Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Which is perhaps why we are done. You have said your piece, you would rather have seen people die and important infrastructure destroyed rather than violating a wiretapping law. I would rather violate the wiretapping law. Your view on the law is fundamentalist in nature, mine considers motivations and outcome. There can be no meeting of the minds.
|
i'll remember that the next time theres an absolution of the law type argument coming.
That must be why sandy berger only got probation, because it was national security. or why clinton wasn't convicted, because it was only about a BJ.
edit: actually, now that i'm thinking about it, your argument is totally hypothetical in nature. There is zero proof that people would have died or important infrastructure would have been destroyed had the law been followed and a warrant applied for. Instead you mistakenly, or intentionally, surmise that breaking the law was the only possible thing to do in order to prevent a terrorist act.
You say my view of the law is fundamentalist in nature, does that not fly in the face of those who say the constitution is not a living document? those that feel it should be strictly interpreted?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Last edited by dksuddeth; 12-16-2005 at 09:26 AM..
|