On 2002-03-07 07:36, Marc Lamb wrote:

I am duly stunned, Ms. Genser. About the agnostic thing, that is. :lol:

I am agnostic about whether it be 3T or 4T, not about whether there is a G-d. :smile:

On 2002-03-08 14:05, Jenny Genser wrote:

I am agnostic about whether it be 3T or 4T, not about whether there is a G-d. :smile:

oh, now come on! "g-d"?

i thought the asterisk in "horsesh*t" was silly, but this just takes the cake.

TK

To use your example, the 18th century liberal would indeed find a world radically better than his in many respects, but the people in it would be quite familiar to him, or for that matter to a citizen plucked off the streets of ancient Athens.

Actually I don't believe that is the case. Genetically, of course today's human is the same as always, but we are a product of environment and upbringing as well as heredity, and being the products of different circumstances we are different people.

To get down to specifics, a citizen plucked off the streets of ancient Athens would regard slavery, an incredibly harsh sexism, and the inability to organize any political unit larger than the city-state (with consequent unceasing warfare), as normal and inevitable. Someone living at that time would regard the end of slavery (to choose one obvious example) as impossible without changes in human nature itself. Yet the 18th century citizen lived on the brink of that development.

Over the past 500 years, in the wake of the literacy, scientific, and industrial revolutions, our collective persona has changed dramatically. We do not just live in a different society than our ancestors did; as a result of that, we are different people. Circumstances make human nature every bit as much as genetics. As circumstances continue to change, so will we, or our descendants.

Of course, predicting or controlling those changes is a task frought with considerable risk. But "changing human nature" is not so difficult. It is, in fact, unavoidable.

Dear Ms. Genser, I am perplexed as to why you might have thought I was refering to anything but what "T" we be. I have never questioned your belief in the Almighty before. And I would hope you would never think of me coming at you in any such manner.

Though, I confess, my one blunder, my stumble of which I intentionally made to make a greater point (of which I would have thought you could at least appreciate), and of which I apologized for.

Please, let the air be clean. If possible.

[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-03-08 19:05 ]

On 2002-03-08 08:49, firemind wrote:

Given Justin79's past expressed opinions of America, he'd likely say the sooner America and the West fall and disappear, the better.

LOL He does tend to sound like a made-up caricature of a privileged college-age radical sometimes, doesn't he?

*snicker*
*snort*

<center></center>
<center>Is this guy not completely irrelevant, or what?</center>

"Florida's 2000 presidential election fiasco damaged democracy as badly as the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks hurt the nation, actor Alec Baldwin said Thursday."

<center> </center>

On 2002-03-08 20:12, Marc Lamb wrote:

Is this guy not completely irrelevant, or what?

no more so than the rest of us, marc. :wink:

TK

A hypothetical question for all.

Suppose you are a blue zoner and the red zoners are trying to impose their agenda on you?

Or

Suppose you are a red zoner and the blue zoners are trying to impose their agenda on you?

From whichever perspective....

How far would you compromise with an agenda not your own-before you dig your heels in and say "no more!"?

[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-03-08 21:01 ]

On 2002-03-08 08:19, firemind wrote:

Hedonism is death! There's a nice thought to have in a posh restaurant on the upper East Side while scarfing down cr?me br?l?e and Cointreau. Most likely true on the civilizational scale, none the less.
====

Massive migration of people from all over the world got rid of Australia's purtainism. Immigration made us more hedonist in the process. :smile:

Also migration will do wonders for European culture in general. It can get rid of the entrenched racist views a lot of Europeans seem to hold.

For example Europe?s far right politician parties on racial matters, makes One Nation and Pauline Hanson look colour blind in comparison and not to mention the anti-migrant hysteria which seems to be flooding Europe right now.

On 2002-03-08 20:57, Tim Walker wrote:
A hypothetical question for all.

Suppose you are a blue zoner and the red zoners are trying to impose their agenda on you?

Or

Suppose you are a red zoner and the blue zoners are trying to impose their agenda on you?

From whichever perspective....

How far would you compromise with an agenda not your own-before you dig your heels in and say "no more!"?

[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-03-08 21:01 ]

Not only an agenda not your own, but actually quite *hostile* to your own. Often, the very opposite of your own.

On 2002-03-08 13:25, Jesse Manoogian wrote:
You know, some of this "real world" garbage here really, really brings to mind msm's posts. Do you think "msm" is really Hopeful Cynic?

Well, no, I don't really think so myself.

On 2002-03-08 21:02, Tristan Jones wrote:
]

Massive migration of people from all over the world got rid of Australia's purtainism. Immigration made us more hedonist in the process. :smile:

What makes you think America's puritan streak has gone away? It's visible all around us right now! :lol:

On 2002-03-08 08:19, firemind wrote:

Hedonism is death! There's a nice thought to have in a posh restaurant on the upper East Side while scarfing down cr?me br?l?e and Cointreau. Most likely true on the civilizational scale, none the less.
====

Hedonism is the symptom, not the cause. A society tends to collapse into hedonism when nothing else is perceived as being worth doing, or if there's something worth doing, it can't be done.

When an individual or a society is engaged in something genuinely interesting, challenging, or useful, hedonism can rarely compete, since it's rather boring after a while.

Hopeful Cynic wrote:

It's the attempt to alter human nature that we fear, fundamantally, and attempts to bring about social changes that would depend on such short-term alterations.

I think Brian's points were adequate on this score, and I agree.

But I don't really understand what you are speaking of. You are just labelling the social and political changes that liberals want as attempts to alter human nature. Liberals think that human nature already allows for such changes; in fact what we seek are states of affairs that are truer to human nature. You guys just have a limited, parochial and outdated red-zone view of human nature, that's all.

What I also say is that it has to be a single dominant power, not a collection. It can be dominant as first among near equals, but it can't be genuinely collective. If it is, power struggle automatically ensues.

You keep saying that, but there's no basis in fact or theory for such a statement. Collections have worked before, and there's no a priori reason why they could not work.

It remains within the realm of possibility that American's relative power in the world will increase over the 21st century.

Sure, and that's not a bad thing. What's bad is to base policies on fears that America WON'T be #1.

No, we're preventing you from getting your way, which isn't the same thing.

Right; that's exactly what I said that I don't like.

Red Zoners have many things they'd like to see happen, but they can't spare the energy. In that respect, Blue is in Red's way, too.

You guys don't want anything to happen except to preserve what exists or restore what you think existed yesterday. What agenda you have is entirely reactionary. And it is harmful to your nation and your world. Grow up and move forward, red zoners.

To the Red Zoners, the question is: When will they stop?

You are going against "human nature" to think we will ever stop seeking progress and the improvement or survival of the human condition, and an end to oppression and suffering. Give up the hope that we ever will stop.

Diversity in itself isn't our worry, it's the fact that the diversity shows no sign of forging the internal ties that can prevent eventual friction and conflict. We don't mind the cultures coming into contact, Eric.

Blue zoners are generally not as much against this as you think. Internal ties are fine. But when you put forward ideas designed to antagonize other races and cultures, and use these ideas as excuses to ruin our public schools and destroy public health, etc., you cross the line into fear-mongering and reaction.

What worries us, in fact, is that from our POV it's the liberals who want to make sure that the cultures don't merge into one. A nation does need certain common elements to function, and from Red's point of view, Blue seems to want to eagerly dismantle the common elements.

It is counterproductive to advocate policies that smack of racism. Instead (and this is a reply to Barbara too), put forward policies that help bring the cultures together, which is what you say you want. Don't advocate policies that force the other cultures to join us. That smacks of the kind of ethnic domination that ruined the European empires in the 19th century. The result is what we see in Yugoslavia. Instead, create an atmosphere of mutual respect and involvement, not fear of having your culture taken away from you and another one imposed on you. It is a question of tactics, and what you really want to see happen. Do you want to maintain lilly white culture, or a nation where "we all get along?"

Your decision will have much to do with whether the zones separate in the 2020s.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-08 22:21 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-08 22:26 ]

Eric, I just advocated a middle-of-the-road compromise to the immigration situation that both sides on this issue would have to compromise on but could find some agreement and satisfaction.

