2 ms·

That's perfectly reasonable. I think you might be overestimating our ability to target HUMINT and other focused intelligence methods in a way that would cause a

That's perfectly reasonable. I think you might be overestimating our ability to target HUMINT and other focused intelligence methods in a way that would cause a smaller sum of collateral harm to the innocent than less intrusive mass surveillance for the same amount of intelligence value. Bang-for-the-human-rights-buck, as it were. But you've identified the key tradeoff, and I don't feel like I know enough to argue further exactly where our policy should come down on it. [A]nyone saying "you need to be freaking out about terrorism" is the enemy. I am unaware of anyone in a serious position to affect public opinion or policy who is saying this. Which is good, because I don't think it's helpful in a democracy to brand anyone who's participating non-violently as an "enemy".

dllthomas 13y ago
'I am unaware of anyone in a serious position to affect public opinion or policy who is saying this. Which is good, because I don't think it's helpful in a democracy to brand anyone who's participating non-violently as an "enemy".' It was a paraphrase, of course, but the meme is not uncommon - particularly amongst those who stand to profit from security contracts or wish to attack political opponents suggesting saner courses of action. Its prevalence has certainly decreased since 2002. I stand by my use of the term; the force is well deserved, for a substantial threat to our freedom. And, for clarity, it has certainly included politicians and media personalities. I would note, however, that 1) "enemy" status is transient, and 2) violence (or even other exercise of power, like surveillance) is not always the appropriate way to respond to an enemy - almost never so if they aren't acting violently themselves.