1) Can you see this happening in the US today, prefaced on the need to "apprehend terrorists"?

2) Do you think recent laws and erosions of civil liberties would make it easier to do today than in J Edger Hoover's time?

3) Are there politicians and leaders of stature that would be able to foil the modern day version, whomever that would be, like Truman and Eisenhower did?

1) Can you see this happening in the US today, prefaced on the need to "apprehend terrorists"?

2) Do you think recent laws and erosions of civil liberties would make it easier to do today than in J Edger Hoover's time?

3) Are there politicians and leaders of stature that would be able to foil the modern day version, whomever that would be, like Truman and Eisenhower did?

Perhaps, under extreme circumstances.


Just a couple of years prior to Hoover, our government didn't just
want to" but actually raised actual concentration camps to house all Japanese, to include American citizens that were born from Japanese parents. For no reason other than the Japanese had attacked our base at Pearl Harbor. I'd say that would be rather more difficult to do today than in those days. I don't see that type of thing happening anytime soon. I certainly hope not....though it happened very recently by historical standards.


I really doubt it. But, again, it depends. Hoover was hardly the first or only "evil fascist". Lincoln did (in actuality, not just "wish") suspend Habeus Corpus for entire states. Do you agree with his actions? I don't see this happening in our time, but under the conditions of something like 'I am Legend', who knows?

The United States of today is infinitely more advanced and more free, than that of Washington's time. Would you have served in Washington's army? I would have, had I been a man. As a woman, I would have at least helped to sew the flag. But in the end, it really is all dictated by necessity. We are very lucky today to be able to sit at our laptops and freely debate such issues. Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to bring up fantasy rather than reality? There are plenty of real, salient examples of habeus corpus rights suspended in this country.

I understand your former examples, but I was suprised that Hoover was able to even advance it as far as he did with our modern population, and considering the civil unrest it would have caused had he done it, in the context of the times.

1) Can you see this happening in the US today, prefaced on the need to "apprehend terrorists"?

And he does this over and over again. Later in the MSU speech, he says to "all others who believe that the greatest threat to freedom comes from the government instead of from those who would take away our freedom [which, of course, begs the question]: If you say violence is an acceptable way to make change, you are wrong. If you say that government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you are just plain wrong."

Is the issue violence? Conspiracy? Or the audacious claim that government power is a threat to freedom--perhaps, in the post-Cold War era, the greatest threat? Clinton sweeps them all together. Forty-five percent of Americans surveyed in late April told Times Mirror that they "think that the activities of the federal government pose a threat to the constitutional rights enjoyed by the average American." As far as Bill Clinton's rhetorical sleight of hand is concerned, 45 percent of Americans may just possibly advocate blowing up babies.

Sure, I can certianly see it happen if Hillary Clinton gets elected, prefaced on the alleged need to apprehend what she considers terrorists. Just look at Waco as an example. Then there was the attempt by her husband's administration to basically paint all of his critics as responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing (speaking of "silencing dissent").

Now tell me, does this rhetoric seem the slightest bit familiar to you?

But with freedom and democracy advancing, the real threat to our security will be rooted in the fact that all the forces that are lifting us up and opening unparalleled opportunity for us contain a dark underside. For open societies are characterized by free and rapid movements of people and technology and information. And that very wonder makes them very, very vulnerable to the forces of organized destruction and evil. So the great security challenge for your future in the 21st century will be to determine how to beat back the dangers while keeping the benefits of this new time.

The dark possibilities of our age are visible now in the smoke, the horror, and the heartbreak of Oklahoma City. As the long and painful search and rescue effort comes to an end with 165 dead, 467 injured, and 2 still unaccounted for, our prayers are with those who lost their loved ones and with the brave and good people of Oklahoma City, who have moved with such strength and character to deal with this tragedy.