What I advocate doesn't hinder any immigrant from speaking any language here, as long as we can all speak English. Do you think Europe is racist for this policy? Surely not. I don't advocate taking anyone's native culture away, I applaud and enjoy multiculturism. The faster people assimilate into our culture and economy, the more productive and prosperous they are. Immigrants want this for themselves and especially for their children. They want to be Americans, or they would not come here. They do not come here to recreate their own countries, but because we do not tell our expectations in a clear voice and show them how with clear guidelines, they're often forced to stay with what they know, even though they want to learn. We make it terribly hard for them to assimilate, and they want to assimilate, as demonstrated in study after study I ever read, and having listened to so many immigrant parents and students over the years.

The bilingual education system is a clear failure after 30 years, countless studies that show this, and trillions of dollars. It tends to trap kids and keep them below their potential. I even read a newspaper article last year about a national decade-long study that showed that the Hispanic high school dropout problem has some very real connections to being in the bilingual system for so long and without effective assimilative results from it. It may be proving to be enforced segregation!

We need to help immigrants get here legally and assimilate quickly and successfully.

[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2002-03-09 00:27 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2002-03-09 00:27 ]

On 2002-03-08 15:12, TrollKing wrote:

On 2002-03-08 14:05, Jenny Genser wrote:

I am agnostic about whether it be 3T or 4T, not about whether there is a G-d. :smile:

oh, now come on! "g-d"?

i thought the asterisk in "horsesh*t" was silly, but this just takes the cake.

TK

I may be stepping on Jenny's lines, but this spelling is actually fairly widespread among observant Jews. It's a direct transference of their practice in the Torah, where they may spell the name of the One Diety (which in Hebrew is spelled YHWH but has the diacritical marks for the vowels of "Adonai"--Lord--instead of the diacritical marks for the actual name of--from the Christian perspective, however inappropriate--God the Father} but they never say it or put the real vowels for the word (this is the equivalent of the - in G-d). Adonai was always said instead of the Tetragramnon. The result was centuries of confusion among Christians not familiar with the practice. Combining YHWH with the vowels for Adonai gave rise to calling God "Jehovah". Modern scholars have realized the error and now think the name of God is actually "Yahweh".

So, TrollKing, you may think this is silly, but it is a sign of Jenny's devotion to her faith and I wouldn't ridicule it if I were you!

_________________
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."

[ This Message was edited by: Vince Lamb '59 on 2002-03-09 01:25 ]

On 2002-03-09 01:23, Vince Lamb '59 wrote:

So, TrollKing, you may think this is silly, but it is a sign of Jenny's devotion to her faith and I wouldn't ridicule it if I were you!

oh, well that's entirely different. it's a whole 'nother animal.

i thought it was just overkill of the asterisk thing. i wouldn't ridicule someone's faith.

TK

http://www.michaelmoore.com/2002_0222.html

Stupid White Men has become immensely popular at this time. Is this a sign of a 3T or a 4T?

Well it has been 6 months since the 911 attack, well back here in Australia we have seem gotten back into a 3T mood. Maybe something similar is happening in the United States, your opinion?

On 2002-03-09 18:03, Tristan Jones wrote:
Well it has been 6 months since the 911 attack, well back here in Australia we have seem gotten back into a 3T mood. Maybe something similar is happening in the United States, your opinion?

Most definitely, and it's accelerating of late. I started noticing it a lot in January, and now it's really visible, at least to me.

Further, I get a distinct sense that America is breathing almost a metaphorical sigh of relief, for want of a better way to describe it, as people calm down.

America, with some exceptions, did not want 3T to be over as of 2001.

On 2002-03-09 01:23, Vince Lamb '59 wrote:

On 2002-03-08 15:12, TrollKing wrote:

On 2002-03-08 14:05, Jenny Genser wrote:

I am agnostic about whether it be 3T or 4T, not about whether there is a G-d. :smile:

oh, now come on! "g-d"?

i thought the asterisk in "horsesh*t" was silly, but this just takes the cake.

