10-20-2006, 06:10 PM
Keep in mind how much power the executive branch has been getting recently. It's by no means absolute, but a lot of power has been granted, taken, and tolerated since 2001 in the name of security and freedom.
Quick's sentiment, "I would rather let the govt listen to our boring lives and maybe pick up a terrorist call and be able to stop another 9/11", is not uncommon. It is dangerous, however; as the illegality of such "fishing" campaigns is due to the extreme danger to freedom. Secret arrests for secret trials with secret evidence, secret charges, and no right to ethical treatment, independant lawyers, or outside contact means the first time somebody decides dissidents are harmful to their career, innocent people will start disappearing (see: the regimes of Augusto Pinochet, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and for a major twist of irony, Saddam Hussein). Without dissent, even the most free society becomes totalitarian overnight. Strict laws on the subject are to prevent exploitation by corrupt officials, an especially common trait to develop in law enforcement organizations. Remember that the people who will abuse the power are indistinguishable from those who will not.
As for "Bush bashing", try to keep in mind Bush the man is totally different from Bush the administration. Most people combine the two for all government rights or wrongs without looking a little deeper to see if it really applies. For example, the Iraq invasion (and subsequent rebuilding contracts) was dreamed up years before by less-than-ethical individuals who just needed a segue with which to gain popular support, and thus blaming Bush is erroneous (though legally, he does share responsibility). Bush can be blamed for playing a major roll in turning "terrorist" into a buzzword for political gains, though.
Back to the original topic, terrorism is by no means just coercion through violence on civillians, so perhaps it should be defined as:
<blockquote>n: the calculated infliction of severe anxiety on a target through conspicuous, graphic, violent actions (usually military in nature), or the threat thereof, in order to attain goals through coercion</blockquote>
This still applies to a lot of actions which are debatable as to how "terrorism" fits (oddly coincidental). Thankfully, terrorism doesn't share the same lack of definition in the general public's mind with communism. Communism could be thrown around to a far greater extent, as nobody truly understood what it was. Actors, politicians, and average joes could be blacklisted because there was no mental connection between the label and guerilla violence.
Quick's sentiment, "I would rather let the govt listen to our boring lives and maybe pick up a terrorist call and be able to stop another 9/11", is not uncommon. It is dangerous, however; as the illegality of such "fishing" campaigns is due to the extreme danger to freedom. Secret arrests for secret trials with secret evidence, secret charges, and no right to ethical treatment, independant lawyers, or outside contact means the first time somebody decides dissidents are harmful to their career, innocent people will start disappearing (see: the regimes of Augusto Pinochet, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and for a major twist of irony, Saddam Hussein). Without dissent, even the most free society becomes totalitarian overnight. Strict laws on the subject are to prevent exploitation by corrupt officials, an especially common trait to develop in law enforcement organizations. Remember that the people who will abuse the power are indistinguishable from those who will not.
As for "Bush bashing", try to keep in mind Bush the man is totally different from Bush the administration. Most people combine the two for all government rights or wrongs without looking a little deeper to see if it really applies. For example, the Iraq invasion (and subsequent rebuilding contracts) was dreamed up years before by less-than-ethical individuals who just needed a segue with which to gain popular support, and thus blaming Bush is erroneous (though legally, he does share responsibility). Bush can be blamed for playing a major roll in turning "terrorist" into a buzzword for political gains, though.
Back to the original topic, terrorism is by no means just coercion through violence on civillians, so perhaps it should be defined as:
<blockquote>n: the calculated infliction of severe anxiety on a target through conspicuous, graphic, violent actions (usually military in nature), or the threat thereof, in order to attain goals through coercion</blockquote>
This still applies to a lot of actions which are debatable as to how "terrorism" fits (oddly coincidental). Thankfully, terrorism doesn't share the same lack of definition in the general public's mind with communism. Communism could be thrown around to a far greater extent, as nobody truly understood what it was. Actors, politicians, and average joes could be blacklisted because there was no mental connection between the label and guerilla violence.