Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I didn't bring it up first, look at the posts above.
If any law was broken (and I don't know enough to say) it was done to protect the lives of American's, not in a self serving manner. There in lies the rub, ethics has nothing to do with the law. There are times when following the law is the ethical thing to do, and other times where it would be unethical. If the surveillance was done to monitor political enemies, it would be unethical and I would be lining up to get him out of office, if it was done to monitor suspected terrorist suspects and may have ended up saving countless lives, I'll be happy to shake his hand.
|
Think of the worst presidential candidate imaginable having these survailence powers. The name could be Hillary Clinton. That is the person who could be next in line do this in 08. Regardless if you think these powers are being used for good or bad, eventually unchecked power is always abused. By accepting how this is was supposedly used in a positive way in the war on terror, can you accept how badly this will be abused by future presidents?