Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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,
|
I have some trouble understanding what you are saying here, but it seems to be that
(1) with respect to the taps, you trust the government to have had a good reason, and don't view warrants as providing much protection anyways; and
(2) with respect to holding people suspected of involvement in terrorism, you have no problem holding them forever on suspicion.
My response in each case is that we developed a system of checks and balances and judicial review so that these sort of decisions would be subject to some level of review, and so long as we have such a system in place, I can't understand why we should not give that review.
I have absolutely nothing against apprehending people in a war zone who seem to be threats and holding them for some period pending review; forever, however, I cannot see. At the end of the day, someone needs to build a case or we should let them go. Or, if they are prisoners of war and the war is ongoing, they should be held under the Geneva Convention.
And on the warrants, the fact that such a low threshold was not met strikes me as simply incredibly stupid and irresponsible. Warrants ARE one of the basic protections we have; someone needs to have enough of a case to get in front of a judge and explain themselves with a straight face. To fail to do so in these cases compromises our principles for nothing.
If an associate doesn't hand in a memo you asked for, and says you knew the answer anyway and he was just documenting it so he didn't think it was necessary, do you give him a raise for his efficiency?