But that threat is not isolated. And you must not believe it is. We see that threat again in the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, in the nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway, in the terrorist assault on innocent civilians in the Middle East, in the organized crime plaguing the former Soviet Union now that the heavy hand of communism has been lifted. We see it even on the Internet, where people exchange information about bombs and terrorism, even as children learn from sources all around the world.

My fellow Americans, we must respond to this threat in ways that preserve both our security and our freedoms. Appeasement of organized evil is not an option for the next century any more than it was in this century. Like the vigilant generations that brought us victory in World War II and the cold war, we must stand our ground. In this high-tech world, we must make sure that we have the high-tech tools to confront the high-tech forces of destruction and evil.

That is why I have insisted that Congress pass strong antiterrorism legislation immediately, to provide for more than 1,000 new law enforcement personnel solely to fight terrorism, to create a domestic antiterrorism center, to make available the most up-to-date technology to trace the source of any bomb that goes off, and to provide tough new punishment for carrying stolen explosives, selling those explosives for use in a violent crime, and for attacking members of the uniformed services or Federal workers.

To their credit, the leaders of Congress have promised to put a bill on my desk by Memorial Day. I applaud them for that. This is not and must never be a partisan issue. This is about America's future. It is about your future.

We can do this without undermining our constitutional rights. In fact, the failure to act will undermine those rights. For no one is free in America where parents have to worry when they drop off their children for day care or when you are the target of assassination simply because you work for our Government. No one is free in America when large numbers of our fellow citizens must always be looking over their shoulders.

It is with this in mind that I would like to say something to the paramilitary groups and to others who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from within our country or beyond our borders but from our own Government.

I want to say this to the militias and to others who believe this, to those nearby and those far away: I am well aware that most of you have never violated the law of the land. I welcome the comments that some of you have made recently condemning the bombing in Oklahoma City. I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our Government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.

But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy. I know from painful personal experience as a Governor of a State who lived through the coldblooded killing of a young sheriff and a young African-American State trooper who were friends of mine by people who espoused the view that the Government was the biggest problem in America and that people had a right to take violence into their own hands.

So I ask you to hear me now. It is one thing to believe that the Federal Government has too much power and to work within the law to reduce it. It is quite another to break the law of the land and threaten to shoot officers of the law if all they do is their duty to uphold it. It is one thing to believe we are taxed too much and work to reduce the tax burden. It is quite another to refuse to pay your taxes, though your neighbor pays his. It is one thing to believe we are over-regulated and to work to lessen the burden of regulation. It is quite another to slander our dedicated public servants, our brave police officers, even our rescue workers who have been called a hostile army of occupation.

This is a very free country. Those of you in the militia movements have broader rights here than you would in any other country in the entire world.

Do people who work for the Government sometimes make mistakes? Of course, they do. They are human. Almost every American has some experience with this, a rude tax collector, an arbitrary regulator, an insensitive social worker, an abusive law officer. As long as human beings make up our Government there will be mistakes. But our Constitution was established by Americans determined to limit those abuses. And think of the limits: the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, access to the courts, the right to take your case to the country through the media, and the right to vote people in or out of office on a regular basis.

But there is no right to resort to violence when you don't get your way. There is no right to kill people. There is no right to kill people who are doing their duty or minding their own business or children who are innocent in every way. Those are the people who perished in Oklahoma City. And those who claim such rights are wrong and un-American.

Whenever in our history people have believed that violence is a legitimate extension of politics, they have been wrong. In the 1960's, as your distinguished alumni said, many good things happened, and there was much turmoil. But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960's were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.

Freedom of political speech will never justify violence - never. Our Founding Fathers created a system of laws in which reason could prevail over fear. Without respect for this law, there is no freedom.

