User Comments

1. 

   6/07/09

   jhixon2

   So helping defend us from terrorist attacks was a bad idea?

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/08/09

      libertycast1

      Actually its entirely unconsittutional and infringes upon the rights of all Americans. This gives dangerous amounts of power back to the federal government which the founding fathers took away in the first place. If I get back online soon enough I'll go pull some quotes to prove that point.
      
      Also our intervention is harming us and has been proven though supressed. The theory came from the CIA itself and is called blowback. Example, a loving parent who over protects and a teenager rebels against them. Everybody knows this happens and guess what? That's "blowback". Many of these countries lash out against our oppression. We seriously need to be backing off and let people govern their own lives. We preach freedom and liberty to ourselves and yet turn out hypocrites when we deny the rest of the world that very thing.
   2. 

      6/08/09

      Agit8r

      Bravo Libertycast! couldn't have put it better
   3. 

      6/09/09

      libertycast1

      *bows*
2. 

   6/07/09

   anticsrocks

   I believe there are different versions of Ben's quote:
   
   "Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to
   the Governor of Pennsylvania.) "
   
   "This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it." - from Wikipedia
   
   Also from Wikipedia - "Benjamin Franklin did publish the edition printed in Philadelphia, and most likely the original, but denied writing any part of it. The quote however may have originated from Franklin, but was excerpted for the book by the author."
   
   None the less, to argue your point about what I presume you think is the unjust surrender of some of our liberties in the wake of 9/11. I do not like going to the airport anymore, for one can no longer say goodbye to their loved ones and sit and watch their plane depart. It takes much longer to travel by plane and having to take off your shoes, and submit to the searches is not fun at all. But had those measures been in place pre 9/11, it is very possible that 3,000+ Americans would not have perished that day. So do I think it is worth it? Yes. As for the Patriot Act, I think that it, like any law it can be twisted and abused. But I think it was probably necessary for the survival of our country. Or at least for the survival of the way of life we know and love in this country.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/07/09

      satijournal

      Our government is generally reactive -- not proactive. It took 9/11 to get some protections in place and even since the attack, many airports are still not secure.
      
      But I think the OP was about the illegal wiretappings of U.S. citizens, requiring libraries to share information about patrons, getting personal information from phone companies, and other possible invasions of privacy.
   2. 

      6/07/09

      michaelmcguerty

      Sounds like Anticsrocks and Jhixon2 would make perfect candidates for the type of people Benjamin Franklin was referring to in his word "those".
      Even the proponents of the unconstitutional, unpatriotic Patriot Act have admitted that it would not stop another 911. The USA Patriot Act does however violate the First and Fourth Amendment to the Constitution through the expansion of the government's ability to wiretap telephones, monitor e-mail communications, survey medical, financial and student records, and secretly enter homes and offices without customary administrative oversight or without showing of probable cause. The Patriot Act also violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in establishing military tribunals, and in subjecting citizens and non-citizens to indefinite detention when they have not been allowed an attorney, brought to trial, or even charged with a crime. The Patriot Act gives the Federal Government the ability to monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity and may prosecute librarians or keepers of any records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information.
      Can you not smell Totalitarianism / Fascism when it enters your room?
      Feel SAFER now?
   3. 

      6/07/09

      satijournal

      That's right. And if we allow the government to do all those things, what exactly are they protecting us from? We wind up needing protection FROM the government.
   4. 

      6/08/09

      anticsrocks

      Yes michaelmcguerty I can. I can also know that Islamo-Fascism is a new type of enemy and requires a new type of combat. What kind of new combat tactics, I would not be willing to guess. That is not my area of expertise.
      
      I did not in any case defend or purport to say that the Patriot Act was a good piece of legislation. To be honest, I do not know enough about it to go into the details on it. I was making a general statement that ANY law can be twisted. And if you read my post again, you will see that dear old Ben didn't say "those" words.
      
      Climb down off your high horse now. When I make a post that says the Patriot Act is a just and good law, then you may enjoin in a debate with me on it. I have yet to do that.
3. 

   6/08/09

   Agit8r

   how bout...
   
   "I know not what course others may take but as for me; give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/08/09

      anticsrocks

      That is an awesome quote. =D