Misquotes and quotes out of context

[The Avon Lady]

I have noticed 2 such occurences today here on the General forum alone. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has encountered them in various forums and articles over the Internet.

I thought this thread would be a good anchor to accumulate such examples. So, I'll start with the 2 I found today here.
And Bush calls Iraq a comma in history! Is this guy a little short in the reality department? Not to mention that comment insults those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Bush was being interviewed by CNN's Wold Blitzer. Here's the exact quote from CNNs' transcript:
BLITZER: Let's move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war, if not already a civil war…. We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.

BUSH: Yes, you see — you see it on TV, and that's the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there's also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people…. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there's a strong will for democracy.
My point here is not to argue for or against Bush's opinion on creating a new Middle East. For the record, I strongly disagree with him. My point is to note that his subject of the word "comma" was not Iraq, as Brad claimed. Rather the subject is the difficulties Iraq is going through at this time in history, and from a future standpoint.

Next, a quote I spotted in forum member Immacolata's sig:
"The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist." - W. Churchill
Excellent quote. Accurate, too. Sounds like a great way to condemn Guantanamo, perhaps. Otherwise, of what interest is it?

Now go find the source and the subject. It was from a telegram Churchill sent on November 21, 1943, from Cairo, to British Home Secretary Herbert Morrison. The subject of this particular quote was the incarceration of British citizens in the UK, without filing charges. This had nothing to do with anything near the likes of today's Jihadi terrorists, who qualify as illegal combatants. EDIT: Come to think of it, Rudolph Hess was imprisoned for years by the British and only received a trial after the war. Also, I doubt Churchill had Roosevelt's incarceration of Japanese Americans in mind, either.

Unfortunately, in many such cases of misuse and abuse of quotes, the response is akin to "fake but accurate."

Seen some misquotes here or anywhere else? Post 'em!

[Immacolata]

There is nothing wrong with that quote. I believe it carries an universally valid evaluation of the civil society to make sure that no one is incarcerated without charge. Churchill put that in very precise words. His quote was in context of his citizens. How is that a misquote? I put his words verbatim I believe, I can be mistaken. If I am, then I will gladly correct it.

I think we are talking about a difference of opinion, not a misquote. If you do not like me quoting him, say so. Now it is entirely possible that the British Empire has violated their own ideals countless times in the eras, but I do not find that it dilutes the quote. You either imprisone people under the civil law or the martial law. Imprisoning them just because you feel like it outside the law is the first step on the road to totaltarianism.

What is next, I cannot quote kafka because he couldn't possible have thought about the future?

[The Avon Lady]

There is nothing wrong with that quote. I believe it carries an universally valid evaluation of the civil society to make sure that no one is incarcerated without charge. Churchill put that in very precise words. His quote was in context of his citizens. How is that a misquote?
It isn't. I specifically stated it is accurate. However, on its own, it is out of context, as can easily be seen by googling for the quote and finding that it's a favorite of every BDS sufferer on the Internet.
I think we are talking about a difference of opinion, not a misquote.
The question is whether your opinion is above what Churchill himself intended in these words.
Now it is entirely possible that the British Empire has violated their own ideals countless times in the eras, but I do not find that it dilutes the quote. You either imprisone people under the civil law or the martial law. Imprisoning them just because you feel like it outside the law is the first step on the road to totaltarianism.
OK but what makes this quote, in its original context, interesting to you? This is a separate question, beyond the matter of the quote being construed out of context. There are so many great Churchillian quotes. Why chose this one?
What is next, I cannot quote kafka because he couldn't possible have thought about the future?
"You've got to put your past in your behind."
- Pumba, The Lion King

Now there's a quote begging for a sig. :p

[Immacolata]

"You've got to put your past in your behind."
- Pumba, The Lion King
:lol:
Its on the wiki and if its on the wiki it MUST be true :)

As for the subject, I have no idea what BDS is. Ill have to pass on that one.

If a state takes prisoners, the state must charge them for crimes or release them. WW2 was full of states ignoring that of course. Nice to see that at least one person was concerned about his citizens rights when fighting a state that wasn't. But citizen or not, I believe 60 years of prison or death sentence is justifiable against a terrorist. As long as there is a trial.

Now, why is that out of context? Because you try to tackle on technicalities? Churchill spoke of british citizens but these are not. AHA! Therefore the meaning of the words are irrevocably useless to make any statement of how a states should treat prisoners?

[The Avon Lady]

As for the subject, I have no idea what BDS is. Ill have to pass on that one.
BDS (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2Bbds+%2Bbush).
If a state takes prisoners, the state must charge them for crimes or release them. WW2 was full of states ignoring that of course.
Including the UK, under Churchill's authority.

What does that imply about this particular quote of Churchill's?:hmm:
Nice to see that at least one person was concerned about his citizens rights when fighting a state that wasn't. But citizen or not, I believe 60 years of prison or death sentence is justifiable against a terrorist. As long as there is a trial.
No argument there but that is NOT what Churchill was referring to.
Now, why is that out of context? Because you try to tackle on technicalities? Churchill spoke of british citizens but these are not. AHA! Therefore the meaning of the words are irrevocably useless to make any statement of how a states should treat prisoners?
No. You can use anything any which way you want. The quote may very well fit the opinion you're trying to express. However, the subject of this thread is misquotes and out of context quotes. What you yourself have just stated shows that your sig is certainly a case of the latter. That's all I'm pointing out.

[Immacolata]

As for the subject, I have no idea what BDS is. Ill have to pass on that one.
BDS (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2Bbds+%2Bbush).
Meh, I wish I had known. I do not wish to be hung together with conspiracy therrorists.

[quote]If a state takes prisoners, the state must charge them for crimes or release them. WW2 was full of states ignoring that of course.
Including the UK, under Churchill's authority.
Yes, I did not say otherwise.


What does that imply about this particular quote of Churchill's?:hmm:


It implies that the man actually gave it a thought. I believe I quoted Nietsche earlier and his much famed abyss quote (Now you're gonna tell me Im misquoting him too next I gather...:doh: ) It is war, you play dirty tricks. Can't be helped. Same with USA. It is war you play dirty tricks can't be helped. You just risk turning into the same monster your try to fight. Perhaps Churchill thought about it. But do you hear Bush churning out wise reflections and concerin for protection the rights of his citizens? No, far too many world leaders, not just bush, are sweating on the brow and their fingers really itch to make some tightening up. The first swig of the bottle...


No. You can use anything any which way you want. The quote may very well fit the opinion you're trying to express. However, the subject of this thread is misquotes and out of context quotes. What you yourself have just stated shows that your sig is certainly a case of the latter. That's all I'm pointing out.
Or as I have tried to point out, yes I can. Perhaps I should make a footnote to my quote refering to this august debate :rotfl:

Except that if every lefty nutter uses that its kind of not cool anymore. Even though I belive it to be profound and current.

[The Avon Lady]

But do you hear Bush churning out wise reflections and concerin for protection the rights of his citizens?
I don't hear him saying otherwise. And I approve of his national security actions, which indeed are intended to protect US citizens.
No,
Please elaborate.
far too many world leaders, not just bush, are sweating on the brow and their fingers really itch to make some tightening up. The first swig of the bottle...
"People who are not prepared to do unpopular things and defy clamor of the multitude are not fit to be ministers in times of difficulty."
- Winston Churchill

[bradclark1]

Okay,
Change it to 100 Iraqies are being killed a day and Bush thinks it will be a comma in history.
Somehow that doesn't sound any better.

[The Avon Lady]

Okay,
Change it to 100 Iraqies are being killed a day and Bush thinks it will be a comma in history.
Somehow that doesn't sound any better.
As long as you can miraculously sweep under the rug Bush's immediately preceeding words "but there's also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people."

[bradclark1]

I thought about that and it doesn't sound any better.
To me it's "Oh well, thats the price they have to pay". To me it's a pretty callous statement.

I do seem to have a lot of "To me" opinions don't I:)

[mog]

Here's one I often see. Take a look at the Churchill quote in this paragraph from that disgusting leftist rag called the Guardian:

Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

Here is what Churchill actually said, in context:

I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.

I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

[The Avon Lady]

Here are some more forum posts, dealing with the accuracy/validity of quotes attributed to Goebbels (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=341230&postcount=54). The discourse is several posts long.

[MobyGrape]

: Yes, you see — you see it on TV, and that's the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there's also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people…. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma because there is — my point is, there's a strong will for democracy.

What the heck is he trying to say..seems like a decade ago(then the -my point is ..Pause}..listens to tela-promter..err yes democrary..lol..

[The Avon Lady]

Another famous misquote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Currently, a forum member is showing the following in his sig:

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve, nor will he ever receive either." - Benjamin Franklin

This is both a misquote and takes Frankin's original words and intentions out of context. From Ben Franklin @ WikiQuote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin):

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a Little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

We are in a day and age where it's not a question of 'security' we're talking about but rather a question of 'survival' - something Old Ben never had to face and likely couldn't possibly understand.

[Tchocky]

Personally, I try to avoid using quotes in an argument. Nevermind context, they turn debates into quote-slinging. Churchill seems to make an appearance here every 45 minutes.

[The Avon Lady]

Personally, I try to avoid using quotes in an argument. Nevermind context, they turn debates into quote-slinging. Churchill seems to make an appearance here every 45 minutes.
" It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotation...... The quotations when engraved upon the memory give you good thoughts."
- Sir Winston Churchill

:smug:

UPDATE: Most appropriately, Churchill also said "Verify your quotations." ;)

[Tchocky]

Godddd.......................dammit!

:D

[Chock]

Yup Churchill himself may be quoted often, but he wasn't averse to paraphrasing and nicking bits from quotes himself. Probably his most famous quote, which inspired the nickname for the Battle of Britain pilots, i.e. the one about 'so much being owed by so many, to so few', was certainly a tweek of Shakespeare's St Crispin's day speech from Henry V: 'We happy few, we band of brothers'.

