Freedoms Curtailed in Defense Of Liberty

Diogenes Of Pumpkintown · 10-12-2001, 01:31 PM

Another article from the Onion: this one is funny but at the same time makes a good point, like the best of their articles do:

(EDIT: THE FOLLOWING IS A JOKE, AND IS NOT REAL) -- Pumpkin, in the future, make VERY SURE you state this) --Ziroc

WASHINGTON, DC—Responding to the threats facing America's free democratic system, White House officials called upon Americans to stop exercising their democratic freedoms Monday.

Above: Ari Fleischer urges Americans to keep their mouths shut.
"In this time of national crisis, a time when our most cherished freedoms are threatened, all Americans—not just outspoken talk-show hosts like Bill Maher—must watch what they say," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters. "Now more than ever, if we want to protect democracy for future generations, it is vital that nobody speak out about the issues of the day."

"We must all do our patriotic duty to protect our country's great ideals," Fleischer continued, "and we have to be careful about what opinions we express if we are to defend our Constitution, a sacred document behind which all Americans must stand united as one."

Fleischer's sentiments echoed those of many executive-branch officials, who, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have called for broad-based limitations on civil liberties—and urged all patriotic, freedom-loving citizens to support those restrictions—in defense of the American way of life.

"We live in a land governed by plurality of opinion in an open electorate, but we are now under siege by adherents of a fundamentalist, totalitarian belief system that tolerates no dissent," Attorney General John Ashcroft said. "Our most basic American values are threatened by an enemy opposed to everything for which our flag stands. That is why I call upon all Americans to submit to wiretaps, e-mail monitoring, and racial profiling. Now is not the time to allow simplistic, romantic notions of 'civil liberties' and 'equal protection under the law' to get in the way of our battle with the enemies of freedom."

In the past, Ashcroft said, efforts by federal agencies to restrict personal freedoms were "severely hampered" by such factors as the judicial system, the Bill Of Rights, and "government by the people." Since the attacks, however, some such limitations have been waived, finally giving the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, and White House the greater powers they need to defend freedom.

U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who advocated permitting the CIA to engage in various illegal activities during a recent Tonight Show With Jay Leno appearance, stressed the importance of not merely submitting to freedom-curtailment policies, but also blindly agreeing with them.

"Now is not the time for such divisive, destructive things as dialogue and debate," McCain said. "Now is not the time for, 'My opinion is just as valid as yours,' and 'What are my country's leaders doing and why?' and 'I have a question, Mr. President.' Now is the time for one thing and one thing only: The defense of the American democratic ideal. Any and all who disagree with this directive, or who have different ideas about how it should be accomplished, should learn to shut their mouths."

As the U.S. prepares to mobilize forces against Afghanistan, the military is seeking strong limitations on the press. According to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, such a Constitution-flouting move would not be unprecedented, citing the suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War and the order to round up 110,000 Japanese-Americans in detention camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

"Remember, under the oppressive Taliban regime, people live in constant fear of an oppressive order to which all must submit," Rumsfeld said. "Under their system, it is illegal to practice a different religion or support a different political system. It is against the law for women to work or leave their homes without their faces covered. There is no freedom of speech, press, or assembly, as dissent of any kind is not tolerated. It is even forbidden to smile or laugh in public, and all who fail to unquestioningly obey are punished with reprisals of brutal violence. We must not allow such a regime to threaten our great democracy. We must stand for something better than that."

"It is therefore urgent," Rumsfeld continued, "that all Americans be quiet, stop asking questions, accept the orders of authorities, and let us get on with the important work of defending liberty, so that America can continue to be a beacon of freedom to all the world."

[This message has been edited by Ziroc (edited 10-12-2001).]

Sir Kenyth · 10-12-2001, 02:27 PM

Is this for real? When I first heard it I assumed it was garbage.

If it's not:

You can't move the nation forward by holding one part back. As far as the move being unprecedented. They were wrong then, and he's wrong now.

Diogenes Of Pumpkintown · 10-12-2001, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth:
Is this for real? When I first heard it I assumed it was garbage.

No. The Onion is a satirical website. The article is not literally true, but pokes fun at the general tone of what some of our leaders have been saying.

Go here for more: http://www.theonion.com/

Yorick · 10-12-2001, 02:40 PM

They have a certain point Dio. For example I have to restrict my freedom of expression to be tolerant and nonoffensive don't I.

Balancing freedom vs restriction for collective good is tricky. When people abuse that freedom, no one is free from abuse or crime. What is worse? THis is the issue central to gun ownership.

Freedom to own a gun = the freedom to get shot.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 10-12-2001).]

Sir Kenyth · 10-12-2001, 03:37 PM

OK. I thought so. Most folks have highly differing opinions on what freedoms are worth depending on their experience. If you are trained in the use of firearms and able to defend yourself, then obviously you will want the freedom to own firearms regardless of the risk of being shot. The ability to defend yourself against threats is a comfort not realized until you're there. Someone who doesn't know firearms and is not able to defend themselves will likely want to minimize the threat against them by banning handguns. I personally don't beleive in putting 100% responsibility for my protection in someone who has no stock in whether I live or die. They can't even be held responsible if they fail, even if it's due to ineptness. As americans, we are responsible for defending ourselves and our loved ones. Just don't be stupid about it.

DragonMage · 10-12-2001, 03:57 PM

I have to agree with you, Sir Kenyth.

For instance and in the same vein: I'm one who was raised around guns - all kinds (my Dad likes military weapons). I was raised to respect the power of handguns, rifles, whatever. My Dad let me shoot several types on a range when I was 12. I never 'played' with his weapons. And, above all, I never POINTED one at any living creature! He even reprimanded my younger cousin when he was about, oh, five - for pointing his FINGER at one of us and saying 'bang'. He has taken great responsiblity to ensure that none of 'us kids' grew up thinking guns were toys. He stressed that you NEVER point a gun at something unless you intend to kill it. This impressed upon my mind at a very young age.

As a direct result of this upbringing, I prefer to take at least some of my own safety into my own hands. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than be in a situation where I wish I had one. I pray I am never faced with the decision to kill someone in defense of my life, but I want that to be MY decision.

[This message has been edited by DragonMage (edited 10-12-2001).]

Sir Kenyth · 10-12-2001, 06:39 PM

Amen sister!

------------------
Member of ORT
Master Barbsman and weilder of the razor wit!
Official royal toad! Ribbit! Ribbet I say!

The true secret to happiness is not having what you want, it's wanting what you have!

[This message has been edited by Sir Kenyth (edited 10-12-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Sir Kenyth (edited 10-15-2001).]

DragonMage · 10-12-2001, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth:
Amen brother!

LOL! *whispers* psst...FYI - 'sister', not 'brother' - I hold some very 'non-feminine' views about certain things.

I'm not your average female having been raised by a militant father.

------------------

Alureth...Dragon friend of Breanna, Mage and Advisor in the Court of Lady Lioness

Co-Owner/Operator of the Evil Petting Zoo and devout member of the HADB clan.
Commander of the Dragon Fleet, IW Peacekeeping Force
Sublime Sister of the Illuminati - may the Light shine forever!
Second Historian and Scribe of IW. Mother Hen of IW.
Mage extraordinair, Pin-Up Girl for the OLD-COOTS
Magey-Wagey: performer in the Nekked Dancing Trio of the ORT.

Hopeless Romantic *sigh*

[This message has been edited by DragonMage (edited 10-12-2001).]

Prime2U · 10-12-2001, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:
They have a certain point Dio. For example I have to restrict my freedom of expression to be tolerant and nonoffensive don't I.

Balancing freedom vs restriction for collective good is tricky. When people abuse that freedom, no one is free from abuse or crime. What is worse? THis is the issue central to gun ownership.

Freedom to own a gun = the freedom to get shot.

hmmm, or mayhaps freedom to own a gun = ability to shoot back, as most of the guns used in criminal activity are bought black market anyway. I'm a firm believer in the statement "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". Like someone intent on committing a crime with a gun will be worried about breaking a little law that says he can't have one. I also firmly believe that I could commit murder with a salt shaker or 6 million other things if a gun wasn't available, without much extra effort.

Prime

Yorick · 10-13-2001, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prime2U:
"if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns".

Guns are illegal in Australia. Shootings are as rare as hens teeth. I can't remember when the last one was.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Philosophy of Liberty	Skunk	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	1	11-22-2003 06:11 PM
Score one for Liberty!	Night Stalker	General Discussion	6	07-16-2003 12:06 PM
The nature of Liberty	Barry the Sprout	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	14	11-08-2002 11:41 PM
freedoms reign	untouchable	Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal	2	01-18-2002 07:49 AM
Civil liberty	Donut	General Discussion	18	11-29-2001 03:34 PM

10-12-2001, 01:31 PM	#1
Diogenes Of Pumpkintown Banned User Join Date: August 9, 2001 Location: ... Posts: 694	Another article from the Onion: this one is funny but at the same time makes a good point, like the best of their articles do: (EDIT: THE FOLLOWING IS A JOKE, AND IS NOT REAL) -- Pumpkin, in the future, make VERY SURE you state this) --Ziroc WASHINGTON, DC—Responding to the threats facing America's free democratic system, White House officials called upon Americans to stop exercising their democratic freedoms Monday. Above: Ari Fleischer urges Americans to keep their mouths shut. "In this time of national crisis, a time when our most cherished freedoms are threatened, all Americans—not just outspoken talk-show hosts like Bill Maher—must watch what they say," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters. "Now more than ever, if we want to protect democracy for future generations, it is vital that nobody speak out about the issues of the day." "We must all do our patriotic duty to protect our country's great ideals," Fleischer continued, "and we have to be careful about what opinions we express if we are to defend our Constitution, a sacred document behind which all Americans must stand united as one." Fleischer's sentiments echoed those of many executive-branch officials, who, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have called for broad-based limitations on civil liberties—and urged all patriotic, freedom-loving citizens to support those restrictions—in defense of the American way of life. "We live in a land governed by plurality of opinion in an open electorate, but we are now under siege by adherents of a fundamentalist, totalitarian belief system that tolerates no dissent," Attorney General John Ashcroft said. "Our most basic American values are threatened by an enemy opposed to everything for which our flag stands. That is why I call upon all Americans to submit to wiretaps, e-mail monitoring, and racial profiling. Now is not the time to allow simplistic, romantic notions of 'civil liberties' and 'equal protection under the law' to get in the way of our battle with the enemies of freedom." In the past, Ashcroft said, efforts by federal agencies to restrict personal freedoms were "severely hampered" by such factors as the judicial system, the Bill Of Rights, and "government by the people." Since the attacks, however, some such limitations have been waived, finally giving the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, and White House the greater powers they need to defend freedom. U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who advocated permitting the CIA to engage in various illegal activities during a recent Tonight Show With Jay Leno appearance, stressed the importance of not merely submitting to freedom-curtailment policies, but also blindly agreeing with them. "Now is not the time for such divisive, destructive things as dialogue and debate," McCain said. "Now is not the time for, 'My opinion is just as valid as yours,' and 'What are my country's leaders doing and why?' and 'I have a question, Mr. President.' Now is the time for one thing and one thing only: The defense of the American democratic ideal. Any and all who disagree with this directive, or who have different ideas about how it should be accomplished, should learn to shut their mouths." As the U.S. prepares to mobilize forces against Afghanistan, the military is seeking strong limitations on the press. According to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, such a Constitution-flouting move would not be unprecedented, citing the suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War and the order to round up 110,000 Japanese-Americans in detention camps after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. "Remember, under the oppressive Taliban regime, people live in constant fear of an oppressive order to which all must submit," Rumsfeld said. "Under their system, it is illegal to practice a different religion or support a different political system. It is against the law for women to work or leave their homes without their faces covered. There is no freedom of speech, press, or assembly, as dissent of any kind is not tolerated. It is even forbidden to smile or laugh in public, and all who fail to unquestioningly obey are punished with reprisals of brutal violence. We must not allow such a regime to threaten our great democracy. We must stand for something better than that." "It is therefore urgent," Rumsfeld continued, "that all Americans be quiet, stop asking questions, accept the orders of authorities, and let us get on with the important work of defending liberty, so that America can continue to be a beacon of freedom to all the world." [This message has been edited by Ziroc (edited 10-12-2001).]

10-12-2001, 02:27 PM	#2
Sir Kenyth Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: August 30, 2001 Location: somewhere Age: 54 Posts: 1,785	Is this for real? When I first heard it I assumed it was garbage. If it's not: You can't move the nation forward by holding one part back. As far as the move being unprecedented. They were wrong then, and he's wrong now.

10-12-2001, 02:40 PM	#4
Yorick Very Mad Bird Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam) Age: 52 Posts: 9,246	They have a certain point Dio. For example I have to restrict my freedom of expression to be tolerant and nonoffensive don't I. Balancing freedom vs restriction for collective good is tricky. When people abuse that freedom, no one is free from abuse or crime. What is worse? THis is the issue central to gun ownership. Freedom to own a gun = the freedom to get shot. ------------------ I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on.... A fair dinkum laughing Hyena! [This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 10-12-2001).]

10-12-2001, 03:37 PM	#5
Sir Kenyth Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: August 30, 2001 Location: somewhere Age: 54 Posts: 1,785	OK. I thought so. Most folks have highly differing opinions on what freedoms are worth depending on their experience. If you are trained in the use of firearms and able to defend yourself, then obviously you will want the freedom to own firearms regardless of the risk of being shot. The ability to defend yourself against threats is a comfort not realized until you're there. Someone who doesn't know firearms and is not able to defend themselves will likely want to minimize the threat against them by banning handguns. I personally don't beleive in putting 100% responsibility for my protection in someone who has no stock in whether I live or die. They can't even be held responsible if they fail, even if it's due to ineptness. As americans, we are responsible for defending ourselves and our loved ones. Just don't be stupid about it.

10-12-2001, 03:57 PM	#6
DragonMage 20th Level Warrior Join Date: September 6, 2001 Location: The lighter side of life, a.k.a. Newnan, Georgia Age: 55 Posts: 2,767	I have to agree with you, Sir Kenyth. For instance and in the same vein: I'm one who was raised around guns - all kinds (my Dad likes military weapons). I was raised to respect the power of handguns, rifles, whatever. My Dad let me shoot several types on a range when I was 12. I never 'played' with his weapons. And, above all, I never POINTED one at any living creature! He even reprimanded my younger cousin when he was about, oh, five - for pointing his FINGER at one of us and saying 'bang'. He has taken great responsiblity to ensure that none of 'us kids' grew up thinking guns were toys. He stressed that you NEVER point a gun at something unless you intend to kill it. This impressed upon my mind at a very young age. As a direct result of this upbringing, I prefer to take at least some of my own safety into my own hands. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than be in a situation where I wish I had one. I pray I am never faced with the decision to kill someone in defense of my life, but I want that to be MY decision. [This message has been edited by DragonMage (edited 10-12-2001).]

10-12-2001, 06:39 PM	#7
Sir Kenyth Fzoul Chembryl Join Date: August 30, 2001 Location: somewhere Age: 54 Posts: 1,785	Amen sister! ------------------ Member of ORT Master Barbsman and weilder of the razor wit! Official royal toad! Ribbit! Ribbet I say! The true secret to happiness is not having what you want, it's wanting what you have! [This message has been edited by Sir Kenyth (edited 10-12-2001).] [This message has been edited by Sir Kenyth (edited 10-15-2001).]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)