"If you're not with us, you're against us!"

Well, I can't find a 'p' in that, but I remember some famous guy who was for peace on earth, and goodwill toward men who said pretty much the same thing.

Is there a point to this thread?

Content is the key to not being labelled a troll.

[quote]<strong>It's like saying "You better swing our way or you may be next"</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, yes, of course, what exactly is wrong with that?

[quote]<strong>It's inciting and a world leader should refrain from phrases like those.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And world leaders should be cowardly and impotent?

"We are not happy that thousands of our civilians were murdered, we would entreat those responsible to be nice."

Bush was talking about the war on terrorism with that statement. The only people who "aren't with us" are the people who support using passanger jets as guided missiles for taking out massive amounts of civilians.

And all that the statement revealed was the incredible myopia of the people who use it to push their anti-American agenda.

I'm with the 'rat and beer on this. The statement was (and is) clearly aimed at a particular cause/situation.

As far as I'm concerned, with the situation what it is and with what happened two months ago, Bush can say whatever the hell he wants regarding terrorists and our efforts to root them out and eradicate as many as we can.

Nobody woke up September 11 hoping or asking "gee, may we PLEASE get into a war?".



It was brought to us, in the worst way possible. And some of these other weaker countries around the world SHOULD be shaking in their boots, because if it can happen here and cause such a disruption and upheaval, than it sure as hell can happen elsewhere.

These people SHOULD be "with us or against us". It's a common cause, if I've ever seen one.

It should be crystal clear: right and wrong, good and bad. Only politicians and college students can manage to gray what only a few decades ago would've been the clearest example of black and white that has ever existed.

[quote]These people SHOULD be "with us or against us". It's a common cause, if I've ever seen one.<hr></blockquote>

I wholeheartedly agree with that. But what exactly is "for us" or "against us"? Try asking some of those 1200 people who have been locked up without charge, without access to a lawyer or their next of kin, against whom not a single incident of terrorism, or connection with the hijackers has been found. How would you feel about your Government if your front door came smashing in early one morning without warning or a search warrant, if you got dragged out of bed and slung in jail by a bunch of heavily armed agents? I can see a long string of very expensive and highly justified lawsuits for wrongful arrest and imprisonment in the future.

Yes I am wholeheartedly in favor of finding those maniacs responsible, but in a means that befit the character of the most civilized and free nation on Earth; to alienate entire communities and engender fear, hatred and distrust here at home is not a very productive type of response, this type of action being more typical of rogue nations like Myannmar, Iraq or Afghanistan under the Taliban. What's next? Compulsory tattoos or markings for Muslims? Special clothing to be worn at all times by resident aliens? Pink Triangles for gay people?

When Ari Fleischer, White House Press secretary intoned recently that "Americans had better watch what they say" that was enough to make the blood run cold, and upstarted bin Laden at his own game. Definitely one of the most unpatriotic and anti-American statements I have heard in all my life. Talk about trashing the First Amendment.

Allow me to say this. As much as I know this is not an honorable or very American thing to say or do in principle, if we have to "break a few eggs to make an omlette", sobeit. I'm that angry and hurt by what's happened. Talk is cheap anyway. Deconstruct as you please, but I'm looking for some real resolution to this mess.

Frankly, as much as people claim that we're no better than terrorists when we use more extreme measures to protect ourselves (and serve justice, thank you) at some point you have to answer to the lowest common denominator in kind. Sad but true. The choice to me after 9/11 was this: fight (and many may die) or roll over (and we will surely die). If these freaks are going to make it an us vs. them scenario then it's going to be them. Sorry folks. See you in hell I guess.

[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>When Ari Fleischer, White House Press secretary intoned recently that "Americans had better watch what they say" that was enough to make the blood run cold, and upstarted bin Laden at his own game. Definitely one of the most unpatriotic and anti-American statements I have heard in all my life. Talk about trashing the First Amendment.</strong><hr></blockquote>I saw him say that. IIRC, it was in response to a question about Bill Maher of Politically Incorrect saying something about the terrorists having more courage than Americans.

I hope Fleishcer wishes he hadn't said it, but in light of the executive order on military trials and the PATRIOT act, the bill of rights doesn't seem to be a real high priority for them right now.

Well, I'm not a fan of innocent people getting rounded up and detained. Don't get me wrong on that.

