Townhall.com's Rachel Alexander A Bit Confused About Civil Liberties

[Knightskye]

http://townhall.com/Columnists/RachelAlexander/2009/01/05/terrorists_rights_versus_crime_prevention


Civil libertarians, including prominent conservatives like Rep. Ron Paul and former Rep. Bob Barr, have made loud objections to the U.S. government’s efforts to counteract terrorism in the wake of 9-11. In particular, they have protested the detainment and interrogation methods used on suspected terrorists at Gitmo, wiretapping, and other methods of surveillance. They don’t represent the majority of Americans, many who privately say anyone involved with terrorism should be executed.

Not the majority of Americans...

But at least Ron Paul is a 'prominent conservative'. :)

Anyone care to set her straight?

[LibertyEagle]

To whomever goes over there to post about her article, I sincerely suggest you don't take her on about 9-11. Read her entire article. There is plenty to talk to her about with regard to her complete misunderstanding of what our Constitution says and her inability to understand what liberty really means.

If you get into debating 9-11 over there and who did it, you will only turn people away from our message. I used to post over there a lot and have seen people coming over our way in the last 6 months.

[tremendoustie]

My comment:

It is not so much that I am worried about rights for honest to goodness terrorists, it is that I am worried about the expansion of government power.

Remember, who defines what a terrorist is? That's right, the government -- and there have been moves recently to expand the definition to include many forms of peaceful civil disobedience.

Perhaps you believe the Bush administration is only acting in everyone's interests, and wishes only to protect the innocent. Very well, but what about the next administration, and the one after?

What happens when we get a power hungry commander in chief, or one who does not mind using the full force of the government for his own personal and political interests?

Are you comfortable with all these powers in the hands of that future leader?

There is a reason that Franklin pointed out the dangers of giving up liberty for a little temporary safety. We and our ancestors have fought long and hard for these liberties, both economic and personal. Let's not toss them away over our fears over terrorism or any economic crisis.

I would rather a tiny percentage risk of dying in an attack, than an assured loss of the personal liberties and restraints on government that our ancestors died for. And, I would rather lose my job and live through a recession than lose my economic freedom to central economic planning.

Let's be truly patriotic, and stand up against the destruction of those principles that are truly American: Liberty and Freedom. I would willingly lose life, limb, and wallet in the defense of them. Would you?

[speciallyblend]

isn't that the nazi/socialist republican site?:)

i firmly believe with bush we now have a nazi/socialist government and im sure obama/bush are just smiling in the background with the bilderbergs.

the republican/democratic party should make a new american flag ,include the sickle and broken cross over our flag..

[Knightskye]

To whomever goes over there to post about her article, I sincerely suggest you don't take her on about 9-11. Read her entire article. There is plenty to talk to her about with regard to her complete misunderstanding of what our Constitution says and her inability to understand what liberty really means.

If you get into debating 9-11 over there and who did it, you will only turn people away from our message. I used to post over there a lot and have seen people coming over our way in the last 6 months.

Here, here. :)

[kathy88]

My comment:

It is not so much that I am worried about rights for honest to goodness terrorists, it is that I am worried about the expansion of government power.

Remember, who defines what a terrorist is? That's right, the government -- and there have been moves recently to expand the definition to include many forms of peaceful civil disobedience.

Perhaps you believe the Bush administration is only acting in everyone's interests, and wishes only to protect the innocent. Very well, but what about the next administration, and the one after?

What happens when we get a power hungry commander in chief, or one who does not mind using the full force of the government for his own personal and political interests?

Are you comfortable with all these powers in the hands of that future leader?

There is a reason that Franklin pointed out the dangers of giving up liberty for a little temporary safety. We and our ancestors have fought long and hard for these liberties, both economic and personal. Let's not toss them away over our fears over terrorism or any economic crisis.

I would rather a tiny percentage risk of dying in an attack, than an assured loss of the personal liberties and restraints on government that our ancestors died for. And, I would rather lose my job and live through a recession than lose my economic freedom to central economic planning.

Let's be truly patriotic, and stand up against the destruction of those principles that are truly American: Liberty and Freedom. I would willingly lose life, limb, and wallet in the defense of them. Would you?

Excellent response.

[LibertyEagle]

isn't that the nazi/socialist republican site?:)


There are a couple of decent columnists, like Walter Williams, Pat Buchanan, Phyllis Schlafly, etc., but they are vastly outnumbered, yeah. And Hugh Hewitt, who controls that site is a major piece of neocon work.

Last time I checked though, a number of the frequent posters, who post underneath the columns, had come around. A couple of them even said that those of us promoting Ron Paul were RIGHT all along and they apologized.

So see, there's hope.

[Knightskye]

And Hugh Hewitt, who controls that site is a major piece of neocon work.

I'd say Amanda Carpenter is a piece of work. :D

By the way, here's Hewitt interviewing Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf8koGU7s-Y

Seemed more respectful than a lot of Dr. Paul's interviews.

[paulitics]

http://townhall.com/Columnists/RachelAlexander/2009/01/05/terrorists_rights_versus_crime_prevention



Not the majority of Americans...

But at least Ron Paul is a 'prominent conservative'. :)

Anyone care to set her straight?


The majority of American's don't care to be wiretapped. She is wrong.

[Knightskye]

The majority of American's don't care to be wiretapped. She is wrong.

I'm sure if they didn't feel a threat of terrorism, they would be at least skeptical.

[jkr]

executed?

turn the other cheek

WE ARE NOT UNDER ATTACK!