Yes, by your logic, we should also free people from jails. They actually have a movement for that. Nobody is saying throw everyone in jail - but they're saying some people should be in jail.
And I didn't see a thread on previous surveillance plus you asked for precedence so I'm not sure why you're brushing it off with a "I never liked surveillance to begin with" now.
-Rudey
--You realize there is a middle road?
Quote:
Originally posted by James
Rudey, of course there is going to be another 9/11. Or something similar. Here or somewhere else. And we won't be able to counteract it because we always fight the last war. We make administative changes that may have prevented the previous disaster. Planning for the next one is a lot more difficult because the enemy will always work around the procedures we put in place.
ITs normal for people to be reactionary and come up with "we have to do SOMETHING policies" they aren't necessarily the right actions.
When someone's children do something bad the knee jerk reaction is to yell, or punish, or spank, or whatever. However, they may not be the most effective or necessary responses.
A lot of these security measures come under the "We have to do something" category of emotional excess after any tragedy.
As far as the prior ability of the government to keep tabs on me and everyone else. Well I have always been against that. What can I say. I don't want them invading my privacy. I am not sure what we can do about it. In fact I am almost sure that in todays environment you would be considered subversive for trying.
So to sum up. Somewhere somewhen a whole mess of people are going to die whether we become as strict as a totalitarian state or maintain the freedoms that used to make us who we thought we were.
If you really want to stop attacks, its not going to be through defense it will be through offense. And I am not sure a normal democracy can do that to the enemy. Its easier to terrify our own citizens.
|