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

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
jsobecky, pay no attention to those clicks and beeps next time you pick up your phone...

I thought those were just the noises in my head...

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...

The crux of the argument, at least as I tried to present it, is that I disagree with allowing terrorist websites to flourish here. It seems so self-explanatory.

The argument was then taken to imply that I am against fredom of expression for opinions that I disagree with. I don't. You (figuratively you) can say I hate you jso, you're weird, you dress funny, your country sucks. That's all fine by me. But when Habib emails Ahmed and says the bombs go off at high noon in the mall, I have a bone to pick with you.

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

Carry on.

You're too kind, BH.

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

subz, you are the one who took a sabbatical, remember? Is it getting too hot for you once again?

Remember what the doctor told you... j/k

Originally posted by jsobecky
The crux of the argument, at least as I tried to present it, is that I disagree with allowing terrorist websites to flourish here. It seems so self-explanatory.

So, let me see if I am understanding. You don't mind anyone having websites, as long as they aren't terrorists. The terrorists (whoever they are - and who decides who are the terrorists and who aren't?) shouldn't be allowed to have websites?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
The crux of the argument, at least as I tried to present it, is that I disagree with allowing terrorist websites to flourish here. It seems so self-explanatory.

So, let me see if I am understanding. You don't mind anyone having websites, as long as they aren't terrorists. The terrorists (whoever they are - and who decides who are the terrorists and who aren't?) shouldn't be allowed to have websites?

Almost, BH. Anyone has the right to have a website. When they use those websites to plot harm against us, then they lose that right, imo. At least on our soil.

As far as the definition of a terrorist, nobody here has defined it yet. I did say to SO in the first page or two of this thread that without definitions and guidelines, this is nothing more than academic banter. I believe I said it twice.

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

if that means that letting them use the same documents I can then yea. You and I cant deem whos a terrorist and who isnt. No one but the courts can, so guess what. If you want to take away the tools of a terrorist, nobody can use them because everyone is a suspected terrorist. Terrorism isnt a physical trait that you can identify and stop them at the entrance.

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.

In order to stop terrorists from attacking, you have to take away all the tools from everyone because like it or not, EVERYONE is a suspect for terrorism. Terrorism has no physical trait like I said. How can you Identify a terrorist? you cant unless you see them with the plans in hand or they are carrying out the action. hell for all I know you could be a terrorist acting like hes all for stopping terrorism to throw us off gaurd. Whos to say you arent? I cant tell, and nobody else can really tell. If the government claims they have evidence that your a terrorist, who am I to say your not? I dont have the proof, and they claim they do. And by your logic, you no longer have a right to a trial for them to prove that.

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

You are, you are constantly saying it. If you refuse to read my previous posts where I pointed it out before then thats not my problem. You said peoples civil liberties can go to hell because of the threat to your family. You throw justice out the window as soon as your family is at risk. Theres a court system and they determine what the punishment should be.

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

you could simply go up to them asking what it is and why, anything it turns into is your fault because you went to them instead of the authorities. Just because it starts as "is this a plan to hurt my family" doesnt mean it won't turn itno murder. Because you approached them it would be your fault to anything that happens from there.

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?

No Im worried about your attitude that you can take justice into your own hands. Im worried about the fact it could go from a misunderstanding and miscommunication and some one could end up dead because you decided you would confront them rather then go to the police. If some one was being attacked, yes I would expect you to act on that. If you found plans of a person planning to hurt some one else, and you choose to confront them rather then notify the authorities then that worries me.

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

why because I believe you should be in charge of justice, and that these people regardless of the accusation made upon them have the right to fair trial and they are innocent til proven guilty?

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.

I trust the courts. I made a simple mistake by saying the government, I should have said a jury of their peers. I want you to put justice in the hands of the court system, that is decided by a jury of their peers as to whether they are guilty or not.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Almost, BH. Anyone has the right to have a website. When they use those websites to plot harm against us, then they lose that right, imo. At least on our soil.

So, it's just your opinion that they should lose the right to have a wobsite. And you don't draw a line between a plan to do something and taking action? Or is it only when the plan is to do something harmful to someone?

For example, if I planned to steal my neighbor's car, I should lose my right to have a website?

