[LEFT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=5][B][SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Interesting article. In South Africa we've seen for years that the Bush Administration is full of shit. I wonder how many American's still support them after all their disasters and incompetence.

--

[/SIZE] [/SIZE]Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not [/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT] [LEFT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2][B][URL="http://www.miami.com/"]http://www.miamiherald.com/[/URL]

[/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/LEFT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]What is there to say now?[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2][I][EMAIL="rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com"]rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com[/EMAIL]

[/I][/SIZE][/FONT]

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

Delerious, Why are you so anti-American? We've done so many good things for people over our history to help other countries. We have a Millennium fund to help poor countries, give billions for AIDS victims in Africa, and Americans give money and time through various organizations to help the less fortunate around the world.

What has your country done? When I think of South Africa, I think of a country with deep racial problems.

I think you like many others outside of the U.S. has bought into the anti-American, left wing propaganda. Perhaps you should re-think the "news" you're getting in South Africa and do some indepedent thinking.

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

[quote=superdave]Delerious, Why are you so anti-American? We've done so many good things for people over our history to help other countries. We have a Millennium fund to help poor countries, give billions for AIDS victims in Africa, and Americans give money and time through various organizations to help the less fortunate around the world.

What has your country done? When I think of South Africa, I think of a country with deep racial problems.

I think you like many others outside of the U.S. has bought into the anti-American, left wing propaganda. Perhaps you should re-think the "news" you're getting in South Africa and do some indepedent thinking.[/quote]

Please explain how being anti-Bush is anti-American - I've never got this! Are people anti-American when they don't have the same political standpoints as you?

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

[quote=superdave] I think you like many others outside of the U.S. has bought into the anti-American, left wing propaganda. Perhaps you should re-think the "news" you're getting in South Africa and do some indepedent thinking.[/quote]

Bingo

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

[quote=BSully828]Bingo[/quote]

Funny how the news I was quoting was from the Miami Herald! I guess they're anti-American too! :lol::lol::lol:

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

well he had to do something after 9/11.. someone had to pay for their two most popular buildings falling.

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

Yes, the print media mostly is a liberal, Bush hating group that at times could be characterized as anti-American too.

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

[quote=superdave]Yes, the print media mostly is a liberal, Bush hating group that at times could be characterized as anti-American too.[/quote]

Can you point to just one example of this so-called "anti-American" writing by the US print media? I keep hearing about it... perhaps you could show it to me...!

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

I would like to ask a question.

Why do people support GWB and his administration?

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

[quote=dig72]I would like to ask a question.

Why do people support GWB and his administration?[/quote]

Because some people see the world in a different light than you.

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

[QUOTE=superdave]Yes, the print media mostly is a liberal, Bush hating group that at times could be characterized as anti-American too.[/QUOTE]

That is some grade A bullshit mate. You seem to disregard the fact that the people that hate Bush and/or his policies love the US just as much as you: you can't claim to love a country more than a group of people with a different viewpoint. Everyone wants what he or she thinks is best for the country for his or her own viewpoint.

How come you are willingly letting your president violate your rights, where it is not necessary to do so to make your environment a bit more secure? Do you suddenly have so little faith in your constitution and laws that you discard them that easy just for a little bit more safety?

Like Steinback said: you've been through too much to let yourselves be ridiculed into this situation by one man. The US has been strong in the past, but is indeed acting as if in panick right now. You yourself have not made the impression on me of letting yourself being arsed around Dave, and I don't think you're stupid in any way either: wouldn't you prefer a little more sober approach to the whole situation in which people really assess what is necessary to cope with the threat? A 6 month period could've been long enough for the partiot act to stay in place and give your govt some time to develop or alter instruments that are necessary to keep you safe. But maybe it had more to do with the attitude of some key people that had the info and could've warned for what was coming if they had done their job and matched the pieces of the puzzle. I don't think your laws were that insufficient at all, to be honest. I think it's more about the people themselves that are in charge of your safety bro...

My personal opinion is that when necessary, my govt should review the laws and instruments it has to catch them, but in the end i'll take a little insecurity over safety man.

My personal freedom is too dear to me to give it up ;)

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

[quote=Yao]That is some grade A bullshit mate. You seem to disregard the fact that the people that hate Bush and/or his policies love the US just as much as you: you can't claim to love a country more than a group of people with a different viewpoint. Everyone wants what he or she thinks is best for the country for his or her own viewpoint.

How come you are willingly letting your president violate your rights, where it is not necessary to do so to make your environment a bit more secure? Do you suddenly have so little faith in your constitution and laws that you discard them that easy just for a little bit more safety?

