Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
He wants to trade an unspecified amount of freedom, to be determined without knowledge or consent, for some speculated security.
I have sought more details, and what we've learned so far is that he is willing to trade all freedom of certain people for this speculated security.
The problem with the bargain is that we know neither what we are being asked to give nor what we might get in exchange.
Please, Hank, correct me if I am wrong, and identify how much freedom you are ready to surrender, and whose.
|
1 The "no warrent" taps. I posted on these. Given the standards are so low to get a warrent, I believe there must have been a compelling GOOD reason to they skipped the procedure. I find that an acceptable thing- phone calls going somewhere overseas are tapped w/o a warrent in a few cases because there is some real reason.
The only answer I received was from TaxWonk who believes there was a compelling BAD answer (no real grounds). I ask why run the risk if the source isn't seemingly real paydirt- and if that is expected, then how could you not have grounds.
In sum, like the "Bush stole the election" "Bush lied us into war" arguments, I believe those that believe Bush evil, see evil motive everything he touches.
And i also don't see what protection a warrent provides here. They grant every request. Do you feel like the warrent procedure gives you some real protection? Please.
2 People held- i believe there are two groups- a few hundred caught in Afghanistan and a few scattered others- 1 a US citizen.
The people who fought in Afghanistan against us- i have no problem with holding forever. I beleive they are trying to work out how to do trials now, but hardcore Taliban/AQ guys being held- yes I'm willing to give up that freedom.
The other's have real direct ties to AQ. If a US citizen has gone to terror camps in Afghanistan am I comfortable that he may be held while the Government figures out how to try him- yes, i can live with that.
Given how long the problem was allowed to grow, and given how awful the injury anyone of these human bombs can inflict, I am comfortable that a few hundred effectively disappear. how is that worse than the thousands of complete innocents that are killed when we say bombed Baghdad? At least the guys were holding have done things to put themselves in that position.
In the end it boils down to whether you trust this administration*. Those that don't see very very bad motives when it does anything. I expect that it wouldn't do these actions unless there is avery good reason. TaxWonk/balt etc would not have been bothered by any of these actions taken by the clinton WH- of course the Clinton WH took no action soits moot.
*you and maybe Spank are the exception. you are both looking at this from a Professor's chair. That respectable, but not realistic in the world we are in right now.
