Slashdot Mirror
Freedom Flees in Terror
Paul McMasters of the Freedom Forum has an editorial about the various and many restrictions on freedom that are following in the wake of the September 11 crashes.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
"Would you trade in some of your personal freedom to be safer from terrorists?"
Most folks would agree to this, certainly. Unfortunately, as it stands, it seems the more salient question is "Would you trade in some of your personal freedo to be no safer from terrorists?" Because that's where it is: we will be asked to sacrifice our freedoms, but will be no safer from terrorist actions-- especially terrorist that display the adaptibility, patience and savage will that these hijackers did.
Much Love,
"S"HM
*****
(I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
Because the concept of making a choice between "free speech vs. safety" is a moral/ethical decision. It's a value judgement of sorts.
Your comment about "And if I was a doctor and was required to do it by the state i would rather do it than die." doesn't ring true for any stanch Roman Catholic, who would believe that would be an Express Ticket to Hell.
Lots of people, throughout the history of this country, have decided for themselves that "living free" was more important than "living at all". Those men and women bled and died on battlefields from Saratoga forward...
For someone to say that "living" is worth more than "living free" disgraces the memory of those many who died specifically to prove otherwise.
Okay...take this. If I'm a hypothetical terrorist, and I'm sending/getting e-mail about the above scenario. Now, if I'm smart, it'll look like
K Ljfls
asdfASEAJfakjaSKjdkljaAJK>jflkjasADFjASDJKFjakl sdjfAAKSjkaljtlkrutaileACJieAJaJAIOEAIUEIUaLFKJas
until it gets decrypted. But lets suppose I'm somewhat dim and don't encrypt this. What would Carnivore think of
-------
Tonight I was listening to Sting and
Los Lobos. Sting's song from The Soul Cages,
Angels Will Fall is not as good as his anti-
Nuke stuff from the 80s, but it is still better than Blue
Midnight by Los Lobos.
--------
so..am I just some idiot stuck in the 80s, or was the message the first word of each sentence - Tonight Los Angels Muke Midnight.
Hell...does Carnivore even do anything other than english?
What constantly stuns me about the American public is how much it seems that few remember their lessons from civics class on why and how the US was formed.
The founders of the US framed the constitution based around the fact that the natural tendency of government is to oppress its people and for this reason there are a number of safeguards in the US constitution (Bill of Rights, Seperation of powers, etc) that are there for the express purpose of preventing the government from oppressing the people. The current trend of assuming that the government knows best and won't abuse its powers runs counter to spirit that originally founded the United States and would have the framers of the constitution rolling in their graves.
Seems this is an appropriate place to toss out a couple of new attack-related sites.
First, Jane's Security has some ideas about who may be behind this attack... and it ain't bin Laden.
Second, Political Cartoons, a collection of attack-related cartoons. Some are worth a second look: you can draw opposing interpretations from them.
The Dalai Lama's letter to Bush. Worth reading twice: it's short, and important.
Bush's Language: why calling this a "crusade" is rather foolish.
Also, I'd like to apologize for a previous post in which I used the word "accident" in lieu of "attack." My mind was somewhere else, and I think it was trying to fool itself about the atrocity of the attack.
This can be a sick and cruel world, or a world of joy and life. I encourage you to encourage others to choose the latter. Let's stop the hatred within our own communities, as we try to stop the hatred between nations.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Vietnam. Please. Now you can go ahead and say "we weren't actually at WAR" but this would conflict with your earlier interpretation of this term, since you say "WE ARE AT WAR!" without us currently being at war.
They don't think so.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Damn idealists.
There are many things the public should know (that the government would prefer us not to), that terrorists have absolutely no interest in. Does "Tuskeegee syphillis study" ring a bell? Less seriously, when the hell are we going to find out who shot JFK? :-)
You're correct, in a way...
it's the fact that terrorists are attacking us which is directly causing us to lose our freedoms.
Did the World Trade Center, or 5000 people provide us with freedom? No...
Did the Pentagon provide us with freedom? Hardly...
Am I any less free than I was last week? Yes.
Who made me less free? Was it the terrorists attacking, or the congress critters reacting?
Reaction is the most dangerous force in the Universe, because it defies logic and analysis... too much emotion goes into decisions which can't be taken back easily.
Will limiting American freedoms politically help stop terrorism? Maybe.
But when we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won.