Tuesday, September 21, 2004
I donno about that . . .
I'm all with detaining people who are "High risk" or what have you. But I'm not ready to agree with his conclusions.
Amnesty International has laid down the gauntlet, placing a higher priority on civil liberties than on protection from Islamist terrorism. In contrast, I worry more about mega-terrorism — say, a dirty bomb in midtown Manhattan — than an innocent person spending time in jail.
The nice thing about the US is that it doesn't matter what you or anyone thinks. You are innocent until proven guilty, regardless of what's going on, except for a couple of situations where you can be held for a while longer. Nabbing terrorists is good, but I don't think that making a mockery of the Constitution is the way to do it. If you're gonna go after people, arrest them and bring them up on criminal charges. That way a court of law (me trusting courts, what has this world come to) can decide their fate. None of this let's hold you for a couple of years business.
Amnesty International has laid down the gauntlet, placing a higher priority on civil liberties than on protection from Islamist terrorism. In contrast, I worry more about mega-terrorism — say, a dirty bomb in midtown Manhattan — than an innocent person spending time in jail.
The nice thing about the US is that it doesn't matter what you or anyone thinks. You are innocent until proven guilty, regardless of what's going on, except for a couple of situations where you can be held for a while longer. Nabbing terrorists is good, but I don't think that making a mockery of the Constitution is the way to do it. If you're gonna go after people, arrest them and bring them up on criminal charges. That way a court of law (me trusting courts, what has this world come to) can decide their fate. None of this let's hold you for a couple of years business.
