Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
it is evident that this phantom enemy "terrorism" is not and cannot operate within a conventional war scenario---so there is no continuity between events/attacks/whatever---if that is the case (and it is, look around), how do you justify acting as though the situation was wholly otherwise? in other words, what basis is there for the argument that any and all violations of law on the part of the bush squad in areas of "security" are justified because of the magnitude of the threat? what threat?
|
I think that the problem with terrorism and terrorists is that they do operate like phantoms. If they would stand up and be counted then they would be much easier to take out. GW probably figures it is better to prevent any further 911's at almost any costs rather than face the people after another large scale attack takes place.
I suspect after the next 911 type attack that we will see a further erosion of civil liberties. The people will demand results and woe be to the polititian who preaches civil liberties instead of doing everything possible to get the bastards responsible and prevent future attacks.