cannabisnews.com: When We Give Up Freedoms





When We Give Up Freedoms
Posted by FoM on September 30, 2001 at 11:43:08 PT
By Robyn E. Blumner
Source: St. Petersburg Times
It would be easy for those of us who care about American freedoms to get behind a counterterrorism bill, like the one under consideration in Congress, if we knew that every member of our law enforcement and intelligence services could be trusted to target only potential terrorists of the type who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon.It would be easy for those of us who care about American freedoms to get behind a counterterrorism bill, like the one under consideration in Congress, if we knew that every member of our law enforcement and intelligence services could be trusted to target only potential terrorists of the type who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon. 
But history teaches us that that is not what would happen. Once the new law hit the books, it would be subject to the same kind of bending, manipulation and expansion of purpose that so many others have gone through. Within the reach of recent history, there have been numerous occasions in which the Justice Department and local law enforcement have entreated the legislative branches to expand their authority and reduce their burden of proof in order to respond to the threat of the moment -- and then turned around and used those powers against much more benign actors. A law such as RICO, the federal racketeering statute, was sold to Congress in 1970 as the only way to combat the scourge of organized crime. Lower the legal standard for a criminal conspiracy and jack up the financial penalty to take the profit out of crime, said the Justice Department, and we can cripple the Mafia. But it didn't take long for RICO to be used in all sorts of ways having no relationship to criminal syndicates -- against banks, accounting firms and even anti-abortion protesters. Civil asset forfeiture -- which allows law enforcement to confiscate assets under a much reduced standard of proof than is required in a criminal proceeding -- was another way law enforcement was going to prevent criminals, and drug dealers in particular, from keeping their ill-gotten gains. The result has been out-of-control policing. People have lost boats and houses because trace amounts of drugs were found. Police have confiscated large amounts of cash from people simply because they were deemed to be suspicious. Property and money have been taken as "criminal proceeds" without the owner being charged with a crime. And police agencies are underwriting their budgets to the tune of millions of dollars with the goods and cash collected. If this all isn't troubling enough, in the aftermath of the original World Trade Center attack in 1993 and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the FBI aggressively sought to use secret evidence to hold immigrants in jail without bond. In a slap against the traditions of American justice, the defendant was not told what was in the secret files or what specific allegations they contained. He was given no way to defend himself. Of the two dozen or so men who were held as national security threats on secret evidence since 1995, nearly all have since been freed. And when some of that secret, high-level, classified evidence was released, it turned out to consist of little more than newspaper clippings, reports by FBI agents who misunderstood the defendant's language or culture, and innuendo by estranged spouses. This is why we should be greatly concerned about the new powers Attorney General John Ashcroft is impatiently asking for under the "Mobilization Against Terrorism Act of 2001." In a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee last week, Ashcroft pressured Congress to pass the measure quickly, saying: "Every day that passes with outdated statutes and the old rules of engagement is a day that the terrorists have a competitive advantage." In addition to allowing the use of secret evidence in civil asset forfeiture, Ashcroft wants: to be able to indefinitely detain immigrants without judicial review; to let the FBI "on an emergency basis" follow a suspect's movement on the Internet and track with whom he's communicating without a court order; to apply wiretap orders to any phone a suspect uses or may use, even if that means tapping public pay phones on streets the suspect passes; and to greatly expand the amount of time the FBI can conduct secret searches, where the target of the search would have no opportunity to challenge its constitutionality since he wouldn't know of its existence. What his proposals have in common is they almost universally seek to devalue the role of judges in keeping law enforcement in check. Yet we know that without limits, police have taken money and property from innocent people under civil asset forfeiture and prosecutors have added notches to their belts by using RICO to go after a drug dealer's unwitting interior designer or real estate agent for money laundering. If given expansive powers and allowed to ignore civil liberties due to some extraordinary threat, rest assured, law enforcement authorities will use those powers in pursuit of the ordinary as well. During the House Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Rep Barney Frank, D-Mass., reminded his colleagues that the FBI has at times pointed its sword at ideological foes. He made reference to former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover's release of secret surveillance tapes of Martin Luther King Jr.'s marital infidelities. Hoover was attempting to discredit the minister, since he couldn't be nabbed for doing anything illegal. Our freedoms would have been so much better off, and the nation would have been no less secure, had Hoover been answerable to a judge. It's a story with lessons for today. Source: St. Petersburg Times (FL)Author: Robyn E. BlumnerPublished September 30, 2001Copyright: 2001 St. Petersburg TimesContact: letters sptimes.comWebsite: http://www.sptimes.com/Related Articles:Our Future Unfolding http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11009.shtmlHigh on Infinity - LA Weekly http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10998.shtmlDrug War Redux - Reason Magazinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10983.shtmlDon't Oversell an 'Idea War'http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10977.shtml 
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #10 posted by freedom lover on October 02, 2001 at 16:27:15 PT
intersting viewpoint - part 2
       Terrorism is a specific disease, which can be treated only by a specific antidote. The nature of the disease (though not of its antidote) has been suggested by Serge Schmemann (NYT 9/16/01). Our struggle now, he writes, is "not a struggle against a conventional guerrilla force, whose yearning for a national homeland or the satisfaction of some grievance could be satisfied or denied. The terrorists [on Tuesday] . . . issued no demands, no ultimatums. They did it solely out of grievance and hatred—hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage, but abhorred by religious fundamentalists (and not only Muslim fundamentalists) as licentiousness, corruption, greed and apostasy."
       Every word of this is true. The obvious implication is that the struggle against terrorism is not a struggle over Palestine. It is a clash of cultures, and thus a struggle of ideas, which can be dealt with, ultimately, only by intellectual means. But this fact does not depreciate the crucial role of our armed forces. On the contrary, it increases their effectiveness, by pointing them to the right target.
       Most of the Mideast is ruled by thugs who would be paralyzed by an American victory over any of their neighbors. Iran, by contrast, is the only major country there ruled by zealots dedicated not to material gain (such as more wealth or territory), but to the triumph by any means, however violent, of the Muslim fundamentalist movement they brought to life. That is why Iran manufactures the most terrorists.
       If one were under a Nazi aerial bombardment, it would be senseless to restrict oneself to combatting Nazi satellites while ignoring Germany and the ideological plague it was working to spread. What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad-mongers only by taking out Iran.
       Eliminating Iran's terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation. But nothing less will "end the state" that most cries out to be ended.
       The greatest obstacle to U.S. victory is not Iran and its allies, but our own intellectuals. Even now, they are advocating the same ideas that caused our historical paralysis. They are asking a reeling nation to show neighbor-love by shunning "vengeance." The multiculturalists—rejecting the concept of objectivity—are urging us to "understand" the Arabs and avoid "racism" (i.e., any condemnation of any group's culture). The friends of "peace" are reminding us, ever more loudly, to "remember Hiroshima" and beware the sin of pride.
       These are the kinds of voices being heard in the universities, the churches, and the media as the country recovers from its first shock, and the professoriate et al. feel emboldened to resume business as usual. These voices are a siren song luring us to untroubled sleep while the fanatics proceed to gut America. 
       Tragically, Mr. Bush is attempting a compromise between the people's demand for a decisive war and the intellectuals' demand for appeasement. 
       It is likely that the Bush administration will soon launch an attack on bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan and possibly even attack the Taliban. Despite this, however, every sign indicates that Mr. Bush will repeat the mistakes made by his father in Iraq. As of October 1, the Taliban leadership appears not to be a target. Even worse, the administration refuses to target Iran, or any of the other countries identified by the State Department as terrorist regimes. On the contrary, Powell is seeking to add to the current coalition these very states—which is the equivalent of going into partnership with the Soviet Union in order to fight Communism (under the pretext, say, of proving that we are not anti-Russian).  By seeking such a coalition, our President is asserting that he needs the support of terrorist nations in order to fight them. He is stating publicly that the world's only superpower does not have enough self-confidence or moral courage to act unilaterally in its own defense. 
