I Will Not Go Quietly!

So much has been said already on this thread.

Holland is libralism incarnate, yet since 9/11 the police can, and do, hold "spot controls" of vehicles, and I can tell you, if they happen to find anything at all, you're busted. All in the name of Bush's T.W.A.T.! 

We are now legally obliged to carry some form of ID, although a driver's licence is sufficient. Should compulsory ID cards be introduced, with all the possibilities of global tracking, then I'm going underground. Yes, I will be a dissident. I refuse to be treated like a criminal, all in the name of Bush's T.W.A.T.!

All those controle freaks in power are rubbing their hands together with more than a little glee. Every bombing brings them one step closer to the totalitarian state they long for. This is a Prog site, so I'll give the last word to Hawkwind....

Computers are abused, school records are fed,

The police are checking on what you said.

The number of your car is fed into a box,

Your journey's being checked, it's a paradox.

Duplicate forms and ID cards are next in line to disregard.

Future generations are relying on us

It's a world we've made......Incubus.

Edited by emdiar

The most thorough research on the subject of the current terrorism activity and threat (20 years of research - look it up on the Times site) concludes that terrorist acts directed towards the majority of western democracies including, UK and USA are because of western troops active in the Arabian peninsula. When US and Israeli troops pulled out of Lebanon, Hezbolah gradually ceased to be a functioning terrorist organisation and entered into the political arena instead.

Many of the suicide bombers are from middle class origin, well educated and have only been recruited within weeks or months before commiting the atrocity. Most of them do it because they are so angry about western troops being on land which they consider to be 'sacred' to them. Islamic acts of faith and purity requires that you do not indulge in or are defiled by impurity. (This is understandable) They do not appreciate people (soldiers) that come from a country that spends appx 12 billion dollars a year on pornography, coming to their land in the so called name of freedom, justice and honour. Remember please, that the most sacred land on the Arabian peninsula is Saudi Arabia and US troops have been there for a long time.

You will not defeat a people who are operating on principles of faith. They will fight to the death. In order to understand this we must step outside of our own comfort zones and narrow viewpoints and try to picture ourselves as we might consider things, given the same set of circumstances as the people we sometimes judge. I am not agreeing with the principles of their faith on which they act nor even their motivation for I am of a different culture, but neither shall I judge now, for there is no man on the face of this earth who can say that, given the right set of circumstances, birth, upbringing, psychological factors, culture etc who can say that they would or would not act a certain way given the situation.

Of all the mistakes the USA made in going into Iraq, the biggest was their complete lack of understanding about the culture and that if you conduct an act of violence, particularly murder of a member of a tribe, there is an edict that whoever is responsible (army, individual, people group etc) can be hunted down till the fifth generation, anywhere at any time until justice is seen to be served. This is part of traditional justice and honor system. Effectively, Vietnam will become nowhere near the curse that Iraq will probably become because of this.

Moderate Moslems are not condoning the terrorist acts, but the recruiting centres are mainly fundamentalist Maddrashs. (Egypt has just taken a hit from terrorists today with over 75 killed - all countries considered 'western' aligned are targets) Pakistan is attempting to do something about their maddrashs by arresting any 'fanatic's - 300 this week. As a consequence there have been violent protests in Pakistan. Thailand is on a state of alert. This is a global problem. It is nationalistic interests that often get us in these binds in the first place.

As for ID cards, they have been under consideration in our country since the 1980s when a labor (not conservative) government tabled it in its own party room but shelved it because of the public backlash. There is little that our governments don't already know about us already, so this will be the end of anonimity, if it wasn't already.

My concern about this is not as much for the present but how all this will be used in the future (soon). Blood type, genetic make up  (basically every intimate detail of our lives) and future governments who may make our current ones appear like kindergarten teachers (although it depends on what your experience of kinder was how you take that)

Unfortunately we have brought a curse on ourselves (western countries) by undertaking dishonorable, unjustified assaults against sovereign nations and we are now stuck with the consequences of it, until an honorable solution can be found to resolve it.


Edited by barbs

James Lee wrote: ^ our civil rights certainly did exist in 1941, and they were violated for the Japanese-Americans. We all know it was wrong and that things like that shouldn't be allowed to happen. Are you helping me prove my point? Thanks.  Have you ever heard that to become your enemy is to lose? If we weren't sure we had a better way of doing things, how could we ever think we deserved to win? So you're really saying that In order to defeat the terrorists, we have to act like the terrorists. Once we've won, we'll be satisfied that we'd rid the world of terrorists...well, except for us. But that will be okay because we're better than them.

