Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [existlist] Sept.11 in perspective

Expand Messages
  • Eduard Alf
    Ryan, I would not disagree with what you are saying. Look at what happened in the 1950s when the Committee for Un-American Activities got started as a means
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Ryan,

      I would not disagree with what you are saying. Look at what happened in the
      1950s when the Committee for Un-American Activities got started as a means
      of countering soviet spies. A lot of people lost their livelihoods until
      McCarthy took on the defense department with his accusation of 57 varieties
      of communists supposedly buried therein.

      you are making an unwarranted extrapolation from what I said. My point was
      simply that some action is needed rather sitting around and doing nothing or
      just trading clever remarks. Of course there is a danger in the loss of
      civil liberties [albeit a universal ban on weapons would not be a bad idea],
      as experience has shown. It is a matter of doing this in an intelligent
      manner. I am not suggesting that we allow our freedom to disappear for
      reason of having a better means of protecting those freedoms.

      eduard
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Roggles457@... [mailto:Roggles457@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:49 AM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Sept.11 in perspective


      In response to Eduard's remarks, I would like to point out a possibility
      that
      may have gotten past him. He has a point about what he talked about, but
      the
      real problem with this overreaction comes as the following sorts of
      situations.

      1) Carnivore and Wiretapping: Sure, this is good for anti-terrorism, but
      the bill also would be a nice convenient gateway for the FBI to gain
      access
      to other areas it has wanted to for awhile, things people don't want
      Carnivore and Wiretapping being used for.
      2) Detainment as "Threats to national security" The phrase National
      Security is the most slippery sloped one I've heard in a long time. The
      government can use that extremely liberally. Ex. THe freedom of
      information
      act does not reveal any of hte governments embarassing foulups, even those
      widely known unofficially, because embarassment to them is a threat to
      "national security." If they can apply it liberally, how long is it
      before
      anyone who criticizes the government is branded a threat to national
      security. Those who protest the likely upcoming war could be labeled
      threats
      to national security. Even long after this incident is over, they have a
      convenient gateway for other areas.
      3) If you think it will end here, you are probably misguided, at least in
      my
      view. There will likely be more attacks, and as a result, more
      restrictions
      placed upon our freedom as the attacks increase. What comes next, curfew?
      Universal ban on weapons? Cars being searched? Houses being searched? A
      gestapo-like organization being formed? Censorship? Extreme brutality in
      dealing with Afghanistan? It will not end quickly, I expect.

      Freedom will burn in the fires of hatred.


      Ryan

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      ADVERTISEMENT




      Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

      TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • samuel hecht
      uninstall
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        uninstall
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.