12-22-2005, 08:15 AM
Occhidiangela,Dec 21 2005, 09:07 PM Wrote:The judge knows no more of national security than he does of fornication
For all I know, he could be an expert fornicator.
Quote:His presumption that the executive will default to tyrrannical behaviour, unethical behaviour, and behaviour injurious to the citizen makes a rule of exception.
I don't think he presumes that the executive will default to tyrrannical behavior, only they may do so, as in fact they have done in the past.
Unfortunately, my presumption is that the Bush Administration will default to tyrrannical behavior --- behavior that is intended to advance their own adgenda, whether or not it is beneficial or harmful to the US as a whole --- and they will use 9/11, the `war on terror', or any other justification that comes to hand, unless otherwise prevented.
When it comes to searches, secret surveillance and control of information, there is a strong tendency for governments to use them for their own ends, unless they are subject to appropriate checks. The constitutional freedom of speech and information in the US is a huge plus relative to, for example, the much greater governmental powers of censorship in the UK.
How this all ties in with protection from terrorism is indeed a difficult question, but it's one that the Bush administration has utterly failed to grasp.