[PAR35]

Actually, what I was saying was prove that it was necessary;

Now that isn't exactly true, is it. Let's review what you 'actually' said.

You quoted my comment: "It was effective in preventing sabotage and reduced espionage." To which you appended Prove it

Nothing about me proving that it was necessary, only requiring that I prove that it was effective - two completely different concepts. That there might have been other effective means to accomplish the goal doesn't mean the method chosen was not in itself effective, but it might speak to necessity.

For example, we could greatly reduce the risk of Islamic terrorism in this country by expelling all Moslems. Are there other, less drastic steps which could be taken? Yes. Might they be as effective? Probably not.

[WildHorseCrash]

Now that isn't exactly true, is it.

Yes, it is exactly true. If it were not true, I would not have said it.

Let's review what you 'actually' said.

You quoted my comment: "It was effective in preventing sabotage and reduced espionage." To which you appended Prove it

But if you are going to quote what I "appended," do not take it out of context; do not truncate it. Include the entire appendage. It reads, in whole, as follows:

Prove it. There is no evidence at all that the actions prevent anything that proper, constitutional and legal investigation would have done.

While I may not have been all that clear, the point I was trying to make is that the evacuation was unnecessary; that it accomplished nothing that a proper, constitutional and legal investigation would have.