it is now it labels way more items as classified than actually are.

My point? Is it better for the people to know what the government is doing or not?
I'd say the former and you seem to be saying the latter if you're going to let the government decide what we can and can't know.

Wow. Hell of a thread. Hats off to Margaret as always. Madam, I love your writing! Bliffle and Gonzo too of course.

ZZ, you're what? 22 years old? That's okay, you'll grow up someday and join the ranks of "us who have been around the block".

Here's mud in your eye!

Margaret: Here is your view of your fellow Americans. "Just read some of the rantings of the cowards who actually believe that terrorists are more dangerous than tyrants." "...they are so overwhelmed with fear..." "...they're so desperate..." to feel safe and secure. "...our fellow Americans whose fear of terrorism is getting the better of them." "...our fellow Americans have had the reason and logic scared right out of them."

Margaret, the terrorists are the potential tyrants who would like to kill us or make us live under their rule, which is true tyranny. You really have it all completely backwards. You call Americans cowards. Cowards who live in fear do one of two things. They run and hide or they kneel down and subjugate themselves to their attackers, hoping to escape further harm.

Think back to 9/11. The first few hours after the WTC was hit by the planes, we were all holding our breath, waiting for more planes to hit NYC or DC. The next few days we were on edge, wondering if more terrorists had truck bombs or some other means of attack ready to hit NYC or some other city. Yes, it was scary. A person would have to be crazy not to feel some fear of what else might happen.

But, in the meantime, what were the people you call cowards doing? I remember firemen with 80 pound packs on their backs climbing the stairs of the WTC to save people. I remember law enforcement people from all agencies rushing to the scene by any means they could find. I remember people lining up to donate blood and all medical people getting to their hospitals, many of them crossing the city on foot, to be there in case they were needed.

And what were your cowards across the country doing? Hiding in fear? Staying away from cities and refusing to fly on planes? HELL, NO! They loaded their cars and trucks and vans with food and bottled water, boots, socks, gloves, face masks and anything else the workers might need and flowed into NYC by the thousands. They volunteered to haul debris away from the site and sifter through every inch of it, recovering personal effects of victims and even body parts to be DNA tested.

They brought in body sniffing dogs and climbed through that dangerous pile of wreckage for weeks. They manned food stations and rest areas for workers 24 hours a day.

The rest of us, who couldn't be there with them, were with them in spirit and donated whatever we could to help out. And what were we thinking? Were we "so overwhelmed with fear" that we were willing to give up our freedom for safety? NO, Margaret- we were thinking, "Those dirty bastards can not do this to America and get away with it. We want to kill the SOB's."

When anyone calls MY fellow Americans cowards who are willing to give up anything because the live in such fear of terrorists, it makes me angry. The more I think about it the angrier I get. I still have the picture in my mind of those brave people working on that pile of rubble they called Ground Zero. To have those people called cowards makes me sick to my stomach.

You can preach all day about your abstract ideas of freedom and tyranny. You can say "...we have a responsibility to help them remember the courage of those who came before us and fought for the freedom they are now taking for granted because of their fear" What a load of Bull!

Those who came before us weren't thinking about abstract ideas. They had British Red Coats keeping them under the rule of a king who demanded they kneel down and accept his rule in a land they were already working and dying for. So our forefathers picked up their guns and shot the MFers.

Do you really think the Americans I know are living in fear of these idiot terrorists. No, we have put up with them long enough-it's time to put a stop to them.

Do you think we are like you, living in fear of some pissant politicians who overstep the line sometimes? Do you really think any of them are smart enough or strong enough to become a tyrant? Do you really think all Americans are so stupid they would let something like that happen? Do you really think you are so wise that spouting slogans like, "Give me liberty or give me death." is an "...inspirition for our fellow Americans whose fear of terrorism is getting the better of them"? I don't think so!

If you want to know about fear, here is a fact for you. Every soldier who goes into battle is scared shitless. And when the battle comes, there is nobody braver than an American soldier because they do their job no matter how scared they are. And when the damned politicians get out of their way, there is no battle they can't win. Are these the American cowards you are going on about?

