What are you "willing to give up"?

That is so broad of a question that I don't know how to answer it.

I think we do need to reassess our laws to take into account modern techology that seems like it has advanced so quickly in the past ten years.

I would need to hear from the experts before I could offer an opinion as to how much power beyond what is given to the executive branch in the U.S. constitution and the laws already passed by Congress that they recommend, with the reasons for it, before I would give up any safeguards, or not.

 

As far as I am concerned, if we don't defeat the Jihadists, we won't have to worry about giving up our rights, or really anything for that matter. The only concern we will have is how long it will be before we have a knife at our throats.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Just remember that whatever safeguards we give up with President Bush in office and the Republicans in control of the control will also be the safeguards we no longer have in place when Hillary Clinton, or Mark Warner, or John Kerry, or John Edwards, etc., may be president and the Democrats may have control of the Congress. And maybe Howard Dean is the Attorney General.

Not that I am saying that I trust the Republicans more than the Democrats in this matter, but I get the idea that some posters in this forum do.

 

I think we have a better chance with anyone you named on the list than we do with the Jihadists.

Joseph Botwinick

 

How would you feel about the FBI "infiltrating" your church to see if there were any antiabortion terrorists associated with them. (current definition of "associated"; they made a phone call to your church once)

 

I would be ok with that since there are none. How would you feel if this nation were over-run by Islamic extremist who care nothing about your freedoms and wanted to saw your head off?

Joseph Botwinick

 

The Galatian,

That was what I was thinking.

At first, and to a point, I still believe we should, as Ken mentioned looked at the ways we can fight this, and take steps to start fighting it. Times and techology has surely changed a lot in the last few years.

Now, would/will that happen? No, not really. Washington is so political that they can't really do anything in my book. They will gang up in their usual bunches and each side won't even listen, much less debate the issues at hand.

I wish we could come together as a nation, and find ways to stopping the terror, without costing our our freedom. I believe with due diligence, you can have both, safety and freedoms.

I believe our first step is to shore up our borders, and that includes in the air. *Know* who is coming in this country before they get here. A second step is to expel anyone that is here that shouldn't be. It would be a start in my opinion.

I would be willing to give up some safeguards, or rights to be safe, HOWEVER, in doing so, I would want to hold anyone accountable for ANY wrong doing of these "new laws". And this would include anyone who skates around on the mere notion that they have a right to do what they're doing.

I know this sounds like I am bashing Bush, but I am not, I just believe that is we open ourselves up to be safe and give away some freedom in doing so, there needs to be checks and balances to prevent abuse, and if there is abuse, then it should be dealt with quickly.

Jamie

 

I agree 100% If our leaders would focus on their constitutional responsibility to protect our borders and not be so concerned with increasing immigration and trying to open our borders, they wouldn't have to figure out new ways to ignore the Constitution.

The Jihadists didn't declare war on the US on 9/11, they have wanted to kill us for hundreds of years. They attacked us in 1993 and again on 9/11, they were here because of our weak immigration and student visa program. If we want to get serious about fighting the Jihadists, then we need to stop sending them millions in foriegn aid, and stop inviting them to to the Whitehouse and the Texas ranch for meetings.

Attacking our Constitution and personal rights is not the answer, closing our borders, ending our partnerships with terrorist nations and focusing on keeping the Jihadists out of our country is.

 

It sounds as if you are saying (to Moslems), "I'm willing to give up your rights".

That attitude can come back to bite you, as Galatians pointed out. Joseph seems to feel immune to the idea that Christian extremists also pose a threat (McVeigh was Christian, revenging Ruby Ridge, not a Moslem). The Army of God is a Christian terrorist organization.

No, I would not like a Taliban-like government of whatever religion or denomination. What would I give up? Nothing, because every right, every civil liberty we give up brings us one step closer to that we are against.

 

If by anti-abortion terrorist, you mean one who does, or is willing to do, violence to those that favor abortion...

I'd be quite comfortable with it, thank you.

If I knew who the agents were, I'd invite them over for dinner and tell them all I know.

 

The biggest threat to our freedom and liberty is our own government. I am not willing to give up anything to them.

 

I don't understand why a person would be willing to redefine liberties or sacrifice our God given right as defined by the Constitution in the United States.
As Franklin D. Roosevelt once said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
and quite frankly I am becoming rather weary of all the fear mongering that is going on throughout this country.

 

AMEN. How many rights did we give up to defeat the NAZIs or the KLAN? The Japanese internment was a shameful affaire.

 

We've already given up the right to free speech.

 

None. But I'm also not going to accuse the government of taking away a perceived right whenever they blow their nose, as may who are hypercritical of the government frequently do.

 

That is part of the price a free people pay in a Democracy, for a measure of security.

That is sure a pessimistic view of the upcoming elections.