       For some days now, Mr. Bush has been downplaying the role of our military, while praising the same policies (mainly negotiation and economic pressure) that have failed so spectacularly and for so long. Instead of attacking the roots of global terrorism, he seems to be settling for a "guerrilla war" against al-Qaeda, and a policy of unseating the Taliban passively, by aiding a motley coalition of native tribes. Our battle, he stresses, will be a "lengthy" one.
       Mr. Bush's compromise will leave the primary creators of terrorism whole—and unafraid. His approach might satisfy our short-term desire for retribution, but it will guarantee catastrophe in the long term. 
       As yet, however, no overall policy has been solidified; the administration still seems to be groping. And an angry public still expects our government not merely to hobble terrorism for a while, but to eradicate it. The only hope left is that Mr. Bush will listen to the public, not to the professors and their progeny.
       When should we act, if not now? If our appeasement has led to an escalation of disasters in the past, can it do otherwise in the future? Do we wait until our enemies master nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare?
       The survival of America is at stake. The risk of a U.S. overreaction, therefore, is negligible. The only risk is underreaction.
       Mr. Bush must reverse course. He must send our missiles and troops, in force, where they belong. And he must justify this action by declaring with righteous conviction that we have discarded the clichés of our paper-tiger past and that the U.S. now places America first. 
       There is still time to demonstrate that we take the war against terrorism seriously—as a sacred obligation to our Founding Fathers, to every victim of the men who hate this country, and to ourselves. There is still time to make the world understand that we will take up arms, anywhere and on principle, to secure an American's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on earth.
       The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. Our Commander-In-Chief must decide whether it is his duty to save Americans or the governments who conspire to kill them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by freedom lover on October 02, 2001 at 16:26:45 PT
interesting viewpoint - part 1
Robyn Blummer is right on in saying that Asscroft and his ilk will use the war on terrorism to stomp all over the Constitution. If Robyn is right, I am not sure how the author of the article below plans to accomplish their goal while stopping the creeps like Asscroft. The plan seems a little too simple. The point of view is interesting 'cause it seems unique from all the other stuff I've read. I just don't know if it can be done without screwing us Americans over in the process. Sorry it's so long.
_________
       Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The climax was September 11, 2001.
       Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower surrendered the West's property rights in oil, although that oil rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible. The first country to nationalize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran. The rest, observing our frightened silence, hurried to grab their piece of the newly available loot.
       The cause of the U.S. silence was not practical, but philosophical. The Mideast's dictators were denouncing wealthy egotistical capitalism. They were crying that their poor needed our sacrifice; that oil, like all property, is owned collectively, by virtue of birth; and that they knew their viewpoint was true by means of otherworldly emotion. Our Presidents had no answer. Implicitly, they were ashamed of the Declaration of Independence. They did not dare to answer that Americans, properly, were motivated by the selfish desire to achieve personal happiness in a rich, secular, individualist society.
       The Muslim countries embodied in an extreme form every idea—selfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the group—which our universities, our churches, and our own political Establishment had long been upholding as virtue. When two groups, our leadership and theirs, accept the same basic ideas, the most consistent side wins.
       After property came liberty. "The Muslim fundamentalist movement," writes Yale historian Lamin Sanneh, "began in 1979 with the Iranian [theocratic] revolution . . ." (NYT 9/23/01). During his first year as its leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, urging a Jihad against "the Great Satan," kidnapped 52 U.S. diplomatic personnel and held them hostage; Carter's reaction was fumbling paralysis. About a decade later, Iran topped this evil. Khomeini issued his infamous Fatwa aimed at censoring, even outside his borders, any ideas uncongenial to Muslim sensibility. This was the meaning of his threat to kill British author Rushdie and to destroy his American publisher; their crime was the exercise of their right to express an unpopular intellectual viewpoint. The Fatwa was Iran's attempt, reaffirmed after Khomeini's death, to stifle, anywhere in the world, the very process of thought. Bush Sr. looked the other way. 
       After liberty came American life itself. The first killers were the Palestinian hijackers of the late 1960s. But the killing spree which has now shattered our soaring landmarks, our daily routine, and our souls, began in earnest only after the license granted by Carter and Bush Sr.
       Many nations work to fill our body bags. But Iran, according to a State Department report of 1999, is "the most active state sponsor of terrorism," training and arming groups from all over the Mideast, including Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Nor is Iran's government now "moderating." Five months ago, the world's leading terrorist groups resolved to unite in a holy war against the U.S., which they called "a second Israel"; their meeting was held in Teheran. (Fox News 9/16/01)
       What has been the U.S. response to the above? In 1996, nineteen U.S. soldiers were killed in their barracks in Saudi Arabia. According to a front-page story in The New York Times (6/21/98): "Evidence suggesting that Iran sponsored the attack has further complicated the investigation, because the United States and Saudi Arabia have recently sought to improve relations with a new, relatively moderate Government in Teheran." In other words, Clinton evaded Iran's role because he wanted what he called "a genuine reconciliation." In public, of course, he continued to vow that he would find and punish the guilty. This inaction of Clinton's is comparable to his action after bin Laden's attack on U.S. embassies in East Africa; his action was the gingerly bombing of two meaningless targets.
       Conservatives are equally responsible for today's crisis, as Reagan's record attests. Reagan not only failed to retaliate after 241 U.S. marines in Lebanon were slaughtered; he did worse. Holding that Islamic guerrillas were our ideological allies because of their fight against the atheistic Soviets, he methodically poured money and expertise into Afghanistan. This put the U.S. wholesale into the business of creating terrorists. Most of them regarded fighting the Soviets as only the beginning; our turn soon came.
       For over a decade, there was another guarantee of American impotence: the notion that a terrorist is alone responsible for his actions, and that each, therefore, must be tried as an individual before a court of law. This viewpoint, thankfully, is fading; most people now understand that terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of a government.
       We need not prove the identity of any of these creatures, because terrorism is not an issue of personalities. It cannot be stopped by destroying bin Laden and the al-Qaeda army, or even by destroying the destroyers everywhere. If that is all we do, a new army of militants will soon rise up to replace the old one. 
       The behavior of such militants is that of the regimes which make them possible. Their atrocities are not crimes, but acts of war. The proper response, as the public now understands, is a war in self-defense. In the excellent words of Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, we must "end states who sponsor terrorism."
       A proper war in self-defense is one fought without self-crippling restrictions placed on our commanders in the field. It must be fought with the most effective weapons we possess (a few weeks ago, Rumsfeld refused, correctly, to rule out nuclear weapons). And it must be fought in a manner that secures victory as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire. These innocents suffer and die because of the action of their own government in sponsoring the initiation of force against America. Their fate, therefore, is their government's moral responsibility. There is no way for our bullets to be aimed only at evil men.
       The public understandably demands retaliation against Afghanistan. But in the wider context Afghanistan is insignificant. It is too devastated even to breed many fanatics. Since it is no more these days than a place to hide, its elimination would do little to end terrorism.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by krutch on October 02, 2001 at 11:04:31 PT:
Thank you Robyn E. Blumner 
Atlast a mainstream journalist with the guts to say what needs to be sayed. Benjamin Franklin said it best more than 200 years ago:"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."Had the US government been doing its job instead of toilet training law abiding citizens none of this would have happened. Hey Asa, keep your fascist hands off the constitutoin, leave everybody alone about their drug habits and start defending our boarders from terrorists. As far as I am concerned it is the federal government's number one job, and they droppped the ball. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by letslegalizeit on October 01, 2001 at 15:46:29 PT
hey dddd
yeah and if I was a resident of amsterdam i would also think americans were stupid because hash/marijuana is legal there!!! its great, you go to cafes where they sell it. You buy it, sit outside and smoke in the open!!! with other people also smoking. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Cannabis Dave on October 01, 2001 at 13:36:55 PT
If deny rights, then the terrorists have won!