Originally posted by jsobecky
When they use those websites to plot harm against us, then they lose that right, imo. At least on our soil.

How about a website hosted on a server in Saudi Arabia? Are you suggesting the government somehow shut down a privately owned server in a foreign country?

As far as the definition of a terrorist, nobody here has defined it yet.

I did, sort of anyway. Terrorism is a violent tactic used to advance a political agenda. Hence, a terrorist, advocates and uses violence in an attempt to advance a political agenda. Unfortunately, the definition is often left up to the party who is on the receiving end of the violence.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
Almost, BH. Anyone has the right to have a website. When they use those websites to plot harm against us, then they lose that right, imo. At least on our soil.

So, it's just your opinion that they should lose the right to have a wobsite. And you don't draw a line between a plan to do something and taking action? Or is it only when the plan is to do something harmful to someone?

Yes, it is my opinion, the same as it is other's opinion to give them that website.

Words and plans precede action. How do we know when that line is crossed? For that to happen, we must conduct surveillance of some type. When do we know who to watch?

Well, BH, those are questions that have not yet been asked here.

For example, if I planned to steal my neighbor's car, I should lose my right to have a website?

Probably not. But if I happened across a communication that exposed you and your cohort planning to steal the car, should I take any action?

Before you answer, remember the old "whistleblower" argument that has been used here to justify illegalities for the sake of the public good.

I'm gonna bow out for a little while, to watch the RedSox game. I think I spotted a terrist! in the bleachers.

I'll be back later. Carry on.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Almost, BH. Anyone has the right to have a website. When they use those websites to plot harm against us, then they lose that right, imo. At least on our soil.

thats not freedom of speech, thats threats. Thats not freedom of speech to begin with. This isnt what you have been saying previously though. You advocate an entire website to be shut down just because a person makes a threat. Unless that website is used specifically for plotting terror attacks, then it shouldnt be shut down. The individual should be investigated and arrested because of threats to attack. He still deserves every civil right though. It has to be further investigated then "His s/n made a bomb threat, hes a terrorist, take away his civil liberties."

As far as the definition of a terrorist, nobody here has defined it yet. I did say to SO in the first page or two of this thread that without definitions and guidelines, this is nothing more than academic banter. I believe I said it twice.

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear

www.m-w.com...

a terrorist is anybody that causes terror. For some one to be in terror is for them to be in fear. People can fear a murderer, people can fear a rapist, people can fear an internet hacker, people can fear democrats, people can fear fundamentalist christians. See how quickly that spirals way out of control. Anybody can fear some one that they feel threatens their ideas. Some people get fear from the idea that democrats could take over the government and start passing liberal laws. That doesnt make these people terrorists does it?

The terrorist your thinking of is the guy that goes in and plants a bomb because he believes in an ideaology thats caused by politics or religion. Unfortunately, that can be anybody. Even worse if they start to take away a terrorists civil liberties then they dont even to have to have proof of why hes a terrorist or if he even is one. A murderer is a terrorist, a rapist is a terrorist, and etc, because they all cause fear and people become afraid of them. That doesnt change the fact they deserve a trial the same as everyone else.

If a guy plants a bomb in a building he should be charged as a mass murder, not a terrorist. We need to stop this basing laws on terrorism real quick because a terrorist can mean alot more then some one planting a bomb in a building. Since it can include alot more then just some islamic extremist with a bone to pick, it can be abused. Thats my worry.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Words and plans precede action. How do we know when that line is crossed?

Only when the action takes place.

But disallowing 'terrorists' to have websites is an attempt to prevent a crime that we have no way of knowing is going to happen. It's a fruitless attempt.

And besides that, terrorists were operating long before websites were. They'd find another way, I guarantee. Thinking that removing someone's right to have a website will somehow prevent a crime is a case of 'attribution'. You're attributing the crime to the fact that they had a website with which to plan it. When in reality the crime was committed, not because they had a website, but because they're criminals. And since you're attributing the crime to the fact that they had a website, you somehow feel that taking that website away will prevent the crime.

And you are incorrect, sir.

I shouldda been a litigator...

But if I happened across a communication that exposed you and your cohort planning to steal the car, should I take any action?

