Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (61)	6/6/2002 6:25:59 PM
From: habitrail	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

<<"we must give up some freedom or we will NEVER pro-actively prevent terrorist attacks on our shores">> I know where you are coming from, but I think that the possibility of abuse far outweighs the possible benefit. <<"Congress will have to monitor the FBI and CIA as they become more aggressive">> I consider this to be a dubious proposition. 1) Even if Congress had absolutely pure intentions and no conflict of interest, it would have a difficult time proving and correcting improper FBI activities. Of course they do have a conflict though. What congressman/senator wants to be seen as "soft on terrorism"? 2) Even with an ideal Congress, the test of the FBI getting out of line will be conducted after the fact - unless its being proposed that congress will be individually overseeing each individual case. This after-the-fact test means that, even in an ideal situation, the first individuals abused will already be hosed. 3) Congress is not ideal. FBI is not ideal. Voters are not ideal. World is not ideal. One of the fundamental assumptions inherent in these proposals is that people are not treated as individuals but instead as a member of the state. The highest priority is to the survival of the state, individuals surviving with their bodies and their civil liberties intact is a secondary concern. Individuals are considered subordinate to the state. This turns the principles of the constitution and bill of rights on their ear - in the constitution, the state is a servant of the individual. If they want to carve up the constitution, then lets do it in a popular vote. There is no part of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch that is legally allowed to carve up the bill of rights. They do it all the time, but it's not legal. <<"these agencies need to be streamlined">> Yeah, true, but I fail to see how hiring more agents is going to streamline the FBI. Broadening police powers, and suspending due process is going to "streamline" something - our individual rights. Much the way little boys "streamline" the wings off flies.