All I can say is you are SO wrong, wrong, wrong! Well, I was going to say something else, like you need to get your head out of your ass, but I won't say that.

SonnyD...

nice rant...sort of

but you make one HUGE mistake in your prime Postulate

you see, Margaret is NOT calling Americans cowards

she is clearly stating that the desire to give up civil Liberties for a false sense of "security" is cowardly behavior

can ya see the difference?

can we Agree that such is the case? that it takes more to be Free, and to take your chances, than to live under the yoke of a Big Brother style system...which will NOT increase our safety...merely make it easier for U.S. to forget WHY we stand up and Fight

you are tilting at the wrong windmill, save your venom for those who would attack us...and those who would take what so many have fought so hard for so long to preserve

"Know your Enemy"....it ain't the likes of Margaret

Excelsior!

SonnyD sez: "Do you think we are like you, living in fear of some pissant politicians who overstep the line sometimes? Do you really think any of them are smart enough or strong enough to become a tyrant?"

Uhhh, with the help of folks like you, yes!

Sonny, you seem to be the type of person willing to step over a dollar to pick up a dime. Willing to let the Roves of the world convince you that safer at any cost is worth the sacrifice.

You SHAME the very folks you hold up as examples of bravery and courage when you side with those ready to reduce the freedoms of Americans in the name of "safety" and "security".

This debate isn't about the first responders to 9-11, it's about the hundreds of thousands who have died to make America a shining light of personal freedom from oppression and tyranny.

Please, think about who you attack here. You are going after someone advocating the concept of refusing to let the terrorists change our way of life, refusing to let them cow us into a reduction of civil liberties in order to address the threat of terrorism.

You are attacking a patriot of the highest order, and it saddens me to see someone with at least half a brain convincing themselves that Margaret's words are somehow an affront to the bravery of firemen, here in America, or damn near anywhere else in the world.

Back off, take a deep breath, and try to remember the principles and strengths that the founders of this country held most dear.

Liberty, Justice, Honor, Courage.

Not "safety and security no matter the cost".

You are confused, and young, and in need of an education. But you seem to have patriotic leanings, so there is hope.

My young padawan...

Aaman sez...
*My young padawan...*

best....line...of..the..NewYear

..:::bows, hand over fist:::..

i am in Awe

Excelsior!

Thanks Gonzo:)

"Of the New Year, best line it was."

oh yeah...Scott...it was a smiler

and i tend to go with your assessment here, it's the Press' job to find shit out

now, during War time, or in matters of Intelligence i do agree they have a certain Responsibility towards the public good...but it IS a Free Press, so THEY decide...and live with the Accountability for their actions...it takes balls to do the Job justice

Excelsior!

Or to put it another way there is a huge
difference between what Biffle calls
"manipulation" and handing info to the enemy
and getting information from the government
and reporting on it.

Do you think the government argued against
sharing about the torture going on during
this war? You bet they did.

Does that endanger national security? I'm sure
that was the argument but a year since then,
with support for the war dropping, you'd be
hard pressed to argue that national security
was violated by sharing with the world that
the soldiers and contractors fighting the
war are not angels.

There's a reason the news media is called
the fourth estate and not an arm of government
propaganda and when I see pieces like this
suggesting the media is abdicating its
responsibility when it is actually doing
exactly what it is designed to do - report
the news - it makes me sick.

Wow, Gonzo and Bennett, for a couple of guys who are , I'm guessing, well educated, above average intelligence and informed about current events, you sure can jump to some wrong conclusions and make some really bad assumptions.

First, I would guess(again, just guessing)Margaret is probably quite capable of defending herself. She certainly is capable of putting down anyone who doesn't agree with her brand of paranoia. Then, Gonzo, you jump in to tell me what she said or didn't say. Well, maybe you know her well enough to feel you know what she really meant, but, darn it I can read pretty good and your translation is not what she actually wrote.

She was quite explicit about labeling anyone who isn't accusing the government of treasonous acts a coward of the worst order. She didn't say there are some people who behave in this way. If she had, I suppose I would, sadly, have to agree with her. But, fortunately, very few people fall into this category. So few, in fact, that they can be ignored.

