| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> We can’t have it both ways, unfortunately we must sacrifice a certain level of >privacy for security, as much as we dislike it, and I do.
Not actually, the third road is to implement preventatives that do nothing
touching on individual privacy or denying anyone the most fundamental of
civil rights. For example, planes could and should have been made more
secure years ago -- it has nothing to do with screening everyone on the
plane, just make sure the cockpit is secured from entry by nutcases. You
also don't have to surveillance your own countrymen arbitrarily,
inquirey/surveillance should be triggered by an event -- like if you were
buying chemicals of a suspicious nature. Otherwise, leave everyone alone.
Further, you don't have to lock people up in Cuba without right to
arraignment or counsel either. You're unhinged if you think those kinds of
things are necessary for national security -- they are only necessary to an
administration that wants to be able to do what it wants to do entirely
unchecked by normal legal procedures. Even Clinton's psycho attorney
general didn't go that far! But no disagreement on the misuse of force,
military and otherwise, during the Clinton administration -- they did some
very questionable things also. It's been going on for years. Shrub is just
the worst of a line of baddies.
The american way is to question authority -- it doesn't matter who the
authority being questioned happens to be.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Newsbits
|
| Being an avid X-Men reader for nearly twenty years now, I feel that I am at least somewhat qualified to speak on this. First off this guy’s assertion that this is an anti-Bush movie is stretching so much that even Mr. Fantastic would have trouble (...) (22 years ago, 5-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
