Can We Have Security Without Fear?
Monday May 25, 2009
Categories: Politics
The war of words between President Obama and Dick Cheney has exposed a rancorous divide over national security. Mr. Cheney states flatly that there is no middle ground on the issue. There is no such thing as being half-safe, he declares. On the face of it, his statement is nonsensical. Unless he has a way of screening the thoughts and intentions of every potential enemy in the world, we will always be half safe. But is that the real issue? Aren't we talking about our right not to be afraid as much as our right to defend ourselves? Better be safe than sorry is common sense. Better be afraid all the time is toxic politics at its worst. When the Senate voted overwhelmingly to deny funds for closing Guantanamo, they acted out of toxic motives. President Obama accused them of being irrational, and he was absolutely right.
The issue of national security was a Republican gold mine for eight years, during which time not enough objection was raised over waterboarding, domestic surveillance, and holding detainees indefinitely without bringing them to trial. The tide turned with the new President, but the underlying dilemma remains with us.
Can we be secure without resorting to fear?
The Bush administration profited from fear to a huge extent; therefore, they couldn't resist the temptation to wield it. As if the 9/11 attacks were not terrifying enough, they created bogeymen with no justification. The primary one was Saddam Hussein, who posed no threat to the U.S., had no weapons of mass destruction, and made no alliance with Al-Qaeda. But the detainees being held without trial at Guantanamo were also a bogeyman. We still have no idea who among them was or is a danger to this country, but in a massive refusal to be fair, adult, and rational, we allowed all of them to be lumped together and treated as imminent threats.
Cheney's round defense of torture is morally bankrupt, but the right wing knows -- as it knew in the McCarthy era -- that scapegoating an unpopular minority works. Fifty years ago it was Communists; now it is Muslims of any stripe, including the most harmless. We have been detaining harmless Muslims at Guantanamo for years without due process; we have also been imprisoning dangerous Muslims and others who fall between the extremes. The only way to sort them out is with fair trials, adequate evidence, and rational consideration of potential threats.
Or you can just play the fear card.
In his ongoing efforts to treat the American public as they have rarely been treated -- that is, as adults -- Obama pointed out several rational things:
- Our supermax prisons are safe. No one has ever escaped from them.
- America stands for constitutional principles.
- No one's fate should be decided by one man, even if he is President.
- The issue of releasing potential terrorists is difficult and troubling.
Notice the one thing he left out: fear. That's the difference between him and Cheney. If he didn't play the fear card over and over, Cheney's vision of national security would fall apart, just as McCarthy's argument about Communists infiltrating the federal government fell apart when he couldn't find any. The show of smoke, mirrors, and fear collapsed. In a decent moral scheme, Obama would have pointed out the cruel injustice of holding anyone in prison without charges or the chance to defend themselves. How would any of us like to be in such a position, knowing that we were innocent? It doesn't matter if the accused happens to look like a bogeyman. He's a human being and should be treated like one ~Deepak Chopra~
Thanks for posting this Pam. There is a lot of truth in this article. ;)
I thought it made some good points :)
It does make some points that are going to be unpopular with some people. What the heck? Aren't some of the other posts unpopular with some people. Glad you posted it.
We have nothing to fear except fear itself. (Not my original thought).
What's new with this article? They been pushing fear for years in
order to get the Fed's involved in Americans' lives. Some of you
swear that you'd never make it without gov't help.
Fear? Then quit believing in the Feds' programs and taking
their money.
There is an invalid cause and effect there. Our country's security doesn't cause people to need Govt. aid. "They have been pushing fear for years." Fear mongering has been a Repub. for plank some time. If people meet the income challenges and what not for aid, I'm glad to help. I'm glad our vets can earn education credit for their service too, although there are some who feel that 'though health care and treatment is fine, they don't think education is owed. I do.
Quote from: redcliffsw on May 26, 2009, 12:39:52 PM
What's new with this article? They been pushing fear for years in
order to get the Fed's involved in Americans' lives. Some of you
swear that you'd never make it without gov't help.
Fear? Then quit believing in the Feds' programs and taking
their money.
LOL the government don't give me anything. I make it just fine thanks.
Just wanted to point out a few things:
1. Iraq was in possesion of "yellow cake" used the the enrichment of uranium for making nukes.
2. We did learn, through the use of waterboarding, of plans for an attack on LA which we were able to stop.
3. 1 in 7 detainees released from gitmo, has returned to the battlefield
4. If no prisoner at gitmo was a danger to the U.S. then how did Abu Zubayduh know of the LA attack
5. Since when do we give constitutional rights to enemy pows?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=98489
ok I'm gonna go slow and formulate what I am thinkin as I go................My thoughts on the ends justify the means theory......one of the VERY first things I was taught as a child WAS...two wrongs DON'T make it right.
1 in 7 goes back to the battlefield....how many americans do you reckon would return to the fight if they were let go from a similar situation? I believe the percentage would be MUCH higher than that. In fact they'd probly take a couple new guys WITH em.
Nobody said none of them was a danger to the US...there are some who are there just because tho. How would YOU like it if it was you? Would you think you deserved basic human rights? If you were wrongly imprisoned would you hate the guts of those responsible?
Human rights are not the same as Constitutional rights...we are ALL entitled if not deserving of basic HUMAN rights.
This part of the forum has deteriorated in the three weeks I was gone to name calling,belligerant pronouncing instead of intelligent debating, and basically just bickerin back and forth about who said what to who and not a whole lot of anything is gettin done except for increasing hard feelings. Think maybe we should take a few steps back and get a perspective maybe?
Ok Pam, I can agree with some of that. But what HUMAN rights are being violated just because? The tone of the article implies that we should treat the detainees as civilian criminals. They're not. Maybe some of them are innocent, which is why we hold tribunals. At least we haven't beheaded any yet. I guess the long and short of it is, what are we willing to do to keep our country safe?? My position is whatever it takes.
QuoteI guess the long and short of it is, what are we willing to do to keep our country safe?? My position is whatever it takes.
Basically so is mine believe it or not. But that doesn't mean I don't know it's wrong and that it doesn't hurt my soul.
My problem is with the people like Cheney who are trying to say it's ok because it's NOT. The brutality,violence, hate and butchery has GOT to stop. In no "religion" having anything to do with Jesus is it "acceptable". It's not acceptable in so-called PAGAN religions like Buddhism. It is ONLY in the OLD testament using religions that such things are done and given "divine" inference and I DO not recognize them or ACCEPT it as being the "way of God" Jesus cancelled out the old testament.
Gods got nothing to do with things like this and when factions or sects or denominations or whatever try to justify what they do that way it really torques me off.
Obama's talent for nonsense
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=99201
QuoteThe real question is: How many American lives are you prepared to sacrifice to spare a terrorist from experiencing distress?
I'm commentin on this because it was the only part of that that really pertained to this line.........my position is not about causing or not causing distress to terrorists. What they get is their karma.
I am a person who understands both the way things get done AND the fact that doing them that way is a black spot on my soul. That is MY karma.......and I have to be prepared to pay or not pay it. Saving lives matters but wrong is STILL wrong and has to be paid for. Seems like nobody understands that anymore. The fact I do makes me doubly guilty for not standin up.
Quote from: pamsback on May 26, 2009, 09:29:20 PM
This part of the forum has deteriorated in the three weeks I was gone to name calling,belligerant pronouncing instead of intelligent debating, and basically just bickerin back and forth about who said what to who and not a whole lot of anything is gettin done except for increasing hard feelings. Think maybe we should take a few steps back and get a perspective maybe?
Pam, absolutely correct.
I once knew a man who would argue black was white and up was down. Not because he believed black was white or up was down, but because he liked to get an argument started then sit back and watch the fur fly.
Ok, I'm going to brave it and post a reply on this topic. Kind of a backwards, looking inside-out rehtorical view...
The question: Can we have security without fear?
Follow-up question: Why do we need security if we don't have fear?
Example: Why have locks on your doors if you don't have fear of somone coming into your home? Why even have doors on your house at all? Why lock your car if you don't have the fear of someone getting into it and taking your stuff/car? Why keep guns in your house (under your bed) if you don't have the fear of someone breaking in? Why have military if you don't have the fear of someone taking over the country?
So, I think that security and fear go hand-in-hand. Most people feel that the more fearful they are, the more security they need/want. Example: a rapist running loose around a neighborhood makes people take more security measures by installing yard lights, better locks on doors, not going out after dark. And on the flip side, the more security people have, the safer they feel. Another example: 9/11. Are we more fearful because of the lack of security before the attacks? Or are we beefing up security because we're so fearful of another attack?
Back to the original article; I think these 2 politicians are just playing different sides of the same coin. One is playing on American's fears to try and keep security high... and the other is pointing out that security is already high, so our fears can be less (which plays on the fact that our fears are high about lowering security). You can't make someone feel safe without making them fearful of something in the first place.
Dizzy yet? Did I just talk in circles? ;D
Teresa, where are those applauding hands? I need them. Little momma has done it again.
Pam, not trying to start anything here, maybe my understanding of karma is flawed, I don't really know about that type of philosophy, but...
Quote from: pamsback on May 27, 2009, 09:55:07 AM
I'm commentin on this because it was the only part of that that really pertained to this line.........my position is not about causing or not causing distress to terrorists. What they get is their karma.
if it is their karma, how can it be wrong?
Where did I miss that Pam said it was wrong?
Billy the ACT is wrong no matter WHO does it. Their act causes their karma yes but doing the same act in return causes OUR bad karma, etc. etc. sooner or later SOMEbody has to step off the merry-go-round.
Every harm you do has to be paid for..........even if you think that harm is for a good reason.
Tobina I see what you are sayin lol. By the way I hear congratulations are in order! I missed the news while I was down :)
Ma, I think I met that guy a time or two LOL. He was my hero :) You know I still miss him? He talked to me about a lot of stuff...
I guess that depends on your definition of harm.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on May 27, 2009, 08:17:11 PM
I guess that depends on your definition of harm.
Are you kidding me?
No, I am not. I think it depends on the situation.
......creating and sustaining a "Perpetual fear level"
Coming Soon To a City Near You
http://lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy59.html
That is complete and total Bulls!#$. You want to know what fear is?? Ask the Marine who was filmed having his head was chopped off with a butcher knife. Ask the thousands of people who saddam hussein killed with nerve agents. Ask the afghanistan women and girls who are beaten and beheaded because they "dishonored" their fathers.
Illegal and immoral wars??? Go to Hell!! Those bastards attacked us an we are supposed to just let that go? I don't think so.
Oh, and while you're at, ask those taliban cowards, who won't come out and fight on an open battlefied whats its like to have to have the American military boot up their ass!!
Ok......I'm HOPIN that was in answer to that thing red posted and not me.
Quote from: pamsback on May 27, 2009, 08:58:42 PM
Ok......I'm HOPIN that was in answer to that thing red posted and not me.
Yes Pam, it was.
And to all others, I apologize for my language, that article really ticked me off.
I figured but I wasn't sure Lol, I think that is why it was posted :P It sure didn't have any other merit!
Billy, sorry I posted it. I should have read it more carefully
about the immoral wars. The author Michael
Gaddy is a vet