4 ms·
As often with powerful tools, what we miss is an effective counter-power to restore balance. In this case, I'd investigate: * making it a crime for officials t
by fab13n 13y ago
As often with powerful tools, what we miss is an effective counter-power to restore balance. In this case, I'd investigate:
* making it a crime for officials to use anti-terrorism provisions without a serious enough ground (this poses the problem of legally defining "serious enough")
* nullifying any legal procedure which uses anti-terrorist laws yet doesn't yield a terrorist indictment (Today, sticking a terrorist charge on an investigation just gives free super powers to judges and cops; with this caveat, making terrorist claims would become an all-or-nothing gamble, which would be used much more carefully)
- Loughla 13y agoFrom what I've seen in the US political and judicial system (I may be too cynical), I believe that the following would happen: Point 1: The definition of what is "serious" would be so watered down and full of political rhetoric that anyone, at any time could be found to be a 'serious threat'. Point 2: This would simply increase the amount of 'terrorism' convictions, and may actually lead to a quicker trials and harsher sentences --- surely the police and prosecution wouldn't bring a charge to MY court unless it was serious! Look at the new law that makes it so! The issue is that the people using the powerful tools are also the same people allowed to write the checks and balances. . . .