If there is a legitimate need or question about a particular person, fine. But if they have been cleared or there's nothing there to connect them to anything, they should be freed immediately.

No, I wouldn't like it if some agents stormed my apartment and hauled me in. And you're right...there are probably gonna be a TON of lawsuits and bad feelings about this.

I feel sorry for the innocents wrapped up in this because of one thing: the government, with so much red tape, bureaucracy, layers or management and procedure and a severe case of the left hand having no clue that a right hand even exists, some of those people are going to be detained for longer than should ever be necessary.

The wheel of justice - and the Federal government - turn mighty, mightly slow.

Hell, I'd be looking to sue the hell out of someone too, if I was wrongfully detained!

Before people forget.. our amendments.. our laws.. our rules are for US citizens. If your not a citizen they don't apply to you.

sinewave again:

[quote]Before people forget.. our amendments.. our laws.. our rules are for US citizens. If your not a citizen they don't apply to you.<hr></blockquote>

What are you saying? That that visitors and resident aliens can break the law with impunity? Or that visitors and resident aliens have no rights under our system and constitution?

Sheesh!

Actually SOME visitors DO have diplomatic rules that make them NOT accountable for some actions they participate in that are illegal.

And no .. the rights we have are only for the citizens of the US, You know.. that is why they can do what they are doing.

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>Before people forget.. our amendments.. our laws.. our rules are for US citizens. If your not a citizen they don't apply to you.</strong><hr></blockquote>Constitutional protections apply to residents, including non-citizens.

I personally liked the bush "Resistance is Futile" quote...

E PLURIBUS UNIX
-----------------------------

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Constitutional protections apply to residents, including non-citizens.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh so illegal aliens have the rights to a fair trial before they get sent back?

Could you please show me where this is written. Seriously.. I thought they didn't. I may be wrong.

Consdering that President Bush had the means at his disposal to retaliate immediately to this threat to the peace and welfare of the American people and he didn't, shows a great deal of restraint. That he went to the United Nations, NATO, all countries in the region including the Taliban shows restraint. That he demanded that a known criminal be turned over by the Taliban (Bin Laden has been charged with previous terrorist attacks in American courts) shows restraint. Considering the attitude of the American people on 9/11, he could have dropped a nuclear device on Afghanistan and not many would have blinked an eye - but he didn't. That is showing a great deal of restraint. Overall I think that President Bush showed a great deal of restraint.

As far as his statement that you are with us or you are against us...well, you are either with us or you are against us!

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: ac2c ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Sinewave:
<strong>Could you please show me where this is written. Seriously.. I thought they didn't. I may be wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote><a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/31.html" target="_blank">This page on findlaw</a> has an overview of that issue.

[quote]''It has long been settled . . . that the term 'person' [in the equal protection clause] encompasses lawfully admitted resident aliens as well as citizens of the United States and entitles both citizens and aliens to the equal protection of the laws of the State in which they reside.''<hr></blockquote>If non-citizens didn't have due process rights in the first place, why would Bush have to sign an order taking them away?

What's troubling is that a foreign student, for example, legally in the US, could be tried and executed for aiding terrorists, in a matter of days, without a unanimous verdict, and without even knowing what evidence the prosecution had (kept secret for national security reasons).

I really doubt that would happen. I think the order is supposed to apply to bin Laden and Al Qaeda members found in Aghanistan. But as I understand this order, it could happen.

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>

SamJoOll:
[quote]<strong>Try asking some of those 1200 people who have been locked up without charge,</strong><hr></blockquote>

Locked up and then released. The vast majority on immigration charges. You conveniently leave out that they're all at home now.

Who is still locked up?

[quote]<strong>What's next? Compulsory tattoos or markings for Muslims? Special clothing to be worn at all times by resident aliens? Pink Triangles for gay people?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hi, I'm reality, have we met?

That kind of tripe might get the local causeheads all hot and bothered but here in the real world we have to justify such idiotic drivel.

oracle:
[quote]<strong>I have a tatoo on my forearm ... nor did anyone else inform her or any of my family that I was being held.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This has what to do with America?

[quote]<strong>There are still such things as human rights, the ones that we're always harping on about when we think about China or Turkey? We can "swing" what ever way we want and to even suggest that there will be consequences if we don't "swing the right way" is in violation of them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What the hell does the human rights situation in China or Turkey have to do with the point of this thread or anything at all to do with the terrorist attacks?

