TCS Daily


Why Newt Is Right

By Josh Manchester - December 5, 2006 12:00 AM

What does Newt Gingrich have in common with two accomplished nuclear strategists?

Philip Bobbitt has served in national security positions in the US Senate and the Clinton administration. He teaches constitutional law at the University of Texas and strategy at Oxford. At a recent Bradley Lecture at the American Enterprise Institute, Bobbitt discussed the future of terrorism and the state. One of his recurring refrains was the need for states to "stockpile laws" just as they might stockpile vaccines in the instance of biological attack, except the laws would provide for actions the government might legally take to restore itself, or to defend itself and the country, in the aftermath of an attack using weapons of mass destruction. Bobbitt is releasing a new book, discussing terrorism and the evolution of the state, early next year.

Bobbitt is not alone in these concerns. Fred Ikle, a former undersecretary of defense for policy in the Reagan Administration, and a former head of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, has penned a work called Annihilation From Within, warning of the dangers posed by catastrophic terror attacks. He too concludes that the United States must begin to inoculate itself against such attacks:

[When a nation is attacked from within,] the surviving military and civilian leadership in the attacked country, as well as governments of other nations, will find themselves in a world without guideposts. The lessons of military history will be of no avail. Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War, the outpourings of modern think tanks, and everything in between will all be useless in the shattering new situation. Because of the transforming novelty of such an attack, new national security concepts must be developed well before the onslaught occurs . . .

How should this new challenge be approached? Begin by imagining the needs of the national leadership in the immediate post-attack environment. Decisions with momentous consequences would have to be reached instantly. Special technologies to gather intelligence would have to be ready and in place. Previously enacted standby emergency laws would be essential to manage the aftermath. If we left the planning of all these responses until after the attack, we would obviously be too late.

And this brings us back to Newt Gingrich. At a recent speech in New Hampshire, Newt drew criticism for remarks about the first amendment, though they were largely taken out of context. Here's what he said:

This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and advocate the use of nuclear of biological weapons.

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

The criticism of Newt was off the mark. He's merely stating the same things as Bobbitt and Ikle, in the form of a political speech rather than a published monograph.

Newt and the rest are right to be worried. A study by RAND recently indicated the consequences of a 10 kiloton nuclear blast in the Port of Long Beach. RAND estimated that 60,000 would die from the blast, another 150,000 would have severe radiation sickness, 6 million would try to evacuate the LA Basin, and the US economy would be drastically damaged.

Mr. Gingrich proposes a series of actions against our enemies: using technology to disrupt their internet use; to disrupt their subversion of free speech; and to stop their recruitment, presumably via the internet (see this previous article). Each of these is an inherently defensive method toward forestalling catastrophe: disrupting internet use, websites, servers, and such attacks the physical infrastructure of that which has been identified to be harmful in some fashion.

Disrupting the use of free speech is also reactive and defensive in nature, however it is performed. Governments and free speech advocates traditionally perceive such questions as having an either-or polarity: either the government allows all speech, or it does not, and begins a road down a slippery slope toward the freedom of speech being defined by the capriciousness of bureaucrats, judges, or dictators.

Finally, a result of attacks on infrastructure and speech might be to staunch the flow of recruits to extreme ideologies and terror groups. Yet this too is reactionary in nature.

An offensive yet superficially benign way to accomplish some of these same goals might be to begin a cultural war against extremism. In addition to physically stopping or legally outlawing the ideas behind radicalism, such a campaign might seek to propagate competing memes, which appeal to the same core demographic that is apt to become extremists. To be successful, such a tactic might require the use of popular culture and mass media, instead of the techniques of public diplomacy as they are usually conceived.

Either way, we would be wise to listen carefully to Bobbitt, Ikle and Gingrich. It is long past time to have debates on how best to preserve the government in the event of a catastrophic attack. If stopping extremists from using the internet is necessary, time is not on our side. The Middle East Media Research Institute reports that a new magazine has just been started in the Muslim world:

On November 28, 2006, the Al-Fajr Information Center released the first issue of the Technical Mujahid Magazine . . . The magazine's self-proclaimed purpose is "to help prevent acts of aggression against Muslims [in cyberspace], and to assist the mujahideen in their efforts." The introduction explains that "the Internet provides a golden opportunity... for the mujahideen to break the siege placed upon them by the media of the Crusaders and their followers in the Muslim countries, and to use [the Internet] for [the sake of] jihad and the victory of the faith."

