Civil Liberties vs. Security: Common Sense

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Setting Limits on Tolerance

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, August 12, 2005; Page A19

In 1977, when a bunch of neo-Nazis decided to march through Skokie, a suburb of Chicago heavily populated with Holocaust survivors, there was controversy as to whether they should be allowed. I thought they should. Why? Because neo-Nazis are utterly powerless. ...[text shortened]... 's plan would establish a commission to try to get immigrants to adopt more of the local mores.

Amen

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Setting Limits on Tolerance

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, August 12, 2005; Page A19

In 1977, when a bunch of neo-Nazis decided to march through Skokie, a suburb of Chicago heavily populated with Holocaust survivors, there was controversy as to whether they should be allowed. I thought they should. Why? Because neo-Nazis are utterly powerless. ...[text shortened]... 's plan would establish a commission to try to get immigrants to adopt more of the local mores.

Yes, but—

1. The lines are only able to shift, and abuses be “exposed and undone,” as long as the voice of civil-libertarian dissent itself is not stifled or effectively weakened.

Krauthammer used the example of America embarking on “a period of unprecedented expansion of civil rights.” But that expansion was the result of a sustained struggle for those rights.

2. In a “new kind of war,” as I believe GWB called the war on terrorism, where an “end-in sight” victory might not only be a long time in coming, but difficult to even determine and discern, we ought to be extra-vigilant about the balance, I think.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes, but—

1. The lines are only able to shift, and abuses be “exposed and undone,” as long as the voice of civil-libertarian dissent itself is not stifled or effectively weakened.

Krauthammer used the example of America embarking on “a period of unprecedented expansion of civil rights.” But that expansion was the result of a sustained struggle ...[text shortened]... ult to even determine and discern, we ought to be extra-vigilant about the balance, I think.

Good points.


remember: The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Setting Limits on Tolerance

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, August 12, 2005; Page A19

In 1977, when a bunch of neo-Nazis decided to march through Skokie, a suburb of Chicago heavily populated with Holocaust survivors, there was ...[text shortened]... mission to try to get immigrants to adopt more of the local mores.

"Situational libertarianism" has no place in a country based on a political philosophy of a limited government to protect fundamental, individual rights. Krauthammer is merely arguing for repression of speech whenever the temporary occupants of power deem it necessary. There is no "emergency" exception for free speech in the political realm; you have the unlimited right to say what you please so long as it doesn't have direct, immediate and violent results. More neo-conservative restrictions on freedom for our own good presupposes that our betters who have control of power are giving us rights out of the goodness of their hearts so long as we act "properly". This is anathema to the principles that free countries are based on.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
When Blair announced his change of heart, one of the things he said was that "we will not continue to tolerate the presence, actions, and speech of others who would abuse our good nature."

I agree. There is the argument that th ...[text shortened]... n up a bit. As usual, my Gemini mind sees merits on both sides.

I've already stated that I think immigration laws are too lax. But there is a reason why all these Arab nationals from the Middle East were allowed into Western countries and it has to do with your beloved "globalization". The Western elites look at the Saudis, Kuwait and other elites as "junior partners" and went their sons to be "Westernized". Thus, they made it easy for sons of the Arab ruling elites and even middle cases Arabs from these countries to come into the West, usually on student visas. The idea was that these young people would saturated with Western ideas, accept Western culture and even make personal, longlasting contacts with the sons of our ruling elites. The partnership would be strengthened and it would be easier for the economically powerful elites of the West to dominate the Middle East through their junior partners.

BUT, when you allow in young people there's no telling what they might do (as Art Linkletter said "Kids do the darnest things"😉. All of the 9/11 hijackers were allowed in the US legally under the policy above, but there are plenty of Islamic Fundamentalists ho want the West out of the Middle East even in the upper and professional classes in Arab countries. Osama is one; Mohammed Atta was an architectural student who became a radical Islamic when he saw more and more Western type buildings being placed in the Middle East instead of traditional, Arab architectural designs. The point being that when you want to push a culture on a group of people it can have unexpected and violent repercussions.

I don't see a solution IF you are committed to "globalization" (which I am not since what it really means is the ability for economic elites to move capital freely to the detriment of workers). If you want Arab countries to be more Western and lose their "half-assed culture", then you want their elites to be educated at Harvard and Oxford. But just because you want him to believe a certain set of Western values doesn't mean he will. And once you allow people into your country, you can't adopt rules for them that don't apply to others and then preach "equality". I'd get out of the business of trying to indoctrinate the Arab elites altogether myself and let 'em go to their own universities, but hey Ivanhoe says I'm an isolationist!

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've already stated that I think immigration laws are too lax. But there is a reason why all these Arab nationals from the Middle East were allowed into Western countries and it has to do with your beloved "globalization". The Western elites look at the Saudis, Kuwait and other elites as "junior partners" and went their sons to be "Westerniz ...[text shortened]... her myself and let 'em go to their own universities, but hey Ivanhoe says I'm an isolationist!

In Canada we used to have a political party called"the Progressive Conservatives" or Torys for short. I've always liked the idea behind those two words. There is nothing wrong with being an isolationist. Maybe the problem lies with the fact that technology has made our world too fast. Instead we should have taken baby steps, instead of gigantic leaps. If we had given both cultures the opportunity to get to know each other better maybe we wouldn't have these problems. Or maybe not. I'm not an expert