kritter He sounds very dangerous. There is a lot of criticism of how he handled 9/11 from New Yorkers, yet that record is what he is running on. Giuliani does not seem like a moderate on the issues that count to me (civil liberties and the ability to repair our image in the world). I would hate to see the continuation of the GOP's authoritarian tactics in Washington, and would almost rather risk another attack then continue as we have been. What's that quote by Franklin? "He who would sacrifice liberty for a little security, deserves neither."

C Stanley Kim, Don't you think that's a bit over the top? Or do you approve of campaign rhetoric that says that we should fear a particular candidate being elected more than we should fear the terrorists who wish to attack us? Is it acceptable when Republicans use that kind of rhetoric to say that we shouldn't elect Dems who'll be weak against terrorism?

mvdg CS: I do not think that it truly is over the top to be honest. I think that one can say: "would we like to have our freedoms like we had them before, and risk an attack; or do we want to do everything possible to prevent an attack, including giving up (some of) our freedoms?" Now, I realize that is not how Kim worded it, but that lies, of course, at the heart of the matter. an open society is always at risk of being attacked. Of course, I am not saying that those who are tough on terror want to take away your freedom, that is certainly not always the case, but one has to keep an eye on it... Isn't that what conservatism is all about? Freedom?

kritter I actually do fear some Republicans more than the terrorists. I know that sounds extreme, but its because I think the likelihood of another terrorist attack is smaller than the likelihood of the loss of civil liberties if we have another Republican administration. And with the Bush administration, imo, we had the worst of both worlds- a foreign policy that ended up increasing the terrorist threat, and a domestic policy that demagogued the threat to consolidate centralized power and curb civil liberties. Al Gore is right when he says that strident sound bites that makes our blood boil has replaced reasonable conversation. Yes, I don't like demagogery and harsh rhetoric, but unfortunately some of it is true. I guess from a conservative's point of view, the Democrats could be encouraging the terrorists- but it just seems to me that we can't live our lives because we are afraid of what they might or might not do, and an accusation like that just tears our society down the middle.

C Stanley Well, yes, that does sound extreme. And it makes no sense to simultaneously laud Al Gore for pointing out that "strident sound bites that makes our blood boil has replaced reasonable conversation" while you are adding your own strident sound bite.

kritter CS-I guess than I am now an extremist, lol. But no regrets.. Once those freedoms are gone--- we won't be able to get them back and that should be scaring anyone who is thinking about voting for someone like Giuliani. I don't think we have to see jackbooted thugs marching in the street or major media outlets being shut down. The loss of liberty has come in smaller increments. BTW I am not saying that I'm happy with the Democrats either- they have not stood up to what has been going on in any meaningful way.

mvdg Lets divert the attention a bit from a terrorist attack and Giuliani / Republicans. Lets look at the general question, how much liberty should one sacrifice for (a feeling of) safety? Is there a line, if so, where? And.. do you think that Giuliani might break that line once in power? If so, why?

C Stanley MvdG: I don't have a problem with stating concern over authoritarianism, but only with the way Kim has phrased it. If you don't think the Republicans should fearmonger over terrorism, then the same standard should apply to the Democrats when it comes to fearmongering over loss of civil liberties. Both are legitimate concerns and we should openly discuss policies to determine where we think the balance should lie, but we shouldn't demonize people from one party or the other because that actually shuts down the discussion. In other words, conservatives/Republicans aren't going to be any more receptive to that kind of rhetoric than the Democrats are to being called traitors.

C Stanley And I think your question in comment #7 is a very important one. When people say that they feel Bush has gone too far, I agree, but I still don't think it's as serious as some would claim. So, I'd like to hear an actual discussion of where people think those lines should be drawn. For me, an example would be the NSA wiretapping: I think Bush was right to seek a more vigorous and flexible surveillance program but I think it should be set up with oversight so it's not the Executive branch alone deciding when warrantless searches should take place.

mvdg Well, when I look at the situation in the Netherlands, I believe that the anti-terrorism laws were largely unnecessary. The government has enough powers to fight crime and terrorism as it is, there is no need to give the government more power. Does more power make it more easy for the government? Sure, but doing away with habeas corpus does too. Is it also possible to fight terrorism effectively without changing most laws? I'd say yes, so don't change it. If I were American, I would oppose the wiretapping program. The government is already able to tap people, it needs to meet certain qualifications to do so though, and those qualifications / demands are there for a very good reason.

mvdg

I don’t have a problem with stating concern over authoritarianism, but only with the way Kim has phrased it. If you don’t think the Republicans should fearmonger over terrorism, then the same standard should apply to the Democrats when it comes to fearmongering over loss of civil liberties. Both are legitimate concerns and we should openly discuss policies to determine where we think the balance should lie, but we shouldn’t demonize people from one party or the other because that actually shuts down the discussion. In other words, conservatives/Republicans aren’t going to be any more receptive to that kind of rhetoric than the Democrats are to being called traitors.