:D Chock

[Heibges]

Another famous misquote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Currently, a forum member is showing the following in his sig:

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve, nor will he ever receive either." - Benjamin FranklinThis is both a misquote and takes Frankin's original words and intentions out of context. From Ben Franklin @ WikiQuote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin):

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a Little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"



We are in a day and age where it's not a question of 'security' we're talking about but rather a question of 'survival' - something Old Ben never had to face and likely couldn't possibly understand.

As I was saying in my PM to AL, it is interesting that so many sayings are passed down and changed. It reminds me of the "Telephone Game" from Kindergarten.

I'm surprised that Santayana's quote about remembering history was not brought up, as it is not only misquoted, but often misattributed to Elie Weisel.

Another possibility is that some of these folks said the same stuff over and over. One of my personal heroes, Hyman Rickover, has a famous quote about sinning against God, which you see several different versions of. But the fact is he hated Bureaucrats so likely said the same thing over and over (and over and over and over).

[Wxman]

Yaaaaay, you go girl!

First off, any argument that is predicated on an appeal to authority is a weak argument at best.

The rest of y'all seem to be arguing the Rights of Man as if those are somehow applicable to terrorists. They aren't and don't. Terrorists are inhumane scum of this earth less deserving of pity than rabid scurvy dogs delerious in the heat of the Indian noon-day sun, shrieking in terror while chasing their tails, not knowing from whence the bite of the pit viper comes.

No, the terrorist has shirked themselves of the mantle of humanity once they plotted to maim and kill as many innocent women, children and babies that their diabolical deeds can accomplish. And doubly so when they set upon implementing their own little ones to carry out their heneious objectives. They are absolutely deserved whatever contempt can be mustered out of bile soaked stomach where rage against that scourge festers and yearns for justice.

These people scoff at and mock the laws of our society, seing it weak and helpless because of them. And yet when it suits they utilize and pervert them for their own interests.

It takes a pretty cold blooded-individual, and callous soul to listen stalwartly to the shrieks of the hostage who had his head hacked off with a steak knife before a video camera, the episode subseuntly broadcast on the internet (his remains being discarded along side the banks of some nameless river somewhere like so much flotsom, jetsam and detritus ubequitus in thirdworld hell-holes), and then claim this pestilence deserves any rights whatsoever. Not only should the terrorists be rounded up and incarcerated, and then summarily executed with or without trial (it makes no difference to me), but their families should be subsequently also be taken. This includes the women and children, especially the woman and children of terrorist families. The children particularly because they grow up to be terrorists, and the women foremost because they breed terrorists.

No pity, no sorrow for their plight, not even contempt; I have no more feelings for them than I do when I sqaush a cockroach, or use a nuclear knife to eradicate some metastic tumor from my flesh. The liberal element of Western Civilization hasn't realized that the terrorists have declared war on us. They don't understand that this war hasn't been delclared against any particular or arbitrary country, but against our society, culture and way of life. And they don't understand that the war being waged by them already is that of total war. And the liberal West responds with squeemishness. The West doesn't understand that that the terrorist adheres to no rule, to no law, and cares not about whom they intend to wound, maim and kill. They hide behind the skirts of their women, they use their children as shields, and race up to locations in ambulances under the protection of the Red Cross, and then explode.

The schizophrenia of the terrorist mind is readily apparent. On the one hand they curse the tyranny of the oppressor, calling them evil, and then launch attacks from populated civilian areas such as churches, schools, residential high rise buildings, or blowing themselves up in crowded markets, hotel lobbies, and buses.

Who said that there will be peace in the Mid-East when they love their own children more than they hate us?

Let me demonstrate how these people think. Back during the days of the Cuban Missle Crises, Cuba actually had Soviet missles under its command. Che Guerra was Castro's right hand man and was in direct control of some of these missles. It came out many years later that he was actively maneauvering for a first strike nuclear attack against the U.S. Navy at the time. In an interview shortly before he died, he was asked about this. Such an attack would not have gone unanswered, nor could the loss of the Amercican fleet be. In reciprocation the U.S.S.R would've been compelled to either launch and outright invasion of Europe or a nuclear counter strike against the U.S.A. There would've been no alternative to Krushchev for such resonse, for if he'd have failed to act, he'd have been either deposed or killed (or both) very shortly thereafter, and the consequences would've ended up the same.

Guerra was asked what possible gain he forsaw by having his homeland obliterated in nuclear fire (for obliterated it would've been). Guerra responded calmly by saying the obliteration of Cuba would be an acceptable price to pay for the absolute, and certain, destruction of the U.S.A.

[Heibges]

Yup Churchill himself may be quoted often, but he wasn't averse to paraphrasing and nicking bits from quotes himself. Probably his most famous quote, which inspired the nickname for the Battle of Britain pilots, i.e. the one about 'so much being owed by so many, to so few', was certainly a tweek of Shakespeare's St Crispin's day speech from Henry V: 'We happy few, we band of brothers'.

