It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Once Dreamed of Liberty (Op/Ed)

page: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
No, Muaddib. In fact, I complimented you today. I envy your outlook in life. You believe in your President. You don't believe that there isn't any race. You don't worry about your civil liberties. And I bet you just want to build that wall, don't you? There's nothing to worry about.

How do you do it?


The response wasn't directed at you, but at those members who have called us "little monkeys" etc, etc.


As for the reason why I don't believe half of what some of the members have said in here, is simply because of the fact that for decades there have been such groups of people who have blamed the United States for anything and everything you can think of, and for decades these groups of people have tried to "preach" that the United States is a dictatorship....

You know what is the worse of it all, many people around here are being herded to believe the same lies and propaganda which has enslaved millions of people...

Some people dismiss the idea that "Communist" groups are behind this newest "worker's revolution", yet every day liberals prove who they support. From Oliver Stone trying to paint a rosy picture of one of the worse dictators on the face of the EArth as we speak, castro, to CNN international been an idea which the same fidel castro gave to the owner of CNN, to Alex Jones resorting to chavez, a known friend and "compadre" of castro, trying to "find the truth behind 9/11"......

Oh but I forgot, Barbara Boxer did claim that "Communism doesn't exist anymore".... and it seems that many around here believe those obvious lies.

Then you get people posting from the WSWS...

Shall we see some of the things they like to talk about?

www.wsws.org...

oh but I forgot...you also got some staff members from these same forums proclaiming things such as "all dissidents who speak against people such as castro are being paid to tell lies".... Or "there was never a Communist threat, it was being shoved down our throats, but it never existed"....

One thing that is true about history is that it repeats itself. If more people get blinded by the same lies and propaganda from the "new left", I can see exactly where this country is going. Down the drain.


[edit on 20-5-2006 by Muaddib]




posted on May, 20 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Castro, Chavez? I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic of the thread. Secondly, I think you are seriously overestimating the effect that these two have on America. You could probably start another thread with your conspiracy theory, it may prove more effective.

Do you have any thoughts about why the courts should not be used as a check on surveillance? I hope your answer doesn't involve a supposed plot by Castro to usurp the American justice system.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
The only way the courts would be of any help with the surveillence issue is if they could somehow prove that those actions were unconstitutional. Once they do that, then there's a judicial case, not until.

TheBorg



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
..................
Do you have any thoughts about why the courts should not be used as a check on surveillance? I hope your answer doesn't involve a supposed plot by Castro to usurp the American justice system.


castro and Chavez are only two peons, anyways castro couldn't tie his shoes now even with the help of his thugs, he is just one of the players, probably even a minor one. Saddam was another minor player, and so is the Iranian regime. Isn't this a conspiracy site?... oh but i forgot....there is only one truly evil empire around...the "evil imperialistic empire that only wants to oppress the working class, and wants to rule over the world"....right? i wonder where I have heard that before...

Have you ever heard the phrase "everything is fair in love and war"?

President Bush is not the first, and will probably not be the last, president to have to resort to such spying measures. The Constitution was not written so our enemies could use it against us. As long as the surveillance is done in an attempt to find those who would try to cause more violence and death in the United States, I can understand if such measures are taken, because despite what some people might claim, yes there are people who want to destroy the United States.

Several times such tactics had to be used in times of war, from George Washington
www.srmason-sj.org...

...to Franklin Delano Roosevelt


The Roosevelt administration faced similar challenges in the days leading up to World War II. Documents that we obtained from Justice Robert Jackson's archives at the Library of Congress, some of which have never before been discussed in the press, show that President Roosevelt did not doubt his authority to conduct such surveillance in the interest of national security.

In 1937 and 1939, the Supreme Court handed down a pair of decisions in the matter of Nardone v. United States. The Court held that the Communications Act of 1934 barred federal surveillance of telephone lines, and that evidence obtained from such surveillance couldn't be introduced at trial.

In response, Attorney General (and future Supreme Court justice) Robert Jackson ended the FBI's longstanding surveillance of suspected saboteurs and spies. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover protested this decision. In an April 13, 1940 memorandum to Jackson, Hoover outlined a number of pending investigations that were hampered by Jackson's decision. Hoover concluded, "Frankly, the Bureau cannot cope with this problem without the use of wire taps and I feel obligated to bring this situation to your attention at the present time rather than to wait until a national catastrophe focuses the spotlight of public indignation upon the Department because of its failure to prevent a serious occurrence."

President Roosevelt sided with Hoover, not Jackson. In a signed May 21, 1940 memorandum to his attorney general, FDR wrote:


I have agreed with the broad purpose of the Supreme Court decision relating to wire-tapping in investigations. The Court is undoubtedly sound both in regard to the use of evidence secured over tapped wires in the prosecution of citizens in criminal cases; and is also right in its opinion that under ordinary circumstances wire-tapping by Government agents should not be carried on for the excellent reason that it is almost bound to lead to abuse of civil rights.

However, I am convinced that the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation.

It is, of course, well known that certain other nations have been engaged in the organization of propaganda of so-called "fifth columns" in other countries and in preparation for sabotage, as well as in actual sabotage.

It is too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassinations and "fifth column" activities are completed.

You are, therefore, authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigating agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices direct to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the Government of the United States, including suspected spies. You are requested furthermore to limit these investigations so conducted to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens.

www.spectator.org...

Just to name a few.

Then again, several times have such procedures been used for decades, and we are not in any dictatorship yet....despite what some keep claiming.

[edit on 20-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
of persons suspected of subversive activities against the Government of the United States, including suspected spies. You are requested furthermore to limit these investigations so conducted to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens


www.spectator.org...

This text describes specific limitations on the scope of intelligence gathering in the United States. It is contradictory to the alleged level of surveillance currently practiced by the federal government. Tens of millions of people can't possibly be suspected of subversive activities, and they certainly haven't limited "these investigations so conducted to a minimum", and they don't appear to have limited them to aliens.

That text is not a directive to collect information on millions of people who are simply living their lives.


[edit on 20-5-2006 by MrPenny]

[edit on 20-5-2006 by MrPenny]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib As long as the surveillance is done in an attempt to find those who would try to cause more violence and death in the United States,

Well, it seems not even FDR held true to that Muadibb, nor did many who wanted to use warrantless surveillance.


The government has a long record of abusing personal information that's gathered in the name of national security. From the Red Scare in the 1920s to illegal wiretaps during the Nixon era, Americans have struggled to find the right balance between individual rights and collective security.

Abuses over the years cross party lines and political ideologies. Franklin Roosevelt wanted a file on Americans who sent him critical telegrams. Lyndon Johnson asked the FBI to get him the phone records of Republican vice presidential candidate Spiro Agnew.

Government has long history of abusing personal information


I can understand if such measures are taken, because despite what some people might claim, yes there are people who want to destroy the United States.

What does that mean anyway...."destroy the United States"? Is someone trying to turn this place into part of the ocean or something?


Several times such tactics had to be used in times of war, from George Washington
www.srmason-sj.org...

Muadibb, that was spying on the British army. The CIA has been spying on foreign enemies for a long time, there is no doubt. I hope you understand the difference between such patriots dealing with military intelligence and data-mining/spying on the citizens of this country without a warrant.



...to Franklin Delano Roosevelt
www.spectator.org...

And yet, the article states....

You are requested furthermore to limit these investigations so conducted to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens.

What kind of accountability is there and who is providing it? Or are we just supposed to lie down and believe that anything is valid "in the name of national security"?


Then again, several times have such procedures been used for decades, and we are not in any dictatorship yet....despite what some keep claiming.

I like how you use the word "yet". Apparently, you know what's coming too, but perhaps it's in the back of your mind somewhere for now.

[edit on 20-5-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
What freedom have I lost personally? None...but guess what, I wouldn't lose any freedom under a dictatorship either. How so? Well I still have the right to choose right...so Im free right? Well let me remind you what "choices" they are giving us.

You can go to war with Iraq, Afganistan, and any other country harboring "terrorists" or were going to get the hell blown out of us. Forget guarding our borders, we have the choice of going out there to get them or watching as we get attacked. Not the politicans, but us. We can choose to give up our right to the truth, or suffer the possiblity of losing the war on terror that most of us don't want to be in. We can choose to kill people in foreign countries, or face the possibility that they will attack us.

Unfortunately we cannot predict crimes, and you and I are letting innocent people be killed. Unfortunately we don't even know what true or not anymore. Unfortunately we were forced into this war, without any real facts because the facts dont even exist anymore.

