Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
That's a broad and loaded question and no matter how one answers someone can point and say "see he"s easy on terrorists........ or ..... "see he puts catching terrorists above our civil rights."
It's a little bit of both, depending on the strength of the organization and where we are with the "war" on them.
|
That's exactly the problem right there. Your ideological outlook demands that you straddle the fence on an issue like this.
It wasn't even slightly loaded. Because its very important to answer this question one way or the other and not prevaricate and tie yourself up in knots as you consider the pros and cons (not that due consideration is wrong - just that at the end of it a decision must be reached.)
If you think its a criminal issue , then so be it, its an understandable, (if injudicious) point of view.
This is my point in a more general sense. - To actually make a decision on where you stand and then stick by it seems to be beyond most liberal ideology.
Like Kerry's flip-floppin' and Senator Clinton's playing the numbers, you haven't made a choice yet. You believe you don't really have to make a choice, don't you ? Your sense of personal morality is preserved because you feel you're on the 'good' side of the issue. The side of reason and moderation and due consideration.
However that can only ever satisfy your ideological moral viewpoint.
In the real world Joe Al Queda says - "yippee, the libs in the states are putting forward the exact viewpoints we need them to. Anyone got a phonecard for the US?"
I jest there, but you get the picture. No matter what your ideological point of view is, at the end of the day it comes down to physical activities performed by individuals - these activities you can make easier or harder. Its your choice.
Oh, and the answer to your 'why' question appears to have been answered already : Pure and simple expediency. Or do you have some proof of another motive ?