Maintaining Liberty Is The Hardest Thing to Do (Op/Ed)

Originally posted by jsobecky
Only if one uses your pretzel logic, grimreaper.

no your the one advocating taking away the tools of terrorists. These are all tools of the terrorists. Unfortunately like just about anything, you can use it for good, or for evil. Planes wer used for good (travel) but terrorists used them as a missle. That was a tool for them. That doesn't mean we can ban it. Every tool you use in life, they can use maliciously too. So then it just boils down to civil liberties.

I am up against an attitude of "do nothing until something happens." Reactive vs pro-active.

yes you are, and unless your a psychic thats right 100% of the time, you cant be proactive without destroying the liberties of all. This isn't the movie "Minority Report" and you cant catch criminals before they commit a crime, unless you have proof they are going to commit it like plan documents and phone conversations saying "im going to kill him/her tomorrow". then its pretty set in stone.

I also sense an attitude of "They mean us no harm, what is a terrorist anyway?"

no I know they mean us harm, but guess what, we have to prove that. You dont get to decide who does or doesnt intend us harm until solid documents can prove it. A person accused of terrorism gets the same rights a person accused of murder, rape, or assault does. plain and simple.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Let me explain real slow for you. If I find out that you have made plans to harm my loved ones, I'm going to confront you. And if I catch you in the act of harming my loved ones, I'm going to kill you.

for the first part, if something happens such as a conflict where he gets murdered, your going straight to jail because you had the chance to call the police. If they were in the act, you try to stop them, and killing them may be necessary. But to confront them because they have the plans of doing so, im sorry but i would find you guilty if anything happened to that person, regardless if they were planning it or not. mainy because then it was your choice to either contact the police or deal with it yourself.

We can talk about your civil liberties after they pick up the pieces of your carcass.

Clear enough?

Is it too difficult to extrapolate that to the role of government?

well guess what, its the governments job to provide justice, not you. UNLESS they are attacking some one and in the process of trying to stop them they attack you and try to kill you, you would be going to court for murder. Thats how it works. They are garenteed the right to trial and everything unless you cannot stop them from attacking you and you end up killing them.

Originally posted by jsobecky
If I find out that you have made plans to harm my loved ones, I'm going to confront you. And if I catch you in the act of harming my loved ones, I'm going to kill you.

We can talk about your civil liberties after they pick up the pieces of your carcass.

I have read this entire thread, and by your definition, what you have posted here is not subject to civil liberties and you should be banned and blocked from posting anything else in this forum.

What you have posted here could be interpreted as a terroristic threat. Interesting eh??

Originally posted by subz
Jsobecky, as far as I am aware a website has never killed anyone. A book might have if you hit some one hard enough with it, but the contents of a book never killed anyone.

subz, I have never know of a loaded revolver to jump off a nightstand on it's own volition and kill someone.

See the flaw in your logic?

Originally posted by jsobecky
The proper role of gov't is

It is generally agreed that the most important single function of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
laissez-fairerepublic.com...

I like that quote, notice that no where does it mention "safety".

Neither does it mention websites, the crux of your argument. However, from the same source:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (P.P.N. S., p.519)

Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. You go ahead and keep defending the terrorist's rights, I'll just keep defending my own.

Originally posted by MrPenny
What you have posted here could be interpreted as a terroristic threat. Interesting eh??

I was going to post the exact same thing

Using Jsobecky's expressed viewpoint on terrorist websites that post threats to murder he should be punished, pro-actively, for threatening murder.

Shall I call the thought-police, or should you MrPenny?

Originally posted by jsobecky
subz, I have never know of a loaded revolver to jump off a nightstand on it's own volition and kill someone.

See the flaw in your logic?

I might if we were talking about gun-control. I have expressed my view on gun-control on other threads. Gun ownership is not seen as a civil liberty any where except in the United States. Please start another thread on that and I'll gladly debate it with you.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Neither does it mention websites, the crux of your argument. However, from the same source

It doesnt mention guns either, must you be pedantic?

Originally posted by jsobecky

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (P.P.N. S., p.519)

Why are you quoting your countries Declaration of Independance to me? You also have a Bill of Rights which say that you wont be deprived of your rights without due process of the law:

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. You go ahead and keep defending the terrorist's rights, I'll just keep defending my own.

I dont have to defend a terrorists rights, your government is compelled to by your own Bill of Rights. Until a jury of their peers deems them guilty of a crime they can enjoy the very same rights you do!

Originally posted by jsobecky
subz, I have never know of a loaded revolver to jump off a nightstand on it's own volition and kill someone.

exactly, no gun has ever jumped off the nightstand and killed someone, thats why we arent banning guns. A website never hopped off the internet and killed some one, thats why we arent banning websites. A website may offend some one, but then again, my friend is offended by people hunting and shooting animals...does that mean that we need to ban hunting?