TK

I may be stepping on Jenny's lines, but this spelling is actually fairly widespread among observant Jews. It's a direct transference of their practice in the Torah, where they may spell the name of the One Diety (which in Hebrew is spelled YHWH but has the diacritical marks for the vowels of "Adonai"--Lord--instead of the diacritical marks for the actual name of--from the Christian perspective, however inappropriate--God the Father} but they never say it or put the real vowels for the word (this is the equivalent of the - in G-d). Adonai was always said instead of the Tetragramnon. The result was centuries of confusion among Christians not familiar with the practice. Combining YHWH with the vowels for Adonai gave rise to calling God "Jehovah". Modern scholars have realized the error and now think the name of God is actually "Yahweh".

In Hebrew, is the Tetragramnon considered to be the name of God, or does it stand in for the name of God?

From LA Times:

THE NATION
U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms
Military: Administration, in a secret report, calls for a strategy against at least seven nations: China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria.

By PAUL RICHTER, TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

The secret report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military developments."

A copy of the report was obtained by defense analyst and Times contributor William Arkin. His column on the contents appears in Sunday's editions. Officials have long acknowledged that they had detailed nuclear plans for an attack on Russia. However, this "Nuclear Posture Review" apparently marks the first time that an official list of potential target countries has come to light, analysts said. Some predicted the disclosure would set off strong reactions from governments of the target countries.

"This is dynamite," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. "I can imagine what these countries are going to be saying at the U.N." Arms control advocates said the report's directives on development of smaller nuclear weapons could signal that the Bush administration is more willing to overlook a long-standing taboo against the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort. They warned that such moves could dangerously destabilize the world by encouraging other countries to believe that they, too, should develop weapons.

"They're trying desperately to find new uses for nuclear weapons, when their uses should be limited to deterrence," said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World. "This is very, very dangerous talk . . . Dr. Strangelove is clearly still alive in the Pentagon."

But some conservative analysts insisted that the Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon development programs.

They argued that smaller weapons have an important deterrent role because many aggressors might not believe that the U.S. forces would use multi-kiloton weapons that would wreak devastation on surrounding territory and friendly populations.

"We need to have a credible deterrence against regimes involved in international terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction," said Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. He said the contents of the report did not surprise him and represent "the right way to develop a nuclear posture for a post-Cold War world."

A spokesman for the Pentagon, Richard McGraw, declined to comment because the document is classified.

Congress requested the reassessment of the U.S. nuclear posture in September 2000. The last such review was conducted in 1994 by the Clinton administration. The new report, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, is now being used by the U.S. Strategic Command to prepare a nuclear war plan.

Bush administration officials have publicly provided only sketchy details of the nuclear review. They have publicly emphasized the parts of the policy suggesting that the administration wants to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.

Since the Clinton administration's review is also classified, no specific contrast can be drawn. However, analysts portrayed this report as representing a break with earlier policy.

U.S. policymakers have generally indicated that the United States would not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states unless they were allied with nuclear powers. They have left some ambiguity about whether the United States would use nuclear weapons in retaliation after strikes with chemical or nuclear weapons.

The report says the Pentagon should be prepared to use nuclear weapons in an Arab-Israeli conflict, in a war between China and Taiwan, or in an attack from North Korea on the south. They might also become necessary in an attack by Iraq on Israel or another neighbor, it said.

The report says Russia is no longer officially an "enemy." Yet it acknowledges that the huge Russian arsenal, which includes about 6,000 deployed warheads and perhaps 10,000 smaller "theater" nuclear weapons, remains of concern.

Pentagon officials have said publicly that they were studying the need to develop theater nuclear weapons, designed for use against specific targets on a battlefield, but had not committed themselves to that course.

Officials have often spoken of the advantages of using nuclear weapons to destroy the deep tunnel and cave complexes that many regimes have been building, especially since the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Nuclear weapons give off powerful shock waves that can crush structures deep in the Earth, they point out.

Officials argue that large nuclear arms have so many destructive side effects, from blast to heat and radiation, that they become "self-deterring." They contend the Pentagon needs "full spectrum deterrence"--that is, a full range of weapons that potential enemies believe might be used against them.

The Pentagon was actively involved in planning for use of tactical nuclear weapons as recently as the 1970s. But it has moved away from them in the last two decades.

Analysts said the report's reference to "surprising military developments" referred to the Pentagon's fears that a rogue regime or terrorist group might suddenly unleash a wholly unknown weapon that was difficult to counter with the conventional U.S. arsenal.