I would. If I 'happened across' something that indicated an illegal action was going to take place, yeah, I'd call the cops.

But I don't think I have the right to go snooping around in people's private corespondence looking for something.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by jsobecky
Yes, it is my opinion, the same as it is other's opinion to give them that website.

Words and plans precede action. How do we know when that line is crossed? For that to happen, we must conduct surveillance of some type. When do we know who to watch?

Well, BH, those are questions that have not yet been asked here.

If on a website they are posting plans to attack a place with a bomb, thats making death threats in a sense. Im positive you can be arrested for that. Theres no difference from saying "Im going to blow this building up" inside that building then on the internet. Its as simple as that. From there a warrent can be obtained for an investigation as to if it was true or a stupid prank where he get a slap on the rist and maybe some jail time or something.

When do we know who to watch, when we get reports or evidence that they are planning it. If its by email, well then we shouldnt even be aware that its happening. We watch for the signs, we do it legally. Things dont get done without a warrent. These people are here to protect us, yes, but in response to something thats reported.

A police officer cant walk up to a random person and pat them down for drugs for no reason. A police officer is people that act in response, not pre emptive.

Probably not. But if I happened across a communication that exposed you and your cohort planning to steal the car, should I take any action?

sure if you happened to come across it in a way where you werent breaking the law and you were just doing you avergae day things, then yes you should report it to the authorities that you found out this person is going to steal a car. From there the police would probably stake that place out to wait for the person to steal the car.

Like I said this isn't minority report, you cant catch criminals before they even plan the crime. You have to have proof they are planning the crime, and the police wait until they are in the act of the crime to bust them. Thats called a sting. They dont waltz into the persons home/office after a report that some one is planning to do something illegal and say "we have information you were planning to do (this illegal act), so your under arrest." when they have no proof. The guy will be released almost immediately. They need proof, which is the legal way.

Originally quoted by niteboy82
Nothing so far that I have seen has had anything to do with race. If anyone brought up a race card, it would now be you. I remember the blowout the two of you had on another thread, and now I have a feeling its going to be dragged on in here.

niteboy: I know that jsobecky and I have had some legendary rows, but believe me that for my part I will not do it here. I know I'm quickly getting the reputation as the "lady who cried race", but this is more of a "freedom of expression" issue for me. This is mainly politics. And I believe that society is divided between its "freedom fighters" and "collaborators". That is my main point. I too find it sad that the response to terrorism has deeply divided this country.

And it is mainly the collaborators who are all for restraining our rights in order for national safety. They would sacrifice their first born for the feeling of safety within our borders. I know that this has probably been hashed out at this late date. I will add my thoughts later to these new developments. My verbal brawling days are over. Be rest assured that none of that behavior will happen here. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed between us as American citizens, first.








[edit on 26-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by jsobecky

subz, you are the one who took a sabbatical, remember? Is it getting too hot for you once again?

Remember what the doctor told you...

j/k

Is that how you normally respond to compassion? Or am I just plain lucky?

I've got an out for you, if you wish to take it and save face. How about bringing the courts in to decide whether or not a terrorist website has the protection of free speach? After all we're all familiar with the scenario of how calling "fire!" in a crowded building is not protected under freedom of expression, right?

Perhaps if you changed your stance from the government shutting down terrorist websites, to the courts shutting down terrorist websites if they endanger the public? I would have no moral objection to a court ruling that a website runs contrary to the public good and hence have it removed. That of course would require a trial resplendant with evidence, right to a defence and a jury verdict. Would that assuage your anger at terrorists whilst protecting freedom of expression? I know it would for me.

Of course, defining what is "contrary to the public good" is another subject entirely. Maybe a more defineable issue than the one we have engaged in here?

A website does not have its own entity. A gun can never be accused of a crime, just as a website cannot. The people that own the website, if they are provoking harm, can be accused and sent to court. The actual website can stay running so long as it pays its cost for running. The people who use it to plan violence, can also be brought to court. The website though, does not make threats. The people who are on it do.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Yes, it is my opinion, the same as it is other's opinion to give them that website.

