I'd Like My 4th Amendment Back, Please

[mmmcannibalism]

The phone tapping was necessary. I don't think that it is right, but it is necessary. I would rather have my phone tapped to prevent terrorism, than to allow terrorists to freely communicate in the U.S. at will.

 

You hit the nail right on the head there. Well said.

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

Freedom is more important than safety.

 

So you'd rather die free than live safely?

 

 

 

I would.

[user1991]

The phone tapping was necessary. I don't think that it is right, but it is necessary. I would rather have my phone tapped to prevent terrorism, than to allow terrorists to freely communicate in the U.S. at will.

 

You hit the nail right on the head there. Well said.

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

Freedom is more important than safety.

 

So you'd rather die free than live safely?

 

 

 

I would rather live in a free society than a totalitarian one.

 

 

 

If that means increased risk of death, so be it. I am willing to pay that price for freedom.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Then we've reached an impassable point. You can't convince me; I can't convince you.

[1_man_army]

I love how many people who support(ed) the war on terrorism and/or the war in Iraq used the term "they hate our freedom" to justify everything when many of them are the same people who are destroying that freedom. The hysteria regarding terrorism can be a little excessive at times.

 

 

 

The phone tapping was necessary. I don't think that it is right, but it is necessary. I would rather have my phone tapped to prevent terrorism, than to allow terrorists to freely communicate in the U.S. at will.

 

 

 

Can you personally recall any such cases where wire-tap evidence has been used to convict a terrorist (or would-be terrorist) in America during the 7 and a bit years since the signing of the Patriot Act?

[Robert_de_Sable]

I love how many people who support(ed) the war on terrorism and/or the war in Iraq used the term "they hate our freedom" to justify everything when many of them are the same people who are destroying that freedom. The hysteria regarding terrorism can be a little excessive at times.

 

 

Anyone who has a brain would justify the war on terror by mentioning how destructive and ludicrously fundamental terrorists are, not by their opposition to Western freedom.

[user1991]

Then we've reached an impassable point. You can't convince me; I can't convince you.

 

 

 

The abuse of a totalitarian power is far more worrying than a free populace.

[magekillr]

I love how many people who support(ed) the war on terrorism and/or the war in Iraq used the term "they hate our freedom" to justify everything when many of them are the same people who are destroying that freedom. The hysteria regarding terrorism can be a little excessive at times.

 

 

Anyone who has a brain would justify the war on terror by mentioning how destructive and ludicrously fundamental terrorists are, not by their opposition to Western freedom.

 

 

 

You win people's hearts and minds by peace and words, not arms and guns:

 

 

 

The Middle East is finding, to its amazement, that it may actually like America's new leader. Barack Obama has impressed many Arabs and Muslims with promises to open a new page after years of distrust during his first presidential venture to the Islamic world this week.

 

 

 

It's a startling change for a region where they chucked shoes at his predecessor George W. Bush and still want to burn Bush in effigy even after he's out of office.

 

 

 

But Obama's charm has hiked expectations he will change American policies that have angered many Arabs and Muslims, and some remain skeptical. Top on nearly everyone's list: They want Washington to press for the creation of a Palestinian state to resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict _ something Obama has promised to do.

 

 

 

"Everyone is optimistic about this man," Nasser Abu Kwaik, a barber in the West Bank town of al-Beireh, said Wednesday. "He is different, and he could be a friend to the Muslim world."

 

 

 

Many in Muslim countries echoed the words of one Indonesian woman, "I believe him."

 

 

 

"For the Islamic world," Obama's comments "are like a fresh breeze," said Ikana Mardiastuti, who works at a Jakarta research institute.

 

 

 

Obama's visit to Turkey this week was full of gestures calculated at showing he is a friend to Muslims, all aired live on Arab satellite TV networks like Al-Jazeera. The top headliner was his sound bite that the U.S will never be "at war with Islam." In a speech to Turkey's parliament, he mentioned the Muslims in his own family, a topic he avoided back home in his presidential campaign.

