ADVERTISEMENT

In a free society how could you ever stop a attack like manchester

But I do not think embracing this approach towards radical religion -- which is better described as a form of doctrinal incitement -- would require an amendment, just an interpretation.

Again, we've had no issue accepting that there are limits to protected speech, right? So why is it so crazy to think there couldn't be limits to protected religion?
Speech hasn't been limited in the way you're suggesting. Incitement is only an exception to free speech if it is directed toward "producing imminent lawless action" and is likely to do so. Simply advocating lawless action in general is not enough. So, if you want to argue that the religious belief that someone should Kill that guy right over there right now! you can make a case. But if you want to argue that the religious belief that non-Muslims don't deserve to live in general should be proscribed, you don't have an analogy in free speech law to fall back on.
 
Speech hasn't been limited in the way you're suggesting. Incitement is only an exception to free speech if it is directed toward "producing imminent lawless action" and is likely to do so. Simply advocating lawless action in general is not enough. So, if you want to argue that the religious belief that someone should Kill that guy right over there right now! you can make a case. But if you want to argue that the religious belief that non-Muslims don't deserve to live in general should be proscribed, you don't have an analogy in free speech law to fall back on.

I didn't say the specific exceptions themselves had to be identical.

I said that creating a limitation in the protection of speech didn't require amending the First Amendment. So why would creating a limitation in the free exercise clause require an amendment? After all, they're both written in very unambiguous language.

Heck, there are also recognized limits to the 2nd amendment -- which are of a completely different nature than the recognized limits to the freedom of speech. Moreover, defamatory speech also isn't necessarily protected by the First Amendment.

In other words, who ever said that all the exceptions had to be of a specific, particular nature? Not me.
 
If Islamic terrorism is the worst the West ever has to face in our lifetimes, we should consider ourselves very lucky.

We are not long removed from an era where humanity was frequently fighting massive ground wars, or even more recently massive, nuclear armed cold wars.

If I get blown up by a random lone wolf someday, so be it. It'll suck....but so would dying driving home tonight...and that's statistically a lot more likely.

So I guess best way to beat the ideology is to ignore it (publicly, not security behind the scenes). Like a toddler throwing a tantrum, giving it attention just causes more of it.

The goal of terrorism is to get the enemy to perceive the threat is greater than it is through horrendous slaughter of innocent people, including children. We're all warriors in one of the biggest battles of our age: terrorism. Our duty is to live fearless. Smart (I avoid the crowded middle cars during rush hour on the DC metro), but fearless.
 
I didn't say the specific exceptions themselves had to be identical.

I said that creating a limitation in the protection of speech didn't require amending the First Amendment. So why would creating a limitation in the free exercise clause require an amendment? After all, they're both written in very unambiguous language.

Heck, there are also recognized limits to the 2nd amendment -- which are of a completely different nature than the recognized limits to the freedom of speech. Moreover, defamatory speech also isn't necessarily protected by the First Amendment.

In other words, who ever said that all the exceptions had to be of a specific, particular nature? Not me.
Of course they don't have to be the same, but without an analogous situation from which to argue, you're probably not going to win. Courts are loathe to create new law, and when they do, they expect to have some existing law to serve as a basis. What I'm saying is this: what you're asking for probably requires an amendment to the Constitution, and I'm guessing that about 99.9% (lol) of Constitutional law scholars will agree with me.
 
.

So are you only going to draw this box around religious ideology and extremism? Or are you going to extend it to Second Amendment nutjobs waving don't tread on me flag's and talking about how we'll pry their guns right from your cold dead hands? What about the comment section of any Breitbart.com article? You're on a very slippery slope, and you can't stop.

Bottom line, is that you're looking for an oversimplified solution for a very complex problem, and you and I are going to disagree all day long on the existential nature of this problem.

Yes, I'm only going to draw this box around religious ideology and extremism -- particularly Islamist.

That solves the slippery slope.

As to the existential part of it -- you're still operating in a paradigm where WMDs have not been deployed by terrorists. Someday, that will no longer be true. And when that happens, it will instantly and radically change the paradigm. And, FTR, it's not the attack itself which would threaten our existence.
 
eh it's a lot more common in western europe than here right now. If this happened in the heart of wallstreet the reaction may have been more negative. If there were daily suicide attacks to the point that people changed how they were going about their lives, it would have a significant impact on society.
We have something of an intel/law enforcement breakdown, perhaps driven by those people's political superiors. The last 7 of these perps - by my very quick count, including the Manchester perp - were Islamic extremists "known to law enforcement". Well, they knew about them and did what? Lets do the full deal necessary to prevent action by the people we already know about and see what kind of impact that has. Its very focused and involves a relatively small number of people. Or you can trade 22 children dead and 59 injured for some of these perps we already know about free to do their worst.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
Of course they don't have to be the same, but without an analogous situation from which to argue, you're probably not going to win. Courts are loathe to create new law, and when they do, they expect to have some existing law to serve as a basis. What I'm saying is this: what you're asking for probably requires an amendment to the Constitution, and I'm guessing that about 99.9% (lol) of Constitutional law scholars will agree with me.

As I just told Ranger, you're still operating in a pre-WMD terrorism world. In this world, I'm sure you're right. In the one that will come after that, I'm not so sure.

Of course, as with most things, hindsight will be 20/20.
 
Here's a timely example of what I'm getting at. It's from the lede of the Daily Mail's story about the Manchester attacker:

The imam of the Mosque attended by Manchester (sic?) Salman Abedi has revealed the suicide bomber looked at him 'with hate' when he gave a sermon criticising ISIS.​

What I would like to see is (a) this imam would've been wary of a radicalized worshiper and compelled to report Mr. Abedi to authorities, (b) that those authorities would've been able to interview him in such a way as to reveal his radicalization, and (c) were empowered to take steps to neutralize him before he turned his radical thoughts into actions.
 
We have something of an intel/law enforcement breakdown, perhaps driven by those people's political superiors. The last 7 of these perps - by my very quick count, including the Manchester perp - were Islamic extremists "known to law enforcement". Well, they knew about them and did what? Lets do the full deal necessary to prevent action by the people we already know about and see what kind of impact that has. Its very focused and involves a relatively small number of people. Or you can trade 22 children dead and 59 injured for some of these perps we already know about free to do their worst.

These guys go off to fight in Syria, return home, and in some cases are not even being monitored. It's literally insanity. And then there is the Saudi/Sunni issue, which no one will confront due to $.
 
What I would like to see is (a) this imam would've been wary of a radicalized worshiper and compelled to report Mr. Abedi to authorities, (b) that those authorities would've been able to interview him in such a way as to reveal his radicalization, and (c) were empowered to take steps to neutralize him before he turned his radical thoughts into actions.
Again, what you're looking for here is just a smorgasbord of unconstitutionality.
 
As I just told Ranger, you're still operating in a pre-WMD terrorism world. In this world, I'm sure you're right. In the one that will come after that, I'm not so sure.

Of course, as with most things, hindsight will be 20/20.
You're missing my larger p you're missing my larger point. Islamic terrorists are no closer to having a live WMD, than are any other kind of Extremist in our military, or potentially a lab researching weapons. Some of the rhetoric thrown around by both sides of the aisle is not much different than rhetoric from imams at mosque.

Having worked in the defense industry on and off for well over 10 years, I can personally attest that there are numerous colleagues of mine who are convinced that our country is under threat of liberalism, and would they get the tap on the soldier would gladly give their life to take down the evil liberals. How is this any different from what you were talking about? I would encourage you to read the comment section of many extreme right and extreme left new sites. Youll find people who while sitting anonymously behind a keyboard, or far likelier to have access to very powerful weapons than are Islamic terrorists living in a cave.

An extremist is an extremist is an extremist. Drawing your box at religion, like I thought you might, is very disappointing
 
Here's a timely example of what I'm getting at. It's from the lede of the Daily Mail's story about the Manchester attacker:

The imam of the Mosque attended by Manchester (sic?) Salman Abedi has revealed the suicide bomber looked at him 'with hate' when he gave a sermon criticising ISIS.​

What I would like to see is (a) this imam would've been wary of a radicalized worshiper and compelled to report Mr. Abedi to authorities, (b) that those authorities would've been able to interview him in such a way as to reveal his radicalization, and (c) were empowered to take steps to neutralize him before he turned his radical thoughts into actions.
This just seems so irrational from you, the person who I believe is normally a very rational person.