What are we supposed to do, refuse to trade with China? Have the UN sanction it so the human rights there can get even worse?

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at a straw man.

[quote]<strong>No. World leaders should be sensible.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sensible, how? Like giving the Taliban 3+ years to turn over bin Laden? Because we did that.

He killed our soldiers and Clinton threw some cruise missiles at the desert and let the issue lie. bin Laden was under indictment, he was wanted.

Do you actually think they were going to hand him over if we asked nicely?

And before you start the "we don't have evidence" bullshit he ADMITTED to the barracks bombing that killed over a dozen of or soldiers. The Taliban kept protecting him.

Even after 9/11 we gave them a little under a month.

Who, exactly, is the hothead?

Macoracle, you seem to be just a giant asshole intent on pissing people off with idiotic rhetoric about the state of islam, and/or the treatment of the middle east, and/or meaningless deconstructions of international relations. You haven't taken the piss out of anything.

Take Bill Maher. I think what Bill was getting to was that the terrorist shows a degree of civic virtue in that he is willing to do anything (however despicable) in the struggle/defense/promotion of his own group/views. You have to lose your notions of good and bad to appreciate it. You also have to modify your appreciation of respect -- it shant mean 'to honor', let it instead be 'a cautious and vigilant attention.' We must respect terrorists per the second definition, as one 'respects' a loaded gun. That is the limit and very nature of the 'respect' they deserve. We will not honor them, and we will see in those that do a potential enemy, if not an actual one. This is respect. The kind that will keep us and our ideals alive, and the only kind we need concern ourselves with.

Why then, for whatever version of respect you choose, are we obliged to decry the US? "If you're not with us, you're against us!" shows exactly the kind of determined commitment that was so worthy (just a thread ago) when it came to terrorists doing what they need to do. This is what we need to do: it is at least as worthy of 'respect' (to be *very* kind to your position)

If you want to, there is enough to hate about the USA without being dishonest about your motives. It still does the job of feeding, educating, and protecting its people -- and those of other nations -- better than just about any country out there. The same job it has done of nurturing you. Don't be such a hypocrite, anywhere else in the world you wouldn't get very far on your kind of politics. The west has consistently done a better job of allowing freedoms to multi-variate opinions and cultures.

I could say more, but I won't. You're an idiot because you can't understand the neccessity a statement, yet can rationalize the importance of terror -- even so far as to 'respect' it.

Ladies and gentlemen, naim revists us from the grave.

edit: yeah yeah, I know your Irish, so it's the same difference you enjoy a western life. The basic tenets are the same. It isn't perfect, but it is a damn sight better than what the east has produced. These are strange times, I thought 'old world'-'new world' jealousy was an English specialty.

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Locked up and then released. The vast majority on immigration charges. You conveniently leave out that they're all at home now.

Who is still locked up?</strong><hr></blockquote>Where did you find this out? Last I knew, part of the reason people were concerned about this is that they didn't release their names or when they were taken into custody, or when they were released, so no one really knows how many people are in custody or how long. Can you provide some more info?

[quote]"If you're not with us, you're against us!"<hr></blockquote>

This type of attitude always makes things worse. It starts wars, maintains wars and creates future wars. It also reminds me of the dynamics of the school playground, where kids are not mature and experienced enough to understand that nothing in this world is 'black-and-white' regarding human relationships. In any relationship, nothing is black and white, all the way from interpersonal to international.

The President's choice of words was most unfortunate, (but understandable at the time) in that he was capitalizing on the initial gut reaction of the nation and our collective anger and grief. It was a great way of raising support and unifying us, but as soon as the initial shock wore off and people (not everyone sadly) start to think and rationalize, we start to modify our approach and look at things in the light of reality, rather than this childlike, confrontational, over- simplistic and black'n'white (good'n'evil).

We all want what is best for our personal and national security, but sometimes, looking at the way this crisis is being handled (by some parties in this administration), I find myself wondering "whose side are these people really on"?

BRussell:

John Ashcroft spoke on those detentions at length, even going so far as to enunciate phrases like, "there have been no arrests in connection with terrorist activity".

I'm afraid that making whacked out claims gives you the burden of proof.

If there were 1200 people locked away by the man, why aren't we hearing about it?