True enough.

kritter I agree that it may not necessarily help the discussion. In this case, I was expressing a personal fear- not trying to fan it among others. If my goal was fearmongering why would I come to a conservative site to do so? But I apologize if that's what you felt I was doing. My fears have come out of the actions of the current administration, and watching the two Republican debates, where I felt that the only candidates who were standing up for the preservation of civil liberties were McCain (anti-torture) and Ron Paul.

C Stanley OK, Kim- there's no need to apologize as I don't take offense or anything- I just don't think you're being consistent if you look at it that way in terms of what you fear, but criticize others for responding to their own fears. I can appreciate a more nuanced view of it but I hope you get my gist- don't base your views on your fears at all, just speak in a positive way about what you'd like to see in a candidate. Since you obviously feel that there has been erosion of civil liberties, then state what you feel needs to be done, which candidates have endorsed that type of policy (you've already mentioned the two Republicans who at least have addressed it)- and also- do you feel that such policies in any way would lead to a greater danger of terrorist attack and what do you think our government should do about that?

kritter Well, that is a more constructive approach, CS. But I think any discussion has to begin with an honest expression of our deepest fears. I wasn't thinking as much about being consistent as my honest reaction to what I have seen in the GOP. I'm not condemning all Republicans, just some of the leadership. Just yesterday, Tom DeLay (who is at this point a pathetic figure I admit) was quoted saying that God was telling him to work to rebuild the Republican majority. Altho I abhor the rhetoric framing Democrats as terrorist appeasers and surrender monkeys- it definitely hits a chord with those who care only that we not be defeated-ever. That's not the way I think, but I get it that many- especially those in the military do think, and are receptive to it. Many cannot concieve of the benefits of using diplomatic efforts over military force. I think we need to use both, but be careful not to be seen as the world's bully. Anyway- I would like to see more of the candidates pledge to work within the FISA framework (or change the law to fit the need) and re-examine some of the more controversial portions of the Patriot Act. I will vote for someone who respects the Geneva Conventions, believes in a strong, healthy press, and wants to restore habeas corpus, and our confidence in a depoliticized Dept of Justice and in our intelligence agencies. Also, it is important to maintain the separation of church and state I do feel the biggest enemy we face is ourselves, because don't the terrorists win if we dissolve in hatred of the other side and respond to any attack by limiting our freedoms?

C Stanley Well, Kim- please understand that the following is not necessarily my view but I'm playing devil's advocate for the other side of your argument: There are many people who will argue (and they are correct) that our civil liberties have been curtailed more at certain points in our past than they are now, but that we survived and the infringements were reversed after the 'enemy' was defeated. WWII is one example, and the Civil War was another. Now, the reason I don't agree with those arguments is that today's 'enemy' is more ambiguous and the fight is more open ended, so we have to be more cautious about temporarily suspending liberties because the temporary part may become permanent. I imagine you'd agree with me- but my point is that I think it's helpful to understand the other viewpoint and also to ask ourselves: can we really assume that some of these infringements on our civil liberties aren't needed, given that they obviously were used to defeat threats in the past? If not, then how do we balance the need to protect against external threats with the need to protect against our own government overstepping its authority?

Interested I was thinking the same - boy you would have hated Lincoln and FDR.

If not, then how do we balance the need to protect against external threats with the need to protect against our own government overstepping its authority?

I agree. It was not good in the aspect that investigation turned up abuses of the Patriot act. But at the same time it was good that they were found. One should start to really worry if nothing was found at all - for it would have meant either the law was way too strong - or way too weak. Koppel described it best in his show on the Patriot act - We better have this discussion now - for if another 9/11 happens, there will not be another discussion.

kritter Interested-OK, but those examples were for limited periods of time, and it is now recognized by historians that FDR's decision to inter Japanese-Americans during WWII was a shameful overreaction to the prevailing threat. I doubt that Americans would have put up with those conditions for an open-ended period of time, especially since our efforts seem to be producing a spread of terrorism instead of curtailing it. CS- Yes I agree with what you wrote, and it is a difficult question. We don't really have the knowledge to determine exactly which curtailments are necessary. Unfortunately, some of the abuses - like the FBI's National Security Letters have poisoned a lot of people against their own government. Misinformation about the war and the fact that government agencies seem so incompetent when dealing with expanded powers and have become politicized has added to the mistrust. I'm not sure what the answers are, but I do know that whoever comes in in '08 will have to work hard to restore that trust. My problem is that most candidates aren't even acknowledging that there is something that they need to repair.

Interested

Interested-OK, but those examples were for limited periods of time, and it is now recognized by historians that FDR’s decision to inter Japanese-Americans during WWII was a shameful overreaction to the prevailing threat.

Your looking with the benefit of History. At the time - they were open-ended.

especially since our efforts seem to be producing a spread of terrorism instead of curtailing it.

You seem to be meshing Military and diplomatic actions with the Patriot act here.