Frank > That's not what I said. The 9/11 commission stated that the > attack could have been prevented by using the intelligence > that was available, intelligence that was -not- gathered > under the provisions of the unPatriot Act.
I wrote what I did in the hope that you would clarify your statement, as you did. The following LP quite is interesting The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. ... If the government wants to spy on the property of Seehusen, why should anyone other than Seehusen bear the cost of placing the restriction? Why not let the market decide? Spies are American citizens too. Why should their civil liberties be trampled upon? The link http://www.lp.org/lpn/9907-KYC.html talks about civil liberties. The number of deaths (3000) illustrates that the numbers involved in the issue are not small. Although the September 11 attack was not a result of limitations on intelligence gathering, it is plausible that a new attack could have the same level of casualties and only be preventable using the powers of the Patriot Act. Of course, no approach will guarantee to stop all attacks. Here in the UK, the government, acting on the advice of the security services, has introduced powers of house arrest in order to combat terrorism. People deemed a threat can be placed under house arrest. Do you think that that goes too far? Regards Tim Babylon 5 - Spider in the Web Senator Voudreau: These are volatile times, Captain. Practicality is more important than principles if lives are to be saved. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
