Just how far are you willing to go in the war on terror?
Libertarian mag Reason has published a little quiz by Matt Welch to guage how far you think is too far in the war on terror.
Here it is, with commentary at the beginning and end from author Matt Welch.
The question is a bit open-ended, so here are 10 yes/no hypotheticals. My answer to every one is "no":
1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?
2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?
3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?
4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?
5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?
6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?
7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?
8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?
9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?
10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?
My belief, crudely summarized, is not only that you do not need to imitate totalitarians to beat them, but that it doesn't actually help.
But that's just me; before the next scandal cycle of bloggery bickering begins, I'd love to know where my pro-war friends draw the line.
I'd love to know.
Here are my gut instinct responses: yes to questions 1,3,4,5 and 10; no to 2,6,7,8 and 9.
How about everyone else?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home