Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, June 10, 2008 07:35 AM

  Is this really what passes for legitimate argument these days?

  I was at your talk at Firefly last night, which I thought was a good talk, thanks for coming out! I had wanted to talk to you about this same article yesterday, having read it on my way out see you, but you didn't pick me :(, so I'm glad to see you comment on this article this morning.

  I just can't believe that this argument the surveillance hawks are using would work, but I'm afraid it might. They're essentially saying "We can go back to the old way of doing things, because breaking the law has become too operationalized, that reverting back would put us "in danger""

  I hope the arrogance and vapidness of that argument is recognized by the American People (not that any are paying attention to this issue). They're suggesting that we should give up some of our civil liberties because not to do so would be temporarily burdensome on a few people. Surely hiring a few more people to help would be sufficient, if it really is that burdensome. And I don't even want to address the fact that it might put us in danger... that's such a full of shit argument, it makes me angry to write about it.

  Does anyone suspect that the reason this administration keeps telling us that we're in danger, yet refuses to disclose what they're doing to find it out, or to tell us what they actually find out, is due to the lack of any meaningful threats or intel?

  —jonnymac27 Read jonnymac27's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel