The president always justifies what many (including, recently, the courts) consider to be questionable surveillance practices by saying that they are simply trying to avoid "another 9/11" or a ten-fold 9/11 or any number of similar phrases, involving the words "nucular weapons" and "mushroom clouds". Yet when asked if these methods are effective, their best examples are the arrests of environmental activists whose practices cause destruction of property but who insist that they take precautions to prevent damaging humans, and who have caused no injuries. These groups are classified by the government as terrorists and were used as an example of how their surveillance efforts are necessary and successful. No group which causes similar property damage to abortion clinics, however, has been classified by this administration as terrorist.
Should these extreme surveillance techniques be used on every terrorist organization, or only those who have taken or express the will to take lives?
2006-08-30
06:37:55
·
5 answers
·
asked by
Aleksandr
4
in
Law & Ethics