The 9/11 Card

[-V-]

COntinuing from the Flight 93 documentary thread, is anyone else fed up with politicans using the 9/11 card (invoking 9/11, remember the victims, we must do this to ensure 9/11 never happens again, its what the victims would have wanted, etc.) to push their own petty goals. Frankly this has gotten really on my nerves since it seems to be the all-purpose excuse to cover up bad logic, incomplete facts, or flawed reasoning. What more it seems the more and more it is used as such the more and more disservice it does to the people that died.

Discuss.

[Bone_Vulture]

Indeed, the Bush administration has milked 9/11 for all it's worth in the past roughly four years. It has truly been a blessing - why waste time and resources to produce coherent arguments when you can instead chant a single reminding phrase over and over again to succumb the opposition?

Without 9/11, the administration would've have lacked a proper excuse for a campaign in Afghanistan, or Iraq later on. Without 9/11, Patriot Act would've never passed, the morose "war on terror" would've never been proclaimed, and Bush would've likely lost the 2004 elections.

The ironic part is that the republican party would not be such a power player now, had the 9/11 terrorists strikes been prevented with minimal casualties.

[Medlar]

Yes, because this is totally an asshole Republican ploy to rule the country, and then Scandanavia.

[Wallrod]

And only the Bush administration have used this '9/11 card'!

[Bone_Vulture]

Yes, because this is totally an asshole Republican ploy to rule the country, and then Scandanavia.

... Of which Finland is not a part of. That's why we can afford to be so freedom-hating. http://bonevulture.homestead.com/files/oh.gif

And only the Bush administration have used this '9/11 card'!

I don't think any other administration has had the opportunity since 2001?

[-V-]

Well stearing it back onto the middle ground, I say both parties are equally wrong of overuse of the 9/11 card. If you can't come up with a good reason to do something, then don't bring it up, or desperatley try to cover up the shortcommings with a 9/11 card. Its almost the new 'Race Card' of the day. (P.S. I guess Rev. J. Jackson is crying into a pillow right now since his race card no longer has as much 'buying power')

[Bone_Vulture]

I'd be glad to hear examples on how the democrats have rode the 9/11 horsie - it could be that the evil Nordic LIEberal media has left us Finns out of the loop. ;)

[Kak]

I think it's lame when they use it to justify an invasion of a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

[-V-]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=banish
Whiny, bitching, cry-baby conservatives love to prattle on and on about the "liberal media." To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.

[The WOOO Meister]

Yes, because this is totally an asshole Republican ploy to rule the country, and then Scandanavia.
You forgot Poland.

[BlindSite]

I havn't seen it used thus far in the method's you're all referring to. Like it or not, the acts of 9/11 are a justification and should be used as such when the time warrants it. The war on Terror is justified, to suggest otherwise is beyond moronic.

[lucky644]

I think it's lame when they use it to justify an invasion of a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

That about covers my thoughts on it.

[Toastar]

whoa now, iraq was about the WMD AND 9/11

[solidsnake]

Bush uses the 9/11 card in every speech.

[BlindSite]

9/11 - war on terror.

War in Iraq = war on terror.

[Kak]

The country of Iraq had no link to the attacks on September 11th.

Bush uses 9/11 as justification for the war in Iraq.

I don't like this.

[-V-]

I havn't seen it used thus far in the method's you're all referring to.
"Patriot Act" anyone? Kind of hypocritical to say we're gona protect the freedom by side-stepping people's rights. Sort of like saying we're gona save this patient by amputating his liver.

Like it or not, the acts of 9/11 are a justification and should be used as such when the time warrants it. The war on Terror is justified, to suggest otherwise is beyond moronic.
However, more often then not (80%+ I would wager) the 9/11 card has been used more in the role of an all-purpose butress to try to give a shadow of legitemacy to any and all forms of inane bills pushed around in congress rather then try to make the US safer. Its sort of turned into congress's version of that Yakati-Yak video.

A hyperbole(?) example would be: "I want less money to go to free clinics becauce blah...blah...bs...blah.....filatio of namless drug company...blah and OMFGBBQ _9/11_ IF U DONT SUPPORT THIS U HATE AMERICA!!"

[BlindSite]

We have to give up certain rights to enjoy the freedoms we currently have, I wouldnt mind doing so, I have nothing to hide.

[solidsnake]

9/11 - war on terror.

War in Iraq = war on terror.

Funny how we havent found any of those wmd's in iraq.

[Violin]

I just saw that "Inside 911" thing today. It made me sad, but proud to know that one of the airliners passangers decided they wouldnt put up with theri shit.

[Grunt]

The country of Iraq had no link to the attacks on September 11th.

Bush uses 9/11 as justification for the war in Iraq.

I don't like this.

US's biggest threat is Terrorism
US has to bring down people who help Terriorist
Iraq helped/could help Terriorst
US had to bring down Iraq

[Violin]

Sometimes.......i feel that the USA is just on a "Crusade" to unite the world under their rule.

Sometimes....i think its a good thing to do.

Sometimes....i think its not a good thing to do.

[Moe_Rahn]

We have to give up certain rights to enjoy the freedoms we currently have, I wouldnt mind doing so, I have nothing to hide.
Funny how they only really started making people give up certain rights to enjoy their freedom after 9/11, innit?

Speaking of which, since you're in Australia, exactly which rights have you had to give up to ensure your freedom? I wasn't aware that you guys had passed a Patriot Act, too.

[GoatChomper]

"Patriot Act" anyone? Kind of hypocritical to say we're gona protect the freedom by side-stepping people's rights. Sort of like saying we're gona save this patient by amputating his liver.
Much as I dislike most of its provisions, let's have an honest question here.....how many people have been jailed as a result of what's on their library card?

There's plenty of hyperbole to go around.

[BlindSite]

Funny how they only really started making people give up certain rights to enjoy their freedom after 9/11, innit?

Speaking of which, since you're in Australia, exactly which rights have you had to give up to ensure your freedom? I wasn't aware that you guys had passed a Patriot Act, too.

Again your research limits your ability to successfully make comments. We have altered the police powers act which adresses things such as right to seizure and search. Certain rights under that act...

[Moe_Rahn]

Again your research limits your ability to successfully make comments. We have altered the police powers act which adresses things such as right to seizure and search. Certain rights under that act...
Certain rights under that act what? You're trailing off, I can't understand you.

Just out of curiosity, do you know offhand any of the major parts of the changes they made? Never hurt anyone to brush up for the future.

The policy is there, thus it's open for abuse. This is not meant to be a comment solely on these sort of acts; it pretty much applies to any law, when you get down to it.

[Kak]

US's biggest threat is Terrorism
US has to bring down people who help Terriorist
Iraq helped/could help Terriorst
US had to bring down Iraq
I disagree with the third line. But I love you too much to go any further. :o

[Wallrod]

I don't think any other administration has had the opportunity since 2001?Plenty of politicians and news writers still whip it out whenever something needs backing, not just DER FUEHRER $HRUB LOL

[siddy]

We have to give up certain rights to enjoy the freedoms we currently have, I wouldnt mind doing so, I have nothing to hide.

hold on a second. When did the terrorists say that they were going to take over western society and make us all muslims? Our freedoms have only been threatened by the governments who limit them.

And you gotta love the reasoning: I'll give up freedom to enjoy it!

[HarryB]

US's biggest threat is Terrorism
US has to bring down people who help Terriorist
Iraq helped/could help Terriorst
US had to bring down Iraq


Any country can help terrorism. Does that mean you have free reign over them too.

[Violin]

Might as well.

[BlindSite]

hold on a second. When did the terrorists say that they were going to take over western society and make us all muslims? Our freedoms have only been threatened by the governments who limit them.

And you gotta love the reasoning: I'll give up freedom to enjoy it!


The reasoning is simple. Terrorists live in our society and travel to our country, if they're to be caught powers need to be altered and increased, I don't do anything illegal I don't mind.


Moe, We do not have a bill of Rights in Australia. Our rights are therfore handed down in legislation. Where the US has a bill or a section of that bill that addresses the rights to search and seizure, we have an act; the Police Powers and Responsibilities act. It has been altered to allow police greater leway in the laws of search and seizure. The letter of the law I am not too sure on since I don't have a copy of the act.

Off the top of my head, it has to go with the admissability in court of object obtained in an unlawful search and the search of persons and vehicles.

[Daywalker]

I said what annoys me in the other thread, but I guess I'll elaborate. It seems like a lot of fire departments, volunteers seem to do it more, spend a shit load of money on a 9/11 mural for their trucks. Theres a few trucks and ambulances around here that have complete 9/11 paint jobs. Its just annoying because they had nothing to do with 9/11, they didn't send any rigs to the towers, and a lot of them didn't even go help with the rescue/clean up after 9/11. On top of that, they are wasting money that could be better spent on these fancy paintjobs.

