We didn't sign it? Please let me know where you learned that, because I've read that we did.
But you're right, we're under no obligation to give up our ability to deal with terrorism. It's just that this stupid idea would interfere with that ability.
We disagree. You've made your statements known.
Currently we have thousands of troops deployed overseas to fight terrorism -- all of them risking their lives. The commander in chief of these forces is the president. Does President Bush support this bill?
I'm not so sure Dog. I have difficulty envisioning our monolithic military bringing these little guys down. For some reason, I get the image of an elephant being scared of a mouse.
I'd rather have my children taught in a private school instead of a public school (not that I can afford such an option), because private enterprise can OFTEN do things more efficiently than public institutions. They have a profit motive to spur them on that patriotism can't always match (and now there's the profit motive AND patriotism, a potent combination to the West).
I suspect that private companies of former seals, rangers, specops etc, given all the resources needed by the govt would be sleek and trim enough to get these guys.
You may well be right and this is foolish (doubtful illegal tho). On the other hand, I get the feeling that the military has NO idea where he's at. A private company willing to spread around money, might well be able to get info that the military can't.
Just a thought
Godspeed