Re: ot-political-(can't help myself) justice dept/andrew card/gonzalez/ashcroft

"mo" <roundbadger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in a message

here's what i don't get and i hope you'll answer me in a way that my
simple backbeat liberal " destructive for america" mind can
understand.

are you saying that a spy and evesdropping program undertaken by the
us government against it's own citizens that has been found to be
completely unconstitutional and illegal is ok because " i " haven't
been affected, or "you" haven't been affected? so the price of
anyone , especially a us citizen, tortured, held for questioning
without being charged, wiretapped, you name it, is valid for you
because some sacrifices have to be made to fight ' war on terror"? i
really fail to understand this position..

If you don't mind, I would like to answer this also, because I think I have
a perspective that you might be able to relate to.

I don't think it's 'OK' for the government to do anything which is illegal,
immoral or unconstitutional. I do, however, 'accept it', as it is reality. I
don't think this administration is doing anything more than any past
administration. Especially in times of war, our government has regularly
thrown legaglity and the protection of individual rights aside 'for the
common good'.

Without looking at the specifics of each instance, I would bet that when
this has been done, it has most often been wrong (such as the Japanese
internment camps in WWII), but, it was done with honest motivations in the
belief that it was best for the general population.

With this administration, we (the public) seem to know about it as it is
happening, or very soon after. In the past, it happened and no one heard
about it (or talked about it) until much later.

Some times, probably rarely, 'the wrong thing', *is* the right thing to do,
especially in a war. I think wars should be avoided at all costs, but, once
you *do* get involved, then you need to do whatever is neccessary to win
(otherwise, what's the point of getting involved?). An example, maybe not
the best one, of a case where I would say 'wrong is right' would be a case
where an officer or an NCO wants his troops to do something that will get
most or all of them killed, and accomplish nothing else. In such a case, I
have no problem with those troops doing whatever is neccessary to change his
mind (including a little friendly fire accident if such drastic measure is
warranted).

Taking it back to a presidemtial administration level, I think the
intentions tend to be good. I think the people involved really do want to do
the right thing, and really believe it when they decide that doing the wrong
thing is the right thing.

We 'only' lost 3,000 +/- people in the 9/11 attacks, but the impact it had
on everyone extended well beyond that. The politicians were, and are,
between a rock and a hard place. If they stay within what is legal, it is
likely another attack could easily happen. If they do whatever is needed to
discover and prevent another attack, they get ragged on for stepping over
the line. ... and, they are fighting a losing battle. Someone who is
motivated to kill you, and is willing to die doing it, is not easily
stopped, especially if there is another one right behind him.

The truth is, no matter what politicians do, they can never assure we will
be safe. At the same time, it is true that the general population prefers to
ignore that reality, imagines there *is* something politicians can do to
prevent any and all evil, expects them to do so at all times, and will
certainly blame them when they 'fail'.

Politicians only real goal is to get reelected. They *have* to do something.
Their preference for that something would be that they give the citizens a
perception of being kept safe. It is an unpleasant reality that people given
such tasks will cross ines in their attempt to accomplish this goal. It's
always been true. It always will be.

If you take it to a personal level, would you really be any different? Put
yourself in similar shoes - a man is threatening your family. Your choice is
to eliminate the threat, or your family will most likely die. He's in the
house. Legally, you can call the cops and hope they arrive in time, and they
can do something effective when they get there. The law prevents you from
using deadly force to stop this man. In your mind, you know that if he goes
to jail, when he gets out, he will come back. You have the means to kill
him. Would you?

I would.


You asked about the limits. Where do you draw the line? My answer is, you
draw the line when you get to it. Laws atttempt to pretend there is a black
and white to every situation. Our court system was created in such a way so
as to recognize the gray.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Solutions
    ... Remove protections politicians put in place exempting themselves from laws ... Tie all State/Fedral Payraises for any government employee (Whether elected ... healthcare supplied average of all US citizens ... Congress during any year economy shrinks may only take short breaks for holidays. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: ot-political-(cant help myself) justice dept/andrew card/gonzalez/ashcroft
    ... us government against it's own citizens that has been found to be ... If you don't mind, I would like to answer this also, because I think I have ... I don't think it's 'OK' for the government to do anything which is illegal, ... safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ...
    (rec.music.makers.percussion)
  • Re: Character advancement in games (was Re: Alien RPG cancelled, Obsidian in trouble)
    ... Human beings are not always reasonable and the history of civilization is one where nations and organized armed groups have *frequently* gone to war for no more reason than simple hatred of one another. ... My emphasis has been that I wish to prevent you, and people like you, from using force (i.e: the power of government) to live according to your philosophy. ... Never mind the vast differences between the two places' economies, never mind that "those poor workers" had no jobs at all before Corporation A opened a factory nearby, never mind that the compensation they *do* receive places them in the upper percentile of wage earners in their native country, and never mind that paying "those poor workers" a wage comparable to what workers in your country might make for that job would instantly make them the wealthiest people in their country, inflating their monetary system and throwing the rest of that nation into an economic crisis. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg)
  • Re: Canada - fecalskin islamist soon to be booted off Porchlight ISP , just like Cogeco Cable
    ... When this happens my mind doesn't rest. ... danger" of the U.S. government staging a terrorist attack or a "Gulf ... administration has been up to this before. ... terror attack, regardless of how certain many of us are that it has ...
    (soc.culture.palestine)
  • Re: What the ?
    ... Wings to the Mind, ... Tony Blair's government exposed soldiers to the risk of death by failing to ... order a public inquiry into the death of two 19-year-old soldiers in Iraq.... ... completely unequivocal advice that an invasion would be legal. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)