The administration has proposed cutting the offensive nuclear arsenal by about two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 missiles, within 10 years. Officials have also said they want to use precision guided conventional munitions in some missions that might have previously been accomplished with nuclear arms.

But critics said the report contradicts suggestions the Bush administration wants to cut the nuclear role.

"This clearly makes nuclear weapons a tool for fighting a war, rather than deterring them," said Cirincione.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to http://www.lats.com/rights.

March 10, 2002 Talk about it E-mail story Print

A CHANGED AMERICA
Civil Liberties Take Back Seat to Safety
Law: Some hard-won freedoms give way to more police powers and self-censorship.

Top Stories

A Changed America: Civil Liberties Take Back Seat to Safety

By HENRY WEINSTEIN, DAREN BRISCOE and MITCHELL LANDSBERG, Times Staff Writers

American civil liberties are as fixed and steady an influence in national life as the stock market--and every bit as elastic.

Like the market, the rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens have grown to an extent that the Founding Fathers probably never imagined. But in times of danger, civil liberties have shrunk, suffering what market analysts might call a correction.

Since Sept. 11, the federal government has approved secret military tribunals for accused terrorists, given law enforcement unprecedented powers to tap phones and read e-mail, and helped foster an atmosphere of self-censorship summed up shortly after the attacks by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who warned Americans to "watch what they say."

None of this compares to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II or the widespread suspension of liberties during and after World War I. But after decades of steady advances in civil liberties, the government's actions seem to mark a historical shift.

The weight of change has fallen most heavily on foreigners, particularly Middle Easterners. The shift is all the more striking because before September noncitizens had been enjoying their greatest period of freedom in U.S. history, the result of a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

In one of those decisions, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote last summer that once immigrants enter the United States, they are protected by the Constitution "whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary or permanent."

The spirit and letter of government policy changed drastically after the terrorist attacks. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft ordered the detention of more than 1,000 foreigners suspected of posing a security threat or believed to have information about the hijackers. Information about the detainees has been scanty. Many have had little or no access to lawyers and family.

According to the Justice Department, 327 people remain in detention for immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa. One hundred and fourteen are behind bars on criminal charges, mostly minor and none directly related to the terrorist attacks. An undisclosed number are being held as material witnesses, meaning the government suspects they know something about the hijackings.

Human Rights Watch, an international rights organization, complained last month that the U.S. "continues to refuse to disclose basic information" about the imprisoned foreigners.

The change is palpable in such places as Brookhurst Street in Anaheim, a neighborhood of immigrants from Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Middle Eastern nations. A new vocabulary has taken root in places where people gather to talk amid curling smoke trails from water pipes. Conversations are peppered with references to interrogations, searches, detentions and hate crimes.

Attorney Stephen Mashney works here in a third-floor office overlooking Arab shops and restaurants. "There is a very severe chill among Arabs and Muslims who are Arab," said the Palestinian immigrant. "The U.S. that exists today is not the same place that existed before Sept. 11."

'It's Beautiful for Americans Only'

Omar Mohamed spent six months in the United States, a time that seemed divided between two countries.

For the first three months, the 19-year-old Egyptian explored the America of his dreams: the Empire State Building, the casinos of Atlantic City, N.J., even the "dollar menu" at McDonald's.

"It was beautiful," Mohamed said in accented but proper English.

The next three months he spent behind bars at the Hudson County Jail in Kearny, N.J. By the time he was deported Dec. 14, he had come to a new understanding of the United States.

"It's beautiful," he said, "for Americans only."

The government will not say why Mohamed was detained for so long. Investigators found no evidence that he was involved in terrorism. He was charged with violating the provisions of his tourist visa by working.

In a jailhouse interview hours before he was deported, Mohamed described himself as a third-year mechanical engineering student at Ain Shams University in Cairo. He had come to the United States on a round-trip ticket given to him by his parents, both of whom work for EgyptAir. The trip was intended, he said, as a break in his studies, an opportunity to see the world. He was invited to stay with a family friend who owns a gas station in Toms River, N.J.

Mohamed began pumping gas there. After Sept. 11, the FBI got a tip that one of the 19 hijackers had worked at the station. Agents investigated and quickly determined that the tip was erroneous. They nevertheless detained one attendant, who was later released.

Mohamed was also picked up--perhaps, he said, because he had told American friends he wanted to take flight lessons.

"It's true," he said. "My father works for the airline, my mother works for the airline. I thought they could help me get a job."

After he was arrested Sept. 18, the Immigration and Naturalization Service gave him two options, Mohamed said. He could agree to deportation or fight to stay in the United States. He chose deportation but was then told he needed FBI clearance to leave.

It was a frustrating case, said his lawyer, Sohail Mohammed of Clifton, N.J.

"I know how to keep someone in the country," he said. "But trying to get someone out is a lot more difficult than I thought it would be."

Mohamed said he wasn't allowed to call his family in Egypt. He estimated that he was among 200 Middle Eastern men at the jail. He said the rooms were cold, the food violated Muslim dietary laws and he was taunted by American prisoners.

"They tell me, 'Osama will help you,' " Mohamed said, smiling wryly. "They say, 'You're Arab. Why don't you just make a hole in the wall with a bomb?' "

He said he was angry.

"People have a right to be told why they are being held," he said. "We know we were wrong for violating our visas, but why do they hold us for this long?"

For lawyer Mohammed, Sept. 11 sparked a boom in business. After the attacks, he took on about a dozen detainees as clients and became a spokesman for their plight. He also saw a sharp increase in the number of Middle Eastern immigrants who want to apply for citizenship.

Before Sept. 11, he said, "they would say, 'What's the difference? I have all the rights a citizen has.' "

They no longer say that.

"There is a clear line in the sand being drawn now," he said, "and which side of the sand you're on makes a big difference."

There is no such thing as absolute civil liberty. "It is not simply 'liberty,' " observed Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in his 1998 book, "All the Laws but One." The qualifier "civil" comes from the same root as the word "citizen" and implies obligations as well as freedoms.

A modern American has the liberty to hop in a sport-utility vehicle (as long as it's registered) with personalized (but not obscene) license plates and go wherever he or she wants--assuming he or she doesn't exceed the speed limit, which is one of the "civil" parts of that liberty. The limit changes from time to time and place to place.

In the same way, other liberties have ebbed and flowed throughout the nation's history.

Eric Foner, a Columbia University historian, said it is a relatively recent phenomenon for civil liberties to be considered "very ingrained in our culture. For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was pretty irrelevant. There were egregious violations well into the 20th century."

Foner, author of "The Story of American Freedom," a history of civil liberties, said the idea of those freedoms as a central national ethos did not gain broad currency until the 1920s, in reaction to governmental excesses during and after World War I.

At that time, the government effectively banned dissent, and federal agents led by a young J. Edgar Hoover rounded up hundreds of suspected communists and anarchists, held them without trial and ultimately deported them.

World War II witnessed the detention of 110,000 people of Japanese descent, two-thirds of them U.S. citizens. The detainees, most of whom were from California, lost homes and businesses; many also lost faith in the American values of equality and fair play. It would be nearly 50 years before the government formally apologized and paid reparations.

The war era also yielded the Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the government or to belong to a group that espoused revolution. The act provided the underpinnings for the McCarthy-era repression of communists and their purported allies.

Paradoxically, a legal controversy sparked by Nazi repression contributed to the enshrinement of civil liberties as a core American value.

In 1933, German officials banned the Jehovah's Witnesses for refusing to join in the "Heil Hitler" raised-palm salute. Thousands of Witnesses were imprisoned in German concentration camps.

Wartime Case Proved to Be Watershed

In response, Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States denounced compulsory flag salute laws everywhere. When Witness schoolchildren in Minersville, Pa., refused to salute, they were expelled for insubordination. The expulsions were upheld by the Supreme Court, 8 to 1, in 1940.

Writing for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter extolled the flag as "the symbol of our national unity, transcending all internal differences."

The issue was before the high court again in 1943. With two new justices and three who had changed their minds since 1940, the court reversed its earlier ruling.

In the majority opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson linked the issue to the nation's battle against fascism. In quashing unpopular liberties, he suggested, the U.S. was stooping to the level of its enemy.

"Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters," he wrote. "Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

Civil liberties were considerably broadened during Earl Warren's term as U.S. chief justice from 1953 to 1969, starting with the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954, which outlawed segregated schools.

The Warren Court also restricted wiretapping, upheld the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, broadened the parameters of free speech and strengthened the right to counsel.

Some of the case names are part of the American lexicon--prime among them "Miranda," the 1966 ruling requiring police to inform a suspect that anything he says can be used against him and that he can confer with a lawyer before being required to answer any questions.

Like previous crises, Sept. 11 sparked a curtailment of liberties in the name of national security.

The USA Patriot Act, signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, broadened the government's power to monitor private conversations and e-mail, allowed police to obtain a search warrant and enter someone's home without his knowledge, and made it easier to deport noncitizens suspected of activity that endangers national security.

A separate change in immigration rules permits the attorney general to keep foreigners in detention even when an immigration judge has ordered them freed.

Many argue that the Patriot Act and the detentions of noncitizens are reasonable under the circumstances.

"Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures," said Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles), a strong advocate of civil liberties who nonetheless voted for the Patriot Act. "There will be a time when it's no longer extraordinary and we go back to more ordinary times."

Aspects of the administration's policies have come under vigorous attack, however. In particular, many liberals and civil libertarians have expressed horror at Bush's order permitting suspected foreign terrorists to be tried by military tribunals.

Such tribunals typically afford defendants fewer rights than a regular criminal court. They may be held in secret. A panel of military judges can decide guilt or innocence, and even impose the death penalty, by a less-than-unanimous vote. Defendants may not appeal to a higher court; only the president or the secretary of Defense may overturn a verdict.

Philip B. Heymann, a Harvard University law professor and former deputy U.S. attorney general, strongly supports most of what the Bush administration has done. But when it comes to the military tribunals, he said, "I think they have gone absolutely crazy."

The order shows that Bush "deeply misunderstands what the U.S. is about," Heymann said. "The idea that the president could say . . . 'You are involved in terrorism and therefore you can be tried by three or five colonels of my choice whose promotion depends on how they behave at trial--a private trial with no judicial review' . . . absolutely staggers me."

Yet the idea has popular support. Roughly two-thirds of the respondents in two national polls late last year said such tribunals should be used.

"I believe that's a justified tool," said Andrew Powell, a commercial leasing agent in Ankeny, Iowa. "The people in the [World Trade Center] didn't have a right to appeal when the buildings were coming down. I feel the tribunals are very justified."

Free Speech Gives Way to Self-Censorship

Perhaps just as important as the changes in law are the more subtle changes in American culture. No new law dictates what people can or can't say. But there has been a narrowing of the parameters of what society deems acceptable, and many people find themselves exercising self-censorship.

Some American Muslims have become fearful of speaking out for unpopular causes, said Salam Al-Marayati, national director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, based in Los Angeles.

"The message basically is, you cannot talk about certain issues," he said. "You cannot talk about foreign policy, you cannot talk about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That if that were to be brought up, we would immediately be branded as being on the other side. . . . And our concern is that we're going to lose the America that we're trying to protect."

Abdo Khouraki owns the Sindbad Ranch grocery, which sells Middle Eastern food on Brookhurst Street in Anaheim. A naturalized American citizen, he came to the United States 27 years ago and is grateful for this country's freedoms. But the climate since Sept. 11 has begun to remind him of his native Syria.

"In Syria," he said, "when you talk politics, you make sure you know everybody in the room, and you whisper."

Not only Middle Easterners have felt the chill.

"Do us all a favor and die," read an e-mail sent recently to Steve Benson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist for the Arizona Republic in Phoenix.

It was one of dozens of abusive, threatening or obscene messages Benson received after drawing cartoons critical of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan.

"You should have been in the towers on 9/11," said another.

There is nothing new about a political cartoonist receiving hate mail. But Benson said that what he has gotten since Sept. 11 has been exceptional in volume and venom. The anger swelled as the thrust of his cartoons shifted from sympathy for the victims of the terrorist attacks to outrage at U.S. policy.

