Of course your sense of outrage extends to the treatment of Palestinians by Mossad. Fucking hypocrite.
tradernik, I am amused that you give so much thought to my posts. It is in extreme contrast to my approach to your posts - glance, laugh, disregard. The fervor and frothing at the mouth which you display, although misguided, appears to be genuine, so you've got that going for you. However, as you proved on another thread, you are a wholly unworthy opponent whose comments are undeserving of serious thought or analysis. Note that I don't even bother to quote you. But keep up with your moonbat antics. They are a source of levity to me and I'm sure many others.
Hi Pabst I never considered myself a 'libertarian', just someone who admired America for its protection of individual rights like freedom of speech. I am not so sure about the right to bear automatic weapons. But with regard to your point about breathalyzers, I assume your argument is that libertarians argue against the right of police to 'invade the privacy of drivers' by intruding into the driving compartment and getting a breath sample. I sat here for a while after typing this paragraph because I realized fully what the contradiction is. Yes... if the cops have no evidence that a crime has been committed, should they be able to randomly test your breath? Isn't that like randomly entering your house to see if you are smoking pot? But your house is a private place and the roads aren't... hmmmm I'll have to think about that one. All I can tell you is this. Those of us who are not American have watched with dismay while those things which we valued the most about America have been undermined in the name of the War on Terror. The deal going on now with Guantanamo Bay is just terrible. Held without charges is, to me, so completely contrary to what America represents. And I hope that people realize that people who think the way I do are not necessarily soft on terrorism. My personal beliefs about what I think should be done to people who are proved to have even plotted to blow up innocent people in the name of their personal God or their cause might make some people a little queasy. By the way, I understand that the reason the terrorists weren't apprehended before 9/11 was that the was inadequate information sharing between services. This is the kind of problem that we know can happen - human foibles can get in the way of good decision making. That's why we have rules, right? That's why the claim that the investigators and those who wield the power granted by the secret wiretaps laws might abuse it or do something else that doesn't make sense needs to be addressed.
Sure I do. I have to. We all do That was easy, wasn't it? I can honestly say that I have never once quoted myself, but it seems appropriate here "Thank God that we live in a free country where men like you are allowed to speak their minds, so that the rest of us may understand what might happen if we are not vigilant".
^^^Very easy, especially to a non-American writing prattle about being vigilant yet criticizing a program that is based exactly on vigilance.
lol... just completely unable to understand any argument put to you, aren't you? What an intelligent set of responses, hap. At least you confirmed what I said about you earlier, to anyone who hasn't has the misfortune of reading through your last set of rantings. The only thing you left out was telling me to 'start another thread', which is what you did in the other thread anytime anyone said something you didn't like. I'm surprised - did you forget? Maybe one too many hits off the pipe tonight? EDIT: I noticed you've stopped using 'ad hominem' for the day at least.
Chances are good the Guantanamo ordeal prevented future planned attacks in the US imo. 911 was a huge wake up call. For a country of 280 million to be brought to a sudden stop, not knowing how many more attacks had been planned already, I think Guantanamo was a valid choice at the time. Why are they still being held, that's another question.
Hi 007 I assume you feel further attacks immediately post 9/11 were prevented because others who may have been actively planning attacks ended up in Guantanamo, as opposed to the idea that the existence of Guantanamo functioned to discourage or prevent terrorists still free from acting? If you ask me whether lives were saved because of Guantanamo, that is, if some of those in Guantanamo may have gone on to kill innocents, I would have to say almost certainly. Don't get me wrong - the US Army, vast as it is, didn't have the resources to randomly corral Arab-looking men and send them to G-Bay. Many or even most of them probably were and are hard core terrorists. There are lots of Arab-looking people around. However... Would the savings of lives accomplished in this way be worth it if 100 innocent men were held and tortured? Just not sure about that...I guess that's the question, though. I don't take it lightly. I see how you might say 'Yes, it was worth it'. I just don't know if I can say the same.
I see your point Nik. If you consider that Al-queda was free to train terrorists for years in Afghanistan and nobody knew how many terror attacks had already been planned or where about to be implemented at any moment, what would a reasonable government do ? Take a chance ? The fact that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on US mainland since 911 is being taken for granted by many in this country. As far as the detainees in Guantanamo. If they have not gotten all the information they need in 4 years, I don't know what they are expecting. Those men should be either prosecuted or send back to their homeland, I agree. And the US Gov should compensate the ones who were found innocent.
Yep, I hear you there. In those months after the attacks, I don't think you would have found one North American, even a 'libertarian', who would have objected to the rounding up of anyone even remotely connected in any way with any form of Islamic extremist group or thought, anywhere they could be found. I would have to admit that I had some pretty evil thoughts in those days.