Yes, it’s been said before, but still worth the time to read
once again…
While you’re better reading the proper context, this par
pretty much sums it up:
Americans would never welcome a secret surveillance state to
reduce diabetes deaths, or gun deaths, or drunk-driving deaths by 3,000 per
year. Indeed, Congress regularly votes down far less invasive policies meant to
address those problems because they offend our notions of liberty. So what
sense does it make to suggest, as Obama does, that "balancing"
liberty with safety from terrorism -- which kills far fewer than 3,000 Americans annually --
compels those same invasive methods to be granted, in secret, as long as
terrorists are plotting?
-- Stephe
No comments:
Post a Comment