Why do you insist on seeing an either/or world? I refuse to agree that "...freedom is a most decidedly uncomfortable state." Are you saying, that in order to protect our civil rights we must accept the premise that we must leave ourselves open to more terrorist attacks? Is the only option to protect ourselves in exchange for the loss of our civil rights? I refuse to accept the idea that we must settle for one or the other.

I also refuse to be stampeded into accusing any president of trying to overthrow our constitution and set himself up as some kind of dictator on the basis of one news report.

As a matter of fact, we have never had a president that I would have accused of that. And there have been some that I really didn't like.

Yes, Gonzo, I know it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. I don't put a lot of trust in any individual politician, but, stop and think, we elected all those people who are supposed to be looking out for our best interests. What's wrong with giving them the benefit of the doubt at least until we have some proof that they are intentionaly trying to do us harm. There is enough evil in the world that we know we need to protect ourselves from. We should at least have a little trust in a system of government that has served us pretty well so far.

And, no, this country is not full of cowards demanding that we give up our liberties in exchange for safety.

unfortunatley sonny, some get so bound up in minutia, they sadly cannot "see the forest for the trees"...

Let the wild-eyed baseless conspiracy theories commence!

Oy,Oy,Oy!

Oh, and by the way, the press' job is to make money, just like the rest of us.

As a former reporter I can tell you my job was not to "make money" but to get and report the news.

Scott, as a former magazine editor, I can tell you that it was the editor's job to make sure the news you reported made money for your employers and that you covered the profit producing news first and most completely.

Dave

I do think SonnyD has a worthwhile point here. The inclination to turn everything into a conspiracy and place blame first and never give anyone in government the benefit of the doubt really is getting out of control.

The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but it takes a hell of a lot more than a few paving stones to make a complete road, and regardless of what you think of their politics, the people running this country right now do have consciences and are genuinely trying to do what they think is right.

Demonizing and mindlessly attacking them does no one any good.

Dave

touching one base here to complete my Thought

i don't quite think some folks(in our Government) are out to intntionally do us either harm nor good

i think they are in it for their own Reasons, and pursue those..if that co-incides with what is actually good for the People, great..

but more often than not, such is not the case..IMO

hence my distrust of those who would intentinally seek Power

Excelsior!

Dave: That may be true at magazines but it was not true at the newspapers I worked at. But then I usually covered local government so it wasn't exactly an area advertisers wanted to tread.

The only time as a reporter I saw editors faced with pushy advertisers - or speaking of picking a story based on an advertiser - the idea was shot down by the editor.

(It was the owner of a gym who said he wanted to kick my ass because I wrote a trend piece on gyms without mentioning his place by name. My editor asked him to step into his office - which was the outside patio - ok, an alleyway, this was a weekly mind you - and then shut the door behind the guy, locked it and came back inside.)

But again maybe I was just lucky that way.


Now publishers are a whole nother ball of wax.

But I digress. Let me ask the question this way:
Do you really think they will get more or less advertisers in the New York Times or U.S. News based on what they report about torture or other wartime problems?

I've never worked as a reporter, but I've worked at some other jobs and I'd guess that one of the first things a reporter does, just like other employees, is try to figure out what his boss wants and what will get him a raise. First of all, the boss wants stories from the reporter, because it shows the guy is working and trying, and because the Boss needs stories to have any chance at all of selling papers. So you gotta write SOMETHING: it just won't do to say "sorry boss; no news today". Second, you need interesting stories that will get peoples attention.

So here sits our poor forlorn political reporter trying to tap out a story. Probably won't do just to re-type a story from the AP wire, he's not just a stenographer. He needs 'sources'. If he finds powerful authorative sources, like Scooter Libby, he gets a lot of scoops but is in danger of being manipulated. But he still has to file a story TODAY, so he's taking a risk. And if he doesn't have top sources he has to look for low sources: a disgruntled employee, a whistleblower, etc. The devil finds work for idle hands!

So you're on the horns of a dilemna: propaganda or scandal.

A smart administration, IMO, would seek to preempt the harmful gossip by feeding their reporters good stuff, with just a modicum of propaganda, as befits the guys in charge. Indeed, this is one of the marks statecraft: partnering with the press. And it must be a partnership not a dominance, for the simple reason that it's difficult if not impossible to dominate the press. When you do that you drive them into scandal and gossip because that reporter must file SOME story today!