See the flaw in your logic?

ummm...not really...were you making a point here that we all missed because it kind of sounds like you just said that because a gun never jumped off a nightstand on its own and killed some one. Im not sure how that works in your defense though. If anything it works against you because that just shows its not the tool but the person using it. Its not the website but the person posting on it.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Neither does it mention websites, the crux of your argument. However, from the same source:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (P.P.N. S., p.519)

Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. You go ahead and keep defending the terrorist's rights, I'll just keep defending my own.

Yes those rights are defended by the US, and if in court you can prove they either infringed on those rights or were planning to do so with physical proof, then they will get their just punishment. You dont think that any person accused of murder, rape, or assault deserves their rights up to the point of being found guilty? They were also accused of harming people, so why do they get to have their civil liberties?

[edit on 26-5-2006 by grimreaper797]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Let me explain real slow for you. If I find out that you have made plans to harm my loved ones, I'm going to confront you. And if I catch you in the act of harming my loved ones, I'm going to kill you.

We can talk about your civil liberties after they pick up the pieces of your carcass.

Clear enough?

Is it too difficult to extrapolate that to the role of government?

First off, I almost choked on the chicken cattiatore I was cooking while I was away from the computer. I almost choked on it when I read this post! Well, I guess that you don't believe in the justice system that we have in this country, otherwise you would expect a jury of the defendant's peers to try him/her. What I find to be worse, is the wording and how you said what you just did. I honestly find this to be a last resort that you put out there. It is far too full of anger, and I don't really see a passion going with it, unless it is the passion to "win" a debate. Therefore, I suppose you're at the end of what you can use to debate something, after a few failed attempts at making illogical statements slip through without being noticed.

I now see exactly where this slippery slope will take us, when we sacrifice liberty for safety. Who was it that said, we deserve neither once we do that?

Originally posted by MrPenny
I have read this entire thread, and by your definition, what you have posted here is not subject to civil liberties and you should be banned and blocked from posting anything else in this forum.

What you have posted here could be interpreted as a terroristic threat. Interesting eh??

Try to keep up, MrPenny, OK? The term "you" was used figuratively to refer to a terrorist, not to refer to any member here.

Jeezus!

niteboy its actually an example of people in power playing off our emotions and making us believe things that arent true. Because of everything thats been going on jsobecky believe that terrorists dont deserve civil liberties, but murders and rapists do. Niteboy why do you think that is? Its obviously not logical, but something must have caused that. I mean a terrorists is nothing more but a politically/religiously motivated murderer. For some reason though, when they are accused of being a terrorist their rights get taken away...thats pretty dangerous.

Originally posted by grimreaper797 For some reason though, when they are accused of being a terrorist their rights get taken away...thats pretty dangerous.

Very dangerous. We are told who is a terrorist, who isn't a terrorist. At the same time, we are not creating concrete proof. There is no use looking it up in the dictionary, because you can call a lot of criminals terrorists based on the definition. We are in a lot of trouble in this country if this is allowed to go on. Look at all those that were declared terrorists and held up for years without ever touching a court room? Wait til the day, that the terrorist label decides to be stuck on a different group, and how many of us will be caught in the crosshairs!

There will be a day when some good guys are going to be the terrorists unless laws are put in place at the beginning to stop this nonsense.

grimreaper797, it is by design that Jsobecky feels that way. We are in the process of being preconditioned to dump some ones civil liberties on the say so of a politician.

The Control Orders of Great Britain are the pinnacle of this ambition. A sole politician, the Home Secretary, has the authority to deny a British citizen every single civil liberty they're are entitled to by simply signing a document authorizing it.

There is no right to appeal and it can be renewed indefinately. You are denied the freedom to leave your home residence. You cannot see your family unless authorized, you cannot have visitors unless authorized. You cannot use the phone, internet or mail service at all. You have no right to view the evidence used to justify the Control Order. You are denied access to the courts to clear your name. All on the say so of one politician. It's straight from a bad sci-fi movie but this is a very real situation for an undisclosed (surprise surprise!) amount of British citizens.

All this in the name of the War on Terrorism. Why do we allow such blatant abuses of power? Due to Fear. Fear as expressed by the postings of our fellow ATS member, Jsobecky.

[edit on 26/5/06 by subz]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Try to keep up, MrPenny, OK? The term "you" was used figuratively to refer to a terrorist, not to refer to any member here.
Jeezus!

Duh........wait a minute............O.K., caught up. Are you sure you're not a sock puppet for sleeper? Cause he resorts to insults and hostility when called out also.

Anyway......It makes no difference who "you" referred to. "You" made specific violent comments in an attempt to influence someone's opinion. Terrorism is a political activity. Used to advance a political position. You, jsobecky, are a terrorist.

jsobecky, pay no attention to those clicks and beeps next time you pick up your phone...

Seriously, for this conversation to go anywhere I think it needs to start over.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Are you in favor of allowing terrorist websites to thrive in your country?

Just because someone supports Freedom of Speech for all citizens doesn't mean they AGREE with what everyone else is saying. That's the flaw in this argument (and all arguments like this) way back on page 2.

AND

Originally posted by jsobecky
Some here advocate giving terrorists every tool they need to destroy us,

No. They don't. They advocate the same freedoms for everyone, whether or not they agree with them. It seems that you're advocating limiting these freedoms (even though you've spoken to the contrary a few times) because you disagree or feel threatened by what these so-called terrorists are typing...

I doubt that helped, but I tried.

jsobecky, I'll see what I can do about getting you a life preserver... In the meantime, shallow breaths...

Carry on.

thank you BH, just because I say they deserve their rights doesnt mean I agree with their views AT ALL. This just means I believe what our country stands for is worth more then protection against some people who want to do us harm.

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by jsobecky
Only if one uses your pretzel logic, grimreaper.

no your the one advocating taking away the tools of terrorists.

You got that right. So by your logic, you, on the other hand, want to equip them?

I am up against an attitude of "do nothing until something happens." Reactive vs pro-active.

yes you are, and unless your a psychic thats right 100% of the time, you cant be proactive without destroying the liberties of all.

That's not true at all. How does being diligent equate to "destroying the liberties of all"? You are trying to oversimplify, and it doesn't work that way.

I also sense an attitude of "They mean us no harm, what is a terrorist anyway?"

no I know they mean us harm, but guess what, we have to prove that. You dont get to decide who does or doesnt intend us harm until solid documents can prove it. A person accused of terrorism gets the same rights a person accused of murder, rape, or assault does. plain and simple.

grimreaper, how many cigars are you looking for? Who is advocating taking away rights?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
thank you BH, just because I say they deserve their rights doesnt mean I agree with their views AT ALL. This just means I believe what our country stands for is worth more then protection against some people who want to do us harm.

If we take away what our country stands for, the terrorists have already won.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
for the first part, if something happens such as a conflict where he gets murdered, your going straight to jail because you had the chance to call the police. If they were in the act, you try to stop them, and killing them may be necessary. But to confront them because they have the plans of doing so, im sorry but i would find you guilty if anything happened to that person, regardless if they were planning it or not. mainy because then it was your choice to either contact the police or deal with it yourself.

Hah! I am worried about getting arrested? Confrontation takes many forms, sir. You're once again going with your knee-jerk reaction.

And you are worried about anything that might happen to them because I confronted them, yet you don't care if they planned havoc against my loved ones?

grimreaper, you are the one who should move to Afghanistan. Let me buy your ticket. One-way.

We can talk about your civil liberties after they pick up the pieces of your carcass.

Clear enough?

Is it too difficult to extrapolate that to the role of government?

well guess what, its the governments job to provide justice, not you. UNLESS they are attacking some one and in the process of trying to stop them they attack you and try to kill you, you would be going to court for murder. Thats how it works. They are garenteed the right to trial and everything unless you cannot stop them from attacking you and you end up killing them.

What point are you trying to make by stating the obvious?

On the one hand, you don't trust the gov't to do the right thing by protecting our liberties. Now you want me to put my justice in their hands?

Please take one side or the other of the issue.

Originally posted by jsobecky
On the one hand, you don't trust the gov't to do the right thing by protecting our liberties. Now you want me to put my justice in their hands?

Please take one side or the other of the issue.

jsobecky, you seem overly agitated and quite confused. Perhaps taking some time to collect your thoughts would be of benefit?

No one should trust their government to do anything, they are obligated to uphold your rights when they take the oath of office. Justice, on the other hand, is not yours to meter out, it is the courts.

Originally posted by jsobecky
You're once again going with your knee-jerk reaction.

And you are worried about anything that might happen to them because I confronted them, yet you don't care if they planned havoc against my loved ones?

grimreaper, you are the one who should move to Afghanistan. Let me buy your ticket. One-way.

Hmm... knee-jerk reactions. Kettle calling the pot black, yet again. When are we going to get to the simple answer, that taking away liberties is wrong? You've confused yourself in my estimation to the point where you are swinging on both sides. I feel bad, because this is how people are being conditioned to be. Too bad, one day if people that share your opinion succeed, I may be the next terrorist. Just because I like to decide things on my own, and I believe that innocent until proven guilty is the way to go.