So I say this to the militias and all others who believe that the greatest threat to freedom comes from the Government instead of from those who would take away our freedom: If you say violence is an acceptable way to make change, you are wrong. If you say that Government is in a conspiracy to take your freedom away, you are just plain wrong. If you treat law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line for your safety every day like some kind of enemy army to be suspected, derided, and if they should enforce the law against you, to be shot, you are wrong. If you appropriate our sacred symbols for paranoid purposes and compare yourselves to colonial militias who fought for the democracy you now rail against, you are wrong. How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny! How dare you call yourselves patriots and heroes!

I say to you, all of you, the members of the Class of 1995, there is nothing patriotic about hating your country or pretending that you can love your country but despise your Government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.

These are all things taken for granted now, after 9/11. And all gutted then by the Republicans in congress as being too expensive (at $1 billion overall), a gross violation of the rights of Americans, and a huge power grab by the Clinton administration. Funny how it's only "too expensive", an "affront to the Constitution" and a "power-grab" when it's done by a Democrat, isn't in Blackstone?

But back to the original question - As I said before, you don't have to imagine the horrors of another Clinton presidency with regard to ending habeus corpus rights of Americans, and foreign nationals under out control and jurisdiction. It's already been done by this administration, almost too many times to count.

But let's go back and look at that context, shall we? Because everything isn't as black and white as you would like to portray it here, Blackstone. For example, let's take a look at the totality of the relevent portion of the MSU graduation speech.

But back to the original question - As I said before, you don't have to imagine the horrors of another Clinton presidency with regard to ending habeus corpus rights of Americans, and foreign nationals under out control and jurisdiction. It's already been done by this administration, almost too many times to count.

Hate to burst your little bubble there NiteGuy by actually introducing a few facts into the debate here but that Anti-Terrorism bill was passed by Congress and signed into law on 9Oct1996. And, it was hardly "gutted" as you claim. Here is the White House fact sheet on the bill.

Thanks, because the speech certainly does add more context. Particularly this line: "I say to you, all of you, the members of the Class of 1995, there is nothing patriotic about hating your country or pretending that you can love your country but despise your Government." Just imagine the reaction from the usual suspects if Bush had uttered that one.

Now taking the Reason article in its full context, it's clear that it focused on more than just that one paragraph which I quoted. And it made the point pretty convincingly that all throughout the speech, Clinton was talking out of both sides of his mouth - attempting to give himself a fig leaf of deniability by claiming that he was in favor of free speech, while in fact doing everything he could to rhetorically conflate opponents of the government with terrorists.

There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.

If you're suggesting that the current administration would follow in the steps of Hoover's recommendation, two things should be kept in mind: 1. This administration has never defied a ruling of the courts; and 2. The courts have been very adamant about protecting the habeas corpus and due process rights of citizens. In Hamdi v Rumsfeld, 8 out of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court declared that there must be judicial review of detentions of U.S. citizens, with some of the sharpest restrictions on executive power being asserted by right-wing icon Antonin Scalia, who normally takes a decidedly permissive stance towards the exercise of police power.

Nonsense, you're taking things out of context again. Finish the rest of the thought, Blackstone:

Your point about this administration not defying an explicit ruling against them is rather specious at best. Had they done that, it would have been grounds for immediate impeachment, and removal from office. Something that everyone would have been able to hang their hats on, with no room for twisting or spinning. I don't think even this administration would have been that short-sighted.

That doesn't negate the odious statement that preceded it, basically calling government opponents traitors. Again, it's just that whole disingenous fig leaf thing, basically saying: "Yes, we should absolutely respect the free-speech rights of those treasonous, terrorism-supporting scumbags who don't like the government." If context is what you want, read the whole Reason article. It's as I described.

Well, then I guess that answers the debate question, doesn't it? There's no way this administration would follow in Hoover's footsteps, since the courts wouldn't allow it.

Now as for certain other administrations, though, those that have Waco blood on their hands and truly demonize critics, there's really no telling what limits they'd observe on their own power as long as they'd have a complaisant Congress and media.

Sorry, but Koresh, McVeigh, and the "Militias" of the day weren't patriots, no matter what you think. And they weren't looking to start a debate. They either committed, or planned to commit, plain, old dumb-assed murder. As Clinton said, that's just wrong, in anyone's book.

A very salient point, unlike today's condition where you can be on a "no fly" list and not have any recourse. And woe be unto the Afghan or Iraqi or who has an enemy who suddenly reports them, then it's extraoridnary rendition time and being held without charge for possibly years at a time.

I have yet to hear anyone make the case that the present administration is not making conditions for this kind of thing(i.e.-mass imprisoning, etc.) possible, let alone being pro-civil rights.

So...you think that something like Waco would wash today? You believe that the FBI could crash into United States civilian homes with tanks, dump pyrotechnic devices on the people in there (during a windstorm of all things) particularly in a population that was nearly 50 percent children? When NO national emergency has been declared/ martial law instated? You wouldn't raise an eyebrow if Bush did that...all would be swell?

No doubt that they were wackos, but the egregious way this entire thing was handled is inexcusable. The FBI had a building surrounded. They had already negotiated and many children had been brought out in exchange for food and milk. Many children remained. Instead of waiting, they chose to break in with tanks and throw in gas. Afterward, every single person inside was burned alive...and somehow it was determined that they were in no way negligent? Yes, perhaps they didn't fire a shot on that fateful day...they only rammed the building with tanks. I'm not sure why that matters, there was certainly plenty of shooting into the building prior to that day and we watched it all live.

The Branch Davidians were charged with owning illegal weapons. NOT conspiring to commit mass murder/terrorist activity. In fact, they (the few remaining) are all now walking the streets as we type. Their sentences were short. They were acquitted of homicide charges on grounds of self-defense. They were never declared 'enemies of the state'. Only a national emergency justifies that level of force. I'd say their rights were violated on a level WAY beyond Hoover's wish list. It was a dark day for America, and it was very recent.

Mrs.P, you seem to be forgetting a few things...

1. There was a lot of shooting out of that building prior to the day of the fire as well. Shooting that killed four ATF Agrents attempting to serve a legal search warrant.

2. Instead of waiting, MrsP? The standoff went on for almost two months, it seemed rather obvious to many, that something else needed to be done to try and get the holdouts out of the compound. I mean, really. How long do you let it go on, when four federal agents are already dead, more wounded, and the people in the compound are unwilling to surrender themselves? How much more "patient and restrained" would you expect law enforcement to be? Three months? Six? A year?

Now, considering those facts, if the time were today, and the Davidians were Islamists, do you really think that they wouldn't be charged with promoting terrorist activities? Do you really think that agents would wait for more than 50 days before they made some kind of move? I would be willing to bet that under those circumstances, a good many here who are currently calling this "egregious" and "inexcusable" on the part of the government, would be cheering them on.

Koresh's survivors may not have been charged with making terrorist threats (yet), or committing terrorist activities (yet), but it's rather hard to explain any other reason they may have had over two hundred weapons, including illegal weapons like hand grenades and other explosive devices along with handguns and rifles, many of them fully automatic military grade assault rifles, and nearly a million rounds of ammo. Koresh was a paranoid nutcase, and sooner or later a great many folks were more than likely going to die, if not by his hand, then by his direction.

So, give me a break here, Blackstone, because nobody outside of delusionally paranoid conspiracy theorists, believes that the Clinton administration acted criminally.

Sorry, but Koresh, McVeigh, and the "Militias" of the day weren't patriots, no matter what you think.

And of course, I never remotely claimed they were. But thank you for proving my exact point about Clinton, by adopting his rhetorical technique yourself. After all, I'm sure you'd consider it fair game if someone accused you of esteeming Hamdi and Padilla as heroes just because your raised protests against the way they were treated by the Bush administration, right?

Been there and done that, by no less than the esteemed Mr. Bush (You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists), as well as a number of posters on this very site, in days gone by.