Fezmid Posted April 1, 2006 Author Posted April 1, 2006 And as defense planner, my job has been to tear it to pieces, wargame the hell out of options, and show the policyites why their miracle political BS sucks. A good, comprehensive defense plan for the US will be able to withstand that level of scrutiny. When it doesn't it needs to be fixed. Our laws, how we enforce those laws and our security should be under the same microscope-but given latitude to change. The difference here, is after going through all that (with much more of an emphasis on civil rights and laws that you probably would ever believe) the chemists aren't accusing you of violating your civil rights when you tell them the molecule doesn't work. 648546[/snapback] Our laws should be given latitude to change (after proper review and votes -- not purchased by lobbies, but that's another topic). However, the foundation of the ENTIRE COUNTRY should not, and civil liberties were one of the major reasons that this country exists today. You can't throw that away.
GG Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 One man's invasion of privacy, is another man's salvation. Last summer, police installed cameras in crime-ridden neighborhoods and on the city's commercial center, each equipped with sensors that can detect the sound of gunfire. Police use the cameras to zoom in on certain streets and virtually "walk" down the pavements looking for crime. Again, the difference between this and the drones, is.... ????
Ghost of BiB Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 One man's invasion of privacy, is another man's salvation.Again, the difference between this and the drones, is.... ???? 650971[/snapback] None. Trying to use available technology to help protect a population is unconstitutional and a complete violation of civil liberties. If I want to cap winos in a sidestreet alley, it should be my unalienable right to do so unobserved.
Recommended Posts