>>>What exactly does that example have to do with anything???<<<
I have to explain that? Two different approaches to the same threat. You actually answered it yourself when you admitted there's more than one solution to the problem.
>>>until you can cite specific cases of serious abuse of the new laws (which have very obvious benefits in the war against terrorism), you have no case whatsoever.<<<
I don't need a case of serious abuse to make my case since the case I make is about the new law being allowed to exist in the first place. Those who support it show irrational fear for the enemy and disrespect for the constitution which some would equate to treason.
"This procedure, part of English common law, was considered important enough to be specifically mentioned in the United States Constitution, which says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." (Article One, section nine)."
I see neither rebellion, nor invasion within our borders and yet George Bush has given himself exclusive powers to suspend habeas corpus for US citizens as he sees fit. Only a pathetic coward, mentally incapacitated by fear and paranoia would cheer this on as a great tool for his government
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
