>> Just becuase he was affiliated with "the enemy," how does that equal
>> combatant? This seems like exaggerated internment, as it were.
>
>You want reasonble, lawful, fair? You must be a terrorist. He's a PR
>lowlife that nobody cares about. and he's a trial balloon for doing this
>to US citizens. Welcome to the Brave New World. You ever see Brazil by
>Terry Guilla,?
Justin - then how would you prevent another 9/11? Seriously. I hear a lot of people saying that they do not mind curtailing some civil liberties to "fight terrorism" - and I am not quite sure how to react. For one thing, I do not buy the argument that courts and the legal system somehow protect us from the "excesses of the government." Courts are a part of the government, so expecting one branch of government to protect us from another branch does not make much sense.
For one thing, I am not a fundamentalist, I do belive that _any_ principle (legal, moral, or religious) is written in stone - it is conditioned on the circumstances (which does not mean it can be discarded lightly). If memory serves, such is the argument against gun-nuts who belive that the 2nd amendment gives them absolute right to own any weapon they want. Why is the 4th amendment any different?
If you face an enemy who is determined to break any law or ethical principle to kill as many civilians as possible, what do you do to stop it?
This is a question, not sarcasm.
wojtek