C'mon James! That's crazy! You know damn well that the fundamental difference between us and the terrorists is that WE can control our killing extincts through reason and intellect and they can't! We have the ability to say "Ok, we'll kill today, but we won't kill tomorrow." They can't do that! They are bent on a religious dillusion. When are you going to stop thinking were the bad guys for crying out loud!

Oh! And as far as what we did to the Japanese-Americans then was not wrong at the time and nobody was complaining about it 'til now!

Edited by marktheshark

I think I'd prefer to be a free criminal than a safe 'subject'.

Hey James it's not new that every criminal wants to remain free

Now seriously, I always defend civil rights but there's a point in which an utopic seaech for the perfect civil society helps the criminal, I think USA is reaching that point.

Iván

 

James Lee wrote: ^ no need to flail wildly, MtS. I know you are hyper-sensitive to anything that strikes you as liberal, but try to focus...the topic is infringement of civil rights, and our government is guilty...we all know it, it's just that many (including, obviously, those responsible) argue that it is regrettable but called for in wartime. The objections are that the measures are unneccessary, ineffective, and that the 'war' is not enough of an excuse. Are you unmoved by the obvious contradiction that the rights we claim to be fighting for are continually being stripped from us? Do you not recognize the danger in being 'safe at any cost'? Taken on its own terms, without even the parallels in history, the NYC situation is un-American. If you have no love for the ideals of the Constitution, so be it- but don't try to make this purely a partisan issue. What would you have said if it was a Liberal President calling for an 'emergency' confiscation of all personal firearms? BTW Ivan- have you ever heard the catchy US slogan: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns?" A little silly, maybe, but regarding your recent post, I think I'd prefer to be a free criminal than a safe 'subject'.

I'm not "flailing wildly" as you put it James. I'm just keeping this in a historic perspective. The civil liberties you're referring to didn't even exist in 1941 when we were hording off every Japanese-American on the west coast to intern camps.
Now, does this mean we should being doing the same thing now? Not now. But if push comes to shove we may have to. Ever heard the old proverb "To know your enemy is to become your enemy"? In WW II, Patton had to literally become Rommell to defeat him. Sure, it sucks! I'm not saying we should start chopping heads off, but to defeat an enemy, you sometimes have to revert at least for awhile. Sometimes your own civilized ways can defeat you more than your own enemy.

Edited by marktheshark

^ no need to flail wildly, MtS. I know you are hyper-sensitive to anything that strikes you as liberal, but try to focus...the topic is infringement of civil rights, and our government is guilty...we all know it, it's just that many (including, obviously, those responsible) argue that it is regrettable but called for in wartime. The objections are that the measures are unneccessary, ineffective, and that the 'war' is not enough of an excuse.

Are you unmoved by the obvious contradiction that the rights we claim to be fighting for are continually being stripped from us? Do you not recognize the danger in being 'safe at any cost'?

Taken on its own terms, without even the parallels in history, the NYC situation is un-American. If you have no love for the ideals of the Constitution, so be it- but don't try to make this purely a partisan issue. What would you have said if it was a Liberal President calling for an 'emergency' confiscation of all personal firearms?

BTW Ivan- have you ever heard the catchy US slogan: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns?" A little silly, maybe, but regarding your recent post, I think I'd prefer to be a free criminal than a safe 'subject'.


Edited by James Lee

In first place, I must say I have no interest or preference towards any political party in USA because I don't live there, I have reservations respect the war, but still not 100% sure it was not necessary.

So I can talk from a neutral position, USA is far from being a military or dictatorial system, you have more liberties and civil rights than 90% of the countries in the world but want it or not, agree with it or not, you're in the middle of a war, and that's a fact you must accept.

You want to be safe (as possible), well that has a price, you have to resign some civil rights to go in a metro or a bus without being so afraid.

When an attack happens people blame the Government for not taking precautions, but when your Government takes some measures, you're not willing to sacrifice anything.

Don't blame the Government for the cameras or chip implants, if a boy is kidnapped it's better to know where the criminals are taking him, but it's a personal choice, if you don't want it, nobody can force you.

4 or 5 Stores are being robbed as I write this post and at least two persons are being killed, at least the camera leaves a testimony.

Criminality grows everywhere, cameras and chips will be used all around the world, because society needs to protect itself, today some civil rights protect the criminal more than the innocent and that’s ridiculous.

Iván

Ivan:

"Please James we're talking about USA not about the Democratic Campuchea. The Supreme Court and the public opinion would never allow this kind of abuse."

Oh, Ivan!  If only this were true!  You are being either painfully naive or willfully ignorant here (no disrespect intended).  We are already well on our way toward a National ID Card here - and other countries are even further along that road.  London has over 250,000 c/c cameras, with another MILLION planned.  NYC has less than 10,000 - but we are now hearing about plans for tens of thousands more.  People spying on each other?  This is a daily occurrence in the U.S., though you may not hear about it much.  And it is increasing.  There is already widespread use of the Verichip (location device) in pets, and it is now being seriously considered for infants and children with respect to potential abduction.  The logical next step after that?

And you think that "the Supreme Court and public opinion" will have any effect?  It was the Supreme Court that "coronated" our commander-in-thief after the 2000 elections.  And if 69% of the otherwise fairly savvy populace of NYC supports this first quasi-police state action, what on God's earth makes you think they will not "allow" whatever comes next?  Indeed, as long as they are "convinced" by their government-by-fear and the complacent media that feeds them that fear, it is a slam-dunk foregone conclusion that they will accept anything.

James and I are not the only people who can put two and two together and get four.  There are many others, and that number is growing - though far more slowly than it should, and almost certainly not fast enough to overtake the present trend.

Fear.  That is the operative word.  Fear.  It is the ultimate control.  As long as the government continues to play on that fear, feed it, add to it, talk about it, use it as a cudgel and makes sure the media stays complacent, the rapidity with which this country goes down a proto-totalitarian, police state quasi-theocracy will soon make your head spin!!

Peace.

Edited by maani

Seems that I have to answer different posts, but that's OK:

The Doctor:

You say:

^^ Well, if it is discriminatory, so be it.  I have yet to hear of a young white girl blowing up a subway station or flying a plane into a building.  Only the Arabs are doing that.

Have you ever read history?

Baader-Meinhof: German Terrorist group formed April 2, 1968 by Andreas Baader and Ulrike Meinhof (both white of course) attacked several USA and Israel targets, kidnapped planes in support to the Palestinian claims and against USA politics.

Patty Hearst, 19 years old  blonde daughter of Publishing Baron William Randolf Hearst, was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army, but this nice and rich girl was found robbing banks with the SLA and became an activist of the that group. In her case there's the possibility that  she suffered of Stockholm Syndrome and brainwashing, so she was pardoned by Bill Clinton.

On April 9, 1995 a group of USA Citizens bombed the FBI building of Oklahoma City.

So why discriminate if USA has a lot of potential enemies.

If that means we discriminate against Arabs, well that's too bad for them.  Maybe the innocent Arabs will start policing their own if they get tired of the discrimination.  And I don't really care about being fair.  I care about being protected.

Civil Rights are for everybody, and the supresion of any civil right must affect everybody, that's common doctrine in International Courts and USA Supreme Court.

Any law against any ethnic or Religious group is not only discriminatory but puts in movement the machinery that could lead to a genocide. The USA authorities do well in searching everybody and not only the Arab looking people.

Maani wrote:

Ivan: As usual, your legal thinking is faultless.  Except that there is no emergency.  As I noted, both London and Madrid have been hit in this manner, yet neither has instituted such a questionable, if not illegal, tactic.  Yet NYC has not only not been hit (in this manner), but Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly have gone out of their way to make it clear that NYC is not the target of any threat - specified or otherwise.  Thus, the implementation of this tactic is, in the most prima facie sense, illegal under the Fourth Amendment (as well as the NYC Penal Code).

Believe me my friend, I understand and share your concern, democracy is in danger when constitutional rights are broken, maybe not your democracy but part of your citizenship is already in danger.

Until today terrorists have given the first hit so the authorities are one step behind, there's a "de facto" emergency situation in USA when you can expect an attack anywhere at any moment.

The Supreme Court must give their opinion but I'm sure they will consider this as an Emergency situation.

Even though it sounds as a bad joke, nobody is forcing a citizen to be searched, if they don't want to be searched they can take a cab or walk, legally is an impeccable solution. Tell me you are not used to this things, but put both dangers in a scale, life and security are more important than the right to privacy IMO.

James Lee:

Can you assure me that the searching in airports has not worked dissuading terrorists to use more plains as missiles? Since the search started there has been another attack, and that's something IMO.

Ahh, that's because of the protections, you may respond. Okay, then how far would you be willing to go for your safety? How about a national ID card, with failure to carry it at all times and present it upon demand making you liable for indefinite detainment? How about endless intrusive checkpoints like the old USSR used to have- it sure kept their nation from falling, eh? Would you be happy to live in a country where citizens are encouraged to spy on each other and make anonymous calls to the police about your suspicious behavior (I've already been visited by the police due to one such civic-minded and completely unfounded telephone call, and I expect much worse to come).

Please James we're talking about USA not about the Democratic Campuchea. The Supreme Court and the public opinion would never allow this kind of abuse.

Children being scared of the boogeyman does not make them at war with the boogeyman. When was the last time there was a war in which there was only one attack, and then a series of state 'protections' that threaten freedom and democracy more than the unspecified enemy has? How exactly do you feel safer when no US citizen has been harmed as a result of terrorist activity in this country for almost four years now?

Again, you're making a reduction to absurd, the boogeyman is a fantasy, the war against other countries is not, 9/11 was real, and believe me, today is at least a bit more difficult to attack USA like 9/11 thanks to the preventive measures.

Just to end, I don't live in your country, I hate to be searched when I go to USA and wait for hours, but I understand it's necessary.

I don't support any party or Government in USA because I'm not a citizen of your country, but I believe some prevention won't harm you too mucch, there are lives at risk, value that.

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

All:

First, thank you for the depth of your comments (even if I don't agree with all of them), and for the support many of you have offered.  A few quick responses.

Doctor:

Timothy McVeigh was white.  So was Terry Nichols.  So was the Unibomber.  Shall I go on?

NJNetsFan:

I was not comparing the NYPD (with whom I work closely) with the Nazis.  But, as at Nuremberg, the NYPD will only be able to say "We were just doing our jobs."  And that is exactly the problem: law enforcement is not permitted to question the orders they are given, no matter how questionable, lunatic or illegal.  This does not make the average cop a Nazi; it makes those in power (police commissioners, etc.) at best misguided, and at worst proto-totalitarian.

Ivan:

As usual, your legal thinking is faultless.  Except that there is no emergency.  As I noted, both London and Madrid have been hit in this manner, yet neither has instituted such a questionable, if not illegal, tactic.  Yet NYC has not only not been hit (in this manner), but Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly have gone out of their way to make it clear that NYC is not the target of any threat - specified or otherwise.  Thus, the implementation of this tactic is, in the most prima facie sense, illegal under the Fourth Amendment (as well as the NYC Penal Code).

James:

Your post should be required reading for every American citizen. 

Nacho:

The terrorists (assuming there were any...) "won" in the very first days after 9/11 when our government started down the road to the erosion of civil rights, civil liberties and freedom in the name of an illusory "security."  Indeed, the terrorists must be enjoying watching as the Bill of Rights gets shredded little by little - as we slowly come under a "regime" that will become increasingly oppressive and intrusive, just like the one they live under.  Assuming it was Arab terrorists who caused 9/11, their goal was never to Islamicize the U.S. (a virtual impossiblity), but simply to cause us to become increasingly like them: oppressive, proto-totalitarian, quasi-theocratical, etc.

stonebeard and James:

No, there is no coincidence in the second London bombings and the fact that that very day the U.S. Congress was discussing the permanent adoption of much of the Patriot Act.  If everyone would simply put two and two together and get four, it does not take a genius to know that the second bombings (if not the first) had nothing to do with "terrorists."

All:

A dictatorship works when those in power cause everyone to live in constant fear.  That is exactly what is occurring in the U.S.  And they "spin" that fear into more fear.  For example, even after the first London bombings, the average New Yorker rode the subway without so much as a second thought.  I know this because I ride them regularly, and watch and speak with people.  Yet most people, although saddened by the first London bombings, did not "translate" that into fear about the NYC subway system.

By instituting a "police state" action - bag inspection - the government (via its law enforcement agencies) creates a "self-fulfilling prophecy" of fear: there was little or no fear until the tactic was employed, so the tactic becomes an end in itself.  And keep in mind that Commissioner Kelly made it clear that there is no "cut-off" date: this practice will be open-ended.

Let me offer you a few choice quotes by everyone's favorite source of such quotes, George Orwell.  Read them carefully, and consider how they apply to current events, especially in the U.S.

Peace.

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

All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome.

All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them

Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.

Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

To a surprising extent the war-lords in shining armour, the apostles of martial virtues, tend not to die fighting when the time comes. History is full of ignominious getaways by the great and famous.

War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

 

Edited by maani