Samantha Joanne:

Do you read what people say or do you just click "Post Reply" and begin with the mental diarrhea?

You make generalizations that have little to no basis in reality and judgement calls you aren't qualified to make.

Do you ignore the success had so quickly in these operations?

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>John Ashcroft spoke on those detentions at length, even going so far as to enunciate phrases like, "there have been no arrests in connection with terrorist activity".

I'm afraid that making whacked out claims gives you the burden of proof.</strong><hr></blockquote>Sure, but when you make a specific statement that is intended to appear to be factually based, such as the following:
[quote]Locked up and then released. The vast majority on immigration charges. You conveniently leave out that they're all at home now.<hr></blockquote>... then the burden of proof is on you, too. So, did you just make that up?

As far as my burden of proof, it's really not difficult at all to find reports on this issue. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/22/inv.civil.rights/index.html" target="_blank">Here's an article</a> about the detentions that is consistent with what I said about keeping secret who has been detained and for how long, from about a month ago, and <a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011125/us/attacks_justice_1.html" target="_blank">here is another from today</a> that says [quote]For example, more than 1,000 people remain incarcerated after being rounded up following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.<hr></blockquote>I don't know whether that's true or not - maybe it's false. But if you're going to make a statement that they've all been set free already, please provide some evidence of your own, especially if you're criticizing others for making "whacked out claims."

[quote]If there were 1200 people locked away by the man, why aren't we hearing about it?<hr></blockquote>We are hearing about it. Why aren't we hearing more about it? Good question. Maybe the media aren't liberal enough.

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>

Scribam Samantha:
"Try asking some of those 1200 people who have been locked up without charge, without access to a lawyer or their next of kin, against whom not a single incident of terrorism, or connection with the hijackers has been found."

The only people referred to in specifics (the article you link to mentions quite a large number of illegally incarcerated people almost in passing with no detail) point to a few hundred held on immigration charged.

[quote]<strong>So, did you just make that up?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, I'm referring to the people arrested immediatly following the attacks when these concerns (valid, though they are) were first raised. Those brought in under suspicion of terrorist activity are no longer incarcerated (as far as any of us know) and many have been released. Many are still held (or rather their release unpublicized) on immigration charges.

I spoke in an overly-factual manner and for that I apologize.

Thousands of people being held without recourse would make the headlines, in my opinion. Unless one is willing to believe that the gov't is perpetuating massive kangaroo courts to which relatives and acquintances of those tried have acquised and have not spoken out against.

I find it difficult to believe there would not be large movements to free these wrongly incarcerated people.

War isn't politically correct. Get used to it.

[quote]War isn't politically correct. Get used to it.<hr></blockquote>

War is inevitable, given the nature of human beings. This one is justified, given that we were attacked, and we have every right to defend ourselves, and preventing future attacks from Al Qaeda et al; The response to the Pearl Harbor attack was similarly justified. However, most of the other wars the U.S. has become inbroiled in since WW2 were at best marginal in their justification, or wholly unnecessary and destructive.

Hindsight is always 20-20 but the main "benefit" to America from the dozens of wars we have instigated and gotten involved in since then has been to furnish fat profits for defense contractors, and providing millions of jobs as a result. Our country's economy, like it or not, is dependent on war-related industry like no other economy on the planet and is sustained by instability and warfare throughout the world. If the world suddenly became a peaceful, secure place....

Far too much money is at stake. Forget about war's political correctness or otherwise, more to the point is it's political necessity. Ironically, if Japan hadn't attacked us, then Europe may easily have succumbed to the Nazis.

[quote]<strong>However, most of the other wars the U.S. has become inbroiled in since WW2 were at best marginal in their justification, or wholly unnecessary and destructive.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Introducting a new topic?

Start a new thread.

[quote]<strong>Hindsight is always 20-20 but the main "benefit" to America from the dozens of wars we have instigated and gotten involved in since then has been to furnish fat profits for defense contractors, and providing millions of jobs as a result.</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is truth to that, but you are acting as if we fabricate conflicts for no other purpose but to produce weapons, which is ludicrous.

Also, you're putting the cart before the horse. We didn't start up a huge weapons industry and then sit and wait for wars, it happened the other way around.