Like Steinback said: you've been through too much to let yourselves be ridiculed into this situation by one man. The US has been strong in the past, but is indeed acting as if in panick right now. You yourself have not made the impression on me of letting yourself being arsed around Dave, and I don't think you're stupid in any way either: wouldn't you prefer a little more sober approach to the whole situation in which people really assess what is necessary to cope with the threat? A 6 month period could've been long enough for the partiot act to stay in place and give your govt some time to develop or alter instruments that are necessary to keep you safe. But maybe it had more to do with the attitude of some key people that had the info and could've warned for what was coming if they had done their job and matched the pieces of the puzzle. I don't think your laws were that insufficient at all, to be honest. I think it's more about the people themselves that are in charge of your safety bro...

My personal opinion is that when necessary, my govt should review the laws and instruments it has to catch them, but in the end i'll take a little insecurity over safety man.

My personal freedom is too dear to me to give it up ;)[/quote]

I agree that personal freedom and privacy are really important and respect your opinion. It simply makes sense to me that the government should perform surveillance on suspected terrorists that may be planning attacks. And there may be situations where obtaining a warrant could prohibit the government from doing its job. In those situations, I agree the government should take all necessary actions when necessary as given the rights by Congress to the Executive branch in 2001 after 9/11. However, the government should attempt to use FISA and respect indivduals rights when its able to do so.

I do have a couple of issues regarding the surveillance without warants. First, if the spying has been going on since 2002 then proper legislation should've been passed in the past 3 years to give the NSA proper authority to conduct such searches. Second, what type of oversight is being done independently of the NSA to insure that the NSA isn't abusing its authority to spy on non-terrorist suspects?

Finally, I'd like to mention what's happening with the New York Times, the Bush administration and leaks? First, we have this Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson, Scooter Libby CIA outage incident which is really confusing. And now we have the revelation the NY Times sat on the NSA spying story since 2002 at request of the administration. Something doesn't seem right with the Bush Administration or the NY Times regarding these leaks.

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

The Bush administration is counting on us to argue about our liberties and foreign policy. It's been proven since 9/11 to be the most effective method of taking the American people's attention away from a presidency whose domestic policy has been riddled with failure. Does anyone honestly think he would've been elected for a second term had we not been in the middle of a war that he started? A war-time president whose doing his job wins the second term election by a landslide, not by hinging on the votes of a single state in circumstances eerily similar to a previous election that was all but proven to be rigged.

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

9/11 alone was a test to the American people. Which America failed. Not only did we start breaking are own constitutional rights. We attacked a country to further prove the terrorists right of our wrong ways. Violence is just going to cause more violence and America has increased the amount of terrorism by using violence to try to stop it. What happened to the America that was about defending and keeping the peace.

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

it god pwned by gun-toting rednecks.

What I love now is that 65% of the republicans in senate are now 'moderate' republicans and are sick of Bush's bullshit.

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

osama want to take away your freedom, and Bush helped him do it. osama wants to recruit more people, bush helped him do it by invading Iraq. who's side is he on anyway?

Re: Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not

[QUOTE=superdave]I agree that personal freedom and privacy are really important and respect your opinion. It simply makes sense to me that the government should perform surveillance on suspected terrorists that may be planning attacks. And there may be situations where obtaining a warrant could prohibit the government from doing its job. In those situations, I agree the government should take all necessary actions when necessary as given the rights by Congress to the Executive branch in 2001 after 9/11. However, the government should attempt to use FISA and respect indivduals rights when its able to do so.[/quote]

I agree on that dude.

[QUOTE=superdave]I do have a couple of issues regarding the surveillance without warants. First, if the spying has been going on since 2002 then proper legislation should've been passed in the past 3 years to give the NSA proper authority to conduct such searches. Second, what type of oversight is being done independently of the NSA to insure that the NSA isn't abusing its authority to spy on non-terrorist suspects?[/quote]

Good question, and though I do not live in the states, I've gotten an image of the NSA as pretty much uncontrolled. I don't know if this is true, but I'm pretty sure those guys have a lot of power, and are willing to go against democratic values or legislation if they think it is necessary to do so.

[QUOTE=superdave]Finally, I'd like to mention what's happening with the New York Times, the Bush administration and leaks? First, we have this Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson, Scooter Libby CIA outage incident which is really confusing. And now we have the revelation the NY Times sat on the NSA spying story since 2002 at request of the administration. Something doesn't seem right with the Bush Administration or the NY Times regarding these leaks.[/QUOTE]

Man, that totally suprised me: a newspaper actually withholding such info on the administration's request. They must've known it was a timebomb, for sure. Usually it's the papers making scoops with news like that, so what the hell is going on?