The clock is ticking.

Josh Manchester is a TCSDaily contributing writer. His own blog is The Adventures of Chester and he recently interviewed Fred Ikle. Listen to that exchange here.


Categories:

61 Comments

Interesting article - but the chance of us being proactive is nil
We've been unable to deal effectively and appropriately with those who aided and abetted the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack, so the chance that we will act forcefully in advance of a future attack is nil.

We and the rest of the first world will get serious after the terrorists score a city or two. Hopefully they will not be US cities.

developing technology for public safety
It is essential that technology in the 21st century is built to protect the public safety. Policing the internet, installing video surveillance cameras, and identifying the whereabouts of every individual person are all viable means of keeping people safe by preventing crime.

The opinions of individuals concerned about privacy rights
should not prevent the installation of technology to protect the public safety and prevent crime. As human beings, we should adjust and adapt to a life where new technologies are implemented to keep people safe.

It will change our thinking about being in public or online, and our need for government to protect us.

The Global War On Terror
As other people have said, in The Glogal War On Terror we are fighting two types of enemys. First, we are fighting Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihaad and other terrorist organizations. Second, we are fighting a criminal philosophy that exists among individuals. The individuals and terrorist organizations alike try to justify their crimes by expounding a corrupt version of Islam.

A very odd approach
Leaving aside questions of the reactive corrosion of our own freedoms, to fight shadowy devils, I fail to see the logic in shutting down Islamist web sites. Such an action will only drive them deeper underground. Don't we instead want to keep them where we can keep an eye on them, and read about what they're up to?

This chilling sensation
It's apparent you have never read 1984.

We have two dangers confronting us. One is the threat that Islamists who hate us will set off something bad inside the United States. Such a thing has happened once (one time) in our history.

The other danger is that we will decide to curtail all the liberties that have distinguished this country from the others, in an aversive reaction to the first danger. In such a world, first and fourth amendment rights are curtailed for our own good. Americans can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial-- for they are not being imprisoned for anything they did, but rather for something someone holding power over us believes they might be thinking of doing.

And we have allowed this marginalization of our legal process to occur without significant protest. Because we are sheep, and are transfixed by the image of planes crashing into buildings.

Now your recommendation is that the government urgently take on the task of tracking everyone's whereabouts through modern technology, so that potential enemies (those who have not yet done anything but might be capable of it) can be plucked from the streets and put forever where the sun don't shine.

This calls for an awful lot of blind confidence in our officials. Don't you think that in a panicked reaction to a single outrageous incident we have thrown away freedoms that a great many more than 3,000 of us have fought and died to defend throughout our history?

In Reality
You express a lot of rhetoric, but you are unrealistic. Life is different now. Mankind must adjust to life in a technological world. Mankind should use the new tools to keep everybody safe, and prevent crime. It's the right thing to do.

I agree
Right! Keep an eye on 'em, but have laws on the books so criminals are punished.

Is it legal?
Is it legal for the FBI or any government agency to troll web sites for evidence?

I thought I heard a recent case where some law enforcement agency used the internet to track criminals and were reprimanded for it by a court. (Can't recall the details.)

It's all about the state...
The state got us into this mess. And now, more of the same nonsense can save us?

Throw down your arms, roll over and let the great protector save you from its failures.

not only that
but the occassional hack into the web site to put up false messages would greatly confuse their command and control abilities.

Charles...
People like Charles make me fear for the future of our country and humanity in general.

You speak of 'our need for government to protect us' and yet in my life time, however short, I can think of few times if any the government has made me any safer and a million ways it's put me in danger. We don't need them, they need us.

This weird concept of doing more of the same to prevent the same result from happening again, I must be out of the loop because it makes no sense to me.

And besides what good is safety without freedom? I would argue the opposite of your point and say the opinions of individuals concerned about public safety should not prevent my own freedom, but I suppose this argument is already lost on you.

I would rather die freely than live safely under the world people like Charles are creating.

I can't think of any reason why trolling public web sites should be prohibited.
If they have to hack past a password, then there might be a case. But even then I'm not sure.
But anything that is easily viewable by the public has not "expectation of privacy".

If the policeman can see the evidence on your front lawn, from the street, then he can collect it with no fear. If he has to open your garage door in order to find it, then it's not admissable.

Failure
You point is well taken but given the availability of deep encryption technology on the internet you have to consider the risks. One of the fundamental strategies of war is to eliminate what is know as C3I. Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence. I think you are looking at websites as mere propaganda tools but let suppose they are publishing detailed plans for a attack using 256+BIT encryption? What about email as a mode of C4I? I could suggest that disruption of the enemies (yet Roy, enemy) C3I capabilites is mandatory. You liberals love shades of grey. I tend to think in terms of Black and White. So where is the line of demarcation here? However, since this threat is not real this is pretty pointless right?

Liberty under assault
>I would rather die freely than live safely under the
>world people like Charles are creating.

I agree, I'd rather live free and die than be responsible for turning this great country of ours into a police state.

Legitimate Duty
The primary duty of the state, if you look at the founding documents, is for the common good which also means national defense. Who, except on a national scale, could wage war? I know what your saying but if the threat is real, which is apparently a subject of debate, then whom, besides the state, has the capabilities to even attemp to control this?

Sorry
The last post was in response to Roy, not you. I am not sure what happened here...

The people could if
1. the authorities would be able to sift through all of the chaff for a few kernels of intel

2. people wouldn't be afraid of being sued for racism.

Those 'imams' praying in the airport were not just exercising religious freedom, they were trying to force an issue and get special treatment. (Were they praying at the right time: 1. first light(?), 2. high noon, 3. mid afternoon(?) 4. sunset, 5. last light(?))
The rules regarding prayer are not absolute, especially when travelling. Or so I have been told by muslims.

No information escapes from the Black Hole
Legal or illegal would be a moot point today. If evidence gathered on the internet-- or by phone taps, or by planting a key device on one's computer, or by monitoring any other communication by our eyes in the sky-- were gathered by inadmissible means, the person would just never come to trial. They would be classified as an illegal combatant, and imprisoned until the end of the GWOT. Any grounds for inquiry into the person would be turned down for reasons of national security.

See the Washington Post's November article US Wants Suspects Kept Quiet. A lawyer for Majid Khan, a Maryland resident recently transferred from an unspecified "black site" to Guantanamo, was denied emergency access to his client on the grounds that the detainees' experiences are a secret that are never to be shared with the public. Khan may have come into possession of information, including locations of detention, conditions of detention and "alternative interrogation techniques" that are classified at the TOP SECRET/SCI level.

That is, the secrets he holds concern the circumstances of his own detention. And since he knows such national secrets, he must never be allowed to communicate with the public. Or even his own attorney.

It's all for our own good.

Encrypted messages
I see your meaning. In otherwords an e-mail like "Did you catch You Bet Your Butt on TV last night?" might mean "We attack at dawn".

And if we shut everyone down who uses innocuous sounding e-mail messages, they might have to use one-time cell phones instead. Okay, I see it now. :)

War on Criminals
Violent Islamic individuals in this country should be treated no differant than violent members of the KKK, Christian Identity.

We are at war
One of my significant complaints after 9-11-2001 was why Congress did not actually declare war, a Constitutional act. Instead they approved something that allowed the President to use military force. It isn't the same. We made the same mistake in Korea and Vietnam

Freedom of speech is not a right to privacy issue. That was not the intent of our founding fathers.

In the past 60 years we have turned freedom of speech on it head through the "politically correct" speech movement. As soon as we open the door to regulating any speech we did not like we hit a wall relative to freedom and liberty.

We have had folks like the ACLU and the "politically correct police" make a mockery of free speech and move far, far away from what our forefathers intend. The rest of us have tolerated such behavior. So we now have speeched that is protected that shouldn't be and speeched that was intended to be protected that is not.

