Good question that will likely get various opinions. I can respect the beliefs, religious and otherwise of others. With that said, who here will disagree with my statement that our government has used methods of "persuasion" ever since we have been the U.S.? I guess my take on it, is that I truly do not wish to see other harmed "unnecessarily," but if it comes down to a suspected terrorist having vital info that will save the lives of Americans, and more importantly someone I care about; do what needs to be done!
Jesus H. Christ!! If we had tried to fight WWII under the same type of conditions, restrictions, and scrutiny as the war on terrorism, the Marines would still be trying to get the ***anese out of Guadalcanal. And in the European theater, the allied commanders would still be trying to develop a plan for the D-Day invasion that would ensure zero civilian casualties and minimal damage to historic sites and cemeteries.
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
I agree 100% with what you say, there is just one point that bothers me about your/my position,
Quote:
suspected terrorist having vital info that will save the lives of Americans,
Who makes that determination, on what grounds, according to whose agenda, and what is vital and who detremines that? What guarantees do citizens have that these broad sweeping powers will ALWAYS be used properly, whatever "properly" means?
As I have said many times, folks tend to like this strategery when its "their boy" in power who agrees with them.
What might the next prez or future presidents deem a "suspected terrorist" or "vital"?
The slippery slope is gentle with no sign posts or fane fare.
Good points that Ihad in the back of my mind, as wellwhile answering. I would say that there is no simple and easy answer, as there will of course always be abuses of power.
[Deleted]