See this is where I'm having problems with you. It is not an opinion that they have the website, it is the law that we have in this country hailing back to the Bill of Rights. Until something is done where it is shown that a "terrorist" (by whatever you want to make out of that, I believe the definition has been provided for us, not that we really use it in the context intended) has no right to have a website, you are out of the water. It is not opinion, it is law.

This can be really silly at some points, while I am reviewing the thread. Your arguements aren't always congruent, your posts seem to act as a pendulum.

I can't believe that you would in your gut believe that it would end with just the "terrorist" of today. You can be the terrorist of tomorrow for all we know. This will end in a big backlash, and I know that nobody has invoked it yet, but how 1984ish (I know shudder) of you to be appeased at taking matters into your own hands instead of leaving things up to a jury of a defendants peers. It's sad, really sad. I hoped that people would realize how things go if you don't watch out. SO made it as plain as it could be with the slippery slope. That's what it is, things are more than likely to change. You may be part of something that ends up being a terrorist group. Are you giving me permission if we are in opposing parties to kill you if I see you as a threat to my family?? See? It doesn't make any sense. I know that it should be left up to a fair trial. There is no going outside of the law, or at least, there shouldn't be. People run through our borders every day, you think they're doing it so they can leave a just land to come into a totalitarian state?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
thats not freedom of speech, thats threats. Thats not freedom of speech to begin with. This isnt what you have been saying previously though. You advocate an entire website to be shut down just because a person makes a threat. Unless that website is used specifically for plotting terror attacks, then it shouldnt be shut down. The individual should be investigated and arrested because of threats to attack. He still deserves every civil right though. It has to be further investigated then "His s/n made a bomb threat, hes a terrorist, take away his civil liberties."

I see the miscommunication now, and it is as much my doing for not clarifying as it is anyone else's.

You are right, grimreaper. If someone went to a particular website and used it to utter threats, then the individual should be investigated, not necessarily the entire website.

What I was referring to - and as I said, I didn't make this clear to begin with - are websites specifically set up to foster terrorism. They do exist, and I don't think they have a place in our society. Kiddie porn sites fall into that same category, as do other criminal-related ones.

Do you agree?

If so, then there are a bunch of other issues that need to be discussed, such as how far should we go to stop them, etc.

If not, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Another thing - occassionally I have used the terms "we" "I" and "the gov't" almost interchangeably. There are times when the duties of the individual supercede the duties of the gov't, and times when they overlap, imo.

I will try to be clearer on that in the future, and draw distinctions where appropriate.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
Words and plans precede action. How do we know when that line is crossed?

Only when the action takes place.

So we should take no measures to prevent something bad from happening?

But disallowing 'terrorists' to have websites is an attempt to prevent a crime that we have no way of knowing is going to happen. It's a fruitless attempt.

And besides that, terrorists were operating long before websites were. They'd find another way, I guarantee. Thinking that removing someone's right to have a website will somehow prevent a crime is a case of 'attribution'. You're attributing the crime to the fact that they had a website with which to plan it.

No, I'm attributing the losses we would suffer to our reluctance to do something about it beforehand.

The website itself is a tool. If the website is used specifically to plot against us, I cannot justify giving them the space on our soil.

But if I happened across a communication that exposed you and your cohort planning to steal the car, should I take any action?

I would. If I 'happened across' something that indicated an illegal action was going to take place, yeah, I'd call the cops.

But I don't think I have the right to go snooping around in people's private corespondence looking for something.

Let's replace the "us" here with "the gov't." And by the gov't, I include law enforcement, the judiciary, all of it.

Do you think the gov't has any role, or right, to conduct surveillance in an effort to maintain the safety of the citizens?

Originally posted by niteboy82
See this is where I'm having problems with you. It is not an opinion that they have the website, it is the law that we have in this country hailing back to the Bill of Rights. Until something is done where it is shown that a "terrorist" (by whatever you want to make out of that, I believe the definition has been provided for us, not that we really use it in the context intended) has no right to have a website, you are out of the water. It is not opinion, it is law.

niteboy

Read my most recent response to grimreaper (just above this, a few posts), and then see if we are any closer to common ground. In that post I admitted to not clarifying myself initially, and also acknowledged using terms interchangeably.

Then come back and see if it makes any difference.