 

 

 

A town-hall meeting in Istanbul on Tuesday was also a strong symbol, with Obama answering questions from university students. To some it sent a message that this president talks to Muslims, dramatically different from the perception many had of Bush as domineering, warlike and imposing U.S. policy.

 

 

 

Even an offhand comment that he had to wrap up the town-hall before the afternoon call to Islamic prayers showed an easy familiarity with the rhythms of Muslims' lives.

 

 

 

"He's a modest person with a humanitarian view on world issues, particularly those relating to the Arab and Islamic worlds," said Jamal Dahan, a 50-year-old resident of the Lebanese capital Beirut. "Bush, on the other hand, was an arrogant man who only knew military power."

 

 

 

Even hard-liners took notice.

 

 

 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country welcomes talks with the United States if Obama proves "honest" in extending the U.S. hand to Iran, one of his strongest signals yet of openness to Obama's calls for dialogue.

 

 

 

A cleric at the prominent Shiite seminary in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf _ where disdain for Bush's policies is high _ was enthusiastic. "The Islamic world should avail itself of this positive opportunity," said Sheik Nimaa Al-Abadi. "The opening chapter of Obama in the Islamic world might be a real turning point."

 

 

 

In Saudi Arabia, a cleric on a government committee for rehabilitating militants away from extremism said Obama's outreach diminishes the appeal of terror groups.

 

 

 

Obama "will make it more difficult to recruit young Muslim men to carry out terrorist acts. They (militants) no longer have the argument to do so," said the sheik, Mohammed al-Nujaimi.

 

 

 

But many say they want real action.

 

 

 

Their skepticism was a reminder that while the "clash of civilizations" may exacerbate tensions, the heart of Arab and Muslim anger at the West is over policies, particularly the 2003 invasion of Iraq and what is seen as U.S. favoritism toward Israel.

 

 

 

In his parliament speech, Obama promised the U.S. would work for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. But Arabs are watching whether Obama will press the hard-line government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who so far has not expressed his support for a two-state solution.

 

 

 

"I will believe him only when I see his troops leave Iraq and when I see him telling the Israelis that it's time for you to leave the Palestinian territories," said Tariq Hussein, 25, a shoe salesman in the West Bank town of Ramallah. "Other than that it's all a political maneuver."

 

 

 

In Pakistan, doubts appeared even deeper. Civilian deaths in airstrikes by U.S. pilotless planes targeting militants have angered some in the country, along with Obama's plans to send more American troops to neighboring Afghanistan.

 

 

 

"Who would trust what the Americans say? Their only target is the Muslim countries," said Mohammad Ayub, owner of a cotton-processing factory in the city of Karachi. "Obama's claim that (the Americans) are the friends of the Muslims seems to be a part of their conspiracy."

 

 

 

Still, the Turkey trip suggested that style and tone at least open doors.

 

 

 

"He understands the issues better, he has more familiarity with Islamic culture and society." said Sheema Abdul-Aziz, a 31-year-old environmental conservationist in Malaysia. She said Obama seems "sincere."

 

 

 

In part, Obama's warm welcome reflected the almost rabid bitterness toward Bush, who on his final visit to Baghdad was pelted with shoes by an angry journalist. The journalist became a hero across the Mideast. Iraqi Shiite radicals plan to burn an effigy of Bush at an anti-American rally Thursday in Baghdad.

 

 

 

While Bush often emphasized outreach to Muslims and Arabs and he was the first U.S. president to openly endorse the idea of a Palestinian state, nothing could dent the image of an arrogant, bellicose United States created by Guantanamo Bay, prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and the bloodshed that reigned in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion.

 

 

 

Still, even those calling Obama sincere are skeptical he can resolve the Mideast's many problems.

 

 

 

"It's nice to see and hear," said Riad Kahwaji, director of the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis. "But this region is a mess, and there are a lot of hardline adversaries still out there."

 

[Robert_de_Sable]

Yes, that's all well and good; he's won the hearts of Palestinians and other Arabs.

 

But what about the Israelis who rightfully own that land?

[1_man_army]

I love how many people who support(ed) the war on terrorism and/or the war in Iraq used the term "they hate our freedom" to justify everything when many of them are the same people who are destroying that freedom. The hysteria regarding terrorism can be a little excessive at times.

 

 

Anyone who has a brain would justify the war on terror by mentioning how destructive and ludicrously fundamental terrorists are, not by their opposition to Western freedom.

 

 

 

It isn't an uncommon argument, I know it's anecdotal but I remember that being a pretty reason given for why the people who were attacking America, hated America - it was nigh on a conservative pundits catchphrase early on. It isn't my personal reasoning but it was an common reason given by many people.

[Lenticular_J]

While I don't have anything to hide, there's a limit. Maybe if someone is strongly suspected, with plenty of evidence, sure ... But in general I would say no. But, I can always plead the fifth.

 

 

 

You win people's hearts and minds by peace and words, not arms and guns:

 

Hearts and minds, yes. But there are some people that might need a gun to stop. Can you actually say you believe any diplomatic relations with certain individuals (or some nations) would work?

 

 

 

Yes, that's all well and good; he's won the hearts of Palestinians and other Arabs.

 

But what about the Israelis who rightfully own that land?

 

I vote sharing. It's a holy land for three religions. At least for Jerusalem, get a nonbiased group of warriors like the Swiss Guard to, well, guard, and have some sort of congress of Muslim, Jew, and Christian leaders governing. Or we could give everybody casinos. Worked for my people :thumbup:

[magekillr]

Yes, that's all well and good; he's won the hearts of Palestinians and other Arabs.

 

But what about the Israelis who rightfully own that land?

 

 

 

They're living in Palestinian territory illegally through their settlements. Thankfully, Obama has demanded that they get rid of these, and ban any future ones:

 

 

 

However, Obama considers the two-state solution central to his Middle East policy, as he reiterated during a speech in Turkey on Monday, and he intends to ask that Netanyahu fulfill all the commitments made by previous governments in Israel: accepting the principle of a Palestinian state; freezing settlement activity; evacuating illegal outposts; and providing economic and security assistance to the Palestinian Authority.

[Robert_de_Sable]

Jerusalem belongs to Israel. It's their land and no one else's.

[1_man_army]

 

You win people's hearts and minds by peace and words, not arms and guns:

 

Hearts and minds, yes. But there are some people that might need a gun to stop. Can you actually say you believe any diplomatic relations with certain individuals (or some nations) would work?

 

True but by winning hearts & minds you take away their support which they need to survive and to recruit new blood. If they lose support in the Pakistani tribal regions, Al Qaeda is a lame duck but that is nowhere near possible currently.

 

 

 

Jerusalem belongs to Israel. It's their land and no one else's.

 

What is this, international finders keepers?

[mmmcannibalism]

a lot of what Obama did was good in showing support/cooperation

 

 

 

my main complaint was the bowing to the saudi arabian king, there is a difference between extending friendship while working together and acting subservient for the sake of pr.

 

 

 

secondly, jerusaleam is mutually palestinian and israely, its changed hands a few times in history and the jewish community clearly has some claim to it. The main problem is some of the land israel took during conflicts that was not theirs under the original treaty/UN action that established israel.

[magekillr]

Can you actually say you believe any diplomatic relations with certain individuals (or some nations) would work?

 

 

 

In these situations, most certainly. You end terrorism by ending recruitment and funding. He's attempting to get the Afghan people to find a new crop to harvest like they did in other countries such as Thailand. Most of their funding comes from poppy sales, and I doubt they'd be made legal anytime soon. And you end recruitment by investing in their countries, and ending this "war on terrorism" rhetoric.

[mmmcannibalism]

We need to attempt the solution we used in the phillipines(yes we treated them terribly early on but the solution here is interesting)

 

 

 

start building infrastructure up, start spreading good will, keep fighting the enemies on a limited basis that doesnt require civilian casualties. If the people see you as someone that is workign for their interest, they quickly turn against the guerillas that start looking very foolish for fighting the medical care from america

[Lenticular_J]

What is this, international finders keepers?

 

More like unfair UN distribution. And since everybody (well, Israelis and Arabs) have historic claim to the land, they should be able to share. But they're unable and unwilling to share a pretty crappy little area. Why couldn't the holy land be somewhere nice, with plenty of room? Whatever. And I don't get where people in staked-out nations get off, calling all that finders keepers or whatever. What about England? Ripped between plenty of civilizations. America? Same. It's just that we have big armies and fluff ourselves up with them.

 

 

 

In these situations, most certainly. You end terrorism by ending recruitment and funding. He's attempting to get the Afghan people to find a new crop to harvest like they did in other countries such as Thailand. Most of their funding comes from poppy sales, and I doubt they'd be made legal anytime soon. And you end recruitment by investing in their countries, and ending this "war on terrorism" rhetoric.

 

Recruitment, yes. But there are a handful of crazies that won't be talked to, and will pretty much try to kill everyone they can. These guys won't be helped but for a bullet in the brain. A difficult situation, because on the whole diplomacy would be better, but a lot of the dangerous ones are too greedy and self-serving to allow for anything for the greater good.

 

 

 

I just don't think that someone who won't be talked to, like many of the leaders of the Taliban, should be worth more than a few bullets. But, of course, it isn't as simple of that. If only.

[Racheya]

my main complaint was the bowing to the saudi arabian king, there is a difference between extending friendship while working together and acting subservient for the sake of pr.

 

 

Because the president of America is the authority of the entire world, there is nobody below him? He should bow and pay respect to nobody?

 

 

 

And what's to say it's just Pr, maybe he actually does have respect for people and isn't just 'acting subservient'. Crazy idea to expect from an American leader, I know :o .

[mmmcannibalism]

my main complaint was the bowing to the saudi arabian king, there is a difference between extending friendship while working together and acting subservient for the sake of pr.

 

 

Because the president of America is the authority of the entire world, there is nobody below him? He should bow and pay respect to nobody?

 

 

 

And what's to say it's just Pr, maybe he actually does have respect for people and isn't just 'acting subservient'. Crazy idea to expect from an American leader, I know :o .

 

 

 

actually, I was thinking along the lines of they are both world leaders and therefore should be on equal footing. Unless I am missing a cultural thing, you dont bow to someone you view as your equal.

[Lenticular_J]

It's a cultural thing for a guest to bow in much of the world, actually. Obama was probably told that, but it doesn't matter anyways. It was a generally nice thing to do.

[mmmcannibalism]

It's a cultural thing for a guest to bow in much of the world, actually. Obama was probably told that, but it doesn't matter anyways. It was a generally nice thing to do.

 

 

 

Does that extend to Saudi Arabia/the Muslim world?

 

 

 

if so, earlier comment rescinded.

[Nowayout59]

I have 2 things to say:

 

1st off, the second I an afford to live on the moon I am buying a 1 way ticket an interstellar U-Haul.

 

2nd off, if someone knew that Ahmed was planning on flying a plane into you house wouldn't you rather have him get a few bruises then you wake up one morning to a plane propeller 3 inches from your face?

 

 

 

On an every day instance torture is wrong, but under certain instances it can be completely justified.

[Dizzle229]

I prefer the 21st amendment myself. :thumbsup:

[Lenin64]

On an every day instance torture is wrong, but under certain instances it can be completely justified.

 

Define your every day instance and your special cases before we go any further. Specifics are always nice.

 

 

 

I prefer the 21st amendment myself. :thumbsup:

 

I would think you would prefer the 19th.

[mmmcannibalism]

I would think you would prefer the 19th

 

 

 

Id think you would prefer the 16th

 

 

 

edit--

 

 

 

anyone find the 3rd amendment amusing? Not that it isnt reasonable but its only in their because of a specific event.