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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (7280)	12/18/2005 9:40:10 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541370

Protections exist, and getting a warrant against a terrorist isn't going to be difficult. A government can do plenty of snooping with court approved devices- and they only need to show a little probable cause. If they don't have any probable cause, they shouldn't be snooping, because the guess work of the government has not been, and probably will not be in the future, very good (guess work meaning when the government "imagines" someone might be doing something wrong, even though there is no evidence for this). If the Feds had done proper police work and communicated, they could have caught the 9/11 bombers WITH all constitutional protections in place. Once you realize that, you realize that we don't really need the patriot act- we just need competent people. If there were a price to be paid for getting warrants I would be willing to pay it, but really, I don't think there is one.

To: Lane3 who wrote (7280)	12/18/2005 10:18:32 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541370

Edit-- was just reading elsewhere that Bush didn't hide anything from Congress and informed them everytime he extended the directive.... am very confused... what exactly did Congress know? For me it is a big con that the necessity of Bush's actions is questionable, which seems to be the case the more that we read this morning. He had already shown a dangerous tendency to decide what we should know (or not know) before Iraq, rather than allowing Americans to debate and decide on the facts. All of them. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice.... I'm not ready to yield this power without oversight to anyone easily, but less so to someone whose judgment I question. Power is rather like the torture issue. It has a way of growing and justifying itself. It's a road I don't want to go down without a full discussion. The balance of security and liberty-- it isn't perfect and I have no expectation of that. I do expect us to be allowed some input into what we can tolerate. But the judgment of this administration isn't one I trust to strike a balance I am comfortable with all by its lonesome.