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.

 

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

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I dont think threats consist of free speech. A death threat is considered as if you were caught about to commit the act itself. As far as im concerned thats not what I'm talking about. If you see anyone throwing threats about they are going to blow a place up, call the police and report them immediately.

Some one saying Im glad the terrorists are killing you, because you well deserve it. Well guess what, thats all fine in my book. A terrorist is anyone claiming they will attack or is putting plans up of how they should attack. That is not covered in the Free speech, never has. For anyone who is just a terrorist sympothizer, thats their right.

Im not sure what your definition of a terrorist is though, and how exactly your claiming "we are giving them everything they need". I mean, if letting people have opinions that are one in the same as terrorists, well then yes i guess I am. If you mean letting them plan an attack on a public message board, well then no I am not. I want evidence that they are planning it, and I want it Legally.




posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
also what "red herring" are you refering to? Also I have far from twisted your words, and havent taken them out of context.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   
For the benefit of all of us would you please drop the hostile attitude Jsobecky? The very reason I left this board for nearly two months was an attempt to avoid that kind of behaviour. It is not needed, I assume you are more than capable of expressing your opinion without the hostility.


Originally posted by Jsobecky
I would hope that our gov't is doing everything in it's power to shut down terrorist websites. You may want to protect them, but I do not.

Can I draw your attention to this sentence you posted on page 1 of this Op/Ed piece.

This is what my subsequent post was refering to. There is no ambiguity here, you clearly express your desire for your government to "shut down terrorist websites". I then proceeded to show you why I think that statement is dangerous. Those who get labelled a terrorist might not be and those in power can exert their own personal impositions on their citizens right to freedom of expression.

You think this is acceptable as you trust the government to do the right thing. I do not believe we should be placed in a position of having to trust governments in the first place, they should be legally prevented from having a choice to either do the right or wrong thing.

Terrorist websites are a watershed issue, just as the allowed existance of the KKK was for the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Lets look at a worst case scenario whereby anything labelled a "terrorist website" can be shut down, as espoused in your own post.

Hypothetically the government is carrying out some heinous policy, a government whistle blower attempts to break the story to the main stream media. The mainstream media has time and again proved to be completely biased in its reporting of stories critical of sitting governments. When their owners are dependant on, and friendly with, the current administration they are in no position to break such a story.

That leaves the whistle blower with posting his findings on the internet. All the government have to do is deem his site, or any containing his story, as a "terrorist website" and have it shut down.

We should not allow any gaps in our protection from such totalitarianism regardless of however neatly camoflaged it is. You may think that shutting down terrorist websites is acceptable now, but when the same reasoning is being applied left, right and center to all sorts of critical websites you might realise exactly how slippery the slope of saftey>freedom truly is. You will wake up one day in a completely totalitarian nightmare and there will not be anything short of bloody revolution available to you to get your freedoms back again.

[edit on 26/5/06 by subz]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

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

Can I ask you to elaborate on that? An example of a statement that supports this position of yours would be very helpful.

Thanks.


from subz
Im in favour of civil liberties over all other factors. If that results in my own death, fine. I would rather die a free man than live as a prisoner of any government.

I expect that you will interpret this in your own way. I take it to mean that all civil liberties and rights should be extended to any group that means to harm us, and let the cards fall where they may.

I, on the other hand, would do whatever it took to protect my children, regardless of what others think. And I say to hell with the civil liberties of those who mean them harm. But I guess it all depends on what is important to you.

The debate is being twisted to say that I don't endorse freedom of expression. False. But that is all that some have to offer. 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...


Notice that nowhere did I say that I am for restricting freedom of expression. That is a red herring being offered up by others.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
(Scratch this post)

Clarified with member via U2U


[edit on 26/5/06 by subz]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
The debate is being twisted to say that I endorse freedom of expression. False.


Dude, you have to be more careful of your typing. That's the second time in this thread you've said that and the first time we were supposed to 'know what you meant'. Sorry.

I know what you mean now, but Jesus. The first time I read it, I took you for your word. We can't be blamed for that and you can't really call that a red herring. You said it, I read it.



Notice that nowhere did I say that I am for restricting freedom of expression. That is a red herring being offered up by others.


See above...



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I've heard their song before, and witnessed how they react when the rubber meets the road. Two entirely different sacks, believe me.

After cutting through the hyperbole, I think you may have a specific example. Can you elaborate?


Well, grimreaper is trying to throw out a red herring. And so is ceci2006. Soon there will be a racist element inserted here, judging from past threads.

Wow. The irony of this statement is stupendous. The illogic is not flattering.


What restrictions are being placed on people? Please be specific.

You don't really read the entire thread do you? Did you miss SOs post about the young man who is being threatened with expulsion from school because of the content of his blog?


And who do I trust? Myself. I don't need peer approval to function, as some do.

Hmmm, interesting. So why are you here, arguing a position?


[edit on 26-5-2006 by MrPenny]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
I'd first like to see where anyone advocated giving terrorists every tool they need to destroy us. Now, I would actually like to see that said, because you have accused others already of twisting your own words, so I would think you have the knowledge not to do it in turn.

