Who has proposed such a thing?
Interesting article.
I always see this as not an "either/or" chioice, but a balance. We "give up" freedom by having laws in the first place, or by empowering police at all. We couldn't have a society at all with total anarchy. It's a question of how much liberty, how much security.
There is the argument that we shouldn't want President Bush to have powers that we wouldn't want a Democrat president (ecch!!!) to have. Then again, when did the law ever stop the Clintons? When will we get the true story of the IRS abuses? That was NOT legal, and yet they apparently did something, and the MSM ignored it.
I hereby give up all rights to privacy I have with respect to nuclear materials in my home, office or car. :)
The issue is not Democrat or Republican. It's trust of the government. Unfortunately too many people only trust the govt when "their" man is in the office. I don't trust govt period.
Common sense? What's that doing here? Don't you know that you can't make an arguement for anything unless you take your point to a bizarre absolute?
Most people seem to be stuck in one of two panic mode absolutes.
PANIC: FOR "If we don't let the government do whatever it wants to keep us safe, atomic weapons will start going off in major cities by Thursday."
and
PANIC: AGAINST "If we give up any rights at all, we'll become a police state. Wiretapping Al Qaida members in the U.S. is only a step away from death camps for anyone that disagrees with the State."
Incorrect.
Who has proposed such a thing?
Well said. Our Constitution is not a libertarian document.