The foment peaked after a Nov. 8 cartoon titled "Dumb Bombs." It featured a grinning Bush flying a military jet, dropping bombs labeled "Killing Innocent Civilians" and "Starving Millions of Afghans."

So great was the outcry that two newspapers, the St. George Spectrum in Utah and the Greeley Tribune in Colorado, apologized to readers for running the cartoon, which was made available to them through the United Feature Syndicate.

Benson, an auxiliary police officer and iconoclast whose views resist categorization, said he has been "appalled by what I see as the intolerance of many Americans for allowing views that digress from their own. I think if we put up the 1st Amendment and some of the other basic freedoms to a vote, they'd go down in flames."

Benson said his own newspaper has been very supportive. That has not been a universal experience.

Dan Guthrie said he realized in advance that his Sept. 15 column for the Daily Courier of Grants Pass, Ore., would stir up readers. "I knew the timing was terrible," he said. But he didn't expect it to cost him his job.

In the column, he accused Bush of cowardice for shuttling to two Air Force bases instead of returning immediately to the White House after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"His first time under real pressure, he bolted," Guthrie wrote.

Guthrie was pilloried by readers. Eventually, the editor of the Courier published an apology. A week after the column appeared, Guthrie, 61, was fired. He said he was told it was because of the way in which he responded to critical e-mails, not because of the column itself. The Courier's publisher has declined to comment. But Guthrie said he is convinced he lost his job for expressing an unpopular view.

The changed mood was also evident at a California State University commencement ceremony in Sacramento on Dec. 15. The speaker, publisher Janis Besler Heaphy of the Sacramento Bee, expressed concern that the war on terrorism was undermining basic American freedoms. She was booed off the stage before she could finish.

The willingness to put security ahead of long-cherished protections reflects in part the shock of seeing terrorists kill thousands of Americans on U.S. soil.

Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School and author of a book on the Bill of Rights, believes that of all the factors contributing to American civil liberties, the most important has been the country's "unique geostrategic location."

"Once we succeeded in throwing off the British yoke," he said, "Americans were able to become hegemonic in their own continent without a lot of military enemies surrounding them."

Sept. 11, Amar said, demonstrated that the world is much smaller than it used to be.

"Now," he said, "we are vulnerable in ways the rest of the world always has been vulnerable."

_ _ _

ABOUT THIS SERIES
This is the 10th report in an occasional series exploring the effects of Sept. 11 on various aspects of American society.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives. For information about reprinting this article, go to http://www.lats.com/rights.

Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times

[ This Message was edited by: Tom Mazanec on 2002-03-09 23:24 ]

On 2002-03-08 19:51, Susan Brombacher wrote:

On 2002-03-08 08:49, firemind wrote:
LOL He does tend to sound like a made-up caricature of a privileged college-age radical sometimes, doesn't he?

*snicker*
*snort*

Actually, after posting I began to think that my post was a bit too harsh. That's the internet for you; I never would have said this out loud. Sometimes, I think I shouldn't post any message without waiting a day.

Sorry, Justin, but some of your "stream of consciousness" postings sound so much like the kinds of arguments that have been blown to pieces multiple times in recent American discourse.

[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-03-10 07:38 ]

On 2002-03-10 07:37, firemind wrote:

On 2002-03-08 19:51, Susan Brombacher wrote:

On 2002-03-08 08:49, firemind wrote:
LOL He does tend to sound like a made-up caricature of a privileged college-age radical sometimes, doesn't he?

*snicker*
*snort*

Actually, after posting I began to think that my post was a bit too harsh. That's the internet for you; I never would have said this out loud. Sometimes, I think I shouldn't post any message without waiting a day.

Sorry, Justin, but some of your "stream of consciousness" postings sound so much like the kinds of arguments that have been blown to pieces multiple times in recent American discourse.

[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-03-10 07:38 ]

Firemind, what you said wasn't so bad (though I guess Justin would have to have the final say on this). It was perceptive and funny, as he can indeed seem that way at times. That's the beauty of the internet. Introverted types who are afraid to speak their mind in person can be upfront and honest.

I'm sure he will forgive you if it ever bothered him at all.
I do enjoy his stream-of-consciousness writing style, however. It is very poetic.