Now, thats not to say I don't think people shouldn't do anything like that, but you don't need to blow a shitload of money on a mural when a $5 decal thats maybe like 5" by 5" will do just as good.

Also, some people even get 9/11 memorial tattoos, and they had nothign to do with it. Like some volly, in east bumfuck in michigain gets a memorial tattoo. I dunno, just seems like a lot of the FDNY wannabe stuff.

[Grunt]

Any country can help terrorism. Does that mean you have free reign over them too.

I'm not saying its that the logic isn't flawed, but that is what the basis Bush and Co. could have been thinking when going to Iraq.

[-V-]

The reasoning is simple. Terrorists live in our society and travel to our country, if they're to be caught powers need to be altered and increased, I don't do anything illegal I don't mind.
Those who give up their freedom for security will have neither freedom nor security (paraphrased)

I'm sure the people of the Soviet Union in the mid 1930's also didn't mind being watched by the NKVD either, since they did nothing wrong and should not have feared the government watching them either. But as the addage goes "innocence proves nothing."

Much as I dislike most of its provisions, let's have an honest question here.....how many people have been jailed as a result of what's on their library card?
But do remeber the little deal about the people arrested under this provision have no rights, thus someone can simply disappear under this act and never be heard from again. The do not have to be charged with a crime, they don't have 1 phone call, they can't speak with their atorney, and they can be held indefinatley. So really, it's hard to say. Plus that little part of the patriot act that if you see anyone arrested under it, its illegal to talk about witnessing this arrest.

Daywalker: Although I haven't seen any of this stuff down here in "hicksville", I can totally agree with you. You wish to be a better fire-fighter buy a thermal cam, new equipment, or use the money to get more training. Paint on the side of a turck makes a better firefighter Not!

[GoatChomper]

.....they don't have 1 phone call.....
That was a myth long before the Patriot Act anyway, brought to you courtesy of Hollywood. The Miranda statute guarantees that the state must provide an arrestee access to an attorney once charged with a criminal offense, and nowhere is a phone call explicitly guaranteed either by statute or precedent.

[Bone_Vulture]

The Miranda statute guarantees that the state must provide an arrestee access to an attorney once charged with a criminal offense, and nowhere is a phone call explicitly guaranteed either by statute or precedent.

And it doesn't bug you at all that the government can use a loophole (http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html) to prevent the apprehended from getting legal counseling seemingly indefinitely?

[siddy]

The reasoning is simple. Terrorists live in our society and travel to our country, if they're to be caught powers need to be altered and increased, I don't do anything illegal I don't mind.

And I assume that you'd totally believe that they'd just give those freedoms back? That's rather...trusting of you.

[Toastar]

And it doesn't bug you at all that the government can use a loophole (http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html) to prevent the apprehended from getting legal counseling seemingly indefinitely?

:eek: That's fucked up

Not to mention their new stance "if you hold you at an airport, you don't have any rights and, we dont have to feed you."

Also when the U.S. deported a Canadian citizen to Syria who was then tortured for a year... why? because an RCMP officer said that there was not enough evidence to convict him in Canada.

[lucky644]

And it doesn't bug you at all that the government can use a loophole (http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html) to prevent the apprehended from getting legal counseling seemingly indefinitely?

Hrm, sounds like the american government is becoming even more hypocritical.

[Redoubts]

And it doesn't bug you at all that the government can use a loophole (http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html) to prevent the apprehended from getting legal counseling seemingly indefinitely?
Update on Padilla v. Rumsfeld: SCOTUS basically said refile please, wrong state. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean as far as something actually happening, as that decision was made a year ago

[solidsnake]

The reasoning is simple. Terrorists live in our society and travel to our country, if they're to be caught powers need to be altered and increased, I don't do anything illegal I don't mind.
what a commie

[Lord Kelvin]

We have to give up certain rights to enjoy the freedoms we currently have, I wouldnt mind doing so, I have nothing to hide.
That's what they said in 1984.

But seriously, just about every politician has used 9/11 as a means to an end, not just the Executive administration. I'm not all keen to defend Emperor Walker LXIII, but hey, he's not the only one to kick the dead horse to gain leverage. Seriously, how many of you think those bureaucrats in DC really do care about the 9/11 victims? As history shows, they'll milk it for as long as possible, then shunt it aside when it becomes useless and pretend it never happened. It's the nature of politics.