Your right though I havent lost any freedom, because I still have the choice to say or do something even if it means death or possibly being shipped off to somewhere like guantanamo bay. My family hasnt lost any freedom, my dad can still choose whether he wants to have saturdays and sundays off of work. Of course that would mean he loses his job because companies can threaten unions with cheaper labor, and put people like my father a hard working american, out of a job because he wont work 7 days a week overtime. Sure we are free to do whatever we want, just like any other person.

Sure the jewish people under hitler were free because they could choose what they wanted to do. They could still be jewish, they could still say what they wanted to. That doesnt mean they werent killed for it, or that they didnt suffer repercusions for their choices.

Freedom is more then just choice, freedom is choice without repercussion. Such a thing doesnt exist. Choice with repercussion is just a flexible dictatorship. But hey, lets face it, people cant function otherwise can they? We arent ready for freedom, not real freedom.

Freedom is either choice without repercussion...which does not exist. Or freedom is choice with repercussion, in that case, even those under hitler and stalin were free.

Straying from the point a bit though, in literal terms I havent lost any freedoms though, because I know exactly where they are. Mainly because We didnt lose them, we willingly are given them away. Theres a difference. Make no mistake, this is a dictatorship, you just arent aware of the fact yet. Mainly because you think a dictatorship is some oppresive regime where all the people other then the rulers live in ruins and the worst conditions. Ive got news for you though, a dictatorship is a government that controls your choices through repercussions, and thats exactly what we live in.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny
...........
This text describes specific limitations on the scope of intelligence gathering in the United States. It is contradictory to the alleged level of surveillance currently practiced by the federal government. Tens of millions of people can't possibly be suspected of subversive activities, and they certainly haven't limited "these investigations so conducted to a minimum", and they don't appear to have limited them to aliens.

That text is not a directive to collect information on millions of people who are simply living their lives.


So tell us....in what computers are all the millions recorded phone calls in the U.S. are going to be gathered and kept?....

Even in the allegations the only thing that is mentioned is that "records are kept of who is calling who" not the messages in the phone calls themselves, which it would be impossible to maintain a database and would be impossible for the government employees to keep track and listen to everyone of those phone calls.

There are around 10 million illegal immigrants, and there are millions of legal immigrants and even citizens in the United States... i am pretty sure that among all these people there are "sleeper cells" not only from Islamic terrorists. Several people have been already arrested because of these surveillances and plots to commit more murderous acts have been stopped.

Not to mention that the same way to gather such intelligence has and is being used in European countries because they have the same problems we have, even though they were against the war on Iraq.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Several people have been already arrested because of these surveillances and plots to commit more murderous acts have been stopped.


Hey, i got an idea!

Stop right there and tell us who has been arrested, what probable cause the government had, and what they were convicted of.



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
....................
Ive got news for you though, a dictatorship is a government that controls your choices through repercussions, and thats exactly what we live in.


Really?

So I guess according to you having laws, which all societies have, is just a form of dictatorship...

Kid, you need to understand that you live in the real world... Not in a made up fantasy where all people are good...

Every society needs rules and laws...everyone of them... even in an eutopia you have rules and laws...



posted on May, 20 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
never said we shouldnt have laws muaddib. quite frankly, we cant handle freedom as a mass of people. plain and simple, I mean thats the point of your arguement. People cant handle freedom, so they need some group of people to regulate the freedom the majority of people have. Thats all any dictatorship is, like it or not. Some dictatorships are more strict and cruel then others, doesnt mean that this is a different form of government, just a government working at a different pace.

Your saying that a majority of people cant handle full freedom. I cant disagree with that, but nor can I agree with it. Every society will have murder and violence, laws or not. Laws dont deter those violent crimes because these types of crimes arent the kind of crime where you say "ah I could get in trouble, so I shouldnt do it". Murderers are murderers and will do it, regardless of laws. Laws are there to punish the people in an organized fashion. They are there to tell you what you can or cant get away with, and what the punishment should be. Its just organized. So this isn't protecting me any, just saying that the next guy will get in trouble.

Doesn't matter though, because this isn't the wild west, and people can't take law into their own hands. People can't be fair, because people as a whole are too primitive to handle something like freedom.

Funny though, we think we are becoming more advanced, truth is that we are just finding better ways to mask our true intents.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:00 AM
link   
I just wonder Muaddib, what type of society would you want? I mean, how would you run it? And how would you address matters of liberty and freedom in your society?

You're always discounting other people's ideas regarding how they view society. You have the floor here too. I would really like to know.

What suggestions would you have for America?



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
never said we shouldnt have laws muaddib. quite frankly, we cant handle freedom as a mass of people.
....................


Wait a second...i do remember you saying that you thought it was better if all people just had guns and there were no laws and governments....or something like that.... Or am i wrong?



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
I just wonder Muaddib, what type of society would you want? I mean, how would you run it? And how would you address matters of liberty and freedom in your society?

You're always discounting other people's ideas regarding how they view society. You have the floor here too. I would really like to know.

What suggestions would you have for America?


Well, that's the thing... The type of society that every person would want, would be a separate island from every other person... which means "the ideal society for every person would be a personal utopia".... But we live in the real world, and have to deal with people with different opinions, different needs/wants, and different morals. Because of this societies need laws, and rules for everyone to follow.

An utopia can never be implemented in the real world, unless all people became mindless robots.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
An utopia can never be implemented in the real world, unless all people became mindless robots.


Never a truer word spoken.

Utopia in it's many forms exists within the minds and dreams of each individual.

An all encompassing utopia where we all stand hand in hand in agreement is akin to chasing shadows.

So, rather than chase shadows we readily accept that our differences are what separate us and that can never be changed, and we chase the concept that those who are different must be viewed with suspicion until they conform to our ideals.

We build fences, walls and weapons to protect ourselves from those differences and accept without question our supposed protectors who tell us that life is either black or white when it is truly grey.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

An utopia can never be implemented in the real world, unless all people became mindless robots.


While I agree with your last sentence Muaddib, the rest of it doesn't make sense. "The type of society that every person would want, would be a separate island from every other person"??? Is that what you want? Is that where rampant individualism takes us? Sounds pretty desolate and empty to me, in fact it sounds like a pretty decent description of the breakdown of society. It has been said that no man is an island and I think that it has been fairly well demonstrated that you isolate someone and first they die spiritually and then fall apart physically which is why those super-max prisons are so very cruel, far crueler than any death. We are primates and all primates are first and foremost social animals, intensily social animals and isolation is a death to us. Societies are not an agragate of business concerns, they are a community of people and somewhere there has to be a place where the rights of the individual give way to the needs of society and the needs of society step back so that the individual can florish. Rugged inividualism is all well and good as a movie metaphor, the cowboy riding off into the sunset but the real ideal should be the nurturing hand, the knowing smile, the hug and comfort...it is in those things that humanity really shows its colors....not the empty Ayn Rand individual against the world heroics.


Mod edit: Bad quote coding.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by UM_Gazz]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   
grover one of the last things I would want would be to live in your ideal society. What you described, to me, is a Nanny state and I abhor the idea.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   
like I said, if we were more advanced and mentally capable, you dont need laws. We arent though, so its going to take something big to wake us up. Massive amounts of people would probably have to be killed in order for people to say, disagreeing with eachother and having it lead to violence just isnt worth it anymore. Only then can you get rid of the laws. When you have a community that works together because it works better, rather then try to rule it.

A community where everyone is equally heard, is a community that holds the most checks and balances. Some one tries to slack off and its the community against that person, and that person wont win. The only thing you would need a government for is foreign affairs.

You want a society where people will benefit the most, stop trying to make things so damn big. The bigger something gets, the more complicated it gets. Advancements can still be made as well. You fuse the old with the new. Technology we have, and instead of having one big city, have smaller communities collaborating. People will actually get heard this way, more accurately. The smaller a community is, the better individuals will get heard.

But that wont happen, because right now we are too preoccupied with our own interests and nothing more. Most of us would try making 100 cars by ourselves before doing it as an assembly line. Why? Because if you make the 100 cars yourself, there all yours. While if 100 people made 100 cars, only 1 would be yours. Dont mind the fact that it would take more then 100X longer, and less efficent, because we tend to not look at that kind of stuff anyway.

were too selfcentered to care about the long run.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
This is quite a change from your original statement in another post of "just have everyone armed and get rid of all government and laws"...or something similar.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
this is because i stated if we were advanced enough mentally which we arent. hello arent you reading what im saying in its entirety? Im saying we are mentally at that point, so that cant happen.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join