Jump to content

So What, If Any Protection Should Be Afforded To Pamela Geller?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think she is trying to provide security for herself. My question was, does anyone here agree that security should be provided for her. I have no idea of the level or competency of the security detail she can afford (if any), but I think she should be offered protection in the face of a clear and immediate threat from an enemy terrorist army with purported agents in 15 states.

My opinion is not written in stone, but I think it is the obligation of our government to protect it's citizens in a situation such as this.

Bob, I think we should not be coward'd into refraining from talking about Islams horrific dark side. We should not be PC'd to the degree that free speech is mute just because the Lunatic Islamics get there buns in a knot if we call the prophet Muhammed a nut and a sexual predator, which he was. You don't wed kids and call that Normal. I am all for Free speech, but its NOT free in many instances in our country. If ISIS and lunatic islamist come to our shores(they are already here) each of us better(should be already) on alert, able to protect ourselves and Not count on the police to protect us. Just look at the cop car swarmed by thugs in Baltimore to understand, your safety, all of ours can be shattered in an instance. Its up to the individual and it IS the inherent powers of the US govt to keep our shores safe, but, we also know that is not really happening now as well. Bottom line, American policy, politicians Now covet their individual powers over the American populace as a whole and the world is a lot more dangerous when America is weak. We are at that phase Now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing this out there, she calls her blog "Atlas Shrugs" and organized the contest knowing full well who she wanted to piss off, maybe the death threats were inevitable and living in fear is the responsibility she so graciously took on without anyone else's prompting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, I think we should not be coward'd into refraining from talking about Islams horrific dark side. We should not be PC'd to the degree that free speech is mute just because the Lunatic Islamics get there buns in a knot if we call the prophet Muhammed a nut and a sexual predator, which he was. You don't wed kids and call that Normal. I am all for Free speech, but its NOT free in many instances in our country. If ISIS and lunatic islamist come to our shores(they are already here) each of us better(should be already) on alert, able to protect ourselves and Not count on the police to protect us. Just look at the cop car swarmed by thugs in Baltimore to understand, your safety, all of ours can be shattered in an instance. Its up to the individual and it IS the inherent powers of the US govt to keep our shores safe, but, we also know that is not really happening now as well. Bottom line, American policy, politicians Now covet their individual powers over the American populace as a whole and the world is a lot more dangerous when America is weak. We are at that phase Now.

Please don't like my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they already do.

If a government security detail was provided to her, ISIS wins. They will then make these threats against all kinds of people, and then the government has to provide them with security details, and if they don't, it's a huge deal, they're protecting some, but not others.

The proper way to handle this is to allow our current homeland counter terrorism procedures deal with this. Again, she's not anymore special than any other US citizen. Stamping out the threat protects her and everyone else.

And what if they lied? What if they said they were going to kill her, but they kill someone else instead? Then the government looks dumb. If they exist, you deal with them, and then everyone is safe.

Honestly, excellent points

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I get the point gafan was making precisely because I have served. The decision to mobilize troops is something that affects the lives of many people who voluntarily signed up to protect us. Many don't ever come home. It's not something that should be taken lightly, especially over this idiot.

Again, this is not the first, or only justification to declare war on ISIS, it's simply the latest in a long line. We will have to deal with them in the near future, and touting a paper tiger coalition will not make them go away, as recent history has spelled out. I don't take this lightly, but a confrontation with them is practically inevitable at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing this out there, she calls her blog "Atlas Shrugs" and organized the contest knowing full well who she wanted to piss off, maybe the death threats were inevitable and living in fear is the responsibility she so graciously took on without anyone else's prompting.

All true, but the right of free speech is not just t our Constitution magnanimously proclaiming that we have free speech, it comes with the duty, willingness, and obligation that the US Government will defend and guarantee that right to it's citizens.

It's easy to say you support free speech, it is a bit harder (for any of us) to defend just as vehemently those instances that you disagree with as those you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have declared war on terror. We've bombed ISIS already. What exactly are you suggesting we do that we haven't already done?

The bombing is not working.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/10/troops-grumbling-that-obama-s-air-war-against-isis-is-too-little-too-late.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/05/air-strikes-isis-not-working-syrian-kurds

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/exclusive-isis-gaining-ground-in-syria-despite-u-s-strikes.html

Congress should declare formal war on them and then we deploy any and all resources needed to defeat them is what I am suggesting. I'll leave the tactics to the military leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All true, but the right of free speech is not just t our Constitution magnanimously proclaiming that we have free speech, it comes with the duty, willingness, and obligation that the US Government will defend and guarantee that right to it's citizens.

Just throwing this out there, she calls her blog "Atlas Shrugs" and organized the contest knowing full well who she wanted to piss off, maybe the death threats were inevitable and living in fear is the responsibility she so graciously took on without anyone else's prompting.

