Willing to do ANYTHING to stop the next terrorist attack?

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
Seriously, are we willing to do ANYTHING?


Hannity was saying last night he believes we should be willing to do ANYTHING to stop the next terrorist attack...

He was specifically discussing Miranda Warnings, but that opens an entire topic of conversation...

What are we willing to give up for safety? What is the proper ballance? Where do we draw the line?

I feel much more willing to accept a less safe world for a more free world than it seems Hannity is, but what about you?
 
Jarod said:
Seriously, are we willing to do ANYTHING?


Hannity was saying last night he believes we should be willing to do ANYTHING to stop the next terrorist attack...

He was specifically discussing Miranda Warnings, but that opens an entire topic of conversation...

What are we willing to give up for safety? What is the proper ballance? Where do we draw the line?

I feel much more willing to accept a less safe world for a more free world than it seems Hannity is, but what about you?
Click to expand...

I'd be quite prepared to sacrifice the life of Mr Hannity in a futile attempt at securing safety from terror.
 
charver said:
I'd be quite prepared to sacrifice the life of Mr Hannity in a futile attempt at securing safety from terror.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO.....

WHat bothers me is the way these shock jocks word what they are saying...

THey say things like, 'The LIberals want us to give these terrorists Miranda warnings and stop them from talking prior to getting vital information.'


First of all, unless convicted, they are not terrorists in the eyes of the law, and they cant be convicted, at least based on what they say, unless Miranda Warnings are given....
 
Jarod said:
Seriously, are we willing to do ANYTHING?


Hannity was saying last night he believes we should be willing to do ANYTHING to stop the next terrorist attack...

He was specifically discussing Miranda Warnings, but that opens an entire topic of conversation...

What are we willing to give up for safety? What is the proper ballance? Where do we draw the line?

I feel much more willing to accept a less safe world for a more free world than it seems Hannity is, but what about you?
Click to expand...


No, we're not willing to do anything. While some folks are willing to do all sorts of stuff to try to perform end-runs around fairly basic constitutional principles, one thing they are not willing to do is to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
 
NigelTufnel said:
No, we're not willing to do anything. While some folks are willing to do all sorts of stuff to try to perform end-runs around fairly basic constitutional principles, one thing they are not willing to do is to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
Click to expand...

Hannity said ANYTHING!
 
Yurt said:
would you accept martial law jarod?
Click to expand...

Likely not, but it would depend....

Facing what situation?

What do you mean by Martial Law?

For how long?

TO very likely save 100,000 lives, id possably agree to allow the police to suspend Habias Corpus for 24 hours, once... Maybe.
 
Jarod said:
Likely not, but it would depend....

Facing what situation?

What do you mean by Martial Law?

For how long?

TO very likely save 100,000 lives, id possably agree to allow the police to suspend Habias Corpus for 24 hours, once... Maybe.
Click to expand...

ok.......then answer me....what would it take for YOU to accept martial law, its not found in our constitution, but is a reality
 
Obviously we're not willing to do "anything". There have been 5 attacks since Obama took office, if we keep going at this pace we'll have 10 more attacks before the end of his 4 years... And they are bound to actually not suck at it a few of those times. I mean, how lucky are we? If the Christmas Terrorist hadn't peed his pants that one would have been very successful regardless of brave Danes willing to stamp out crotch fires.
 
Damocles said:
Obviously we're not willing to do "anything". There have been 5 attacks since Obama took office, if we keep going at this pace we'll have 10 more attacks before the end of his 4 years... And they are bound to actually not suck at it a few of those times. I mean, how lucky are we? If the Christmas Terrorist hadn't peed his pants that one would have been very successful regardless of brave Danes willing to stamp out crotch fires.
Click to expand...

When it keeps happening, I dont call it luck. There is a reason these terrorists cant get the tools they need to pull off a successfull attack. There is a reason they cant get a proper bomb on an airplane. There is a reason they have to keep the bomb small enough to hide in there underpants.

So, Id stop calling it pure luck.

We were not so lucky under Bush when 9-11 occured.

We have been thus far under Obama and were under Clinton when they tried the mennilunum bomb and when they tried to blow up the world trade center...
 
NigelTufnel said:
No, we're not willing to do anything. While some folks are willing to do all sorts of stuff to try to perform end-runs around fairly basic constitutional principles, one thing they are not willing to do is to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
Click to expand...

why would you consider it constitutional to deny a fundamental right to someone placed on a government list for which NO standards are published and NO way to be removed from that list and NO judicial oversight?
 
Yurt said:
ok.......then answer me....what would it take for YOU to accept martial law, its not found in our constitution, but is a reality
Click to expand...

But the Court did find :

The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."
 
Ice Dancer said:
But the Court did find :

The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."
Click to expand...

Those are fairly specific, extreme circumstances. No act of terrorism that I can think of would warrant it.
 
Jarod said:
When it keeps happening, I dont call it luck. There is a reason these terrorists cant get the tools they need to pull off a successfull attack. There is a reason they cant get a proper bomb on an airplane. There is a reason they have to keep the bomb small enough to hide in there underpants.

So, Id stop calling it pure luck.

We were not so lucky under Bush when 9-11 occured.

We have been thus far under Obama and were under Clinton when they tried the mennilunum bomb and when they tried to blow up the world trade center...
Click to expand...
I wouldn't "stop" calling it blind luck. The amount of explosive that dude had in his pants would most definitely take down an airplane, in fact much more than that. It would have been a spectacular explosion had he not peed his pants in fear thus giving the Dane time to stomp his crotch to put out the fire..

This current one in Times Square, IMO, was ineffective due to ineffective "training"...

Again, all it takes is one or two effective ones to make us start getting all Nazi and doing exactly what they want. Sometimes it's like sand, the harder you grip the more that slips between your fingers.
 
Damocles said:
Obviously we're not willing to do "anything". There have been 5 attacks since Obama took office, if we keep going at this pace we'll have 10 more attacks before the end of his 4 years... And they are bound to actually not suck at it a few of those times. I mean, how lucky are we? If the Christmas Terrorist hadn't peed his pants that one would have been very successful regardless of brave Danes willing to stamp out crotch fires.
Click to expand...

The picture of "...brave Dames willing to stamp out crotch fires..." not only made me cringe, but laugh at the same time.
 
Jarod said:
Seriously, are we willing to do ANYTHING?


Hannity was saying last night he believes we should be willing to do ANYTHING to stop the next terrorist attack...

He was specifically discussing Miranda Warnings, but that opens an entire topic of conversation...

What are we willing to give up for safety? What is the proper ballance? Where do we draw the line?

I feel much more willing to accept a less safe world for a more free world than it seems Hannity is, but what about you?
Click to expand...

Your wife and daughter or son are being threatened....their very lives are on the line.......

What would you do ?
How far do you go ?
Where do you draw the line ?
What is the proper "balance" for you, in this case ?



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top