can the Constitution stand unaffected if U.S. is attacked with a weapon of mass dest?
This is a scary, scary question to ask.
Can the United States Constitution remain unaffected by an attack on our shores with a weapon of mass destruction?
The Constitution was created in a different age by people who could not have had the foresight to consider how personal freedoms would be affected by weapons that could kill millions in one attack.
Americans are a slow people to learn. It has taken nearly fifty years for our nation to have made the small progress in race relations we have now. We have becomed sensitized to the dangers of racial profiling.
Now we're faced with a world where racial profiling might be the only thing separating a host of innocent lives from horrific destruction.
So I repeat my question:
Will the Constitution stand unaffected in the wake of an attack on our nation by a weapon of mass destruction?
I don't think so. When the rubber meets the road and the possibility of a Mad Max kind of future move closer toward reality, I expect that people's convictions will change with the new environment. Even people who revere personal freedom above all else will be hard pressed to argue against draconian safety measures.
It sucks, but there it is.
Can the United States Constitution remain unaffected by an attack on our shores with a weapon of mass destruction?
The Constitution was created in a different age by people who could not have had the foresight to consider how personal freedoms would be affected by weapons that could kill millions in one attack.
Americans are a slow people to learn. It has taken nearly fifty years for our nation to have made the small progress in race relations we have now. We have becomed sensitized to the dangers of racial profiling.
Now we're faced with a world where racial profiling might be the only thing separating a host of innocent lives from horrific destruction.
So I repeat my question:
Will the Constitution stand unaffected in the wake of an attack on our nation by a weapon of mass destruction?
I don't think so. When the rubber meets the road and the possibility of a Mad Max kind of future move closer toward reality, I expect that people's convictions will change with the new environment. Even people who revere personal freedom above all else will be hard pressed to argue against draconian safety measures.
It sucks, but there it is.
Comments
<strong>This is a scary, scary question to ask.
Can the United States Constitution remain unaffected by an attack on our shores with a weapon of mass destruction?
The Constitution was created in a different age by people who could not have had the foresight to consider how personal freedoms would be affected by weapons that could kill millions in one attack.
Americans are a slow people to learn. It has taken nearly fifty years for our nation to have made the small progress in race relations we have now. We have becomed sensitized to the dangers of racial profiling.
Now we're faced with a world where racial profiling might be the only thing separating a host of innocent lives from horrific destruction.
So I repeat my question:
Will the Constitution stand unaffected in the wake of an attack on our nation by a weapon of mass destruction?
I don't think so. When the rubber meets the road and the possibility of a Mad Max kind of future move closer toward reality, I expect that people's convictions will change with the new environment. Even people who revere personal freedom above all else will be hard pressed to argue against draconian safety measures.
It sucks, but there it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Depends on what you mean by unaffected. If you mean completely unchanged, likely not. But it has changed before, so that's not unexpected. If you mean not radically changed or challeneged, then that is debatable. Some rights and freedoms might have to be suspended or modified. That is scary, but that might be reality in order to protect your safety. So it may well come down to a balance of the loss of some freedoms in favour of lives saved. "The Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact."
Next question!
[edit]
I'll add that the threat of going to a "Mad Max" world of nuclear winter was a much bigger issue in the Cold War days. Right now it's fear-mongering (well, it was then as well but not so much).
[ 02-14-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
i am not sure exactly how racial profiling will help in the long run anyhow...the enemy is smart....you shave your beard...you dye your hair...you learn perfect english....you use women or children or whatever....profiling will work if every enemy decides to look alike...they will be smarter than that...profiling will help you catch the random, lone crazy...but the true organized threats will not fit the known image....g
better intelligence, better education, better sharing and growing, more varied people elected to office...these will help.....profiling is kinda funny...when i fly out of new mexico, the hispanic people are always getting grilled and checked over three times to my one...people get confused by their darker skin i guess....g
Don't like the way the current administration is handling things? Their term is only 4 years.
The current administration will either be pilloried for fear-mongering or celebrated for foresight by future generations. We're too close up on it right now to be making grand predictions. One old saw has it that "a bad futurist is someone who attempts to predict the immediate future."
If thingsdid turn to shit...if nasty, nasty attacks did occur, the majority of citizens would become hardened to the situation within days or weeks. It's nothing that hasn't been explored at length in science fiction, I'm covering old ground here.
If I were the current administration I would be doing everything they're doing. Better to be cautious and hated by your contemporaries than to be reviled and accursed by future generations who suffer because you didn't act.
The argument will remain how best to act against the threat and whether those generations will suffer from reduced freedoms.
For now I vote for physical safety and am totally in favor of the most proactive activities our government can extend in the search and destruction of terror factories.
Don't like the way the current administration is handling things? Their term is only 4 years. <hr></blockquote>
i wake up and tell myself that every morning....
g
[ 02-14-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
I support no drastic measures at all, I would hope that lessons are learned throughout the years.
I know you think things have changed, but centralized, beaurocratic snooping simply can't scale to the degree necessary. It will kill your nation as surely as communism killed the USSR.
And, if history is any guide, the snoopers will be too busy advancing their own agenda to do anything about public safety other than pander to the racist stereotypes and knee-jerk reactions of the masses.
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes."
(Who watches the watchmen?)
And, please, stop paranoia. Who, do you think, will attack the US? Aliens? You must either be crazy or have watched the box too much. Do not listen to politicians when big money have them speak. They will tell you any horror story that their speech writers can think of. Relax, it is the US going to kill another million of Iraq's citizen and not the other way round.
Now we're faced with a world where racial profiling might be the only thing separating a host of innocent lives from horrific destruction."
The problem I have with your thinking is that it assumes racial profiling, at least in the short term, is both immoral and extreme, not to mention unconstitutional. The term has become sort of a buzz word....all it really means is paying a little more attention to those who resemble our attackers. It doesn't mean mass arrestss and internment camps. I don't see how it is unconstitutional.
My real problem, though, is your statment above. "Americans are slow to learn [in matters of race relations]".
Newsflash: The United States of America has been the most progressive in the world regarding race. We preceded other nations in ending slavery. We strive for racial eqaulity at every turn. We embrace and accept multi-culturism. Though it's not intentional, I'm sure, your statement is very telling of your worldview as it applies to race in this country, that being that we live in an unfair society where minorities have no chance to succeed...or little chance. I disagree if that is the case.
[ 02-14-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>This is a scary, scary question to ask.
Can the United States Constitution remain unaffected by an attack on our shores with a weapon of mass destruction?
The Constitution was created in a different age by people who could not have had the foresight to consider how personal freedoms would be affected by weapons that could kill millions in one attack.
Americans are a slow people to learn. It has taken nearly fifty years for our nation to have made the small progress in race relations we have now. We have becomed sensitized to the dangers of racial profiling.
Now we're faced with a world where racial profiling might be the only thing separating a host of innocent lives from horrific destruction.
So I repeat my question:
Will the Constitution stand unaffected in the wake of an attack on our nation by a weapon of mass destruction?
I don't think so. When the rubber meets the road and the possibility of a Mad Max kind of future move closer toward reality, I expect that people's convictions will change with the new environment. Even people who revere personal freedom above all else will be hard pressed to argue against draconian safety measures.
It sucks, but there it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Americans are slow to learn"
That gives you a lot of credibility for an argument. Lump everyone together, that works.
Seriously though, there are a lot of good points already made. To those that are afraid of drastic changes, I think that the length of the amendment process should hopefully prevent any knee-jerk reactions.
War for Americans, who haven't seen it first hand (ie the vast majority) is "entertainment", eye candy for looky-looks and ghouls. It's about ratings and advertising revenue. A firework show, a video-game, a snuff-fest, worse than the worst variety of pornography. Even 9-11 hasn't really changed much, except for some in Manhattan and DC. No matter how horrific 9-11 was, it was still a 'disembodied' and second-hand experience for most here.
War is hell for those who get sent to the front lines. Most in the Bush Administration know that...because the majority either dodged the Vietnam draft or used their wealth and influence to avoid being posted to dangerous locations. Opinion polls in most of the rest of the world suggest between 80% and 90% are against the use of pre-emptive force (in Iraq) because they know that warfare tends to create more problems that it solves. America needs to learn that basic kindergarten principle of "using our words" when it comes to solving disputes. The hypocrisy of the Bush crew is breathtaking.
This excellent piece by former Monty Python writer Terry Jones puts the whole Bush stance into perspective:
Apologies to those who may have already read this.
[quote]Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been
really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the
street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They
both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something
nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been
round
to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything
well
hidden. That's how devious he is.
As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very
good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have
leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll
pick us off one by one.
Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the
police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they
need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll
come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs
of a
pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his
plans
to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering
people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of
automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until
recently that's been a little difficult.
Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is
run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards
Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security.
The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers
targeting
the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never
threatened us.
That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife
and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll
leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable
way. Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing
Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of
mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've
just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children
as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.
Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by
eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever
long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it?
How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every
single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist
once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists?
These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the
known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated
themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be
a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his
objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some
moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really
safe
thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip
of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I
don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one
will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.
My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply
using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts
her up. Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good
enough
reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give
the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open
and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic
outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand
them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire
street
to kingdom come.
It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in
contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one
street.<hr></blockquote>
That question "Do you know what war is?" is a good one, and much more relevant to the thread topic. Don't be so hasty and run off into political territory....discuss this in terms of what would ACTUALLY happen if something REALLY BAD happened.
For Example:
Imagine that one of those weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was set off in a large US city. Imagine that a LOT of people were killed and another large group were critically injured/infected.
What would happen? Martial law.
Who would complain? Very few. They'd be too frightened and too intent on protecting themselves.
Who's wrong in this case, the martial-law advocates or the personal freedom supporters? That's your decision to make.
I wasn't asking for everyone's political cha-cha, I wanted to discuss and project what might happen if things went to Hell.
A bigger problem: How would we step down from martial law once things were "safe" again?
So guys, can you discuss this without getting snippy about politics?