If I were King I would give thought and effort to cultivating the press, because bad press can bring you down more surely than coups and revolts. Just ask Nick Dixon, or whoever that watergate guy was.

And not just to trick the press. When you do that you betray an important relation with the readers, otherwise known as voters or taxpayers or citizens, and risk alienation.

I think this admin has limited statecraft intelligence and that they made a beginners mistake here: they tried to dominate rather than partner, and now they are suffering the bitter fruit of that strategy. they are the authors of their own discomfort. they have little resource to fall back on.

In a sense the press is willing to prostitute itself to the powerful (they do it all the time so it must be true) but they expect quid pro quo in the same medium. But they expect honorable use to be made of that. So you can't blame the press for what it reports. The admin has the tools in it's own hands to drive the news. they have the initiative. But if they misuse that initiative to merely dominate the press it will inevitably backfire and cause them pain.

My my, where to start? And is it even worth the effort? Why, of course it is -- especially since gonzo and Bennet have already done the heavy lifting with their usual eloquence (thank you, gentlemen).

SonnyD, mere terrorists are not capable of tyrannizing us (unless they can manage to invade the U.S. and take over our government, which is a laughable notion at best), you give them far too much credit.

Indeed, cowards run and hide, sometimes to the proverbial sanctuary under their beds and sometimes into the protective arms of the tyrants who promise to keep them safe -- for a price, of course.

The same sort of cowards who "kneel down and subjugate themselves to their attackers, hoping to escape further harm" are the same sort of cowards as those who are willing to submit to tyranny because, under the spell of fear, it is a matter of which option (submitting to the attacker or subjugating oneself to the protector) is most immediately available.

Cowards need comfort and they don't care where it comes from, as long as they get it. Right now.

In order to protect our civil rights, we must be willing to preserve them at all costs while accepting that doing so may leave us open to terrorism. This is why America is the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

But that does not mean that we are left without any effective options to reduce the threat of terrorism, only that we must work harder (the slothful often prefer tyranny as much as the cowardly) to think of ways to try and prevent terrorism without sacrificing our civil liberties.

Now, that limitation might not make us as safe as some believe sacrificing a few of our civil liberties would, but that's the price of freedom.

A good number of my fellow Americans are suffering from cognitive dissonance with regard to freedom and safety. Even the usually ultra-liberal ACLU has it!

This form cognitive dissonance makes people rationalize that they can have both freedom and safety at the same time when that is simply not possible.

Either we're serious about our safety or we are not. If we want to be truly safe, then we must sacrifice all of our civil liberties to that cause.

Some people say that the Patriot Act goes too far, but really it doesn't go nearly far enough.

Some people say that Mr. Bush went too far when he allegedly ordered the NSA to spy on Americans without first obtaining the proper FISA warrants, but really, he didn't allegedly go far enough.

If we really want to be safe from terrorists and to feel as secure and comfortable as we did before September 11, 2001, then we ought to be demanding that Mr. Bush declare martial law and suspend the Constitution until further notice.

Of course, there are probably very few Americans who are that cowardly, thus the cognitive dissonance and the subsequent wild contrivances of some mythical balance that can be struck between our security and our civil liberties.

This is one of those instances in which we cannot "have it all." Freedom or safety, liberty or tyranny, our principles or our posteriors. Decide.

Terrorists don't need to do tyrrany - our government does that to us and for us on a regular basis.
Remove our rights? They've done it.
Make us think we should thank them for taking away our civil liberties? They've done it.

Margaret:
As for declaring martial law, I can't tell if you are being serious or not but on the chance that you are what would that really get us?

If they want to stop terrorists from attacking the nation how will taking away more liberties of
non-terrorist Americans help?
And wouldn't that make us more like the nations
of the terrorists in the first place?

Biffle, I think you're spot on with your last two paragraphs.

