BLANKLEY: Yes, we need censorship

[arcadian]

Hey Tony, you fuck, Islamic fascists? Really? What about the Wall Street fascists who have drunkenly driven us off a cliff? Who's gonna save us from them? Go crawl back under your rock, you sniveling piece of trash. I think the Reverand Moon is calling you Tony, he wants you to kiss his ring.


-----------------------
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/12/yes-we-need-censorship/

Thursday, February 12, 2009

BLANKLEY: Yes, we need censorship

During wartime, there is a natural tension between civil liberties and national security. Security must take precedence. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration rolled back very few civil liberties. Aside from establishing a regime for handling captured foreign terrorists, the curtailments largely consisted of common-sense enhancements in the power of intelligence agencies to monitor terrorism suspects and access their personal records. And the administration did so, in a limited way, because it rightly deemed these restrictions in America's national security interests. Bush's steps were modest, yet liberal journalists reacted as if he were the reincarnation of Stalin, or, more to their taste, Hitler.

Some observers reject outright the necessity of enhanced government powers. Denying that we are currently in a time of national peril, some argue that Islamist fascism does not present an existential threat to America. In a December 2008 draft report, a bipartisan, congressionally mandated commission found there was a better-than-even chance that terrorists would attack a major international city with weapons of mass destruction in the next few years. The threat of some kind of nuclear device being detonated in America is greater now than it was during the Cold War, when the doctrine of mutually assured destruction ensured that no nuclear weapons were used in what we used to call the balance of terror.

Faced with this imminent threat, to insist on the continuation of all the civil liberties we enjoyed during the 1990s is to handcuff the government in its war fighting efforts, making another terror attack more likely. My argument is simply this: a temporary reduction of personal and media freedoms is an acceptable price to pay in order to lessen the chance that Islamic fanatics will commit further atrocities against the American people.

more@link

[Avalux]

1. Whoa. "Islamic fascism", "imminent threat"

I don't even know where to start in critiquing that piece of crap Tony's written. His argument is idiotic. :rofl:

[immoderate]

2. He's a Nazi.

--imm

[Marr]

3. Don't these guys realize how cowardly they sound?

When they "talk tough", all I hear is fear; frightened people anxiously saying they'll give up anything if only you'll protect them and soothe their fears.

[DCKit]

4. The Islamic Fascists will have to invade by canoe...

the TaliBaptists are already HERE.

Guess who scares me more?

[SpiralHawk]

5. "Tony is a obedient little Republicon propaganda puppet." - Rev. I'm-the-Second-Coming-of-Jesus Moon

The Republicon Homelanders luv them some Rev. Moon -- one of their occult puppetmasters.

[Hubert H. Hubert]

6. Wow, that was moronic, even by conservative standards

<insert Franklin quote about safety and liberty>

[arcadian]

7. It's all they know.

They have to hold onto something and all they have is the fear card.

[monmouth]

8. I had to give up the McLaughlin Group on Friday nights because of he

and Monica Crowley. They're both idiots. Pat, I just ignore, he's supplementing his SS check..

[pampango]

9. Ironic. He wants to restrict "Islamist fascists" from the media. Great Britain just refused

entry to a Dutch lawmaker, Geert Wilders, because of his anti-Islamist views. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that there is "there is no freedom to stir up racial and religious hatred", something you could probably accuse both sides of the issue of doing.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jaL3xYZ22Ml0s3Ku0P6YG52PnxowD96AB0IO3

It does seem rare for governments to really promote open discussion of sensitive issues without taking sides.

[Blue_Tires]

10. cool....let's start with Tony, then

ugh...I still remember those dark days from 9-11 through the first year of the invasion...a LOT of prominent, high-profile media members, politicians, professors etc, from various political stripes were belting out that "any criticism of american policy gives aid and comfort to the islamists, and some people shold shut the hell up or be silenced" -line...

if you go back a few years and read some op-eds it would raise some eyebrows