Giving up freedom to protect freedom (?????)

I would imagine many of you have had a similar conversation at some point.

I was talking with a freeper a while back, and the argument was on freedom and rights post-911. His view was that the harsh reality of terrorism was such that it would be INSANE not to expect that some rights would have to be suspended in order to combat this menace. Also, liberals want to have it both ways: they want freedom to be preserved but then will scream and holler because the government didn't keep tabs on the suspected terrorists who ended up flying the planes into the WTC.

OK, you know the argument.

What I didn't think to ask then but would ask now to this guy and ANY freeper who follows the "oppression in defense of liberty is no vice" rationale this: OK, fine, how far should we take this?

If civil libertarians are out of line objecting to the increased police presence at subway stops with the random bag checking, why stop there?

Why not institute a policy that EVERY rider on public transport (bus, train, plane, boat, whatever) must submit to a thorough, rigorous strip search and body cavity exam before boarding the vehicle? And if they refuse, automatic jail time for refusing to cooperate in a terror check. Or, what about a rule that you must strip naked (I promise you folks this is not some obsession of mine, LOL) and give your clothing and ALL personal belongings to an officer before boarding plane, commuter train, again whatever. You would then reclaim your items upon reaching your destination. In both cases, one could argue that you'd REALLY make it tough for any potential terrorists (esp. if their nude and carrying nothing but their skin).

Of course, this is going to far, and I'd imagine the pro-inconvenience crowd would say you'd have to draw a line; but what if that line is not drawn far in enough (if that makes any sense)? If the goal is utmost security, even at the expense of traditional freedoms, then where IS the balancing act?

I don't know about you folks but when there is beefed-up security, I don't feel more secure, just more intimidated. Plus, I feel like the terrorists HAVE won (if their purported goal is to destroy us because we're too free).

means house of war

Dar al-Harb (Arabic: "house of war") is a term used in many Islamic countries to refer to those areas outside Muslim rule. In some conservative traditions of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the "house of submission" or the "house of God", and dar al-Harb, the "house of war": the home of the infidels or unbelievers (Arabic: kufr). The terms are usually understood to refer, respectively, to those lands currently administered by Muslim governments and those administered by non-Muslim governments. The exact definitions of these territories can vary widely according to the viewer's concept of who is and is not a Muslim, and which governments are or are not Muslim in practice.

The Muslim worldview espoused by the terms dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb is further confused by the addition of a third 'house' during the Ottoman era. See dar al-Ahd.

The goal of some aggressive Islamist organizations, such as Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, is to expand the borders of dar al-Islam at the expense of dar al-Harb, and to create a universal Islamic community. According to their philosophy, this is the meaning of the term jihad. Another philosophy that espouses this terminology is the Saudi Wahhabist tradition. However, bin Laden and the Wahabbis differ on the important point of whether jihad may be pronounced and undertaken by individuals, or is a power reserved to the state. Bin Laden takes the former view, most likely emanating from his readings of Sayyed Qutb.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Harb

The Islamist is NOT truly interested in being just left alone. They hate us for our freedom of religion. They beleive it is a rightous cause to convert the infidel to Islam by whatever means. Israel is just the closet and easiest target of those countries belonging in the House of War. In this 10,000 foot view of civilization Western countries are simply infidel lands that require conquering and converting to Islam.

In light of this it raises an interesting issues regarding freedom. For example if your neighbor is waging war with you, can you passively allow this to happen? You must attempt to restrict their freedoms to attack you. You may need to infringe on the freedoms of others in doing this. It's a difficult balance. Personally I don't mind beefed up security where appropriate.

My neighbor wages war on me and my other neighbors have to lose their freedom? Please elaborate on this scenario.

And, as far as the Wahabbi example is concerned, how much have we retaliated or expressed some kind of backlash against Saudi Arabia vs. abbreviating the liberties of American citizens?

I'm sure you're driving at a plausible point but I need to you help me towards the light, so to speak.

we are at war. We have been since at least 1993, we just didn't know it. Being at war will force us to make hard choices about our liberties. In a place as open as America, our liabilities in this war are huge. There needs to be an open and realistic discourse about how to balance our liberties and protect our people and infrastructure. The Bush administration did not create this problem, they have perhaps capitalized on it to feed friends and corporations, but they inherited the war on terror.

As for a backlash against Saudi Arabia, there has been none, other than many Saudis have left the country. Al-Saud have their own internal problems with Al-Qeada and Shiites. There are routine attacks within the kingdom against Westerners and Arabs viewed as to Western. We have done nothing because of oil. We need a stable Saudi Arabia. Even if they are part of our problem. I don't like it but I am a little too old to be idealist and tend toward pragmatism. The bottom line is that for the present Oil = Western Civilization. I for one don't relish the thought of going back to the horse and buggy.

As a friend of mine that is very knowledgeable about Saudi Arabia (being an Arab and living there for many years) recently told me one cannot understand them from a Western perspective. The entire social and government system is illogical to us.

Now regarding my scenario. It was just an example. I'd rather not center a discussion around it. I could come up with 100 reason why in protecting yourself, you may infringe on others freedoms.

Your neighbor is known to use his family and friends to do his dirty work. To combat this you must insist anyone entering your property is strip searched.

A significant financial center and military center (with many civilians) in your country was destroyed by fanatics who have promised they will do something similar in the future. The prove their intent by attacking a subway system in a country friendly to you, and on a regular basis attack Westerners or those deemed as too Western.

It is clear the open society we enjoy makes us an easy target in literally hundreds of thousands of places. Some type of additional security measures are needed to protect the people. These security measure may infringe on some liberties we have enjoy for a long time.

So you have been put in charge of the whole problem. What are you going to do?

Among other things, I'd FORCE all fed/state/local law enforcement agencies to check their rivalries at the door and convene a task force of the best sleuths to go to work on tracking down the perps. I'd do likewise with international agencies.

I'd propose serious tax breaks for the airline industry, in fact, I'd consider subsidies, to insure that all security staff are given quality benefits, good salaries, and top-notch training. No more of this rent-a-cop jazz, THAT'S part of the problem.

I'd send a clear message to the terrorists that their actions will not snuff out the flames of freedom (or something lofty and corny like that); there will be NO abridgements of liberties, and I would veto ANY legislation that smacked of such.

And those who'd be scared to death that I wasn't doing enough would be more than welcome to leave for Canada. I would be happy to be the first President impeached for upholding individual rights.

So that's what I would do.

Although I question the practically of implementation and if it is enough to protect people.

that al-Qaeda and 'islamofascists' in general are

1) a reaction toward persistent Western policy in the Middle East

OR

2) a pro-active group perpetrating attacks (provoked or not) against the West and USA in particular for their own 'interests' ?

OR

3) Something else

?

But I can't beleive these guys operate without support from any foreign nation although. After all, the West have been after them for 4 years, maybe more, and you can still see Bush among other waving the al-Qaeda threat.

investment in his own reelection would probably be a more accurate description.

From today's headlines:

New York ends subway alert

"U.S. intelligence considered the threat to be of doubtful credibility but Bloomberg said it was serious enough to warn the public."

http://olympics.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-10-10T180256Z_01_KWA681941_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-NEWYORK.xml


Bloomberg Spends $46.6 Million on Race

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has already spent nearly $50 million of his own money on his re-election campaign, according to campaign records released yesterday, far ahead of the phenomenal pace of his spending in the 2001 election and putting him on track to break all records for expenditures for any office except the presidency."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/08/nyregion/metrocampaigns/08spend.html?pagewanted=2&8bl