The terrorists seem to have accomplished the goals they had. They have caused mass paranoia, crippled the economy, and most importantly they have caused our government to contemplate taking away contitutional rights. Look for "terrorism" to be exploited like "communism" was in the 1950's. We seem to be having a national "witch hunt", and many innocent people are being denied their rights. The abuses have only just begun, and the government pigs will abuse our rights BIG TIME in the coming future. Anyone they want to surveil secretly will be called a "possible terrorist", and then there goes their rights. I have no doubt they will escalate the immoral war on drugs (especially cannabis) by using those tactics. ANYONE can be alleged to have a "terrorist connection", and the government doesn't even have to show any proof of that connection. When our police chief recently asked to be part of the regional terrorism task force, and he said "the police can be trusted to act responsibly", it generated a roar of laughter. Clearly the people in this city do NOT trust their police department, and we do NOT want them to be able to "secretly" surveil people - we already KNOW they will abuse that power if it is given to them. They will use it to escalate their war against us. The main goal of the terrorist attack was to get our government into a ground war in Afghanistan, and it looks like they will get their goal. It seems as though the beginning of "WW III" is unfolding before our eyes. I no longer want to get married and have children in this country. Maybe if I move to Canada or Australia I'll raise a family, but not in this country which is controlled by an evil government. I'm an American who is ASHAMED to be an American because of my governments policies during my lifetime so far. I'm a patriot though, and because of that I'll fight to over-throw the evil empire of our evil government. Only then will I contemplate raising a family in my own country. I'm afraid that being anti-government will make one a "terrorist" from now on, and they will then no longer have the right to any privacy. There will be more terrorist attacks, and then our government will turn the country into a police state - that is my greatest fear. I'm not afraid of the terrorists, it's the government that scares me!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by dddd on October 01, 2001 at 05:00:16 PT
PC and Stupidity
.....If I was a native resident of Denmark,,,or Iceland,,I would probably think Americans were idiots...just look at our pResident,,,and the wreckless and foolish names that were bestowed upon the military "operation",that this fake War has been labeled with.......I love my country,and all,,,,but this bush regime would make me an embarassed American,if I dared to leave,and venture onto foreign soil......heck,, I'm a genuine American,,and even I think we look like idiots......The American people are nice,and smart, ....unfortunanatly,the American government is making us look evil,and stupid....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by dddd on October 01, 2001 at 04:39:50 PT
I must agree concerning F.Punks excellent post
...But I wanted to verify,whether Punk was the author,(JG Seattle),or if Punk was sharing an article by JG .........nonetheless,it is an excellent writing,,,,indeed............................... furthermore,I'm glad to hear you cuttin' the crap,and tellin' it like it is Dr. Dan.....You're right,,we aint seen nuthin' yet....I think this whole terror war is going to diment,and further mutate into Dubya Dubya 3........ 
 
On a slightly brighter note,,,I have been entertaining ideas,of fashioning myself a makeshift turban,and walking about town,just to see the reactions of the general public.....I realize that such a deceptive charade is ill advised,and perhaps unfair to those who would react in an unpleasant manner,,but I am intrigued,in a sort of sick way,to see what would happen......If nothing happened on my first venture,then perhaps I would make a t-shirt that says,"Have you hugged your Taliban today?",,,,or maybe,,"American Taliban,,and Proud of It!"........I doubt I'll do it,,,,but it would be dangerously interesting,,to say the least...dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on October 01, 2001 at 04:16:15 PT:
Political Correctness and Stupidity
Read the story linked here - it's very short, the first blurb on the page.Apparently a Principal at a high school in Fort wayne Indiana had the school's "Minuteman" mascot" repainted....without his customary rifle. I say this is just totally ridiculous. I am afraid that we are looking like idiots to the eyes of the world when stupidity like this is allowed to thrive. Sure PC is a freedom of speech, but so is outrage.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,35435,00.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dan B on October 01, 2001 at 03:49:48 PT:
Excellent Commentary, Felonious Punk
Nice pun on Thelonious Monk, by the way. : )You have hit on a fact that has, indeed, been glossed over. If we think that the World Trade Center disaster was horrific (and it was), we ain't seen nothin' yet. We hear only bits and pieces of the rhetoric coming from the Taliban, but from what I have heard and read, they plan to go after Americans and Jews wherever they live. That means that we had better brace ourselves for the worst if America is going to start bombing Afghanistan in a couple of days (as has been reported). As long as this nation continues its headlong sprint down the track of destruction, we will not be safe from terrorism, whether it comes from some militant group far away or from the halls of so-called democracy right here in America.The feds claim to have arrested or detained at least 500 suspected terrorists at this point, and I believe that figure represents a tiny fraction of the number now residing in the United States. We are living in a time when it seems prudent to be paranoid. We do know that some of the people the feds have detained were not associated with these attacks at all, and we can be certain that one group above all is not to be trusted: our own government. A radiologist from Texas was detained for five days before the feds even told him why he was being detained. This is an outright defecation on the Bill of Rights. Essentially, we have no Constitution in this country. The government has instituted tyranny, and the idiot people are too busy licking the government's toes to see that they are about to be kicked in the face. The government will soon declare that the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are the same effort, and we will see a rapid escalation of violence against everyone associated with illegal drugs, including people like me who quit all forms of illegal drugs a long time ago but are still fighting for the rights that the drug war has taken away (for me it has been nearly ten months; others have refrained for longer than that--and I know several people who believes as we do yet never used illegal drugs in their lives). Kris Kristofferson once wrote (and Janis Joplin sang) that "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." It's time for all of us to examine what we are willing to lose in our pursuit of freedom. One thing is certain: the government cannot give you freedom, and the government cannot take it away. We choose freedom for ourselves. If we let government dictate the boundaries of our freedom, we have already lost the freedom we claim to uphold. We may soon need to literally decide between freedom and life. Choose freedom. Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Felonious Punk on September 30, 2001 at 16:16:17 PT:
Rush to Revenge
Dear Friends:
What troubles me most about this rush to war as well as the national media coverage I've read or watched is the dismissive depiction of our foes as nuts whose turbans are on too tight and guys motivated by simple greed and envy. This seems to be a common belief in allot of what I hear these days. However, it's seems obvious that our 'enemies' are very bright, resourceful people motivated by the belief that their god stands firmly behind them. Their disrespect for America goes far beyond recent (Gulf War) events and their resentment has deep roots in our examined support of Israel as well as our general policies towards other mideast countries which are not our 'petrol-pals'. 
I've always had a bit of a cautionary approach to knee-jerk patriotism (Although this situation seems more like Shiloh or Bunker Hill than a ruse) but I still can't bring my self to hand-over a blank check of patriotism to an administration I neither support nor feel confident of. At least these events have distracted W from his hare-brained plan of stationing weapons on orbiting platforms in space fercryin'outloud!
No doubt these religious fanatics, both the domestic variety blowing up abortion clinics and the international type destroying our cities, need to be stopped. And it is a SORT of war. But the aspects of this future war which are never mentioned by anyone in government or media is that when a terrorist attack is waged, we may be fighting them in the hills of Afghanistan or Iraq but they will be seeking us out in the streets of L.A. and Denver and Pittsburgh and Atlanta. Is the USA ready to look like the streets of Tel Aviv? I doubt it....
 European and Canadian networks ran the actual shocking footage of the events. During and after the heavily censored USA coverage of this tragedy, most American networks choose to focus on the 'Heros' and the petty nuisances masquerading as increased airport security rather than showing this horror for just what it was; American streets full of dead Americans…that is what this very real war looks like,,,not simulated graphics and newsmen interviewing each other. If Americans knew what we were in for we'd temper our patriotism with caution and not wrap the grim reality in flags and tales of valor. 
Hell will have no fury like what we can bring down upon ourselves….Sleeping with one eye open;
JG
Seattle, Wa.
USA
9/01
History Repeats Itself
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment