| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > You try to scare as all with talk of "blanket unauthorised wiretap powers"
> > > when I doubt they are even on the agenda.
> >
> > Don't just take my word for it: See the wiretap section of this page:
> >
> > http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n092001e.html
>
> I had a quick look. I see no mention of "blanket unauthorised wiretap powers"
Have a deeper look. Under the proposed legislation, the usual standard of
proof is not needed, all that is needed is to assert National Security...
that's "unauthorised". Further, the current restriction to particular people
or phones would be lifted. That's "blanket".
> > (the 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
> > usual spew.
>
> Hardly. Perhaps you should read you own posts. A quick search finds these 2
> where you condone civilian deaths:
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12615
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12717
I don't condone unnecessary deaths and I am comfortable with what I said in
those posts. The world is not a perfect place. If in combatting deliberate
murder of thousands of civilians we deliberately target civilians, we fail.
But accidents do happen. We should mimimise those, we should do everything
in our power to ensure that we do not deliberately, or even through less
than meticulous planning, inflict one unnecesary death.
I am sure you will twist my words against me but please explain how to
prosecute a war without killing anyone at all, if you can.
> I note that in your reply, you failed to address these points:
> 1. Your apparent departure from your usual LP dogma.
If I agree 100% I'm dogmatic, if I think for myself, I'm a hypocrite.
You're clueless. Even Dan recognises it.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Lack of the "usual standard" does not equal "no standard". Lifting the "current restriction" does not equal "no restriction". But even if you paranoia was well founded (I don't mean the stuff about the black helicopters). Surely you (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Hardly. Perhaps you should read you own posts. A quick search finds these 2 where you condone civilian deaths: (URL) note that in your reply, you failed to address these points: 1. Your apparent departure from your usual LP dogma. 2. Your (...) (23 years ago, 25-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
|
|
|
|