As for the earlier part I personally - and Temple and Dave and other current and former journalists are encouraged to chime in - havve never worked at a publication where I was able to get a raise as the result of doing a story or set of stories.
There is a standard stereotype I hear that journalists somehow benefit from increases in circulation due to a particularly well-read story and it's just not that way. Or never has been for me.
I used to have a standard response to that.
When I'd write a story that made people on a city council or school board mad they'd threaten to cancel their subscription and I'd basically tell them politely to go right ahead. Didn't bug me.

In fact the newspaper I was at for the last eight years I came in at the top of the company pay scale - 36,000, which is a lot in that industry - and so there was no real way to move up due to a particular story or series.

All that said, did I want to produce lots of stories? Sure. I averaged about two stories a day for about 14 years. Did I rely on some sources more than others? sure. Did I let them talk me out of stories? I can count on my hands the number of times a story of mine was killed and it usually had nothing to do with anything said by sources.

My assertions with regard to martial law and the Patriot Act not going far enough were intended as examples of how far we must go in sacrificing our civil liberties if we want to be truly safe from terrorism.

But hardly anybody wants to go that far to make us truly safe, so why should anyone (other than those few people who have had all reason scared right out of them) argue in favor of sacrificing any of our civil liberties for the sake of our safety?

I have tried to find the nuances and gray areas with regard to "freedom and safety" but there are none.

I choose freedom.

Oh I see. Well, I choose freedom too then.

But is this a straw man argument? Is anyone going to really not choose freedom at least when you put it that way?

Actually, my first thought was that it is a slippery slope, but it is also a straw man.

Freedom is not the pragmatic choice if we want to ensure our security -- we really would be much safer from terrorism if martial law was declared and the Constitution suspended -- so it is a difficult position to defend logically.

However, the choice between freedom and safety itself is a false dichotomy as there are many ways to fight terrorism without suspending civil liberties. That is the fallacy of the Patriot Act.

But there is something else at work here besides the application of reason. The preservation of principles is not always a logical process because principles are not the products of cold, mechanical pragmatism, but our warm-blooded consciences, which is what separates us from beasts (though that line of distinction can often be rather blurry).

People who are willing to die -- or take the risk of it -- for their principles are not acting rationally because it is contrary to the natural instinct of self-preservation.

It is this natural instinct (which is, biologically speaking, quite logical) that causes people to abandon higher thinking in favor of what is most expedient to satisfying that need. Thus the eschewing of principles for the sake of safety.

But we are not beasts, which is why we have principles in the first place. It comes down to a matter of having the courage of one's convictions to rise above our base nature.

So perhaps the choice is one of whether we are frightened animals operating on instinct or thinking creatures with a sense of history and providence.

Margaret: "However, the choice between freedom and safety itself is a false dichotomy as there are many ways to fight terrorism without suspending civil liberties. That is the fallacy of the Patriot Act.
"

Yes!!

well Bliffle...welcome to the Margaret Romao Toigo Fan Club!!

gotta luv a paleocon that argues like a Jesuit!

..:::falls on knees and kowtows 3 times while chanting:::..

"we're not worthy"

Excelsior!

Wait, you have a fan club? What do we get when we join? A decoder ring so we can better understand the world?

And you are right - it is also a slippery slope.

I'll take some freedom with a righteousness chaser, plus a small plate of glorious struggle on the side.

Dave

Washington needs to step up to the plate and take the gloves off with respect to MSM's apparent mission to stoop to new depths in order to throw obstacles in front of the FBI, the NSA, the CIA and this Administration.

You mean Washington hasn't done that yet? Seriously, I take a different view on this story and issue, but I enjoyed this piece and the verve and passion with which it was written.

This piece has been chosen as a Blogcritics.org Editor's Pick of the Week, Celery Sticks and the Post-New Year Story Cornucopia edition, congrats!

You've just earned yourself the right to nominate your favorite story (for the period of 1/4 - 1/10) for next week's Editors' Picks column. List the link, the story title, and the author in the comments area of this week's column, and of course tell us why it deserves to be honored!

Thanks and congrats again ~ EB

Who was it that said "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance"? Some troublemaker, no doubt. We should tap his line and hunt him down, along with his scurilous friends.