:D Chock

I think Churchill was one of those rare folks who had a real appreciation for his place in history, and never opened his mouth without thinking as much. And as AL has said, he was a politician.

If you read "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian, you will see many criticisms of Churchill for what Guderian believes to be historical innaccuracies.

[Tchocky]

Not only should the terrorists be rounded up and incarcerated, and then summarily executed with or without trial (it makes no difference to me), but their families should be subsequently also be taken. This includes the women and children, especially the woman and children of terrorist families.
Well, it makes a difference to me, and most of the civilised world, it seems.

Let's execute the families of those who break the law. That will stop this terrorism business.

I agree 110%

[Chock]

There is no doubt that Churchill was very clever in what he wrote with regard to speeches, particularly in the early stages of the war when he was trying to court sympathy from the US, as well as keep the war going in the face of many in his own Government who were keen to appease Hitler. And there is no doubt that he wasn't averse to bending the truth to suit his purposes either. But there is also no doubt that history has borne him out in his assessment of the wisdom of prosecuting the war against Nazism in the face of many calls for appeasement too.

You see what I did there by the way? I used one of Winston's favourite speech techniques by repeating things three times in my comment:rotfl: that's almost a standard technique these days for speech writers. You can learn a lot from his stuff!

:D Chock

[Heibges]

There is no doubt that Churchill was very clever in what he wrote with regard to speeches, particularly in the early stages of the war when he was trying to court sympathy from the US, as well as keep the war going in the face of many in his own Government who were keen to appease Hitler. And there is no doubt that he wasn't averse to bending the truth to suit his purposes either. But there is also no doubt that history has borne him out in his assessment of the wisdom of prosecuting the war against Nazism in the face of many calls for appeasement too.

You see what I did there by the way? I used one of Winston's favourite speech techniques by repeating things three times in my comment:rotfl: that's almost a standard technique these days for speech writers. You can learn a lot from his stuff!

:D Chock

If he said it three times shouldn't we attribute it to Goebbles?:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Just kidding.

It's funny, that if you look at 1950's style "Hard Sell" training, the repeating things three times is always part of the approach. Compare this with modern "Consultative Selling" where the assumptino is the less you say the better.

Another good one I forgot about is the the "better than 1 guilty man going free" quote which is often attributed to Lenin/Dzerzchinky, but actually comes from Gladstone I believe.

[Chock]

Well, I guess if he said stuff three times and you want to go back far enough, St Peter would be a candidate... Or maybe the Beatitudes

:D Chock

[P_Funk]

First off, any argument that is predicated on an appeal to authority is a weak argument at best. Definitely agree. I also don't like having to open a link just to understand someone's point. Links should be substantiation, not the central thesis. As my frighteningly daft aunt would say to her kids "Use your words". (note, the quote is an afterthought to the original point ;))

The rest of y'all seem to be arguing the Rights of Man as if those are somehow applicable to terrorists. They aren't and don't. Terrorists are inhumane scum of this earth less deserving of pity than rabid scurvy dogs delerious in the heat of the Indian noon-day sun, shrieking in terror while chasing their tails, not knowing from whence the bite of the pit viper comes. Opinions like that then beg the question, how do we judge fairly and with the least amount of error who is in fact not evil inhuman scum? How do we sort men into the two categories where one has rights and the other maybe be obliterated without a single sentiment of guilt? The whole reason we need laws and courts is to keep the judgement of men from becoming unjust. How many people are in prisons in Iraq that aren't even terrorists? How many are lumped together cause they all were at the same spot when a bomb went off? How do we ensure that someone doesn't become emotional and vengeful against those whom he sees as evil because he has cracked or because his friend was just killed or some other circumstance?

You can say that these people aren't human beings all you like but if you and me and the people that face these vermin every day are in fact humans then we are all fallible. As such then we might throw away an innocent man's life without even thinking. If we kill innocents without even considering that then we move one step closer to being the evil that we protest too much. Far too often in the courts of civilized men we make that mistake and innocent men are robbed of their freedom. If we summarily dismiss these generalized faceless people without trial or the burden of proof or the consideration of their rights as men then we risk being as indiscriminant as they are.

A human being is not something that is created by belief or by action, he is a human being because he is. That he deserves death or freedom or incarceration or mercy is a matter for a court to decide. To create a different class of people outside the basic beliefs of our alleged civilization only prooves how far we are from what we claim to be. A threat can never be so great as to justify the self-immolation of who we are. At that point survival of life or survival of the establishment of power or survival of wealth is not the same as the ultimate survival of the basic principles of our so often praised societies.

