The First Openly Godless Member of Congress

[Caladan 19]

The existential threat the U.S. faces is not from al-Qaeda. It's that we become so paranoid of al-Qaeda that we abandon our dedication to remaining a free people.

And history tells us this happens in inches, usually proceeding in progressively bolder quasi-legal moves. Do not worry, Roman Senators, Augustus won't dissolve the Senate; he's just assuming control for a little while after all that instability. Do not worry, German people. This Hitler guy was elected legally and it really seems like he's about family and a strong German economy. It's only the Jews that have to wear the stars. Stalin's alright. We have elections and a Constitution.

It isn't like the movies. There isn't going to be a line in the sand with Jack Bauer and Jack Ryan and Leonidas shouting that this is the last straw and then thunderous music and people racing to throw out the powermongers. One day, we wake up in an empire, with no rights, and just the mercy of a government that claims it knows who the terrorists are but doesn't think you need to see any evidence.

[GaryC 7]

yes, it's always been there, but such a scenario is more possible now than it was 20 years ago due to the collapse of the ussr.

How will the nation be destroyed by terrorism?

Think about what would happen if NYC and Washington DC were nuked. It may not destroy our country but it would certainly cause major damage.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yes, it's always been there, but such a scenario is more possible now than it was 20 years ago due to the collapse of the ussr.

How will the nation be destroyed by terrorism?

Think about what would happen if NYC and Washington DC were nuked. It may not destroy our country but it would certainly cause major damage.

No disagreement there.

[Caladan 19]

Damage isn't the same as an existential threat. If we're just doing a headcount, Vietnam was a greater existential threat to the U.S. than al-Qaeda. We lost more on the Tet Offensive than we did on 9/11.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you are willing to have a nuclear 9/11 because of your reluctance to having the tools at hand to stop it?

Given the issues with port and border security if someone wants to do something like that - they will find a way. There's little justification that sweeping tapping phone calls, internet records and warrantless searches will do anything to stop that when basic security issues remain unaddressed.

So then we should just sit back and do nothing? You want to just hope that they don't get a nuke into NYC next time? All these measures are designed to see it coming so we can prevent it. No matter how tight we secure our borders, in a world of suitcase nukes we could never hope to stop them with border security alone. We need intelligence assets to find the people that want to do this.

How naive is it to do nothing and hoping everything will be ok?

Just because I don't agree with the legislation doesn't mean I advocate doing nothing. The fact is that none of this means much of anything when basic security issues go unresolved.

Our constitutional safeguards cannot be overrules by any law. That is what our Supreme Court is for. That was a flaw in their constitution.

Sure until someone legislates to undermine the court and make it irrelevant. This is already happening to some degree.

[GaryC 7]

Damage isn't the same as an existential threat. If we're just doing a headcount, Vietnam was a greater existential threat to the U.S. than al-Qaeda. We lost more on the Tet Offensive than we did on 9/11.

We are not doing a head count. The Vietnam war was wrong. They didn't pose a threat to us at all. Al-Queda and terrorists in general pose a very real threat to us. They have already shown that they can and will attack us on our own soil. The two threats are vastly different.

[GaryC 7]

Our constitutional safeguards cannot be overrules by any law. That is what our Supreme Court is for. That was a flaw in their constitution.

Sure until someone legislates to undermine the court and make it irrelevant. This is already happening to some degree.

Sorry, I don't see that. The supreme court still sits and the last time I looked they still have the last word on what is and isn't constitutional.

[Caladan 19]

The options aren't between 'do nothing and naîvely hope' and 'we must toss out the Constitution'. I'd be happy with a paper trail and court recourse and judicial oversight. The danger right now is that if the government screws up --a name hit, a mistake -- there's no way to rectify it. No court access means you have to rely on the guy waterboarding you to believe you're an American citizen with rights.

Now, maybe you believe that the government never makes mistakes, that they infallibly know who the terrorists are and who are just people with similar names.

If you believe that after having applied for a visa, with all due respect, you're an idiot.

[GaryC 7]

The options aren't between 'do nothing and naîvely hope' and 'we must toss out the Constitution'. I'd be happy with a paper trail and court recourse and judicial oversight. The danger right now is that if the government screws up --a name hit, a mistake -- there's no way to rectify it. No court access means you have to rely on the guy waterboarding you to believe you're an American citizen with rights.

Now, maybe you believe that the government never makes mistakes, that they infallibly know who the terrorists are and who are just people with similar names.

If you believe that after having applied for a visa, with all due respect, you're an idiot.

Jeez, Ok, so if your opposition is because the government sometimes makes mistakes then we should overturn our murder laws. Since the government sometimes makes the mistake of convicting the wrong man by your logic we should not have laws to arrest and jail someone that kills. And please don't throw insults. We were having a civil conversation until you took that turn into left field.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Jeez, Ok, so if your opposition is because the government sometimes makes mistakes then we should overturn our murder laws. Since the government sometimes makes the mistake of convicting the wrong man by your logic we should not have laws to arrest and jail someone that kills. And please don't throw insults. We were having a civil conversation until you took that turn into left field.

Well actually if we're using crime as an analogy, the apt comparison would be that not only should a normal criminal trial should be dispensed with, but that the accused should be plucked off the street without first hearing the charges against him and placed in a cell for 5 years, before he is granted the luxury of seeing a judge.

Edited March 27, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

Jeez, Ok, so if your opposition is because the government sometimes makes mistakes then we should overturn our murder laws. Since the government sometimes makes the mistake of convicting the wrong man by your logic we should not have laws to arrest and jail someone that kills. And please don't throw insults. We were having a civil conversation until you took that turn into left field.

Well actually if we're using crime as an analogy, the apt comparison would be that not only should a normal criminal trial should be dispensed with, but that the accused should be plucked off the street without first hearing the charges against him and placed in a cell for 5 years, before he is granted the luxury of seeing a judge.

We don't do that in America even for a suspected terrorist. Anyone captured in America is given full due process.

[Caladan 19]

The options aren't between 'do nothing and naîvely hope' and 'we must toss out the Constitution'. I'd be happy with a paper trail and court recourse and judicial oversight. The danger right now is that if the government screws up --a name hit, a mistake -- there's no way to rectify it. No court access means you have to rely on the guy waterboarding you to believe you're an American citizen with rights.

Now, maybe you believe that the government never makes mistakes, that they infallibly know who the terrorists are and who are just people with similar names.

If you believe that after having applied for a visa, with all due respect, you're an idiot.

Jeez, Ok, so if your opposition is because the government sometimes makes mistakes then we should overturn our murder laws. Since the government sometimes makes the mistake of convicting the wrong man by your logic we should not have laws to arrest and jail someone that kills. And please don't throw insults. We were having a civil conversation until you took that turn into left field.

Sorry about the insult. It was intemperate. But this discussion gets under my skin like no other; being called a terrorist supporter isn't exactly neutral terms. And I can't believe that anyone who has a foreign spouse (who isn't, at the moment, clearly afforded the protections of the bill of rights) can be so nonchalant and accuse other people of supporting terrorists.

But if we're going to play around with analogies, your analogy would be better like this: If someone's accused of murder, they must be guilty. Why would you think they need a trial? Why do you support murderers? Do you like murderers? You kiss murderers, don't you? MURDERER SUPPORTER.

And you would quite reasonably say: no, I believe in due process, and sometimes the government arrests the wrong people. The accused deserve a paper trail so in case they're innocent, we can correct the mistake.

[GaryC 7]

Sorry about the insult. It was intemperate. But this discussion gets under my skin like no other; being called a terrorist supporter isn't exactly neutral terms. And I can't believe that anyone who has a foreign spouse (who isn't, at the moment, clearly afforded the protections of the bill of rights) can be so nonchalant and accuse other people of supporting terrorists.

But if we're going to play around with analogies, your analogy would be better like this: If someone's accused of murder, they must be guilty. Why would you think they need a trial? Why do you support murderers? Do you like murderers? You kiss murderers, don't you? MURDERER SUPPORTER.

And you would quite reasonably say: no, I believe in due process, and sometimes the government arrests the wrong people. The accused deserve a paper trail so in case they're innocent, we can correct the mistake.

I never accused you of supporting terrorists. And like I said to Erekose, if your captured in America everyone gets full due process. That hasn't changed. We were discussing the Patriot Act. No where in that act is due process infringed upon.

[LaL 418]

We don't do that in America even for a suspected terrorist. Anyone captured in America is given full due process.

clearly false. even in immigration. one crosses the border and the CBP just makes a statement that this person made a claim to be an american citizen, there is no due process. one statement, unrecorded, and you get really messed up.

unless of course you meant American Citizens are given full due process, but thats not what you said.

[GaryC 7]

We don't do that in America even for a suspected terrorist. Anyone captured in America is given full due process.

clearly false. even in immigration. one crosses the border and the CBP just makes a statement that this person made a claim to be an american citizen, there is no due process. one statement, unrecorded, and you get really messed up.

unless of course you meant American Citizens are given full due process, but thats not what you said.

We are talking about criminal proceedings. Not immigration. If you are accused of committing a crime in America you are given full due process regardless of your immigration status.