If we use the Gigapixel camera at everybody and every speech given by Obama or by Trump, you'd find hundreds if not thousands of people staring at the speaker with hate. Yet you are drawing your lines around Religious ideology, and that makes no sense.
 
We have something of an intel/law enforcement breakdown, perhaps driven by those people's political superiors. The last 7 of these perps - by my very quick count, including the Manchester perp - were Islamic extremists "known to law enforcement". Well, they knew about them and did what? Lets do the full deal necessary to prevent action by the people we already know about and see what kind of impact that has. Its very focused and involves a relatively small number of people. Or you can trade 22 children dead and 59 injured for some of these perps we already know about free to do their worst.

You're vastly underestimating the amount of resources it takes to monitor these eventual perpetrators. 99.9% percent of people being "surveilled" in some form or another never end up committing a terrorist attack.

It's not as if they can assign an agent to follow around anyone they have even the most remote suspicion of being radical.

Grow up Peter Pan, Count Chocula.
 
  • Like
Reactions: twenty02
This just seems so irrational from you, the person who I believe is normally a very rational person.

If we use the Gigapixel camera at everybody and every speech given by Obama or by Trump, you'd find hundreds if not thousands of people staring at the speaker with hate. Yet you are drawing your lines around Religious ideology, and that makes no sense.

The imam noticed -- and associated it with his sermon against ISIS. You can't compare that to a political speech. I don't know how big the mosque in Manchester is. But the couple that I've visited aren't terribly large in size. It doesn't surprise me that the Imam noticed.

My point is simply that we need to see more of these radicals sniffed out before they act -- and not just the radicals themselves, but the networks in which they operate to become radicalized. This doesn't typically happen without external influence of some kind.

In our culture, we're accustomed to waiting until somebody takes an action of some kind before responding. I'm all for that -- except in this instance.
 
You're missing my larger p you're missing my larger point. Islamic terrorists are no closer to having a live WMD, than are any other kind of Extremist in our military, or potentially a lab researching weapons. Some of the rhetoric thrown around by both sides of the aisle is not much different than rhetoric from imams at mosque.

Having worked in the defense industry on and off for well over 10 years, I can personally attest that there are numerous colleagues of mine who are convinced that our country is under threat of liberalism, and would they get the tap on the soldier would gladly give their life to take down the evil liberals. How is this any different from what you were talking about? I would encourage you to read the comment section of many extreme right and extreme left new sites. Youll find people who while sitting anonymously behind a keyboard, or far likelier to have access to very powerful weapons than are Islamic terrorists living in a cave.

An extremist is an extremist is an extremist. Drawing your box at religion, like I thought you might, is very disappointing

Do you seriously think those blowhards you're taking about would nuke, say, Marin County if they could?

I don't have any idea how close the jihadists are to getting a WMD. But I'm reasonably sure they'll eventually acquire one or more. And, if they do, I'm utterly positive they'll at least attempt to use it to maximum effect. And if they fail to do so, they'll keep trying.

Mark my words on this Ranger: one of these days, we're finally going to decide we have to take the gloves off. I just think we might be better doing so in advance of this happening, rather than as a response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUCrazy2 and 76-1
The imam noticed -- and associated it with his sermon against ISIS. You can't compare that to a political speech. I don't know how big the mosque in Manchester is. But the couple that I've visited aren't terribly large in size. It doesn't surprise me that the Imam noticed.

My point is simply that we need to see more of these radicals sniffed out before they act -- and not just the radicals themselves, but the networks in which they operate to become radicalized. This doesn't typically happen without external influence of some kind.

In our culture, we're accustomed to waiting until somebody takes an action of some kind before responding. I'm all for that -- except in this instance.
FWIW, the sermon the imam was talking about was two years ago, and Abedi was, in fact, being watched by MI5. So whether or not the imam reported him - I can't find the answer to that question anywhere - seems ultimately irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot
FWIW, the sermon the imam was talking about was two years ago, and Abedi was, in fact, being watched by MI5. So whether or not the imam reported him - I can't find the answer to that question anywhere - seems ultimately irrelevant.

Maybe. But the fact that MI5 was watching him, yet he was still able to perpetrate this, cuts straight to the heart of what I'm saying.

That really should never happen. But it's not the first time. Happened with the Tsarnaevs, Hasan, and some others.
 
"It isn't Islamophobia if they really ARE trying to kill you."

Trite but appropriate.
 
Maybe. But the fact that MI5 was watching him, yet he was still able to perpetrate this, cuts straight to the heart of what I'm saying.

That really should never happen. But it's not the first time. Happened with the Tsarnaevs, Hasan, and some others.
finally I agree with you its impossible to monitor everyone, I bet a lot of the people worried about our freedoms and our way of life would change their minds if there 10 year old daughter was blown to hell
 
yea and the scary thing is that trump doubled down on the exact opposite approach. 99% of these terror attacks are being carried out by sunni radicals. Sadly our entire govt is bought out by Saudi $ and the military arms complex. Trump too is in on the Saudi take. That's how you end up with a scenario where we completely turn a blind eye to saudi activities. Instead we full throatedly take thei side in a fight with iran, which is pure political propaganda. The saudis specifically use iran as a distraction in order to avoid internal unrest.

The Saudis have long been worried that Shia in their country (that happen to reside in the major oil producing areas), will start mimicking the Iranian revolution. They are probably right to worry about that, to some degree.

The diplomatic reality is that we have very strong, long lasting ties (security and financial) with the House of Saud (nearly 100 years). They have a stable society and a strong security structure. It's more valuable for us to maintain that relationship than any other options. They also (quietly) work to some degree with Israel. If we could get Iraq stabilized long-term, we could start finally see some light at the end of a long tunnel.


I'm no fan of Saud. But the last thing we need is more instability in that region right now. The Arab Spring turned into a nightmare.
 
Maybe. But the fact that MI5 was watching him, yet he was still able to perpetrate this, cuts straight to the heart of what I'm saying.

That really should never happen. But it's not the first time. Happened with the Tsarnaevs, Hasan, and some others.

What exactly are you proposing to happen?

Take those under "monitoring" into custody?

Ship them to Gitmo (or whatever off grid prisons UK has)?
 
Maybe. But the fact that MI5 was watching him, yet he was still able to perpetrate this, cuts straight to the heart of what I'm saying.

That really should never happen. But it's not the first time. Happened with the Tsarnaevs, Hasan, and some others.
I don't see how this cuts straight to the heart of what you are saying at all. I think it shows that what you are suggesting might not really do any good.
 
"It isn't Islamophobia if they really ARE trying to kill you."

Trite but appropriate.
We're not talking about Islamaphobia here. We're talking about how to genuinely and effectively protect from these types of attacks (or if that's even possible). Please don't try to derail the conversation.
 
The Saudis have long been worried that Shia in their country (that happen to reside in the major oil producing areas), will start mimicking the Iranian revolution. They are probably right to worry about that, to some degree.

The diplomatic reality is that we have very strong, long lasting ties (security and financial) with the House of Saud (nearly 100 years). They have a stable society and a strong security structure. It's more valuable for us to maintain that relationship than any other options. They also (quietly) work to some degree with Israel. If we could get Iraq stabilized long-term, we could start finally see some light at the end of a long tunnel.


I'm no fan of Saud. But the last thing we need is more instability in that region right now. The Arab Spring turned into a nightmare.
Look at the guys who were best at controlling the extremists: Qaddafi, Mubarak, especially Saddam, Assad (until ISIS showed up). The Saudis are the best thing we have going right now, which is scary, because they have to deal with the extreme conservativeness of their own country's religious leaders, which means their fight against extremism has always been tempered with concessions.

I think someone once said something to the effect that democracy is terrible for people who aren't ready for it. Perhaps a tad bit condescending, but the outcome of the war in Iraq and the Arab Spring speaks to some kind of wisdom in there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: twenty02
I don't see how this cuts straight to the heart of what you are saying at all. I think it shows that what you are suggesting might not really do any good.

Well...crazed already has a) in his list of wishes. I'm just confused about how one practically enacts his b) and c).

"(b) that those authorities would've been able to interview him in such a way as to reveal his radicalization, and (c) were empowered to take steps to neutralize him before he turned his radical thoughts into actions."

"Interview" and "neutralize" don't seem like the words that he's really after.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rockfish1
Well...crazed already has a) in his list of wishes. I'm just confused about how one practically enacts his b) and c).

"(b) that those authorities would've been able to interview him in such a way as to reveal his radicalization, and (c) were empowered to take steps to neutralize him before he turned his radical thoughts into actions."

"Interview" and "neutralize" don't seem like the words that he's really after.
They sound like euphemisms for the kinds of things decent people don't do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rockfish1
Do you seriously think those blowhards you're taking about would nuke, say, Marin County if they could?

I don't have any idea how close the jihadists are to getting a WMD. But I'm reasonably sure they'll eventually acquire one or more. And, if they do, I'm utterly positive they'll at least attempt to use it to maximum effect. And if they fail to do so, they'll keep trying.

Mark my words on this Ranger: one of these days, we're finally going to decide we have to take the gloves off. I just think we might be better doing so in advance of this happening, rather than as a response.
I am ALL FOR taking the gloves off...if they're actually on. And yes, I do believe that a Good Ol Boy, if he had a nuke, would nuke Manhattan if he thought Sean hannity wanted him to.

Your ideas are not executable. They're not executable for the same reason that the modern interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with defending against tyranny. It's because nobody will ever be able to decide what constitutes actual threatening language and what's just jaw-jacking.
 
The Saudis have long been worried that Shia in their country (that happen to reside in the major oil producing areas), will start mimicking the Iranian revolution. They are probably right to worry about that, to some degree.

The diplomatic reality is that we have very strong, long lasting ties (security and financial) with the House of Saud (nearly 100 years). They have a stable society and a strong security structure. It's more valuable for us to maintain that relationship than any other options. They also (quietly) work to some degree with Israel. If we could get Iraq stabilized long-term, we could start finally see some light at the end of a long tunnel.


I'm no fan of Saud. But the last thing we need is more instability in that region right now. The Arab Spring turned into a nightmare.
Look at the guys who were best at controlling the extremists: Qaddafi, Mubarak, especially Saddam, Assad (until ISIS showed up). The Saudis are the best thing we have going right now, which is scary, because they have to deal with the extreme conservativeness of their own country's religious leaders, which means their fight against extremism has always been tempered with concessions.

I think someone once said something to the effect that democracy is terrible for people who aren't ready for it. Perhaps a tad bit condescending, but the outcome of the war in Iraq and the Arab Spring speaks to some kind of wisdom in there.

Do the 2 of you realize that this very Saud ideology is the leading cancer of incidents like what we just saw in Manchester? Ok, so perhaps they don't have internal unrest, instead, they just export unrest.

And what about the people who actually live in Saudi Arabia, and are subject to horrific human rights abuses? Namely women. We just turn a blind eye to this in the name of confronting Iran? That's not what America is about.
 
Immigration, If you look at most of these idiots they are 2nd generation refugees, Same as the Mexican gang problem , most immigrants come to a nation are grateful for a new beginning its the following generations who fail to assimilate.


Yah... so says the native americans...
 
If any of you have every lived as a small minority, i think you can understand how they have taken that journey into the dark side. None of their parents ever brought them up to be evil. But these killers dont think their actions are evil either.

So the question starts with how did they get radicalised. Their mindset.

Poverty, lack of education, social/cultural stigmatisation/isolation and despair. You address that, you reduce the possibilities.
 
These guys go off to fight in Syria, return home, and in some cases are not even being monitored. It's literally insanity. And then there is the Saudi/Sunni issue, which no one will confront due to $.
I agree at least to the extent that any monitoring of them is not preventing them from committing their heinous acts of evil. This IS a battle of good v. evil. Even in much lower consequence engagements it remains true sometimes that nice guys finish last. That is certainly happening to the "nice guys" who are trying to be nice to evil people.

Time to take on that evil as an enemy of civilized mankind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1
I'd rather live with a (very rare in the US) terrorist attack, than give up such powers to the state to act as they wish....in a never-ending martial law situation.
A case could be made that that has already happened to a certain extent.
 
I agree at least to the extent that any monitoring of them is not preventing them from committing their heinous acts of evil. This IS a battle of good v. evil. Even in much lower consequence engagements it remains true sometimes that nice guys finish last. That is certainly happening to the "nice guys" who are trying to be nice to evil people.

Time to take on that evil as an enemy of civilized mankind.
I'm curious how you think we're being "nice."
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT