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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (748623)	9/5/2006 7:01:16 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "you asked how do I know the government is not doing something else..." Yes! Exactly! For example: If there was independent confirmation of this (perhaps review by another branch of government, Congress or Courts) we could have some confidence that actual practices were as they have been represented to be. Without some sort of independent oversight or accessment, (an important principle for government that our Founders were well clued-in to) how is one to know. Take them AT THEIR WORD? (Oh, I'm sure that government would never dare to lie or misrepresent their actions any! LOL!) One thing we do have confirmation for (because when the government prosecutes someone it's a public action) is that (according to CATO and others) the new powers granted to the Executive have FREQUENTLY been used in prosecutions, and for offenses, that have NO CONNECTION AT ALL to 'terrorism'. For example, they are widely being used now in tax cases, 'organized crime' cases, asset forfeture actions, so called 'property crimes', gambling, prostitution, drugs, etc., etc., etc... (basically in any matter that the government wishes to employ it's new powers). This is --- sadly --- much to be expected, DESPITE what the government originally claimed that it would only use it's new powers for 'terrorism'. Once government has powers, it will use them. Always. Re: "paranoia". It fails to be 'paranoia' once it's QUANTIFIED. :-)