It's easy to say you support free speech, it is a bit harder (for any of us) to defend just as vehemently those instances that you disagree with as those you do.

The First Amendment protects us from the federal government infringing on our free speech, and through the Fourteenth Amendment, that protection is extended against state governments.

It's a shield, not a sword. There is not a duty on the government to protect free speech from other entities which seek to suppress it. That's why businesses, clubs, etc . . . can lawfully limit free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All true, but the right of free speech is not just t our Constitution magnanimously proclaiming that we have free speech, it comes with the duty, willingness, and obligation that the US Government will defend and guarantee that right to it's citizens.

It's easy to say you support free speech, it is a bit harder (for any of us) to defend just as vehemently those instances that you disagree with as those you do.

Who is saying that she doesn't have the right to free speech? The question is why should she get extraordinary measures to protect her person? What makes her so special?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're just saying we need to fight more, then. Got it.

So she's protected by our existing laws, police, and FBI, and we're already engaged in fighting Isis, but at a level you think is inadequate, but you'll leave the details to the military leaders who are already working on the details.

Good talk!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The First Amendment protects us from the federal government infringing on our free speech, and through the Fourteenth Amendment, that protection is extended against state governments.

It's a shield, not a sword. There is not a duty on the government to protect free speech from other entities which seek to suppress it. That's why businesses, clubs, etc . . . can lawfully limit free speech.

That is exactly how I am characterizing it in this instance: Geller should be protected (shielded from) a foreign terrorist army attempting to deny through threat of death her right to say what she believes on our own soil. This is just as you have described it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is saying that she doesn't have the right to free speech? The question is why should she get extraordinary measures to protect her person? What makes her so special?

Because an extraordinary threat was made to her specifically. We are all as a whole under the same threat of foreign attack, I understand that, but in this instance she was singled out as a target, so why should she not be singled out for protection from that threat?

Do you think ISIS is kidding? Have they still not proved themselves bats**t crazy enough in their beliefs that you just don't find this to be a viable threat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a big believer in the First and Second Amendments. People who pull free speech stunts like this remind me of the people who open carry their AR15's while shopping in Walmart as a "political statement."

Edited by Unca T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're just saying we need to fight more, then. Got it.

So she's protected by our existing laws, police, and FBI, and we're already engaged in fighting Isis, but at a level you think is inadequate, but you'll leave the details to the military leaders who are already working on the details.

Good talk!

How are they working on the details? Bombing? A phantom coalition?

You left out the declaration of war. Declare war, and then actually fight the war. Or do you think they can be negotiated with? Not a gotcha question, do you see that as a viable option for dealing with them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a big believer in the First and Second Amendments. People who pull free speech stunts like this remind me of the people who open carry their AR15's while shopping in Walmart as a "political statement."

True, but they still have the right to do it, and our government still has the obligation to protect their right to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sen. Bernie Sanders: 'I'll be damned' if Americans lead ISIS fight

By Jeremy Diamond, CNN

Updated 11:23 AM ET, Tue September 30, 2014

Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of the Senate's leading doves, said Tuesday he doesn't want the United States leading the fight against ISIS. Instead, said the Vermont senator, who is eyeing a 2016 presidential bid, the nation should be focused on helping the middle class.

Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he doesn't want to see the United States fall into another "quagmire in the Middle East," and he put the onus on Muslim countries to take on ISIS.

"I'm sitting here wondering where Saudi Arabia is, where Kuwait is, where Qatar is," Sanders said on CNN's "New Day." "I'll be damned if kids in the state of Vermont -- or taxpayers in the state of Vermont -- have to defend the royal Saudi family, which is worth hundreds of billions of dollars."

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are part of a five-country coalition of Middle Eastern nations that have joined the U.S. in airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, but Sanders suggested the U.S. should only be "supportive."

Sanders also joined 21 other senators earlier this month in opposing a resolution to train and arm 5,000 moderate Syrian rebels to combat ISIS.

"It cannot be won and it will not be won by the United States alone," Sanders said of the war on ISIS.

And like a candidate running for office, Sanders, who is not up for reelection this fall, quickly shifted the interview away from whether the Senate should declare war to the plight of the middle class and increasing income inequality.

"While we focus all of our attention on ISIS, the middle class in this country continues to collapse," Sanders said. "And you know what the people tell me in Vermont and around the country? Let's also start paying attention to the crises facing working families in America."

Instead of a war resolution, Sanders rattled off a list of progressive initiatives he does "want to vote on," including raising the minimum wage and creating a national jobs program.

Sanders calls for 'political revolution' in Iowa

Sanders traveled to Iowa earlier this month on what he has described as a listening tour to gauge the appetite for what would be a populist campaign for the presidency.

"I'm going around the country getting an assessment from the American people as to whether or not there would be support for a campaign that in fact takes on the Koch brothers, takes on the billionaire class," Sanders said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...