[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1B2AD323-AAE4-49CA-8566-BA4987A04CC9@jcpa.com>
Date: Mon Dec 19 05:20:50 2005
From: jpole at jcpa.com (Jamie C. Pole)
Subject: [Clips] A small editorial about recent events.
(fwd)
I'm not at all scared.
As far as the rest of your point, I actually agree with you. I see
no reason why the government needs to know which books you are
reading, and I don't believe the government should know how long you
are talking to your "psychic-phone-sex" operator in London (I would
suggest that you look for one in the USA, though - the transatlantic
phone calls can get expensive).
On the other hand, if you are talking to a known or suspected
terrorist, or if you are a known or suspected terrorist, I believe it
is absolutely the government's responsibility to know what is going
on. I know that there is a very specific provision that allows
access to this information legally, but we do not know the
circumstances that prompted the extralegal wiretaps. There may have
been a very good reason why these particular circumstances were
handled this way.
A blanket condemnation without all of the facts is just as wrong as a
blanket justification without all of the facts.
Jamie
On Dec 18, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Dude VanWinkle wrote:
>
> what about this point?
>
> Just cause you are scared, doesnt mean you need trounce on my
> liberties in a vain attempt to protect yourself. You arent even
> protecting yourself: just cause GWB knows what books I rented from the
> library or how long I cry on the phone to my psychic-phone-sex
> operator in London doesnt mean Bin Laden cant ship a nuke right up
> your ass via freighter.
>
> ?
>
> -jp
Powered by blists - more mailing lists