Well, let’s look at how America made a farce of itself on an issue that actually touches directly upon the subject of the OP.
As you probably recall, a couple of the evil terrorists that have got Smapti barricated under his bed behind a barricade of shredded copies of the Consitution perpetrated a bombing at the Boston Marathon. According to Smapti’s worldview, this shows that the government doesn’t have enough information about what’s going on, and needs to get more fingers into everybody’s pies.
According to worldviews based on reality… not so much:
Clearly, the government isn’t effectively using the information it already has. Giving them access to more information is like bailing out a chronically broke friend after he shows you slides of his recent Aruba vacation on his new 60" flatscreen over a bottle of 50-year-old Glenfiddich.
“If the law is on your side, pound on the law; if the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if neither is on your side, pound on the table.”
So your argument is what - that the government will never be able to protect us from terrorism no matter what, and therefore we shouldn’t even bother to try, and just accept our bloody deaths at the hands of extremists as inevitable?
You should accept that you’re not going to die a bloody death at the hands of extremists, and stop throwing everyone under the bus in a misguided attempt to save yourself.
My argument is what I said. The government clearly has sufficient resources already, Whining for more is at best irrelevant and at worst ass-covering.for its own incompetence – in either case, the request should be summarily rejected, with a notice that repeat requests are punishable by pee-pee whacking.
The way to improve the government’s ability to do its job is to consistently apply this sort of tough love to its personnel. Your enabler attitude will merely cause worse in the future – especially given the fact that your preferred policy is leaving the table of relevant options as these disclosures encourage the deployment of proper security techniques and technologies.
Ah, but what if some extremist needs a kidney and he won’t donate one? What then, smarty pants?
(Yeah, yeah; I know. I’m trying not to go beyond the “30% serious, 70% mock” point. Will an express statement that I’m highlighting the cowardly and paranoid worldview behind big-government apologetics count toward the 30%?)
What language do you speak? I haven’t found one where “pursuance” and “require” are synonymous…
Interpreting the Constitution on the assumption that it is written in English rather than Smaptese, the loophole clearly does not apply to this case. There is no requirement to suspend the writ of habeas corpus; instead, what is required is the application of discipline to our servants in government, denying their power-mongering and ass-covering requests and directing them to the resources already available to them which they have (as noted above) miserably failed to utilize properly.
Wow, you’ve managed to come up with an “argument” even dumber than the ones you’ve been presenting. I didn’t think you had it in you.
Well, if somebody ever does come up a bit short on this month’s mortgage after returning from Aruba and installing the new 60" flatscreen and getting over the Glenfiddich hangover, I’ll send them your way. You’ll understand that the financial embarrassment isn’t their fault; they simply lack sufficient resources to meet their needs.
I think you should accept that you’re 98% safe from terrorism and not try to go for 99% or 100%. One can be safe enough, I know I am, and so are you. It costs too much in money and freedoms to go for another 1% of safety.
You really are dumber than a brick, aren’t you? Let me repeat that verbiage for you: “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.” What part of “shall not be suspended” did you not understand? Or are you having difficulty understanding that “unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion” =/= whenever you feel it’s in the pursuance of public safety? Because the last time I checked the calander it wasn’t 1861 or 1943, the US isn’t facing rebellion or invasion.
Especially given the obvious fact that a government that slips free of its leash is itself a greater threat to safety than any rag-tag band of troglodytes can dream of being.
US citizens are stealing classified information from our government and handing it over willy nilly to terrorists and foreign dictators. How is that not rebellion?
You know, you’re right Smapti. Fuck habeas corpus, back in the 60s we should have held The Beetles and The Rolling Stones without charges and thrown them down in the deepest darkest hole without legal recourse. I mean were they not causing teenagers to rebel with their rock music? Is that not rebellion? Were they not described as the British Invasion?
You can’t make up the meaning of words, especially words that have specific legal definitions. Well you can, but you wind up sounding functionally retarded. But let me guess, you think Snowden is guilty of treason, right?
Why am I not surprised? Try reading your fucking Constitution once in a while.