ibenez wrote:
Ok, on point 3... If people are working as part of an international terrorist organization, it's an international threat.. even if they are American born.

So your point 3 isn't valid in this context. I don't care if Jose Padilla was born in the US, if the f@#$ker is working as part of an Al Queda plot, anything is game - spy on him, torture him, FUCK DUDE I'LL TORTURE HIM.

The problem is that you don't know if he is part of an Al Queda plot until you've tried him. For non-citizens you get a presumption of guilt, or nearly so. You get Gitmo. If any U.S. citizen accussed of terrorism is presumed to be guilty, again I submit to you that you don't have a free country. Anyone can simply be accused any hauled away and there is no standard. You'll be torturing people who have nothing to do with Al'Queda, cause they said the wrong thing or talked to the wrong person. How many innocent citizens are you willing to torture to protect innocent citizens? That is the question.

In addition - a free country is worthless if you are dead. Therefore, protection SUPERCEDES freedom temporarily.

Need I haul out that Benjammin Franklin quote? First of all, there is nothing about what is being proposed here that is temporary. There are always risks. The war on terror is going to last a long, long time. If you are arguing that any "protection," no matter how ill conceived, ought to superecede any freedom, no matter how important, whenever a risk, no matter how improbable, exists, then you might as well toss in the Constitution forever. If that is not what you are arguing, then there is room for discussion. There were Russian spies living in the U.S. in the 80's. Those guys wanted to nuke us too. There has never been a point in American history when there wasn't a threat. So why did we have the 4th amendment then? Whats the point?

If you disagree with this perhaps we could try an experiment. I have several hanguns I can point in your face, and then let you choose a temporary restriction in freedom, or a bullet in your head. Which would you choose?

We're not talking about a temporary restriction on freedom. Thats the whole point of the objections raised here. We're talking about a permanent policy of getting an organization that doesn't have the processes to deal with Constitutional protections involved with domestic law enforcement. The problem here is that this will result in abuse. This isn't hypothetical. You take a big, snarling, pissed off dog and you unleash him on a bunch of school children, lots of them are gunna get hurt, even if there is only one you're after. Thats how it works. So, I don't see what the difference is. You've got a gun to my head on the one hand and a gun to my head on the other. Frankly, I choose not to play.

So if you guys are so concerned about the constitution, why aren't you concerned about it being suspended? This is the DECLARED AND MANDATORY action the US Military will take upon nuclear or biological attack.

Got a link for that? In general, a temporary declaration of martial law during a disaster is not the same as a permanent change to U.S. policy respecting domestic use of armed forces.

RE: Pentagon Expands Domestic Surveillance