<strong>The constitution has never standed 'unaffected', the constitution allows for <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=amendments&btnG=Google+Search"; target="_blank">amendments</a>. Wars in the past have instigated amendments modifying the constitution and action altering the balance of power. War Powers Resolution and the XXVI amendment come to mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. War is a special circumstance. Peace-time civil liberties do not always apply. Call me a Hitler on that point if you want, but it is fact.
SJO:
Your tired, "oppose war at all costs" attitude is every bit as mundane and expected as it was the first time you ever posted. I have to agree with drewprops, let's not start throwing the term "draft dodger" around with this administration as compared to the last one. At least we have a President who doesn't publicly loathe the military like our last one did.
Now, on to your ridiculous article. The writing is saracastic, and hopelessly flawed. While the writer makes some conclusions and draws some parellels, I think I'll draw some of my own...with the very neighborhood metaphor your beloved sanctimonius liberal writer used:
I live in nice housing development. One day, this guy down the road breaks into his neighbor's house, sets everything on fire, beats up his family, vandalizes the house and announces his intentions to occupy the house indefinitely.
The neighborhood doesn't like this, so they go the homeowner's association (UN). They pass a resolution allowing my neighbors and I to throw this guy out. We do so in no time at all. After all, we're much stronger! We really give it to him good....but we decide we are going to let him stay in the neghborhood as long as he promises to not do this again, and as long as he promises not to hold on to any baseball bats, brass knuckles, and large rocks. To make sure he doesn't hold on to any of this stuff, we get a neighborhood watch together to go into his house every once in a while to verify he isn't in possession of any threatening materials. Of course, he agrees to keep records of the items he destroys or simply throws out. He also agrees not to trespass on anyone's property or throw rocks at our cars as they drive by to check out his house.
Things don't go well from the start. Every time we knock on the door, it takes him ten minutes to answer, and it looks like the whole house has been rearranged every time we actually get in (that's when he doesn't outright refuse). In the meantime, the guy beats his kids and wife, and we see strange comings and goings....particularly people that look to be carrying things that look an awful lot like brass knuckles and rocks.
After 7 years of this, we give up because we are never allowed to go into his basement, garage, car or attic. He keeps stalling us. We start to notice more and more of the suspicious boxes and keep hearing him beating his wife and kids. We go to homeowner's association again, and ask them to help us enforce the umpteen different resolutons they have passed in the last 12 years demanding our neighbor stop trying to acquire brass knuckles, basball bats, and rocks. They finally pass a "final chance" for the man to prove he has disposed of all such materials. He gives us a 12,000 page document to sort through, supposedly "cooperating" by doing so. He lets us in to look again.
Now, we all KNOW he has been up to no good. We have seen the boxes go in, and not come out. They say things like "brass knuckles" on the side of them. Every time he lets us in, things look freshly moved. He can't account for the six cases of brass knuckles and twelve baseball bats we know he has (but says he doesn't). We know he has them, because we used to help him out with this stuff back when he was having a feud with HIS neighbor, who was a child molester. Even though we knew our guy wasn't the best, we helped him anyway because we thought "well, at least he is better than THAT guy over there...nothing wrong with kicking the shit out of child molester".
He continues playing games. We overhear him talking about hiding stuff from us. He has a history of throwing rocks at his neighbors. We think he might also have this friend who not only robs our houses, he burns them down and has publicly and repeatedly said he will continue to do so. We also think our neighbor might have a flamethrower. Hmmmm.
He has been asking around for years as to where he can buy one. Our biggest fear is that our neighbor will figure out how to buy or build a flamethrower and give it to the other guy who likes to burn down houses. Did I mention the last time we checked out his house, our official inspectors found some left over baseball bats and pebbles? "Funny" our neighbor said...."I forgot about those....they must be from before". In the meantime, he has been breaking his promise by, indeed, throwing rocks at our cars every time we drive by.
Now, the homeowner's association is balking. They think that if we just keep an eye on the guy, inspect his house a few more times, than everything will be OK. What they don't tell you is that three of the board members sell our neighbor insurance and make a nice buck doing it. Interestingly enough, those are the same board members who think we shouldn't act. They don't think we ought to get 15 or 20 of our neighbors together, kick his ass out, and ask a new family to move in.
Those same three board members then refuse to promise to call the fire department if the aforementioned madman shows up with a flamethrower. This, despite the fact that a few years ago, they signed a statement saying "we promise to call the fire department if any resident's house is burning...especially if it is burning because as a result of being attacked with a flamethrower".
Makes sense to me.
[ 02-14-2003: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
I really hope you are not as naive as to assume that I am a Democrat supporter. The current crop of Democrats are the most pathetic, rollover, go-which-way-the-wind-blows bunch of political cowards imaginable. In the last "election" I did not vote for Gore. I didn't vote for Clinton either in 1996. I have never cast a democratic vote, and by the way things are right now, I never will.
<strong>
Makes sense to me.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, by the time I'd finished reading it I wanted to annihilate his children and wife with heavy munitions too. Killing them and half demolishing his house sounds like the *only* way to deal with this scoundrel.
You also forgot to mention the entire block of wife-beating, flame-thrower owning tenants, some of whom we go drinking with and the rest we aren't bothered about. And of course you didn't mention the ringleader of the tenants association's shady history of home invasions either.