Quote: Ayiekie wrote:
Fidoohki, the hole in your argument is that this did not prevent any attacks and wasn't necessary to prevent the attacks that did occur (and the memo in
question was pertinent to the 9/11 attacks - as well, Clinton made fighting terrorism a higher priority than the pre-9/11 Bush administration did, all of
which is on the record and basically indisputable).
But to turn it around another way... where's YOUR line? If you're willing to sacrifice a constitutional right and the law of the land in order to
achieve some undefinable level of safety against a terror attack... what won't you sacrifice? Is there any rights you think Bush shouldn't have been
able to take away from US citizens to fight his undeclared war? This is not an idle question. The Constitution is the highest law of the land in the U.S. If
you're okay with ripping it up, do you think there are any limits at all that the president should not be able to cross due to "being at war"?
First off, why do you insist on using 'we found nothing' to justify not looking in the first place? It neglects the mindset and situations
of the time that the decision was made, which could have been a contributing factor.
Where is my line? I'm close to it as far as what can and can't be done. And I am not talking about ripping the constiution up, jsut a limited,
heavily monitored and regulated, loosening of protections As I said here:
Quote: So you are willing to give up the freedom and protection of the Constitution, and are willing to see others also lose that freedom in the process?
And you are willing to put others at an most likely higher risk of losing their lives just so you won't be inconvienced? I am and have been
talking minor loosening of protections not a total suspension of them. Heavily watched and monitored though.