Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Songwrks who wrote (1351)	9/25/2001 7:55:19 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) of 281500

I confess that I am not entirely pleased with the idea of granting one fundamentalist such easily abused power in order to protect me from another fundamentalist. Who guards the guardians? Under the circumstances, we may have no choice, but I do not think that we must abandon the healthy tendency to mistrust government. Any such powers that we grant should be for a strictly limited period of time; if the Justice Department wishes to renew them at that time, they should have to show good cause. It should be clear that these powers can only be exercised in cases directly related to terrorist threats. If "suspicious" are to be detained (and which of us is not suspicious to somebody?) beyond a very brief period, those doing the detaining should have to show cause, even if they have to do it beyond closed doors. I have no objection to detaining individuals that pose a real risk, but I do not like the idea of giving the government the power to snatch anyone it chooses and put them away for as long as it chooses, with no recourse. Supporting the Government in a time of crisis is no cause to set our critical faculties aside and do whatever we are told to do.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next