[QUOTE]Originally posted by josh3io
[B]

Basically I think Tanq and I agree on more than it looks like, but he picked an argument with me that he cannot support.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by josh3io
[B]now, do you want to get back on topic?

 

I sound shrill because you are finally the first person to refute my argument!!

This thread has, I'm positive, turned into much more than originally intended

Now, many of the thoughts I convey are shared in a speech entitled "Civil Liberty in Wartime" by Chief Justice William A. Rehnquist, given on November 17, 1999.
Here is the text of the speech. It expands on many thoughts that I have abbreviated here, and I consider it to be an extremely good read. His conclusion represents the strange nature of civil law during wartime:[QUOTE]The courts, for their part, have largely reserved the decisions favoring civil liberties in wartime to be handed down after the war was over. To lawyers and judges, this may seem a thoroughly undesirable state of affairs, but in the greater scheme of things it may be best for all concerned. The fact that judges are loath to strike down wartime measures while the war is going on is demonstrated both by our experience in the Civil War and in World War II. This fact represents something more than some sort of patriotic hysteria that holds the judiciary in its grip; it has been felt and even embraced by members of the Supreme Court who have championed civil liberty in peacetime. Witness Justice Hugo Black: he wrote the opinion for the Court upholding the forced relocation of Japanese Americans in 1944, but he also wrote the Court's opinion striking down martial law in Hawaii two years later.

 

Hopefully, on target...hard to tell with the posts so far...

I think that we have to remember that we are are war. WAR. It's not a typical war, so things are bit vague and that will cause some problems as things move along. However, like in any war some liberties will erode in the effort to win. I do believe that history will repeat itself and that these liberties will be restored once the war is over.

The real question, for me, is if we will learn from our past wars. So far it seems that the government is doing so (ie, ensuring a country is rebuilt once fighting there is over, etc.) but only time will tell. Also, will the American people have the attention span required to fight this war? That is, IMHO, unlikely for two factors: 1) we're too isolationist & self centered, 2) our efforts hereto have gone totally unappriciated. (not counting Britian, or debt repayment).

Food for thought; the world needs a police force, and the UN has proven itself completely inept. Therefore the job falls to the USA as the only country capable. And just like you and I, everyone in the world has a low opinion of cops.

This thread does lend itself to long posts, eh!

 

You are correct in that this isn't a typical war - we are really at war with an ideology rather than a country (or countries). It is still a war though, and I think the general public will stand behind this one for the long haul. Unlike the wars since WW2 (namely Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf war), the US was directly attacked - we aren't just protecting a "friend". When the people of the US start doubting, a quick image of the WTC on fire should be enough to remind americans exactly why we're doing this. Also, the US weaseled out too early last time around (Iraq) and we're still having to deal with not getting the job done - I don't think Bush Jr wants to have the same legacy as his father (with regards to war), and I don't believe that Americans want to have to go through another September 11th because they were too impatient to let our military get the job done.

I'm not sure I agree with you about the UN being inept. A majority of the time the UN gets involved, they aren't exactly welcome, which means they aren't ever given a chance to succeed. Many of the US involvements are the same - we're not welcome, sometimes our prescence is outright despised, which makes it that much harder to be successful. Even our allies outright don't like the US - despite what we've done for them in the past. France, Japan, arguably all of western Europe all owe their current state of relative well being to the U.S. helping them off their feet after WW2, not to mention America's role in the Allied powers winning the war.

To counter lane's food for thought: Does the world REALLY need a police force? (not saying we don't - just playing Devil's advocate)

 

Interesting topic

Long haul, I hope you are right about the public staying focused on the fight. With so many people still not understanding that this is a war, and not something like Bosnia, I fear the public at large may chicken out once body bags start coming home.

My feeling is that the world does need a policing body, that is the only way to prevent wars from starting. The problem is that that policing body must be strong in both force and will, and able to pro-actively step in where needed...wanted or not. In other words, when situations like Bosnia start to develop, they need to be stopped by force (assuming diplomatic efforts have failed). If bully leaders had known for a fact that someone would come in and knock them to the ground if they started something, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved in the last 10 years.

As for the U.N., I can't think of a single time it has "succeeded" it's mission (but it may have for all I know). True, it's involvement is usually unwanted, but that is exactly the point; if forceful intervention is required it is going to be unwanted. The U.N. sends in troops that are completely unable to use force against anyone...hell, they usually are not even been able to defend themselves from attack!

Note: by "U.N." I'm referring to a true U.N. force, not a US force acting on a U.N. mandate.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tanqueray
[B]


Hmmm.

 

I vote for safety also.

 

re: safety vs. privacy; remember the McCarthy (sp?) era and the hollywood blacklist. While the issue of privacy is really not that big of an issue at this point, the data gathered now could be used against you later ... even if you have done nothing illegal. It's happened before and will happen again...but hopefully not under our watch

For now, we are at war and must be willing to suffer some loss of privacy; but as a society we must be very careful not to let that loss become permanent, or the data gathered to be used in violation of our constitutional rights. America has a long history of loss/restoration and I'm confident that things will return to "normal" when appropriate...but I think that we will have to suffer some permanent losses in order to effectively combat terrorism.

 

If the world was a Utopia, we wouldn't NEED any governments! I think that we can't just have only privacy or only safety. Safety and privacy go hand in hand. If we don't have privacy we don't feel safe. If we don't have safety we feel like we have no privacy. War and the world in general is much more complicated than we realize or can understand.