[robbo180265]

First off, any argument that is predicated on an appeal to authority is a weak argument at best. Definitely agree. I also don't like having to open a link just to understand someone's point. Links should be substantiation, not the central thesis. As my frighteningly daft aunt would say to her kids "Use your words". (note, the quote is an afterthought to the original point ;))

The rest of y'all seem to be arguing the Rights of Man as if those are somehow applicable to terrorists. They aren't and don't. Terrorists are inhumane scum of this earth less deserving of pity than rabid scurvy dogs delerious in the heat of the Indian noon-day sun, shrieking in terror while chasing their tails, not knowing from whence the bite of the pit viper comes. Opinions like that then beg the question, how do we judge fairly and with the least amount of error who is in fact not evil inhuman scum? How do we sort men into the two categories where one has rights and the other maybe be obliterated without a single sentiment of guilt? The whole reason we need laws and courts is to keep the judgement of men from becoming unjust. How many people are in prisons in Iraq that aren't even terrorists? How many are lumped together cause they all were at the same spot when a bomb went off? How do we ensure that someone doesn't become emotional and vengeful against those whom he sees as evil because he has cracked or because his friend was just killed or some other circumstance?

You can say that these people aren't human beings all you like but if you and me and the people that face these vermin every day are in fact humans then we are all fallible. As such then we might throw away an innocent man's life without even thinking. If we kill innocents without even considering that then we move one step closer to being the evil that we protest too much. Far too often in the courts of civilized men we make that mistake and innocent men are robbed of their freedom. If we summarily dismiss these generalized faceless people without trial or the burden of proof or the consideration of their rights as men then we risk being as indiscriminant as they are.

A human being is not something that is created by belief or by action, he is a human being because he is. That he deserves death or freedom or incarceration or mercy is a matter for a court to decide. To create a different class of people outside the basic beliefs of our alleged civilization only prooves how far we are from what we claim to be. A threat can never be so great as to justify the self-immolation of who we are. At that point survival of life or survival of the establishment of power or survival of wealth is not the same as the ultimate survival of the basic principles of our so often praised societies.

I agree with that statement 100%:up:

[Wxman]

I think we're digressing here a little bit from the original point of the thread. That is context is essential to all communication. This is just as important in colloquial speech as it pertains to interpretation of Holy Writ. Taking quotes wholly out of context, I could posit the sophistry that Jesus claimed "Whatever you do, you should kill yourself, and quickly." That's just plainly absurd, but it is demonstrative of the point made originally by Avon Lady.

Now, to follow up respecting my commentary, and to address some of the concerns posted in response to it, frankly, in my opinion, they're lucky they haven't been put before a tribunal, convicted, and taken out and shot. Which we could do, perfectly legally.

You see, the thing about the Geneva Conventions, is that the Soviets were one of the negotiating parties. And the Soviets, being a commie dictatorship and all, didn't want to be bound by a bunch of niggling little rules about who could shoot whom for war crimes, tricky evidentiary proceedings, or any of that. Nor, were they really interested in addressing protections for people who weren't combatants. I mean, they were thinking they'd be rolling into Düsseldorf one day, and they wanted to be sure that they could solve any little problems with partisans in an...uh...efficient manner.

What the Reds wanted, and essentially got, was a treaty that gave governments the power to run their military tribunals as they saw fit, and execute pretty much anybody they wanted to, except POWs who were clearly part of an organized military force. And they could even execute them if they could--and the Sovs always could--cobble up enough evidence to convict them of war crimes.

As Alberto Gonzales discovered, these are not just legal issues, but are international law. They are in fact rules for the proper and legal conduct of war, agreed to by civilized nations, that assumed wars would be fought between armies whose soldiers would respect these rules.

In America, serial murderers Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy were accorded constitutional protections, not only against abuse, but against self-incrimination. Both received trial by jury. Both were guaranteed a taxpayer-subsidized legal defense.

However, and that notwithstanding, is it prudent to apply the protections of the Geneva rules, or civil criminal law to an enemy that fights by the Maoist rules of "people's war", which condone terror and murder, and encourage guerrillas to fight out of uniform and kill the enemy anywhere, any time, any way?

Convention III Art. 4 does have provision for covering militias, but to be recognized by the treaty they have to meet a couple basic requirements: wearing uniforms, having a clear line of command, and respecting "the laws and customs of war."

Convention I & II Art. 13(3); Convention III, Art. 4A(3) have provisions that seems as if it might be capacious enough to include terrorists: "Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or authority not recognized by the Detaining Power." This is the closest call, but it isn't just the U.S. — the detaining power — that fails to recognize the Taliban, but the entire international community as embodied by the United Nations. According to the U.N., the Taliban was basically an armed gang that happened to occupy most of Afghanistan for five years or so. What critics are asking for is that in defiance of the U.N. and world opinion the U.S. now retroactively recognize Taliban, Hezbolah, Al Queda, et ali as legitimate governments. Very weird.

Convention IV Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.-

Nevertheless, and that notwithstanding, Under the auspices of the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities i.e., murder prisoners or target and kill noncombatants may be sent before firing squads (summary executions). There is a tradition in war to have disguised combatants dealt with summarily, such as spies or those who steal uniforms (considered a violation of the articles of war).

During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal. In warfare, a reprisal is a limited and deliberate violation of the laws of war to punish an enemy for breaking the laws of war. A legally executed reprisal is not an atrocity. To be legally justified, a reprisal can only be directed against the party carrying out the original violation, can only be carried out as a last resort, after having given formal notice of the planned reprisal, must be proportionate to the original violation, must have the aim of persuading the original violator to comply with the legally accepted behaviour in future, and must not continue after the illegal behaviour ends. In the United States military, the lowest ranked commander who can authorize a reprisal is a general in command of a theater. Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution.

