3 ms·
"One has to give credit to the US govt.'s efforts though: not a single case of terrorism on US soil after 9/11. That's pretty impressive." Wait -- that's defin
by brdd 13y ago
"One has to give credit to the US govt.'s efforts though: not a single case of terrorism on US soil after 9/11. That's pretty impressive."
Wait -- that's definitely not true; the Boston marathon bombings and Newtown come to mind. I think you implied in your second paragraph that "dealing with domestic terrorism" is a separate issue -- in truth, I don't think we can properly separate domestic from international. Terrorism is terrorism.
That being said, I'm not convinced we live in a different enough time to warrant the infringement of basic rights, either. While the article might be suggesting that we can't draw a line at all, that's not what I'm suggesting either. I just think we need to carefully balance the issue of safety vs. freedom.
- JetSpiegel 13y agoThe US Government certainly doesn't separate between the two, since it uses that excuse to spy on their own citizens.
- dllthomas 13y agoIn the wake of the Boston bombings, someone said that clearly those events show that we need to interpret the Constitution more loosely and give our government more power. This makes sense - our founding fathers never could have imagined terrorists with access to black powder.