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: epicure who wrote (8722)	1/11/2006 1:42:59 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541487

When Bush is saying that harsh criticism of his Iraq policy is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, how far will he have to reach to think that acting against political opponents is a legitimate step to bolster national security? That's how this slippery slope always begins. It's too bad that most Americans never lived in a country with a strong presidency and a national security state. Those of us who have see the situation differently. Politicians can justify an incredible range of abuses in the name of "legitimate" steps against "enemies". And in a strong security state, nobody gets to hold them accountable.

To: epicure who wrote (8722)	1/11/2006 1:46:47 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541487

when you are sure you know exactly who the enemy is- and then you might as well get a warrant Indeed, but then the warrant would likely be moot because the suspected enemy would already have done enough damage to prove himself. If you want to get to the enemy before the damage is done, you have to snoop on suspected enemies or, even better, snoop broadly to identify suspected enemies. Your protocol allows no mechanism for doing this. With criminals, we're content to let them commit the crime before we go after them in order to preserve our rights, which we perceive to outweigh the damage that the criminal can do. With enemies, we want to prevent the event. If you offer no way to prevent the event, then you must either think that there's no chance that the event will occur or you are prepared to take the hit as we do in criminal matters. Are you really comfortable with that protocol?