Well, look back and discover the genesis of the "terrorist" argument:


from subz
Freedom of speech is, sorry for the pun, only being given lip-service in the United States. Does anyone believe that the US government/people have any qualms about shutting US run terrorist websites down? How about sites with bomb making instructions?




I am really curious to see where this "we are willing to give the terrorists anything they need" line is going to come from.

See the above.


I also find it funny that some people on here are so against the thought of terrorism being used as an excuse to take away liberties, while at the same time pulling terrorism out of their small bag of tricks to play it on others as a defense of calling for exactly that.

Well you are the fourth person that I have offered this same challenge to:

Show me where anybody, esp. me, is advocating taking away civil liberties.

This is the type of false argument that is used to deflect debate from the true topics, and you have just played it.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Deleted this post, cleared up issue in u2u.


[edit on 5/26/06 by niteboy82]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I expect that you will interpret this in your own way. I take it to mean that all civil liberties and rights should be extended to any group that means to harm us, and let the cards fall where they may.

I, on the other hand, would do whatever it took to protect my children, regardless of what others think. And I say to hell with the civil liberties of those who mean them harm. But I guess it all depends on what is important to you.

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.

The acts derived from them, however, have killed. Mein Kampf is a good example here. Hitler's lunatic rantings are still available to purchase in all Western nations from mainstream bookstores. You can even find it in public libraries. Why is Hitler still being granted his freedom of expression when that same expression resulted in the deaths of millions of people across the globe and plunged the entire World into 6 years of total war? I'll tell you why, because the book didnt kill any one, Hitler and his army did.

Those who ordered the killing were all tried at Nuremberg because of their actions.

The same applies to terrorist websites, they are not actions but words. You may not agree with them, I dont agree with them, but that is not the issue here. We draw the line at what people do, not what they think. That line in the sand should be forever respected as the distinction between freedom and subserviance.



Originally posted by jsobecky
The debate is being twisted to say that I endorse freedom of expression. False. But that is all that some have to offer.

I assume thats another typo and you accidently omitted "dont". Im not saying that you oppose, wholesale, freedom of expression but when you start picking at the edges of that fabric it is inviting disintegration. You might cherish freedom of expression as a civil liberty but espousing support for "shutting down" websites because you dont like them endangers your freedom.


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...


Notice that nowhere did I say that I am for restricting freedom of expression. That is a red herring being offered up by others.

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

[edit on 26/5/06 by subz]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I expect that you will interpret this in your own way. I take it to mean that all civil liberties and rights should be extended to any group that means to harm us, and let the cards fall where they may.


well if they are an american citizen, your willing to take away their rights because of their intent to harm us? That is very very dangerous. You do that an they no longer have the right to a fair and speedy trial, they no longer have the right to an attourney, they no longer have any right. In a sense, all the government has to do is deem you a terrorist and now they don't even have to prove it. Your not afforded those rights to trial since your a terrorist. All rights should be extended to them because if they are a terrorist, I want it to be proven to me to the point I say "yea this guy was planning to kill us, he had plans to plant a bomb (place here)". Because who are we to say he would or wouldn't do anything if there is no proof? Take away those liberties though, and theres no chance of even proving that.



I, on the other hand, would do whatever it took to protect my children, regardless of what others think. And I say to hell with the civil liberties of those who mean them harm. But I guess it all depends on what is important to you.


I would do anything to protect any children, mine or some one elses. BUT that does not mean that this persons civil liberties should be thrown out the window until we can prove he is what they say. This is what they mean by "innocent til proven guilty". He is not a terrorist til a fair trial concludes that he is.



The debate is being twisted to say that I endorse freedom of expression. False. But that is all that some have to offer. 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...


Notice that nowhere did I say that I am for restricting freedom of expression. That is a red herring being offered up by others.


"that I endorse freedom of expression. False." then "nowhere did I say that I am for restricting freedom of expression."
ok im really confused now. your not for endorsing freedom of expression but your not for restricting it? Your going to have to explain this further.

yes it is the most important role of the government to secure the rights of individual citizens, even those accused of a crime/multiple crimes. They are innocent til proven guilty, regardless of if they are accused of being a terrorist or not. That is the way it is, thats the law of the land, nothing should change that. Your child and you are to be treated as equal, and given equal rights, to any accused terrorist that is legal in the US regardless of the crime he is accused of.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
by your logic jsobecky we should also ban any public knowledge about the science of bomb making, we should ban the chemical reactions that have to deal with bombs because that could lead to bomb making, we should ban legal guns because a possible terrorist with a clean record could get one, we should ban people from purchasing knives because these could be used to hijack planes or kill people.

As a gun advocate, remember the saying "guns dont kill people, people do". Just because the information or tools are there, doesnt mean that it shouldnt be avalibe. Its a persons choice to commit that act, and if we have proof that they have chosen to, then its our job to prosecute them.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797

Originally posted by jsobecky
I expect that you will interpret this in your own way. I take it to mean that all civil liberties and rights should be extended to any group that means to harm us, and let the cards fall where they may.


well if they are an american citizen, your willing to take away their rights because of their intent to harm us? That is very very dangerous.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I do not advocate taking away rights, whether American citizen or not.

Do I need to repeat myself in yet another post?



I, on the other hand, would do whatever it took to protect my children, regardless of what others think. And I say to hell with the civil liberties of those who mean them harm. But I guess it all depends on what is important to you.



I would do anything to protect any children, mine or some one elses. BUT that does not mean that this persons civil liberties should be thrown out the window until we can prove he is what they say. This is what they mean by "innocent til proven guilty". He is not a terrorist til a fair trial concludes that he is.

You win the cigar for being Lucky Number 5, grimreaper. Or 6..I lost track. Anyway,

Who here is advocating throwing civil liberties out the window???



The debate is being twisted to say that I endorse freedom of expression. False. But that is all that some have to offer. 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...


Notice that nowhere did I say that I am for restricting freedom of expression. That is a red herring being offered up by others.

I apologize for my fingers being slower than my brain, for the second time in this thread.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
How many times do I have to repeat myself? I do not advocate taking away rights, whether American citizen or not.

Do I need to repeat myself in yet another post?

Ok you dont advocate taking away rights.

Where is the "terrorists" right to freedom of expression if their website is shut down? Do they still have that right?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky


I, on the other hand, would do whatever it took to protect my children, regardless of what others think. And I say to hell with the civil liberties of those who mean them harm. But I guess it all depends on what is important to you.



So ok, you are not taking away anyone's civil liberties, but if they're a citizen of this country and you find them to be harmful to your children, then to hell with their civil liberties. I'm sorry, but grim is not the only one missing what you're trying to get across here. Innocent until proven guilty. You allow this "to hell with civil liberties" to happen, and you're going down a road that shouldn't, in my opinion, be travelled. Then again, you are not for taking away civil liberties. I'm starting to think that maybe we aren't the ones confused.


Seriously, I'm not attacking you at all, but I really, really, don't think that you're arguements are making sense.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
by your logic jsobecky we should also ban any public knowledge about the science of bomb making, we should ban the chemical reactions that have to deal with bombs because that could lead to bomb making, we should ban legal guns because a possible terrorist with a clean record could get one, we should ban people from purchasing knives because these could be used to hijack planes or kill people.

Only if one uses your pretzel logic, grimreaper.


As a gun advocate, remember the saying "guns dont kill people, people do". Just because the information or tools are there, doesnt mean that it shouldnt be avalibe. Its a persons choice to commit that act, and if we have proof that they have chosen to, then its our job to prosecute them.

I disagree. I don't believe we have any responsibility to furnish them with the means to plan our destruction. Once that is proven to be their goal, I have no qualms with thwarting them at every turn.

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

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

I explained to SO that without definitions and guidelines, this is nothing more than academic banter. So take it from there.



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
How many times do I have to repeat myself? I do not advocate taking away rights, whether American citizen or not.

Do I need to repeat myself in yet another post?




Who here is advocating throwing civil liberties out the window???


well....you are.



And I say to hell with the civil liberties of those who mean them harm.




I apologize for my fingers being slower than my brain, for the second time in this thread.


Thats fine, but you still say "to hell" with civil liberties to the people that wish you harm. guess what wishing you harm, and actually engaging in it are two completely different things.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
So ok, you are not taking away anyone's civil liberties, but if they're a citizen of this country and you find them to be harmful to your children, then to hell with their civil liberties.

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?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Ok you dont advocate taking away rights.

Where is the "terrorists" right to freedom of expression if their website is shut down? Do they still have that right?

Gee, I don't know, subz. What do you want to do for them? I understand your concern for their rights...



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

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

Do you think thats acceptable? Must you insult people



Originally posted by jsobecky
I disagree. I don't believe we have any responsibility to furnish them with the means to plan our destruction. Once that is proven to be their goal, I have no qualms with thwarting them at every turn.

Then why are you not calling for the KKK to be shut down? Because you're not black? Why arent the KKK thwarted at every turn? Why do terrorists get harsher treatment than the racist bigots do? Come on Jsobecky, you either support freedom of expression or you dont. You cant support it with adding the caveat of "so long as I agree with you" to it.


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

Yes its called due process of the law. The law, as it existed before 9/11, stated that you will be prosecuted for your actions if they are unlawful. If some one doesnt DO anything unlawful you cant DO anything against them. Law enforcement is always reactive because to be pro-active you have to act against some one BEFORE they have commited any crime.


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

Not quite, but you wont see me losing any sleep over the hyped terrorist threat that seems to consume you. I seek to prove to you that "terrorist" is pretty much a useless term as its purely subjective. That means that any one can be labelled a terrorist if a politician says so, therefore the definition of "terrorist" is completely, and utterly, useless in a law enforcement setting. Terms such as "murderer" are more than adequate are they not? Do murderers not scare people or something?


Originally posted by jsobecky
I explained to SO that without definitions and guidelines, this is nothing more than academic banter. So take it from there.

I'm going to take it from here, dont you worry. What more do expect from a discussion board? Action? Worse still, pro-active action? You have all the guidlines you need, read the T&C if you need to.

[edit on 26/5/06 by subz]




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join