No, pinhead, I
was pointing out that you were painting with a
broad stroke without anything other than circumstantial
evidence.
Oh, you mean like the Bush administration's evidence regarding Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction programs?
Yes. There are two sides. I think both are wrong.
Since when does pointing out the obvious equate to
"Bush-bashing"?
Where is your proof? Circumstantial evidence is not proof.
Oh, I'm sorry. You apparently didn't get the memo. The new standard in
our current US system is to provide circumstantial evidence of a claim and
then force the accused party to prove they are not guilty. Since I'm an
American citizen, I feel a right to exercise this new form of
jurisprudence myself.
I saw the memo, and I don't agree with it. But just because the
government can do it doesn't mean I'm going to do it.
Besides, you and everyone else seem to miss the worst part of
the Patriot Act II: The government wants the power to strip
people suspected of, or dealing with, organizations the government
declares to be terrorist in nature, of their U.S. citizenship.
That's the most scary part. It has been hard in the past to
strip someone of their citizenship, and there had to be a
reason to declare an organization of being terrorist in nature.
With PAII, they can declare it, strip people of their citizenship,
then send them off. Where's the checks and balances?
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at
http://www.dittman.net/
