3 ms·
Yes. The question was intended to bait Thomas into confirming his opposition to warrantless surveillance without probable cause and judicial review. He has not
by trevelyan 13y ago
Yes. The question was intended to bait Thomas into confirming his opposition to warrantless surveillance without probable cause and judicial review. He has not yet expressed this opinion and I do not see why he cannot unless he disagrees with it.
- tptacek 13y agoWe should be able to interrogate news stories without requiring everyone on the thread to declare their biases; in fact, overtly avoiding those declarations seems like good "thread discipline" to me. Are we talking about the facts and issues that follow from the facts, or are we echoing our biases off each other? I want to know what's actually happening, not what HN thinks must be happening.