The one extremely important roll today for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, especially using the internet, is that we have the capability to read what our enemy is saying. They clearly state why they hate us, what they want now and what their ultimate goals are. Yet the broadcast media, national dailies and certain leaders either do not wish to believe the enemy or try to downplay our enemies clear spoken intentions, even after our enemies have acted.

We are at war but not fully engaged as a nation. Most of America has little understanding of what the risks are and nature of our enemy. The risks all sound like some scenario from the early Cold War. Yet this is a different enemy. Today there are at least four probably more ways the Islamists can readily obtain nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. They have clearly state that if and when they could get them they would use them.

What do we do, what do you do, if one of our cities is attack by a WMD instead of a couple of planes hitting a building or two? How about a European or Japanese city? How about Israel? Ask your neighbors those questions if you have your own answers. We are in as dangerous a place as the World was in the mid-1930s and so far our responses have been little different.

Your right
Yes, given the NY Times propensity for publishing classifed information I should expect them to also help by making available the editorial staff for terrorist C3I.

Hillary?!
Before "stockpiling" laws that cede .ANY. of our civil liberties to the Federal Government, ask yourself this simple question:

Would YOU trust this law in the hands of a Clinton Presidency?

Remember Craig Livingstone???

The Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Let them talk!
The government can locate them easier that way. No matter what you believe, there are countless ways to track you down over the internet.

Never say anything on the internet that you wouldn't say in the middle of town square. The government has the right to enter sites that proclaim to be pro-Jihad or Islamofascist in nature.

One does not need to curtail free speech since free speech does not protect you from your speech being noted and recorded if done in public.

This is not about free speech vs. survival, this is about using every means at our disposal to listen to speech freely offered in a public medium.

The idea of having contingency powers in place in case of a devastating attack is a great one. Too bad it will never be done with people in power who don't even believe their is a threat. Thankfully the military has several such plans.

Thanks goodness the DEms are in.
Now redneck Reps have the DEms to blame for inaction.

One good thing about a Hillary presidency
If anybody overseas threatens her grip on power or disses her I'm quite confident that they'll learn the old truism about there being no rules in a knife fight.

People forget that it was the ethical, caring, progressive Democrats who had the moral and political latitude to intern the Japanese, fire bomb Dresden and tokyo, nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and B52 saturation bomb Hanoi and Haiphong.

They already can
You people ever heard or martial law? These laws can be enacted in national emergency. I understand the paranoia but realistic ways can be done to safe guard.

good point
All forms of shutting down speech are bad ideas. I'd much rather have my neighbor freely speak his mind so I can have a sense of where he stands.

Article based on flawed assumptions
The article is based on flawed assumptions.

If we are attacked from within many people will blame the lawyers for silly rules that handcuffed efforts to prevent attacks. Many will quote Shakespeare (I forget the play) "The first thing we'll do is kill all the lawyers."

If you are recovering from a disaster, the less rules to follow, the better. Common sense is the one you really need. Consider how Florida recovered from Andrew and all the other hurricanes compared with how New Orleans handled Katrina.

Anyone who trusts in Government to save them will be disappointed.

Fake signals
For sure-- but they'd have to get a native speaker in the language the site was using. Otherwise the red herring would look like those narks that show up at a big buy posing as dope dealers-- only their shiny black shoes and buzz cuts give them away.

First of all.....
The founding documents are most certainly NOT about the common good except to the extent that individuals' right to life, liberty and property are sacred and this, and this alone, leads to the greatest common good. The phrase "general welfare" and what it implied in terms of federal action was constricted by the enumerated powers--see Article 1, Section 8.

I challenge you to find anything in the founding documents by which the federal government is empowered to keep a standing army. Only a navy is among the enumerated powers and that for protection of American trade and interests.

And, I ask you...who but the state has the ability to start massive, brutal wars, to force its values etc on unwilling, but weaker people? How contradictory can we get? The state starts wars, pushes other around and then aggrandizes power to itself to protect us all from what...? States, of course. This is the great fallacy of the state.

I would agree
Yes, I agree. This is a pretty standard libertarian argument. In fact, I agree that there is not constitutional mandate for a standing army. However, I could also argue that the life liberty and property need protection when threatened. Then is an army required? Also, given the today’s world and the utter complexity of modern weapon systems I see no alternative. This is why we, as the people, must select leaders who use force when it meets the interest of national security. Now I disagree strongly with several posters about the current state of affairs but I can certainly grant that we have meddled in the past to our detriment. In fact, I suppose one could argue that WW2 was avoidable, at least in Europe.
I am not an advocate of bully behavior. However, when threatened we certainly have an obligation to preserve our way of life. Also, while abolition of the state is a nice concept, freedom requires responsibility which is why so few want it and I think abolition of the state is as idealistic as communism at the other side of the spectrum. I think the founders were very wise. These debates are ageless. They will not be resolved here either.

What Constitution?

When those black robed supreme beings are allowed to write law from the bench, and the "President" is allowed to get by with calling our Constitution a G__ D_____ worthless piece of paper, might I suggest that since the people think that this is AOK for these beings to do this, you sir do not have a Constitution. The only law the "leadership" recognizes is Agenda 21 of the United Nations which is a body designed, built and run by the "Illumined Ones", and THAT is the law you will dance to, the Constitution is just a historical document because we allowed that to happen.

Hell-A-Ree Klinking
You forgot to mention the mass murders she was the overseer for. Hell-A-Ree Klinking is the one (according to the FBI) who gave the orders to burn the people to death in Whaco Texas. She was also involved in the OKC Murah building debacle. People also forget that she/it and Silly Willy the Sodomite were responsible for the death of nearly all the hemophiliacs in Canada. The thought of having that cabal back in the outhouse is enough to make chills run up and down your spine.

Government "Saviour"
People forget the words of those who wrote the Constitution. They explicitly told us that a government which can do everything for you can also do everything to you. We would do well to go back and read their words, and apply their solutions to our problems. Good government is never "out of fashion".

The Jewish NeoCon Globalists are Overplaying Their Hand
Try it...I dare you. The fact is, the American populace is the most heavily armed civilian population in the history of mankind. The plan is so blatantly obvious:

1. First the boogeyman of terrorism, most of which is black-op "false flag" operations designed to convince people to empower the tyrants and give up their freedom....check out this Alex Jones video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5792753647750188322. Also, check out scholarsfor911truth.com

2. Next will come the "HateSpeech" laws...which would result in posts like this resulting in the imprisonment of people like me (which many on this blog are frothing at the mouth to see....NOT IN MY AMERICA THOUGH!! haha). The Jewish extremists have already succeeded in enacting these laws against speech in Europe (aka David Irving ....and if you don't know who he is, well....God help you (figuratively speaking...lol))

3. Then comes the total gun ban....the Dems will accomplish that with total control of all 3 branches of government sometime around 2010 (a demographic inevitability due to non-white immigration ....legal AND illegal....by the way, check out Kevin McDonald here on teh Jews and immigration: http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/041027_immigration.htm)

4. The perfect little totalitarian state, the collapse of the American middle class, and the globalist elite's wet dream.

Dark clouds on the horizon...VERY dark clouds. Pure evil is in the air...

I just wander if they will actually pull it off. I think the Jews and other globalist elites have overplayed their hand.

You hit the nail on the head. And the author agrees with you.
This is all about the survival and propagation of the state and its ability to use violent force. The author even points this out indirectly with the text:
"would provide for actions the government might legally take to restore itself, or to defend itself and the country,". The author and the people mentioned in the article could give a crap less about the individuals and even less about individual rights.

There is only one reason the government would not survive a nuclear attack against a city or piece of infrastucture. The people realize that they have been misled by the people in the article into thinking that the government could protect them through the use of force.

A feeling of security is NOT better than no security at all.
The nation is too big and has too much going on for the government to protect us all from everything and protect itself. So guess what Average Citizens, you are screwed. The government will protect itself at all cost with YOUR money. Then it will use the propaganda machine to get your friends to feel sorry for them when the terrorists kill you.

So don't feel safe, you aren't, and there is nothing the government can do about it. Hell, our government protectors are so incompetent that they can't even bring their arch-enemy Bin Laden and his terrorist scum pals to justice, and they are hiding in a country a fraction of this size.

