| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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".
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 legislators have to "authorise" the change?
Scott A
>
> > > (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
I did not say you did!
> 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 have a great deal of respect for what you are saying. But I feel we have
to be careful that we not go down the road of saying that mistakes/civilian
deaths are inevitable/acceptable. If this conflict had unfolded they way
many appeared to want it to a week or two ago ("lets bomb them into the
Stone Age") than the innocent lives lost may well have outweighed the lives
saved.
>
> 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.
Larry instead of making all this fuss, why not just address the points. Is
it so hard for you? I am actually interested to hear why you have changed
you mind on airport/line security.
>
> You're clueless. Even Dan recognises it.
I only wish I was perfect like you larry! ;)
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) Well, that's why I brought it up in the first place... There are people working to try to influence the legislature NOT to do that. But in a time of hysteria, when laws are made up in one day and then passed that same day or the next by (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The big lie
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 27-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
|
|
|
|
