(no subject)

[cnoocy]

This is a political entry, so please don't feel you have to read it.

I can understand the belief that the threat of terrorism is a new sort of challenge.

From that, I can fully comprehend the belief that new tools are needed to meet that challenge.

And it is not unreasonable to state that the chief executive needs to be able to react quickly to new threats.

Taken a little further, one could assert that the executive should be able to ignore laws as necessary.

And therefore that when he chooses to do so, that he should not be held accountable.

One could say that. But to say that is to say that terrorism is too strong an enemy for a free society to deal with.

I don't.

Comments

[joxn.livejournal.com]

Because Israel is 100% terror-free? What?

[libskrat]

No. Because the threat of terrorism has not forced them into changing their legal or cultural infrastructure.