Can we have security without fear?

[pamsback]

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~

[sixdogsmom]

Thanks for posting this Pam. There is a lot of truth in this article. 

[pamsback]

 I thought it made some good points

[Wilma]

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).

[redcliffsw]

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.

[Diane Amberg]

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.

[pamsback]

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.

[Varmit]

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?

[redcliffsw]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=98489

[pamsback]

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?