The USA has a propensity to overreact and go overboard but when time passes I really believe it will soon come to realize that what is happening now is worse than what happened then. The country was under much more serious danger then than it is now. The Soviet Union was much more powerful and dangerous than Iraq or any terrorist group and yet now extreme measures are being taken which infringe more on people’s rights and liberties than they did then. I hope America will come to its senses soon and realize this is worse than what happened in the early 50s. I believe in just a few short years people will look back and say “what the hell were they thinking”? (And I say “they” because few people will admit that they supported the measures just like few people today would say they supported MaCarthy or the Japanese internment camps)
Human rights groups criticized the U.S.’ saying all unlawful combatants being held in Guantanamo should be charged or freed.
“The Soviet Union was much more powerful and dangerous than Iraq or any terrorist group”
The Soviet Union never did anything like fly airplanes into the WTC. They were a known quantity that we at least knew how to deal with. We don’t even know where most of the terrorists are. I don’t buy the analogy. But, I do agree that we have gone overboard in not charging many of the “detainees”. I have confidence in our legal system to deal with people by charging them with specific crimes.
Are you sure you’re not talking more about Ashcroft than Rumsfeld?
Okay, Sailor, don’t know if you’re right or not about no one going to jail (I assume you’re right), but people DID lose their livelihoods – they were blacklisted, unable to work. (See the movie The Front).
The McCarthy era was a terrible time that tested the basic ideals of America. This Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft era is worse. People are being black listed – and also going to jail.
The Soviets may have never crashed planes into tall buildings, but they sure had the means to deliver a much deadlier blow to US security than today’s terrorists can.
I’m not sure you can call it just McRumsfeldism - though I like the sound of it. It’s got a lot to do with McCheney, McAshcroft, McWolfowitz… okay, try typing THAT with a straight face…
We don’t even know who they are. So just in case, we’re locking up anyone who looks suspicious.
Another similarity between the McCarthy era and our present time is the way the public has embraced this concept of “us” (patriotic, military-loving, non-Muslim Americans) vs. “them” (“anti-American” white people and brown-skinned Muslims). Un-American, anti-American… it sure sounds pretty similar to me. And all you have to do to get this label put on you is express dissent from the current administration’s policies.
Neither did Iraq. I’m sorry if I’m inerrupting the effort to portray the notion that Iraq = the terrorists that perpetrated 9/11. That is the very mung that has been pushed by Bush & Co in using a tragedy like 9/11 to perpetrate more innocent deaths in a military invasion.
Please show me where I said that Iraq = Terrorist, or even implied that. I’ve made no mention of Iraq on this thread. In other threads I have time and again said that I don’t buy into the Iraq/Al Qaeda link.
This whole thread is about McCarthyism and it’s similarity to what the US is doing in detaining suspected terrorists. Sailor made a somewhat offhand reference to Iraq, but I think even that was peripheral to the main debate here.
Sorry, people, but the analogy of doesnt work.McRumsfeld is not McCathyism.
McCarthy attacked and ruined the lives of people who had NO power to destroy America. Hollywood actors and kindergarten teachers were unfairly accused of “spreading Communism” , poisoning our culture, corrupting children. But even if a person was a proven,registered Communist, he couldnt have done much to actually damage America in 1950.
Today’s accusations against Arab-Americans are much more specific–making bombs, transferring money to terrorists, taking flying lessons with intention to hijack, etc. These acts are not easily proved in court, but one successful act could destroy the entire US economy(say, a simultaneous attack with poison gas or dirty bombs putting all the stock exchanges and 15 major airports out of use for a couple months.)So the danger today is real, the dangers of the 1950’s were fantasy.We can’t afford to take chances.
Restricting civil rights is a slippery slope, but Bush is not turning America into a fascist state.
Analogy:many, many prisoners on death row had their civil rights terribly abused, and have been released recently, because new DNA technology allows better testing of blood samples from,say, a murder 15 years ago.A few hundred people’s lives were ruined , much worse than McCarthyism.But that doesnt mean the entire justice system is bad–virtually ALL Americans still trust their courts to be fair.
As long as the number of people who’s lives are ruined is very, very,very small, then American society can handle it, and remain free.Rumsfield and Ashcroft know that, and have done a good job of balancing civil rights with national security.A few hundred people are paying the terrible price (unfair prison terms) so that 280 million Americans can be free.
This is a good example of what I am talking about. First: you are wrong. Many people are in prison and not accused of anything. McCarthy might have caused people to lose jobs but he did not send anybody to prison. Anyone will agree keeping people in jail is worse than firing them from their job.
Second: The dangers of the 50s were fantasies? Are you serious? You are wrong again. The USSR had the military capacity to detry the USA which the terrorists do not. The terrorist threat is minimal when compared with the nuclear threat posed by the Soviets. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a victim of the scare tactics being used by this government.
Also, not every single Arab American is out there making bombs, flying into buildings, etc.
It seems as if “terrorism” IS the new communism. Politicians were afraid of being seen as “soft on communism”-now they’re afraid of being “soft on terrorism.”
Same situation, just a different boogeyman this time around.
Sorry-but you are wrong in thinking that Soviet nukes were more dangerous than terrorism. The Russians were logical, rational enemies.We had no reason to fear an attack, as long as we had our own strong army to retaliate. Briefly,during the Cuban missile crisis, we did have reason to fear, but we also knew how to prevent an attack. Today, we basically have no ability to prevent terror attacks. And a successfull attack could completely destroy America (economically, if not physically).
The only Americans in 1950 who could have damaged the US were the very few nuclear scientists or military experts. The average American citizen was no threat.So McCarthy’s fears were a fantasy.But unfortunately, the average American muslim does have the ability to destroy us. If he joins a storefront mosque in New Jersey he can make contact with Al Qaida (like the terrorists who carried out the first attack on the World Trade Center with a rented truck in 1992)
A truck bomb can’t destroy us, but a few dirty bombs can.
These are not “scare tactics” by Bush, these are REAL tactics being planned by our enemies.
Not every single Arab American is planning to attack us–but many thousands of them are, and their leaders proudly say so publically.Jihad is a basic tenet of Islam, and they dont mean the “spiritual jihad” (in which believers battle internal sinfullness)–they mean real,military jihad.
It isnt a boogeyman. Boogeyman only exist in fantasies. Sept 11 was real. And the next attack will be even bigger. We have to defend ourselves.
This is true only in retrospect. In 1948, when we cowered under our desks during school air-raid drills, we didn’t think that we had no reason to fear a Soviet attack. A first strike was considered a realistic possibility for many years.
Fortunately, the USA and USSR avoided a direct war. The Cold War went as well as could have been hoped. Nevertheless, many thousands of Americans were killed by Communists in Korea and in Vietnam, as well as a handful in other placed.
Congratulations. You just smeared an entire domestic group without a single piece of evidence. I can’t believe you just wrote that with a straight face (or whatever).