Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins
What I'm trying to say is that we have not done a good job of adapting those laws to the current situation. We need to do that.
We are facing an enemy that was never envisioned, that could not possibly have been considered when our current laws and rules governing how we deal with them were written. We are applying outdated laws to a new threat. The Supreme Court absolutely must judge our actions against those laws until we give them new ones to judge us against. They don't (or at least should not) make those laws themselves. We have a separate process to do that.
|
I just don't know that i agree. 18th Century Pirates (many of whom in the East were muslim) were absolutely as cold-blooded throat cutting killers in their day as terrorists are today. Hell, they defined the term.
The US constitution was written in a time rife with the recent and fresh memory of high piracy, so IMO, people like terrorists were certainly considered. And it was also written in the aftermath of the removal of a tyrannical yoke, so the Constitution WISELY erred on the side of limited governmental powers.
Whatever threat terrorists are, they pale in comparison to that of one's own gov't.
The founding fathers took all this into consideration, they were no dummies.