| |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:GJx8oE.2rq@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > From Forbes, which is much more libertarian than Fortune (which is why I
> > > subscribe to one and read the other on airplanes where it's free to me)
> > >
> > > http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/17/0917lie.html
> > >
> > > Need I say I totally agree that we do not need changes in the Bill of • Rights?
> > > Airport Security improvements yes.
> > > Blanket unauthorised wiretap powers no.
> >
> >
> > Are you saying that the do not want your government to invade the privacy • of
> > individuals which they suspect may be terrorists in a manner which is
> > simpler that it is right now, but it is OK for them to improve airport
> security?
With regards to airport security, I would have thought you would want to
leave it to the airlines to improve security?
>
> Correct. I don't want civil rights lessened or destroyed across the board.
Here I see the real contradiction in your position. You are willing to see
innocent lives lost overseas to solve this problem. You have advocated a
violent response to Afghanistan from quite early, but yet there was no
evidence which suggested they had any guilt in this? Even now the evidence
is only circumstantial. You appear to be willing for innocent lives to be
lost, but are not willing to give the FBI a few extra powers to catch the
bad guys at home.
You try to scare as all with talk of "blanket unauthorised wiretap powers"
when I doubt they are even on the agenda.
I accept you position is not unique, and doubt it has anything to do this
the Afghans being Muslim. But your position does represent a microcosm of
part of the reasoning used for the attack on the US on the 11th. In that,
the USA talks a lot about the freedoms of those within its on shores, but
does not value those elsewhere quite as much.
>
> > In either case, I suspect the opinion polls will dictate what happnes :\
>
> I suspect you are reading things correctly, unfortunately.
>
> That doesn't make what happens "right" though, as I've said before, just
> because a majority votes (or voices an opinion) to do something doesn't
> suddenly change what underlying rights the minority had.
I agree. The majority in the US (& elsewhere) appear to want revenge right
now against the "folks" who did this, but I do not think it is right. The
rulers of Afghanistan may well be "evil", but there are plenty more like
them on the planet. They may well have supported terrorism, but which
country has not in the past? I wonder who has trained more terrorists;
ObLor the CIA?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Don't just take my word for it: See the wiretap section of this page: (URL) ACLU and the LP are hardly allies on much of anything these days... except civil liberties). As for your "willing to authorise innocent deaths" red herring, it's your (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Correct. I don't want civil rights lessened or destroyed across the board. (...) I suspect you are reading things correctly, unfortunately. That doesn't make what happens "right" though, as I've said before, just because a majority votes (or (...) (23 years ago, 19-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
74 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