[quote]<strong>Our country's economy, like it or not, is dependent on war-related industry like no other economy on the planet and is sustained by instability and warfare throughout the world. If the world suddenly became a peaceful, secure place....</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dependent?
Our economy is like no other economy on the planet. Put the revenue of weapons industries up against our GNP. Do that for a few more industrialized nations (Russia, China, etc..) and then come and talk to me about that.

[quote]<strong>Far too much money is at stake. Forget about war's political correctness or otherwise, more to the point is it's political necessity.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What exactly is our political and economic interest in Afghanistan?
A non-existant and theoretical pipeline?

Come on grover "The Man" starts wars.

I think I'm going to throw up. I 98% agree with groverat. I just think we should stop trade with China, just a few weeks before we invade.

Basic human rights will not be curtailed even by paranoid safety measures (or search and seizure, detainment, arrest etc...)

It seems like that is the threat. And it is a threat, but people know how to fight this. They are made easily aware of it, they can sense it, and will only accept it with 'unease' for a short time. Furthermore, the courts, as they have in the past, will eventually provide a degree of censure to overzealous politicos. I am not comfortable with it, but we will sort it.

There is a far greater threat to privacy and security for relatively safe western countries. It existed before the terrorist threat, and will continue to pyschologically prepare people towards a vast errosion of individual privacy and freedom. We are not culturally predisposed to suspect it; in fact, we often embrace it. It is not technology or consumerism but a cousin of both. Care to guess? I'm very interested by the prospect of all your speculation/opinion.

[quote]<strong>You now have your own "Prevention of Terrorism Act". I hope you are willing to accept that many people will fall victim to this intrusion on basic human rights.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, I'm well aware of it. I have already, in effect, since I'm a student at an institution of higher learning and my university has cooperated with the FBI, et al. in their investigations, going so far as to hand over personal information.

I, personally, don't care. I'm not a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, so I don't care. (Not that the "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care" attitude should rule law, I just personally don't give a shit that the FBI has my info.)

Should the constitution be violated? No. I'll need to see some specifics before I get riled up. I don't start making picket signs when nebulous ideas get thrown around. Sorry.

I guess no one is bothered by the fact that macoracle got the quote wrong? macoracle? Try not to misquote the President. Okay?

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

Yes, I'm well aware of it. I have already, in effect, since I'm a student at an institution of higher learning and my university has cooperated with the FBI, et al. in their investigations, going so far as to hand over personal information.

I, personally, don't care. I'm not a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, so I don't care. (Not that the "it doesn't affect me, so I don't care" attitude should rule law, I just personally don't give a shit that the FBI has my info.)

Should the constitution be violated? No. I'll need to see some specifics before I get riled up. I don't start making picket signs when nebulous ideas get thrown around. Sorry.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I agree with you..if your not doing anything shady over the net why do you really care? And you not even suspected you probably wont be even thought about.

I'm surprised that no one recognized the origin of this quote,albiet in a modified form:
[quote]
Luke 9:49-50 "...we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."
<hr></blockquote>

Well, yes, of course, what exactly is wrong with that?
Perhaps he didnt mean it this way, but the litteral meaning of what he said is, for lack of better terms, disgusting. It rules out neutrality and passive attitudes.
Now granted, that was mainly his poor speech writers doing the job, not to mention that he himself is probably thick as Scottish Oatmeal. Now Im the first to admit that intent is what should be followed, not litteral speech, but when you in diplomatic ties with the rest of the world you need to show more disgresion in your speech.


not a single incident of terrorism, or connection with the hijackers has been found.
Correction, they have "good evidence" as to the guilt of the people. However for strategic reasons they are not going to tell any one their evidence

Consdering that President Bush had the means at his disposal to retaliate immediately to this threat to the peace and welfare of the American people and he didn't,
Its much like how I have the power to kill you on contact. I could do it with no problems, but it would mean bad things for me. Bush could have nuked them, but if he did not only would the whole world be on the USs ass like coffee on a university students paper, but the US would be on Bushes ass.

You have to lose your notions of good and bad to appreciate it.
mna, peices of this aphorism are coming to my mind... in war the line between good and evil is clouded or something like that. Point is, in war there is no such thing as good or bad, only my side and your side.

You now have your own "Prevention of Terrorism Act". I hope you are willing to accept that many people will fall victim to this intrusion on basic human rights.

<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/oden5.html" target="_blank">Will?</a>