Obviously I disagree - and I think most people to as well - that the MSM has such an "apparent mission" as this:

Washington needs to step up to the plate and take the gloves off with respect to MSM's apparent mission to stoop to new depths in order to throw obstacles in front of the FBI, the NSA, the CIA and this Administration.


Besides, to what end would the media do this?

I'll come back and read the comments a little later. I just wanted ot make a couple of comments on the story itself.

Everybody knows the NYT has a political agenda. I think the problem is really that their are people at the NSA and FBI and CIA that have political agendas as well. Those are the people that the justice department needs to go after.

There is a whistle blower procedure in place in our gov't and these guys are supposed to use it. They choose not to use it, IMO, because they have a political agenda and for no other reason. and it actually could be considered treason...and treason in a time of war is a very bad thing...

Doesn't it depend on how you define an agenda and whether it is always bad.

Everyone is subjective and has certain goals so it can be argued everyone has "an agenda."

The agenda of most journalists is to find out the news and report it. That makes people mad.

Often that means especially making mad the rich upper class - who tend to be Republican - who don't want to be reported on.

Comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable is the old mantra of many journalists and it's not a bad one. Is it an agenda? Sure. Does it mean those reporters
or the New York Times has a "political agenda"?
I don't buy it.


Who is the New York Times journalist - now former journalist - who made the most headlines this year?
Give up... Judy Miller. And why do some - including me - attack her regularly in media columns? Because she did sloppy poorly attributed news stories about events that led up to the war?
Basically she was accused - even by Maureen Dowd and others at the Times - of acting as a transcriber for the Bush administration, serving as a cheerleader of sorts who helped get initial public support for the war.

So based on Miller a good argument could be made that if the NYT has a political agenda it is one that is Pro-Bush.

But I'm guessing that is not the political agenda you are suggesting, just as I'd guess you probably would rather attack the NYT than, say, the political agenda of Fox News.

The NYT is Pro-Bush? Could you pass that bong over here please? I need a little of whatever it is your smoking!

Read and respond to the rest of what I said instead of just the last paragraph please.

Put another way the typical allegation that the Times is obvious politically biased is a simplistic cliche. I responded by saying if we're going to be simplistic two can play at that game.
Everyone is political and everyone has an agenda or bias. That's not the question - it is what is done with it that matters.
Do you not think Fox news has an agenda? The author of this piece? You? So should we not trust any of you?

I'd say it depends on what that agenda is...if it's to derail a presidency then no. I'm not gonna trust it.

I read everything you wrote in that comment, but it all got whiped out by that one line. I agree with the premise that we all have an agenda and I also agree with what you say about it being what we do with that agenda...

so...Miller was put in jail because she was a scribe for the white house??? You would think if she was such a staunch WH supporter she'd be able to pick up a job at FoxNews or some other Murdoch outlet...and she surely would have told the JD who told her about Plame...no?

As far as who you trust and who you don't...that's entirely up to you. I personally put no faith in anything the NYT publishes, especially if it has Dowd's or any other editorial writers name on it.

lastly...it may be simplistic...but I'm a simple kinda guy!

ok Andy...ya want "simplistic"

answer this one Honestly..

Andy sez...
*...if it's to derail a presidency then no. I'm not gonna trust it.*

sooOOOOooOOOOooo did ya trust Fox News, Limbaugh etc when they were trying to "derail" slick Willie?

and Miller was sent ta jail fer Contempt...if ya followed the Story, and looked up the facts...she WAS just taking whatever Scooter fed her and printing it, the NYT has covered it and aired it's own dirty laundry in the process

now...ya wanna re-think yer statements, or am i gonna hafta get all Jesuit on yer bad self?

Excelsior!

I think the only reason Judy Miller hasn't gotten a job with Fox is she's too busy writing her tell-all and besides Robert Novak took her spot when he left CNN for Fox.

I think the only reason Judy Miller hasn't gotten a job with Fox is she's too busy writing her tell-all and besides Robert Novak took her spot when he left CNN for Fox.

gonzo - I don't listen to rush...limbaugh anyway...and I rarely watch foxnews...

That does seem ot be the prevailing comment around here though...whenever I badmouth the NYT someone comes back with the rush/hannity/foxnews argument and it doesn't work with me...I would hav