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. For example in 1976 foreign soldiers fighting for FNLA were captured by the MPLA in the civil war that broke out when Angola gained independence from Portugal in 1975. After "a regularly constituted court" found them guilty of being mercenaries, three Britons and an American were shot by a firing squad on July 10, 1976. Nine others were imprisoned for terms of 16 to 30 years.

In a 1942 United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin, the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US was upheld.

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

These seven saboteurs where summarily executed after a secret trial. Mind you, not one of these seven detonated a single bomb, and not one single American received so much as a paper cut. And yet, they were summarily snuffed.

the British Army faced in Ireland from 1919 to 1921 IRA "flying squads of gunmen", attacking British troops, and then melting away into a supportive population. British veterans of the Western Front, not knowing how to find and fight such an enemy, engaged in reprisals against Irish civilians. Britain as a result lost the Irish people, and Ireland, forever.

In Algeria from 1954 to 1962 terror attacks on French soldiers and civilians brought in Gen. Massu's "paras" who tortured terror suspects for information to eradicate the FLN. Thus was the Battle of Algiers won and Algeria lost.

Indeed, there should be some administrative procedure to confirm that the right guys are in custody, and not that some random Tora Bora pizza boy or farmer has been picked up. But we have the discretion to decide what that procedure should be without adhering to any Geneva Convention mandate, and the point of this procedure is trying to avoid a simple mistake rather than deciding whether the Convention applies or not to each detainee (again, which is a matter of high state policy).

Once its agreed that detainees are "unlawful combatants," then what? We would be perfectly under our rights to keep them detained for as long as we please. And furthermore, they can be held incommunicado. But we will probably have to have trials, under the military tribunals.

Get out your Latin. They might be tried under two broad categories:


Jus in Bello — essentially for the way they conducted their war, their targeting choices, including attacking civilians and military targets without warrant.

Jus ad Bellum — the basic fact of their unlawful aggression (this would echo the first two counts against the Nazis at Nuremberg — conspiracy to wage aggressive war, and waging aggressive war).

After a conflict has ended, persons who have committed or ordered any breach of the laws of war, especially atrocities, may be held individually accountable for war crimes through process of law. Also, nations which signed the Geneva Conventions are required to search for, then try and punish, anyone who has committed or ordered certain "grave breaches" of the laws of war. (see GC III, Art. 129 and Art. 130).

I opened up with comments about the origin of the Geneva Conventions in 1949. Well, the USSR pretty much got the treaty it wanted, and that's the one everybody signed. So, if you want to get all syrupy and soggy-eyed over detainees accused of terrorism, you need to look elsewhere than the Geneva Conventions for an argument. Because the Geneva Conventions essentially say we can bump them off anytime we can get three Army officers to say it's OK. And let me tell you another thing: we aren't going to be "searching" for any of these clowns when the War on Terror is over; we already know where they are. Then they'll get their fair day in court. Until then, they can pound sand or suck eggs (which ever).

[jumpy]

Oh! the terrible irony of this thread! :lol:

Reminds me, I have a dictionary of famous quotations somewhere, I must dig it out as it had some really great ones.

[P_Funk]

First thing I need to say to you Wxman is I'm very impressed with your academic reply. It exhibits a level of deliberate thought that you rarely see around here. So I gotta thank you for doing such a thorough job.

For your argument it is all mostly solid logical theory. All of it predicated on very correct interpretations of the Geneva Conventions and their intended uses. However while you take a straight text book appeal to the conventions it however doesn't agree totally with what what myself and many others consider the principle purposes of our civilized societies.

That the Geneva Convention concerning prisoners of war and illegal combatants leaves much room for the kind of summary state efficiency that the Soviets desired doesn't automatically alay the moral concerns surrounding the ensuing conduct of our nations today. To begin with I never mentioned the Geneva Conventions, that is a topic which you broached, one that has relavence, but which doesn't address everything that I've brought up. The deficiencies in the convention surrounding so called 'illegal combatants' also brings up the duality of your justification for its use in our modern context. It was cynical of the Soviet representatives to demand such loopholes to allow them the room to address partisan dissidents, therefore our use of the same deficiencies questions the legitimacy of it. That international law is written a certain way doesn't dismiss the moral questions left unanswered by it nor do the dubious allowances for unchecked power brought about by negotiations from less than upright parties mitigate any conflicting moral belief. Simply put, just because we can doesn't mean that its right.

