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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (199102)	8/24/2006 5:13:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm neither distorting or failing to read what you wrote. It has to be one or the other, or a total lack of rationality. I'll let you pick. Any statement with "I'm pretty sure", "would likely have been", and "possibly even", doesn't express certainty. The closest you might get to certainty is the one statement that didn't have such qualifiers - "It wouldn't have broken Al Qaeda." But that statement is hardly "I know exactly what would have happened if..." There are billions of possible things that qualify as "not breaking Al Qaeda", ranging from ones that heavily damage Al Qaeda but leave it intact, through results that have little or no effect on Al Qaeda, to having a situation where Al Qaeda is strengthened. There is no reasonable way to take any part of the entire statement - "No, I'm pretty sure there would have been an effect, but the effect would likely have been moderate, possibly even minor. It wouldn't have broken Al Qaeda." and state that it implies I am claiming that I know exactly what would have happened had bin Laden been killed or captured. Now that you've looked up the Constitution you're waffling. No one is saying that he can't spy or that he can't wiretap. People are saying that he can't do it OUTSIDE OF THE LAW AND WITHOUT WARRANTS. It's to prevent him from becoming a dictator. It's to prevent the US of A from becoming a police state. You don't need a warrant to intercept enemy communication during a conflict. The fact doesn't make for a dictatorship or a police state. Its true that the Bush administration might be doing a lot more than it says it is doing (intercepting communications between suspected enemy either overseas or from overseas to the US). But that hasn't been established, and if it is indeed going further than what it states, that doesn't mean that the program that they have officially admitted to violates the constitution, or is a step towards a police state.