www.ClassicTW.com :: View topic - REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?

Silence wrote:

What Sing just said is about as accurate as you can come to the way the rest of the world feels about 'Ol USA.

Singularity wrote:

Silence wrote:

What Sing just said is about as accurate as you can come to the way the rest of the world feels about 'Ol USA.

I live in the US, so it's not just "the rest of the world." I have been very disappointed over the last decade by how we've handled the
"terrorism" threat. Some criminals in Afghanistan attack the US, and we use it as an excuse to invade Iraq? Then when it comes to
actually dealing with Afghanistan, we twiddle our thumbs and run away at even the slightest hint of trouble.

Meanwhile, at home, we use the threat to justify abuses of process that undermine the very rule of law upon which our entire society
is based. All while cheering "USA! USA! USA!" and tossing around feel good stories to help us forget exactly how boned we are. Ironically,
when someone tries to face the problem and solve it they're branded unpatriotic.

Promethius wrote:

.. and our history repeats itself in a very similar way to what we did during WW II with the internment camps.

Singularity wrote:

Promethius wrote:

.. and our history repeats itself in a very similar way to what we did during WW II with the internment camps.

While I agree that there's some similarity in principal (loss of due process), the situation and specifics are very different. Unlike WW2, we're not rounding up individuals of a specific nationality w/o cause. And while we do have internment camps, most of those captured today are enemy combatants. In that way, we're not repeating history.

My concern isn't so much with those captured in combat, as much as it is with the way we treat law-abiding citizens (you and I). Today, if even one idiot at the wrong branch of gov't suspects you're a "terrorist" they can detain you indefinitely, without trial, under the secrecy of national security without ever getting a lawyer or a chance to confront your accusers.

That's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Singularity wrote:

Of course the court and flag still stand, what's a single guy going to do about all that?

What has happened, however, is their meaning has changed. Warrantless wiretaps, secret trials, elimination of due process...

With the way we've responded to these attacks, we've done the terrorist's job for them. The flag still stands, but it doesn't stand
as strongly. The court is still there, but it's complicit in undermining the very process that keeps us free.

Silence wrote:

What Sing just said is about as accurate as you can come to the way the rest of the world feels about 'Ol USA.

Quote:

So the question becomes the right's of the individual vs. the right's of the public. The .gov
has and will continue to use wartime reason's to detain potential terrorist's without cause, and
without warrant. But then what happens when they don't detain someone they suspect, are they the
badguys for not stopping the future 9/11's? Threats like US based IED's are real, it is just a matter
of time before these types of threats become more prevelant even with the profile based discrimination
present. So where is the middle ground?

Quote:

So what's the recourse, where do we say HEY I'm not gonna let you blow stuff up anymore?
Or We will not be a victim of your views and fundamentalism? The court is very much alive for non
wartime threats and while i don't nessesarily condone Guantanamo, I choose to keep a blind eye to
what at least in my opinion is a nessesary evil.

Singularity wrote:

The gov't isn't competent enough to stop future 9/11s. The reason we haven't had another is
because of 2 reasons, 1: bigger cockpit doors, 2: people on airlines won't let it happen.

The idea that they can protect you from random threats is nonsense. All it takes is one "terrorist"
to get thru. We cannot live in fear of "what if" and use that as a justification for illegal policies.
Detaining US citizens without a trial and right to counsel is criminal behavior, and the individuals
responsible should spend time in jail for it.

Do not let irrational fear make bad decisions for you.

Singularity wrote:

And US-based IEDs. Really? You gotta be kidding me. The odds of that are about the same as
getting eaten by a shark while struck by lightning in the middle of the Nevada desert.

Singularity wrote:

Quote:

So as long as you feel it's necessary that gives you the right to violate others? That's the same
extremist view we're fighting against. Fortunately, that's why we have the law. The law says what is
and isn't legal.

If you choose to ignore violations of the law because you agree with them then you are helping to
destroy the very thing our society is based on. A society without law decays into anarchy, and nature
abhors a vacuum. The natural result in every case of this thru human history has been despotism. By
allowing people to skirt the law out of petty fear, you are supporting tyranny and oppression.

The gov't cannot protect you. They're only there to mop up afterwards and look pretty doing it. If
you delegate your security to others, you will never have any.

The famous quote by Benjamin Franklin remains:
"Those who sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither."

Quote:

You left out Air Marshall's, improved airport security, hightened awareness
of threats by staff and yes passengers. Your speaking of a minority of people the
majority of detainee's have and were people of non us based residency.

Quote:

They are called improvised for a reason. They are made out of whatever is
available and detonated for two reasons: sow chaos and see if they can be refined
to make bigger bombs for next time. What are the limits of improvisation? I don't
know, but I'm fairly sure all the people who died on 9/11 would agree that an
airplane is a pretty big improvised explosive device.

Quote:

The great part about Ben is he was a prolific writer:

Quote:

I do not condone needlessly throwing away rights we were granted by those that
fought for our very liberty's but we also live in a different time then Ben and our
founding fathers. If we choose not to address the travisties some of these individual's
are perpatrating on the premise of right's then how are we changing anything?

Quote:

What is your solution? How do we fight a war we cannot win?

Author:	Sage [ Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:46 pm ]
Post subject:	REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
Subject: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER ? THIS IS SO VERY INTERESTING!!!!! Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it? Did you know his trial is over? Did you know he was sentenced? Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV or Radio? Didn't think so.!!! Everyone should hear what the judge had to say. Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court. Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say. His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his 'allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah,' defiantly stating, 'I think I will not apologize for my actions,' and told the court 'I am at war with your country.' Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below: January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. Judge Young: 'Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you. On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively. (That's 80 years.) On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines. The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further. This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice. You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier, you are not----- you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice. So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: 'You're no big deal.' You are no big deal. What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? And, I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know. It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges. We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America , the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice. See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America . That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. And it always will. Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down. So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets? We need more judges like Judge Young. Pass this around. Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike home. Please SEND this----so that everyone has a chance to read

Author:	Maniac [ Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
<quote> January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid. </quote> Sage if this is correct then may I ask WTF are you posting 6 year old news. Did your polymorphic virus scanner FINALLY finish?

Author:	Singularity [ Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
Well, guess he hasn't had his jingoism fix lately, what with Obama and all. Sometimes ya just gotta get it where ya can, lol.

Author:	Promethius [ Sat Jan 30, 2010 10:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
I appreciate Sage's posting that because we seldom remember what happened or what was said in the courtroom. The Judge was correct, people forget, but the court and Flag still stand.

Author:	Singularity [ Sat Jan 30, 2010 11:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
Of course the court and flag still stand, what's a single guy going to do about all that? What has happened, however, is their meaning has changed. Warrantless wiretaps, secret trials, elimination of due process... With the way we've responded to these attacks, we've done the terrorist's job for them. The flag still stands, but it doesn't stand as strongly. The court is still there, but it's complicit in undermining the very process that keeps us free.

www.ClassicTW.com https://mail.black-squirrel.com/

REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER? https://mail.black-squirrel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=25607	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Silence [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
What Sing just said is about as accurate as you can come to the way the rest of the world feels about 'Ol USA.

Author:	Singularity [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
Silence wrote: What Sing just said is about as accurate as you can come to the way the rest of the world feels about 'Ol USA. I live in the US, so it's not just "the rest of the world." I have been very disappointed over the last decade by how we've handled the "terrorism" threat. Some criminals in Afghanistan attack the US, and we use it as an excuse to invade Iraq? Then when it comes to actually dealing with Afghanistan, we twiddle our thumbs and run away at even the slightest hint of trouble. Meanwhile, at home, we use the threat to justify abuses of process that undermine the very rule of law upon which our entire society is based. All while cheering "USA! USA! USA!" and tossing around feel good stories to help us forget exactly how boned we are. Ironically, when someone tries to face the problem and solve it they're branded unpatriotic.

