When did we become a nation of cowards? When did we become so afraid to die that we would do away with everything we stand for in order to prevent it? What happened to "live free or die"? Seems to me the Bush Administration has changed it to "live free and die."

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

OCT 30, 2004 01:10 AM

Mike said:

slimjim said:
Here is the actual transcript of what Gen Hughes said.

He has a lot of interesting things to say. It seems like shades of Gen VanRiper's exercises in the past, when his ideas where ignored as being too "problematic." For example, Gen Hughes states that he developed an exercise for the CIA about having a nuke enter Miami and the CIA stated it that it was "too dangerous" to use.

Thanks. I am heading out to the pub right now so I will have to check that out after I have a few pints with my friends.

I'm curious to see what your opinion of this is after reading it in context, since even in context, he was saying exactly what the article suggests he was saying. He was saying that we can't allow terrorist attacks to happen, and that to preclude them from happening, we have to do things that run counter to our historical beliefs about liberty and we have to abridge individual rights.

He's a futurist, as it states in the last slide of his presentation. I generally take everything futurists say with a grain of salt, but his was in fact a very interesting presentation. It really seems like this guy is who would be making George Bush's decisions for him if George Bush wasn't worried about getting re-elected. This, of course, is a frightening concept, since if Bush wins this time, he won't be worried about being re-elected, and he can take this guy's philosophies and run with them.

I think the point that Hughes is missing throughout his presentation when he discusses "what we should do" rather than "how things are" is that his ideas are based on the notion that we have a common objective; a common set of priorities, and I don't think that's the case.

I, for one, would rather live in a free country than an unconditionally safe country. I value my personal liberties above all else. We will never be able to keep terrorist attacks from ever occurring as long as there are people in the world who don't like us. There are three solutions to this:

Kill everyone who doesn't like us.
Make nice with everyone so that everyone likes us.
Minimize the elements of our foreign and economic policy that make people dislike us by removing those elements that are least important to us and continuing until we reach a balance, while at the same time securing our most vital domestic assets to minimize the possibility of a terrorist attack and the effect any attack could have on our country as a whole, all without surrendering any of our personal liberties.

Naturally, those are the three linear paths, and there are many different variations based on combining the different philosophies, but that's basically what we've got.

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

OCT 30, 2004 01:11 AM

Keith said:
When did we become a nation of cowards? When did we become so afraid to die that we would do away with everything we stand for in order to prevent it? What happened to "live free or die"? Seems to me the Bush Administration has changed it to "live free and die."

And yeah, what Keith said, too.

BatAttaK

Tacoma, WA

OLD SKOOL

OCT 30, 2004 10:07 AM

Mike said:
I would like to know more of the context this was said in.

I have read reports where this has been talked about AFTER an attack to maintain civility after an attack - so a city doesnt fall into chaos. And I could only see this as an extreme measure. I doubt this was talked about in any other way.

Take a look yourself. The paragraph begins at the bottom of page 31 and continues on page 32 in a section titled "Pre-consequence Management." Meaning this is how he wants to deal with life before an attack and not your assumption of post-attack.

These are scary people for whom you apologize and support.

***

Oops...I didn't realize that slimjim had already linked this.

[Edited on Oct 30, 2004 by BatAttaK_4_Kerry]

TattooQ

Media, PA

June 2004

OCT 30, 2004 12:30 PM

Meggle, you beat me to the punch. Hear, Hear!The willingness of both parties to endorse some or all of UNPATRIOTIC ACT , and to brand those with real questions along Civil Liberties lines as unpatriotic or worse, is what finally pushed me into the Libertarian camp.The arrogance of both parties is astounding; more so on the Bush side since his admin pushed hardest for this power grab. I don't know the answer to this question ,but I wonder how many provisions of the UNPATRIOTIC ACT were already on the books? Meaning that the power grab of said UA was totally unnecessary and was yet another burden dumped on the states.

Jessewestend

I'm lost

OLD SKOOL

OCT 30, 2004 04:22 PM

ok i just read gen hughes entire presentation and all his notes, and even though I'm sure no one is reading this anymore I am disturbed by any need to distort the truth, on either side of the "stream". I have become so disgusted by Bush refusing to accept that he fucked up, or by Kerry refusing to bring about real soultions. By our press focusing on the bullshit they cover because it is simply so much easier, and the lying, misleading, and reorganizing of truth done by all of the above and almost all other groups that appear to be involved in anything. The argument that america is the next Rome has been solidified by our saying so much in the wrong way that nothing ever gets said anymore. Stagnation has begun and our young lives will experience the rotting smell we deserve for buying into this shit.

Case in point, Gen Hughes spoke two paragraphs worth of material on the possibillith that life on teh homefront will be getting very shakey, and you have quoted them as if they wer ehis entire point. His entire presentation was based on reality and trends, not on his beliefs on what should happen. Not once did he say I think this should happen, or If I were in charge, etc. He only said I see this coming and we had better be prepared. It's fucking ridiculous that people can take things as far out of context as they do, and perhaps this is juxtaposed with my reading of Lies: and the lying liars who tell them but I cannot belief the shit hannity and other conservatives get away with. Democrats are no better, pandering to their bullshit and handing back a weaker version of the same spin. No one is standing up for themselves. Why didn't Gore stand up and say, "I fucking championed the Arpanet and helped it become a commercial reality!" Who knows why... All I know is the military was very reluctant to let the technology proliferate. They wanted it for themselves, and it didn't happen y accident. Why didn't he clarify the Love Canal story? The story about him and Tipper being the basis for a movie, when all he was doing was quoting a paper he use dto work for and assumed he could trust? Why? Because spin is the only thing we know. Its fair game now. And I will probably (assuming this thread isn't retired) be ostracized for pointing all this out but I am sick of the fact that people like you can distort the facts in such a way, and I applaud whoever it was that put the link to the whole presentation up. Thank you for saving me from my own laziness. I should have known not to trust any information gathering that could be done so easily.

[Edited on Oct 30, 2004 4:20PM]

ferret

I'm lost

OLD SKOOL

NOV 01, 2004 01:21 AM

rise up.

Ella_1

HOPEFUL

Australia

NOV 01, 2004 04:58 AM

Wouldnt an abridgement of individual rights, be a violation of basic human rights as outlined by the UN??

PAGE:

1 | 2

TOPICS:

NEWS: Homeland Intelligence Chief: "We Have to Abridge Individual Rights"