Yeah. They are less likely to enact such treasonous nonsense
The Democrats are less likely to enact that kind of treasonous legislation to be "stockpiled". It really is a good thing they're in. Otherwise, the Republicans would be trying to enact legislation to infringe on the 1st Amendment.

Nah...
we "rednecks" can use the great period of inaction from 1992 to 2000. The new bout of inaction will just pick up where Clinton left off.

Funny that you give the quality of seeing reality to the "rednecks". Fine Americans they be.

Yeah.
The Dems like to go after the 2nd Amendment which is the one that protects that valued first Amendment.

By the way, the Dems are only 51 members of the Senate WITH Lieberman. Count Cheney and we have an excellently gridlocked Senate. No one is going to get anything done and that appeals to my libertarianism.

Evil Jew Alert!
Evil Jews, evil immigrants, the downtrodden middle class, and Democrat conspiracy. Not to mention sourcing other moonbats ("scholars" for 9/11 truth).

All the evidence is in iHeretic: you are a complete idiot and a whackjob.

But I would never want you locked up for your views no matter how insipid.

It is also interesting to note that this site seems perfectly balanced considering that the rants range from calling most posters here either Neo-cons or leftists. A pleasant mix in my view.

Two things..
1. I wonder if the folks who think is whole thing is a great idea will be of the same opinion the next time a Democrat is in the White House. After all, it would be a shame if Ann Coulter were accused of treason for writing "Treason".

2. So we're going make ourselves safer by tinkering with the First and Fourth constitional amendments. What about number Two?? Was is Ben Franklin who said "Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither."

I think the election results from this year should be a fairly clear indication that Bush/Cheney/Rove are not trusted to protect us and our freedoms; especially when they're pushing to curtail those very freedoms.

Absolutely
I understand perfectly. The concern is valid and great. I have the exact same concern. Some here seem to think conservatives support this big police state which is the absolute opposite of the truth. In fact, I find the other side quick to hurl laws to regulate us. Look at discrimination laws, enviornmental laws (and the taking of land), et al. Laws that violate this should be both temporary and subject to review and enacted only if the need outweighs the risk. In fact, this is what Newt was trying to say. There is always a fine line. Remember the road to hell is paved with good ontent. Unique times require unique solutions. Since this is a human endeavour perfection is impossible.

Got it wrong Manchester, so did Newt
I don't read what Newt is saying as equivalent to what Ikle is saying.

Ikle's point seems to be we need to have a plan in place in case of an attack. So tough decisions are made easier by a pre-conceived plan of how to react.

Newt's point is that the government needs to do more to monitor us and ban speech that may or may not be a veiled message for terrorists to get their marching orders, or to recruit more terrrorists.

Ikle says we should prepare now, make a plan ahead of time.

Newt says we should erode our liberties and give government more power for surveillance of all citizens and to ban websites the beaurocrats deem unacceptable.

Newt is wrong.

Newt
Most of the criticism of Newt and his speech a few weeks back came from disingenuous liberals in *BOTH* parties. It seemed last month he was preparing to run for President and they wanted to sabotage his run before it got off the ground. It seems they have done it. The most damage was done by liberals within the GOP! No wonder they got crushed last month.

yes...
"These debates are ageless. They will not be resolved here either."
You are correct; sadly we abandoned the opportunity for it to be different long ago. The end for America will be a fusion of the administrative tyranny we currently enjoy with the emerging police state which is in evidence. In another fifty years the America I grew up with will be a distant memory. However, even the most powerful soon fall of their own deadweight.

Fatalistic
Don't be so fatalistic. It is not over yet now is it? While it has changed dramatically since I grew up it is still better than most other places. However, people seem to be quick to give up rights nowdays. Example: Seattle/King County voters passed a law that people can only develop 40% of the land they own to protect green spaces. First, I wonder how many renters voted yes? Second, how is this even constitutional? It is my land so who is the state to tell me what to do? Yet I am expected to still pay taxes meaning the state in essence controls it but I pay for it. When private property rights are taken away we are truly doomed...

Well no
No, it was merely a example.... I am not for giving up rights. However, at this time we do need to balance the need for privacy with intel for terror protection. I for one am not going to be xrayed. To me this airport stuff is paramount to surrender to the terrorists.

TCS Daily Archives