Moreover your own words in your previous reply betray a much broader desire than just what is covered by the Conventions that you use for substantiation. You wrote:
Not only should the terrorists be rounded up and incarcerated, and then summarily executed with or without trial (it makes no difference to me), but their families should be subsequently also be taken. This includes the women and children, especially the woman and children of terrorist families. The children particularly because they grow up to be terrorists, and the women foremost because they breed terrorists. That itself is a worrysome declaration. That demands more than just summary execution of persons actively attempting to attack our societies, but the pre-emptive executions or at the very least permanent incarcerations of persons who may or may not be complicit in feared or suspected terrorist activity. You say that administrative checks should be in place to ensure that an innocent is not caught up in this process but at the same time how can we look into the heart of a child and divine his potential future atrocities? And are we to be so mad as to condemn women because they 'breed' terrorists? It is safe to say that your commentary reaches far beyond the limits of the Geneva Conventions. Such aggressive preventative measures can be compared to using a shotgun to remove a wart. Such measures approach the conduct of totalitarian states acting with broad strokes, and in such a way that guarentees collatoral injustices. To suggest that the righteous beliefs of our times should extend no further than our own borders is a cynicism that I hope few people share.

Your overall argument ignores much of the philosophical basis for my own. As you put it "So, if you want to get all syrupy and soggy-eyed over detainees accused of terrorism, you need to look elsewhere than the Geneva Conventions for an argument." I didn't make that argument unfortunately. I speak from a moral position that recognizes the enshrinement of the equality of men above other matters, one that doesn't intend to negate any prudent action against agents which seek to harm our societies but one which seeks to prevent the atrocities that are apparent in our less than heroic history. Your position trips over itself when you speak of measures to prevent injustice but also measures to eliminate threats before they are even born.

This of course is a fundamentally oppositional disagreement I think. As such I don't think that we'd get very far on changing each other's minds. But again I thank you for your very verbose reply. I enjoy disagreeing with REAL arguments.

[Wxman]

http://home.flash.net/~raygun01/pictures/Freep/Palistiniac.jpg

http://home.flash.net/~raygun01/pictures/Freep/Palistiniac2.jpg

http://home.flash.net/~raygun01/pictures/Freep/Palistiniac3.jpg

[Skybird]

http://home.flash.net/~raygun01/pictures/Freep/Palistiniac.jpg





Note that evil, hatefilled expression in his eyes...


We should and must fight and destroy the people behind the fact that young children like this one are being abused for such "satanic" actions like is indicated on the photos - if not for their ideology, than for what they do to originally innocent children. People doing like this, are no equals to be respected, and do not represent a valuable "culture" that must be tolerated for itself. It's abuse of young human life, and that's all. For me, they are all psychopaths.

This is a very sad picture. That "they" hail and celebrate such sights tells me all I need to know about "them". They and me have nothing in common.

[robbo180265]

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/kkk.jpg

[P_Funk]

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/kkk.jpg
Too right. Seems as if the alloted period of sophisticated discussion on this digression is done for.

Back on topic I suggest.

[Wxman]

Well, I tell you what, that cherubic little face is being trained to kill you. And when he does that he'll have the face of Rachel Corrie in the bottom picture. Which in my opinion is displaying nothing but pure unadultrated rabid hatred for that makeshift symbol that she's burning in front of all those doting children.

Let me tell you something, I don't believe that people truly understand who and what the enemy is. But the link below has some video that is extremely edifying:

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/youtube-has-uks-undercover-mosque

I'm not so naive to believe the above link is descriptive of something unique to Britain. I believe that the very same thing is going on in every country in Europe and next door in Canada. And I'm absolutely certain it's going on right here and now in Michigan and elsewhere in the USA.

In the spring of 2002, there was a Muslim Conference at a rural Ohio state park. A family I know happened to be there that weekend. Many of the conference attendees were obviously ill at ease being in the presence of the non-muslims in the park. I was told that they chalked it up to sensitivities following the 9-11 attacks.

What I was that they were told later by a LEO briefed by a terrorism task force: The conference was preaching jihad. One quote was provided that stated, "One day soon we will be proclaiming the prophet to you. You will then be told to leave these doors and kill the unbelievers. For that day you must now get ready." (May be a word or two off, but this quote was transcribed and printed from a recording).

That was in rural Ohio with my friend's wife and children in their presence. I take this threat very seriously. The person who told me this information, I consider to be extremely credible

And finally, I can find links to video that shows the true face of those angelic little cherubes. And let me tell you one thing: after watching those videos the hair on the back of your neck will be positively standing on end, and the blood in your veins will be ice cold, and there will be this feeling in the pit of your stomach that the word nauseous can't possibly begin to describe. Oh, and one other thing, ever been shot at? Know that feeling that goes down your spine and enters into that mass contained by your scrotum? I'm not talking about getting hit, just shot at. The videos I'm talking about are wholly focused on what the children's training. And yeah, it sort of has the same effect on me...

Let me tell you, those little things are the most destable and vile little monsters on this planet and they positively horrify me. One can pontificate about morals, ethics, Rights of Man, etc. and Jeez not this Crap Again all you want.

Se La Vie.

[robbo180265]

So - Anyone know any other great misquotes?

[Takeda Shingen]

http://www.ooer.com/content/photos/photos/squirrel.jpg

There are plenty of jihad threads. Get back to quotations.

The Management

[Heibges]

"Play it again, Sam."

I've seen Casablanca probably 150 times, still I can't quite remember, but I think the real quote is "If you can play it for her, you can play it for me." (Everything that Senator Joe MacArthee said is proved true by Casablanca :lol: )

[tycho102]

There are plenty of jihad threads. Get back to quotations.

The Management
I submit that all these back jihad quotations are taken out of context:
http://tron-chaser.net/images1/j_freedom1.jpghttp://tron-chaser.net/images1/j_freedom2.jpghttp://tron-chaser.net/images1/j_freedom3.jpg
http://tron-chaser.net/images1/j_banner1.jpghttp://tron-chaser.net/images1/j_banner2.jpg
http://tron-chaser.net/images1/j_banner4.jpg





As for a "comma" in history, it'll be the first comma in the first paragraph.

"After the invasion, the entire region dropped into a 1300 year old "civil" war, pitting tribe against tribe, gang against gang, and religous cult against religous cult."

[Heibges]

I believe the gauntlet has just been thrown down.:o

[robbo180265]

Nice knowing you matey - who said that?

[Heibges]

Let them Eat Cake!

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/227600.html

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_334.html

[Chock]

As far as I know, one of the biggest and most oft-quoted misquotes would be this one from Hamlet: 'Alas, Poor Yorick! I knew him well' which should not have the word 'well' in there. i.e. it should read: 'Alas poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy' etc, etc

Running a close second, would probably be the one from Casablanca 'Play it again, Sam' which again is incorrect, Bogart never actually saying that exact line.

:D Chock

[Heibges]

Misquote: "A Rose by any other name is still a rose."

Correct: "A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet" (Shakespeare, "Romeo & Juliet", 1594)

or

Correct: A rose is a rose is a rose. (Gertrude Stein "Geography & Plays", 1922) But Stein meant something different than Shakespeare, so it is not actually the same.

Plus, she did reuse the phrase over and over.

"Do we suppose that all she knows is that a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose." (Operas and Plays)

"... she would carve on the tree Rose is a Rose is a Rose is a Rose is a Rose until it went all the way around." (The World is Round)

"A rose tree may be a rose tree may be a rosy rose tree if watered." (Alphabets and Birthdays)

"Indeed a rose is a rose makes a pretty plate." (Stanzas in Meditation)

[Heibges]

Misquote: Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea.

Quote: Between the Devil and the Deep Sea.

The "Blue" was added by Ted Koehler, Harold Arlen, and Cab Calloway in 1931

[robbo180265]

That's really interesing Heibges,and back on track too:up:

[Heibges]

Misquote: Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Quote: "Do not trust the horse, Trojans. Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts." Virgil's Aeneid, Book 2, 19 BC

or

Quote: "Nought from the Greeks towards me hath sped well.
So now I find that ancient proverb true,
Foes' gifts are no gifts: profit bring they none" Sophocles (496 - 406 BC), in Ajax

or

Quote: "Trust not their presents, nor admit the horse." John Dryden (b1631 d1700)

[Heibges]

That's really interesing Heibges,and back on track too:up:

Thank you, because staying on track is very difficult for me. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Misquote: "Cut off your nose to spite your face."
Quote: "He cut off his nose to be revenged of his face". Grose, "Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue", 1796.


Misquote: "Cut to the Chase."
Quote: "Jannings escapes... Cut to chase." script direction Hollywood Girl, 1929


Misquote: "A diamond lasts forever."
Quote: "So I really think that American gentlemen are the best after all, because kissing your hand may make you feel very very good but a diamond and safire bracelet lasts forever." Gentlemen Prefer Blonds, Anita Loos, 1925.

Misquote: "Don't change horses in mid stream."
Quote: "An old Dutch farmer, who remarked to a companion once that it was not best to swap horses when crossing streams." Abraham Lincoln, 1864

Misquote: "Don't keep a dog, and bark yourself."
Quote: "It is smal reason you should kepe a dog, and barke your selfe." Brian Melbancke, Philotimus: the Warre Betwixt Nature and Fortune, 1583

[Sailor Steve]

Pretty funny Heibges, considering your current sig. Following is the accepted original statement.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

The second link has an actual reproduction of the original document. Of course as noted there is no direct evidence that Franklin actually said this, and he himself denied it.

[FIREWALL]

I hope nobody thinks my sig is a misquote :D

[Heibges]

Pretty funny Heibges, considering your current sig. Following is the accepted original statement.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

The second link has an actual reproduction of the original document. Of course as noted there is no direct evidence that Franklin actually said this, and he himself denied it.

D'oh! AL was already busting my haggards over it, and I was going to change it.:doh:

[Sailor Steve]

D'oh! AL was already busting my haggards over it, and I was going to change it.:doh:
That's okay. One of my favorites is "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master".

I originally heard it attributed to George Washington, and took it at face value. Some time later I was using it, and someone challenged me to show where he was actually quoted as saying (or writing) that. I couldn't find a direct quote after months of searching, and these days if I use it I always quote it as "attributed to George Washington, but unverified".:oops: