Asian Man Shot Dead on London Tube

[Gunthr]

Sorry if I offended anyone.

Karnak, I was referring to the will of every person to live.  That is not cowardice.

Maybe the best way to express my view is this: (Chairboy alluded to it)

If you increase LIBERTY, you decrease SECURITY.

If you increase SECURITY, you decrease LIBERTY.


In-house terrorism is a fiendishly and insiduosly effective and clever weapon against a freedom loving country.  It forces that country to change in response.

If a country wants its security, it will give up some liberty to the extent that it desires safety from these evil people.  

I have predicted that if we suffer many attacks with loss of life from within, on our own soil, our country will change in response - the American people will demand it.  We will not be as free as we were.  I believe this is one of the intents of terrorism.

I lament it.  Its an observation.  I am not arguing for less freedom.

Thats the whole thing in a nutshell.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Gunthr
I'll give it to you straight, Chairboy.  You will be demanding for your country to protect you, along with the rest- of us, when attacks start here and we see body counts on Mainstreet.  

If it comes down to that here I suspect there will be many smoking holes where former Mosques used to be. I recall seeing signs shortly after 9-11 that said "If they are brown, gun them down", I'm sure that made the large Mexican population here nervous.

[Gunthr]

Oh absolutely, Edbert.  I agree totally.  There's a ****storm headed our way if it comes to pass, the same as will happen in England if attacks continue.   There will be backlashes and then backlashes from the backlashes.  We could end up looking like Israel if terror strikes become common here.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I've heard of it.

I even heard that the renewal just passed the House and will go on to the Senate. It seems our elected Representatives don't see what we've lost and/or feel it is necessary.

My question to you is:

What exactly have I lost, either alone or collectively?

People tell me I've lost a lot, but I see no change in my life whatsoever. OTOH, I'm not a criminal nor am I attempting to become a criminal.

So, help me out here.... as an essentially law-abiding US citizen, what specifically have I lost?

Here's a specific, personal example.

I sold my house, and got a check for the equity balance, a fairly substantial check.  I took the check to my bank in the city where I live, and deposited it into my checking account, with the intention of using that money for the down payment on the house I was closing on a week later.

Then the **** hit the fan.  It turns out that a provision of the Patriot Act demands that the bank put a hold on the account (note:not on the check, or the amount of the check) when a large out-of-town check is deposited.  This is to prevent terrorists from transferring money, apparently.  The trigger amount is $5000.

I bounced about 6 checks, because my account was locked up for 10 business days.  I had to delay the closing on my new house.  I had to call six merchants and explain the situation.  It cost me abot $150 in bounce charges by the merchants--I managed to talk the bank out of their charges.

[Gunthr]

Nashwan, I'm not very familure with Padilla's situation.  However, I can't work up much empathy for somebody who has admitted to what he has.  I recall that they do have some evidence on him...  

I believe this issue is being worked through the system - when its resolved I'll accept the law of the land, although I may disagree.  I predict, if we have another terror strike, he will not be released  and the President will have his tribunal based on military code and treatment enemy combatants.  And remember, although Padilla was technically arrested in the US, he had just gotten off the plane from the Middle East.

[Karnak]

Gunthr,

The will of a person to live occurs in the presence of an immediate threat.  What you are talking about is abstract panic over a tiny chance of something happening to me personally and my misjudging those odds so drastically as scream "Mr. President, SAVE ME!"  In short, that is a description of cowardice.  There are things that I believe it is only moral for me to lay my life on the table and risk losing it in order to hold onto those things.  I do not put my life at the top of my priority list.  I would be uncomfortable doing so and would not like it, but risk is something I can handle to preserve what we have here.

I think terrorism is only as effective as we let it be.  Barring the spectacular 9/11, which we had laws on the books that would have stopped it had they been enforced, terrorism actually has relatively little effect on the ability of a nation to function normally.

Certainly to the people immediately effected it is not a small thing, but if a nation thumbs it's collective nose at those who wish to influence it via terrorism, then that is a tremendous example that it will not work against that country.  Only when a nation cowers and strips itself of freedoms do the terrorist actually accomplish anything on a large scale.

I remain completely unconvinced that giving up some liberities for some saftey is in any way a good thing.  It is all the worse that the amount of increased saftey appears to by null at this point.


Edbert,

Nor am I so stupid and reactionary as those morons you mention.  I would hope that most of us here are stronger than that.

[Toad]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest your problems were caused by your bank's out of town check policy and NOT the Patriot Act.

AFAIK, the PA does not require a bank to hold any checks or put a hold on an account when a check is deposited. There are reporting requirements on some transactions and on identification but no requirement to hold a check.

If anyone can show otherwise, I'd appreciate knowing about it.

I've had my bank try to hold out of town Cashier's Checks for 7 days!

They are floating the money and keeping the interest. They'll look you in the eye and tell you it's "bank policy" and there's nothing they can do about it. They seem to be able to "do something" when I offer to immediately close my account and move the assets to another bank down the street.

Just for fun, call your bank and ask them how long they hold an out of town check before crediting the amount to your account. Then ask them if it is just bank policy or if it is due to the Patriot Act. If they say PA, ask them what section of the PA they are using.

[storch]

Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I've heard of it.

I even heard that the renewal just passed the House and will go on to the Senate. It seems our elected Representatives don't see what we've lost and/or feel it is necessary.

My question to you is:

What exactly have I lost, either alone or collectively?

People tell me I've lost a lot, but I see no change in my life whatsoever. OTOH, I'm not a criminal nor am I attempting to become a criminal.

So, help me out here.... as an essentially law-abiding US citizen, what specifically have I lost?

http://www.checksbalances.org  the government can pretty well do what ever it please under the patriot acts.  furthermore we are allowing the government to become what our founding fathers feared our society would become if we allowed a monarch to rule.  IMO we have much more to fear from an unchecked federal government than we will ever need to fear from a bunch flea bitten dune surfin' terrorists.

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Karnak
Based on reports thus far I'd have to say this looks like a job well done by the British.  In such circumstances and with such people you have no choice but to shoot to kill.

And if he wasn't guilty, then he was the biggest moron in London to run from the police/special unit/special forces/whatever in the tube after the events of the last few weeks.


One thing that you on the right should stop doing is saying what Libertarians will do if there is another attack.  Libertarians, be they leftwing or rightwing Libertarians, have a lot more intestinal fortitude to accept casualties as the price of living in a free society than you give us credit for.  Even if such an attack should claim somebody close to me I would not cry out for my security or laws as I do not believe that having that much governmental oversight is a good or healthy thing for a free society.  It would be most unreasonable to demand such a thing.


There is a stereotype of lilly livered Liberals that is very strong on this board, but you should recognize that this is a stereotype based on the most absurd elements of the left, and of apolitical Americans, that is pushed by the right in order to reduce the ability of their opponents to fight agaist them.  Both sides do it, but the right wing has been far more effective than the left wing at doing so over the last couple of decades.

Our real problem in this country is not the thinking right or the thinking left, but rather people who just react to whatever the latest issue is and demand solutions without ever considering the eficacy, side effects or reasonableness of what they demand.  These people are usually neither left nor right, but just easily influenced and often apolitical until something prods them.

Whoa, hoss.  I am a Libertarian, and I am willing to temporarily surrender my personal liberties for a cause greater than myself.  And I do NOT accept that in a war, we must accept casualties because of a principle.  This is a war, just on different terms than a war between nation-states.  It's a war between cultures.

To restate something I already said, my belief is that you can't have an individualist military.  When the body of the people is attacked, a form of collective defense is needed.  In order for that defense to be effective, the combatants must be placed under a discipline not normal to the ideals of the society, unusual circumstances demanding unusual responses.

They (the terrorists/islamists/fundamentalists/freedom fighters, you choose the label) have defined the boundaries of the conflict.  They--not us--have placed every train station, bus, airport, plane, and street on the front line of the war.  That makes me (and you) a combatant.

Do the math, soldier.

[Gunthr]

Karnak, I'm not referring to abstract panic over a miniscule numerical chance that you may be hurt or killed.  

I'm talking about terrorism knocking on your personal door.  Like a transit bomb knocking you into the middle of next week, and you regain conciousness with ringing ears to find that your wife is that red mush all over your shirt.  

If this happens to neighbors or fellow Californians, or just plain old Americans, you are gonna feel it, my friend.

If that happens and I sincerely hope it doesn't,  you may just decide that it might be a good thing for the state police to hit that house down the street that an undocumented informant  identified as holding small pox contagion being prepared for deployment.  (This is illegal without a warrant supported by probable cause. )

 I'm suggesting that when you are terrorized, you may decide that exigent circumstances and the safety of a mass of people outweigh the negative impact it may have on the civil rights of the middle easterners who just moved in that suspect house.


and this:

I remain completely unconvinced that giving up some liberities for some saftey is in any way a good thing. It is all the worse that the amount of increased saftey appears to by null at this point.

Listen friend, I'm not trying to convince you that giving up some liberties for some safety is a good thing.  

I'm merely telling you that I believe that it will happen because of human nature.  I lament any loss of freedom, I distrust government every bit as much as you.

I am making a simple observation.

[lazs2]

I'm still trying to figure out what a "left wing libertarian" is.

a socialist libertarian?  seems.... contradictory

lazs

[Bluedog]

Originally posted by Nashwan
[B



Oh, how despicable, shooting terrorists who are trying to murder people. [/B]

Don't get me wrong Nashwan, I couldn't agree more.

I was merely meaning that the world tends to view the Brits as gentlemanly, quiet, well meaning folk who arent out to hurt anybody, sitting around drinking tea and eating scones at the Sunday cricket game.
What a lot of people forget is that when they are fighting a war, all semblance of nicety goes out the window, nothing is too 'below the belt' or 'un-PC', if it works, use it.
Brits don't play by gentlemanly rules in a war situation.
They take 'all's fair in love and war' litterally, if you are on the other side, you are a potential target and body bag filler, not a citizen with normal attached rights. If what needs to be done is outside the normal accepted 'rules', they make new ones.

As it should be. I think that yesterdays events demonstrates the British people's determination, I certainly don't harbour any sympathy whatsoever for the bloke they ventilated, nor do i think that excessive force was used.

Three weeks ago however, this would have caused an immediate outcry about police brutality, or how the rights of joe Citizen Paki-bomber were violated.
After a few bombs go off in trains and busses, the only public outcry now is 'Take that you bastards'.

thats what I meant by 'This is what a terror bombing campaign in London achieves'......I would think the result is somewhat differant than what was hoped for by the badguys.

Just as the WTC attacks 'awoke a sleeping giant' and jolted the American people into an aggressive wartime frame of mind, attacking the Brits has just made them angry, it certainly hasn't scared them into submission.

My apologies if my first post gave the wrong impression, don't be putting me on any terrorist symathiser lists just yet though.

[scspook]

Originally posted by lazs2
they will have eventually.

lazs

ahh no, they will not.

[lazs2]

more police in england are armed every year.  

lazs

[Suave]

How long have the brits had the tube technology?