4 ms·
> they could have certain got a warrant to do so had they just presented what they knew at that time about the enterprise. So why didn't they? Perhaps they wan
by ChrisAntaki 12y ago
> they could have certain got a warrant to do so had they just presented what they knew at that time about the enterprise. So why didn't they?
Perhaps they want to set a legal precedent which would require less checks & balances.
- sitkack 12y agoIf the government wants to erode the 4th, shouldn't they go through congress?
- jamesaguilar 12y agoWhat an odd question. "If the government wants to do a bad thing, shouldn't they do it a good way?" Doesn't the willingness to do a bad thing kind of imply that they will be willing to do it a bad way?
- sitkack 12y agoNot really. If you look at the intention of Barack, he totally wanted to codify into law, using normal channels and the full power of democracy the detention, execution and "enhanced interrogation" of WoT suspects. Not sure what is worse. Democratically passing new bad laws or subverting the constitution via underhanded techniques. I guess the former is depressing and the latter shows mal-intent? Burn down the Reichstag or get 3/4 majority to nullify the 4th? I'd argue that it should be a constitutional offense to weaken the constitution using non-constitutional means. Attempting to rewrite the rules of the game during gameplay should get you autobanned by punkbuster.