Author:	Big D [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
The funny part is, the biggest threat to the United States existed then, and still isn't dealt with today, is North Korea. Iraq wasn't anywhere near as developed offensively as Norh Korea is. The only difference is that North Korea is a bigger threat to other countries than they are to us so our government is hoping someone else deals with it 1st.

Author:	Promethius [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 1:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
Singularity wrote: Silence wrote: What Sing just said is about as accurate as you can come to the way the rest of the world feels about 'Ol USA. I live in the US, so it's not just "the rest of the world." I have been very disappointed over the last decade by how we've handled the "terrorism" threat. Some criminals in Afghanistan attack the US, and we use it as an excuse to invade Iraq? Then when it comes to actually dealing with Afghanistan, we twiddle our thumbs and run away at even the slightest hint of trouble. Meanwhile, at home, we use the threat to justify abuses of process that undermine the very rule of law upon which our entire society is based. All while cheering "USA! USA! USA!" and tossing around feel good stories to help us forget exactly how boned we are. Ironically, when someone tries to face the problem and solve it they're branded unpatriotic. .. and our history repeats itself in a very similar way to what we did during WW II with the internment camps.

Author:	Singularity [ Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
Promethius wrote: .. and our history repeats itself in a very similar way to what we did during WW II with the internment camps. While I agree that there's some similarity in principal (loss of due process), the situation and specifics are very different. Unlike WW2, we're not rounding up individuals of a specific nationality w/o cause. And while we do have internment camps, most of those captured today are enemy combatants. In that way, we're not repeating history. My concern isn't so much with those captured in combat, as much as it is with the way we treat law-abiding citizens (you and I). Today, if even one idiot at the wrong branch of gov't suspects you're a "terrorist" they can detain you indefinitely, without trial, under the secrecy of national security without ever getting a lawyer or a chance to confront your accusers. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Author:	Kaus [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:27 am ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
Singularity wrote: Promethius wrote: .. and our history repeats itself in a very similar way to what we did during WW II with the internment camps. While I agree that there's some similarity in principal (loss of due process), the situation and specifics are very different. Unlike WW2, we're not rounding up individuals of a specific nationality w/o cause. And while we do have internment camps, most of those captured today are enemy combatants. In that way, we're not repeating history. My concern isn't so much with those captured in combat, as much as it is with the way we treat law-abiding citizens (you and I). Today, if even one idiot at the wrong branch of gov't suspects you're a "terrorist" they can detain you indefinitely, without trial, under the secrecy of national security without ever getting a lawyer or a chance to confront your accusers. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax. So the question becomes the right's of the individual vs. the right's of the public. The .gov has and will continue to use wartime reason's to detain potential terrorist's without cause, and without warrant. But then what happens when they don't detain someone they suspect, are they the badguys for not stopping the future 9/11's? Threats like US based IED's are real, it is just a matter of time before these types of threats become more prevelant even with the profile based discrimination present. So where is the middle ground? Singularity wrote: Of course the court and flag still stand, what's a single guy going to do about all that? What has happened, however, is their meaning has changed. Warrantless wiretaps, secret trials, elimination of due process... With the way we've responded to these attacks, we've done the terrorist's job for them. The flag still stands, but it doesn't stand as strongly. The court is still there, but it's complicit in undermining the very process that keeps us free. So what's the recourse, where do we say HEY I'm not gonna let you blow stuff up anymore? Or We will not be a victim of your views and fundamentalism? The court is very much alive for non wartime threats and while i don't nessesarily condone Guantanamo, I choose to keep a blind eye to what at least in my opinion is a nessesary evil. Silence wrote: What Sing just said is about as accurate as you can come to the way the rest of the world feels about 'Ol USA. Blanket Statements much?

Author:	Singularity [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
Quote: So the question becomes the right's of the individual vs. the right's of the public. The .gov has and will continue to use wartime reason's to detain potential terrorist's without cause, and without warrant. But then what happens when they don't detain someone they suspect, are they the badguys for not stopping the future 9/11's? Threats like US based IED's are real, it is just a matter of time before these types of threats become more prevelant even with the profile based discrimination present. So where is the middle ground? The gov't isn't competent enough to stop future 9/11s. The reason we haven't had another is because of 2 reasons, 1: bigger cockpit doors, 2: people on airlines won't let it happen. The idea that they can protect you from random threats is nonsense. All it takes is one "terrorist" to get thru. We cannot live in fear of "what if" and use that as a justification for illegal policies. Detaining US citizens without a trial and right to counsel is criminal behavior, and the individuals responsible should spend time in jail for it. Do not let irrational fear make bad decisions for you. And US-based IEDs. Really? You gotta be kidding me. The odds of that are about the same as getting eaten by a shark while struck by lightning in the middle of the Nevada desert. Quote: So what's the recourse, where do we say HEY I'm not gonna let you blow stuff up anymore? Or We will not be a victim of your views and fundamentalism? The court is very much alive for non wartime threats and while i don't nessesarily condone Guantanamo, I choose to keep a blind eye to what at least in my opinion is a nessesary evil. So as long as you feel it's necessary that gives you the right to violate others? That's the same extremist view we're fighting against. Fortunately, that's why we have the law. The law says what is and isn't legal. If you choose to ignore violations of the law because you agree with them then you are helping to destroy the very thing our society is based on. A society without law decays into anarchy, and nature abhors a vacuum. The natural result in every case of this thru human history has been despotism. By allowing people to skirt the law out of petty fear, you are supporting tyranny and oppression. The gov't cannot protect you. They're only there to mop up afterwards and look pretty doing it. If you delegate your security to others, you will never have any. The famous quote by Benjamin Franklin remains: "Those who sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither."

Author:	Kaus [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
Singularity wrote: The gov't isn't competent enough to stop future 9/11s. The reason we haven't had another is because of 2 reasons, 1: bigger cockpit doors, 2: people on airlines won't let it happen. The idea that they can protect you from random threats is nonsense. All it takes is one "terrorist" to get thru. We cannot live in fear of "what if" and use that as a justification for illegal policies. Detaining US citizens without a trial and right to counsel is criminal behavior, and the individuals responsible should spend time in jail for it. Do not let irrational fear make bad decisions for you. You left out Air Marshall's, improved airport security, hightened awareness of threats by staff and yes passengers. Your speaking of a minority of people the majority of detainee's have and were people of non us based residency. Singularity wrote: And US-based IEDs. Really? You gotta be kidding me. The odds of that are about the same as getting eaten by a shark while struck by lightning in the middle of the Nevada desert. They are called improvised for a reason. They are made out of whatever is available and detonated for two reasons: sow chaos and see if they can be refined to make bigger bombs for next time. What are the limits of improvisation? I don't know, but I'm fairly sure all the people who died on 9/11 would agree that an airplane is a pretty big improvised explosive device. Wouldn't you

Author:	Kaus [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:15 am ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
Singularity wrote: Quote: So what's the recourse, where do we say HEY I'm not gonna let you blow stuff up anymore? Or We will not be a victim of your views and fundamentalism? The court is very much alive for non wartime threats and while i don't nessesarily condone Guantanamo, I choose to keep a blind eye to what at least in my opinion is a nessesary evil. So as long as you feel it's necessary that gives you the right to violate others? That's the same extremist view we're fighting against. Fortunately, that's why we have the law. The law says what is and isn't legal. If you choose to ignore violations of the law because you agree with them then you are helping to destroy the very thing our society is based on. A society without law decays into anarchy, and nature abhors a vacuum. The natural result in every case of this thru human history has been despotism. By allowing people to skirt the law out of petty fear, you are supporting tyranny and oppression. The gov't cannot protect you. They're only there to mop up afterwards and look pretty doing it. If you delegate your security to others, you will never have any. The famous quote by Benjamin Franklin remains: "Those who sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither." The great part about Ben is he was a prolific writer: "All mankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move. " I do not condone needlessly throwing away rights we were granted by those that fought for our very liberty's but we also live in a different time then Ben and our founding fathers. If we choose not to address the travisties some of these individual's are perpatrating on the premise of right's then how are we changing anything? What is your solution? How do we fight a war we cannot win?

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Singularity [ Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: REMEMBER THE SHOE BOMBER?
Quote: You left out Air Marshall's, improved airport security, hightened awareness of threats by staff and yes passengers. Your speaking of a minority of people the majority of detainee's have and were people of non us based residency. Air marshals aren't on every plane. And improved airport security? Uh no. It's not improved, it's just a bigger PITA. Stuff gets thru all the time. http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/18/ts ... ee-su.html http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/massive-t ... id=9280503 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11882430/ And more... oh so much more. These things come across every month. Let's not forget the high profile incidents of late, either. It only takes one. So if these guys are all over the place ready to strike at any moment, with such security failures, why hasn't it happened again? Simple, because they're not all over the place. Quote: They are called improvised for a reason. They are made out of whatever is available and detonated for two reasons: sow chaos and see if they can be refined to make bigger bombs for next time. What are the limits of improvisation? I don't know, but I'm fairly sure all the people who died on 9/11 would agree that an airplane is a pretty big improvised explosive device. You remember stuff like "The poor man's James Bond" and the like? It's so trivially easy to make explosives. But yet, again, the last major attempt by a foreign national to "sow chaos" was the trade center bombings. Oh heaven forbid, they're everywhere!! /sarcasm Guess what: People die. Last year over 37,000 people died in car accidents. More than every terrorist attack since the beginning of our nation. Guess what: Someday you and I will die, too. Someday everyone you love will die. You can't stop it. All you can hope to do is live as long as you can, and live the best you can during the years you have. If you think destroying the rights of millions of people, affecting the very quality of your life and the lives of those you care about, is justified by the incredibly rare chance of getting killed in a terrorist attack... you're insane. How can .00001667:1 odds justify that? Quote: The great part about Ben is he was a prolific writer: Yes he was, but that doesn't make him wrong on that statement, now does it? Quote: I do not condone needlessly throwing away rights we were granted by those that fought for our very liberty's but we also live in a different time then Ben and our founding fathers. If we choose not to address the travisties some of these individual's are perpatrating on the premise of right's then how are we changing anything? No, that's the thing, we don't really live in a different time. We think we do, but more people died crossing the Atlantic ocean on ships to move here than have ever died in terrorist attacks since the founding of our nation. They knew risk, they knew death, they also knew that the greatest enemy to freedom comes from the gov't, and our laziness and complicity. Never in the history of the world has a republic (or democracy) been destroyed by outside threats. The founding fathers stood up against one of the greatest nations in the history of the world and said "Screw you, we're leaving!" If they had failed, each one of them would've been killed for treason. They put their lives, and the lives of their family, friends and community, at stake to fight for their beliefs. Many people, today, would call THEM terrorists. They were all too familiar with risk, they choose a greater path and today we're here because of it. Don't think for one second we live in more dangerous times. Quote: What is your solution? How do we fight a war we cannot win? This isn't a war. A war is against a nation, not an ideal or a concept. The idea of a war against an idea was concocted to allow a perpetual state of fear and aggression to keep people voting for bad policies. So what is this? Here, domestically, it's a police problem. Abroad, it's an intelligence and nation building problem. It does not justify destroying due process and civil liberties. It does not justify destroying that which keeps us free.