Debate of USA National Security

Site Issues 2006 Archive Room
#1

The current debate over liberty and national security is not new. I thought I’d post some info and you guys can tell me what you think:

The debate follows a predictable pattern of a democracy in wartime. Through two centuries, the reactions and overreactions of American presidents and his citizens to enemies at home and abroad have caused some unfortunate scenarios, but the ship seems to have a self-rightening mechanism in the end. To understand how seriously to take the Bush and Cheney bids for power today, it’s useful to compare this battle to all that have come before. Like I said, the pattern varies little:

This is what the latest NEWSWEEK magazine says:
When the French threatened American sovereignty on the high seas in 1798, John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, blatantly punishing free speech as traitorous. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (rule giving citizens a right to take their grievances to court). During World War I, Woodrow Wilson allowed officials to prosecute anyone for criticizing the government. During World War II, Roosevelt allowed FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to promiscuously wiretap, and ordered Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps. As the Vietnam War dragged on and domestic dissent arose, Richard Nixon–citing his Democratic predecessors FDR and LBJ–authorized bugging and wiretapping against domestic “subversives.”

Newsweek concludes: None of these steps, it should be pointed out, made the nation appreciably safer.

How did they come to that conclusion? How do they not know that these acts of law did not prevent a serious attack?

I’d like to open up for discussion and hear your thoughts.

#2

Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus is very hard to defend on a national security platform - perhaps he was worried that some other decisions were on legally shaky ground.

Prosecuting people for criticizing the government in WWI wasn’t a new idea, although people claimed it was to stop the fermentation of dissent it is a dictatorial idea.

Were they necessary for the prosecution of the wars ? Hardly, but the question should be what were the two gentlemen afraid of ?

The person presently residing at 10 Downing Street is obviously a historian and realises that the two examples above are, while useful in maintaining his position of Celestial Navigator, not far reaching enough. He has introduced a number of ways of imprisoning people who have committed no crime and of reducing the electorate to those that will vote for him.

The ‘Mother of All Parliaments’ has had a hysterectomy…

#3

Not so sure about that - I’ve got a feeling it’ll jump up and rip his head off in the not so distant future.

As for the original question, the answer can presumably be found by looking up at the case histories of those brought before the courts using the new laws (with the exception of the civil war instance) and finding out how many were convicted of what. It would also be worth looking into what else they did before and after the war.

#4

I hate what do think what Cheney will be if he’s president!

#5

Were they necessary for the prosecution of the wars ? Hardly, but the question should be what were the two gentlemen afraid of ?

I’m totally agreeement with this coment. :arrow:

#6

Hopefully he will have a heart attack if he wins. :lol:

Anyhow, just like with the CIA (whom I personally despise) … you never hear about their successes. You only hear about their failures. For the most part, I dont see how NEWSWEEK can come to that conclusion without being absolutly certain that those acts prevented nothing.

As President Bush said “A dictatorship would be much easier” Its much easier to fight a war if everyone is behind you or you can force them to be.

In my personal opinion Lincoln was the only one with a good reason for doing what he did. However I cant be 100% sure coz I dont know all the facts.

You cant convince me that John Lennon was a domestic subersive and needed to be exiled as Nixon would have liked.

#7

Too much warfare releasing opressed countries.
Which is the personal opinion of the soldiers about that? :arrow: