I had a frustrating running email conversation with someone today.
The first email from the other was in quasi response to an email I had sent regarding the legal wiretaps used in relation to the would-be UK hijackers/bombers.
And it went from there.
How could the conversation been more fruitful?
Take note of the other writer's illogical weaving and bobbing. Cannot, will not, be pinned down. Makes me scream.
I did my fair share of bating, to be sure.
[The emails are very slightly edited for clarity and to obscure the other's identity.]
-----------------
he wrote:
according to newsweek, this recent u.k. terror plot was broken up in large part by information given by a pakistani who was taken into custody. apparently, he broke after some interrogation that was probably (gulp!) not very subtle.
------------------
I wrote:
oh, I thought it was actually the good police work - like infiltrating the group and then tracking them quite legally.
---------------------
he wrote:
not completely...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
-----------------------
I wrote:
do you think they yelled harshly?
------------------------
he wrote:
i couldn't care less. 4,000 people are alive that otherwise might not have been.
----------------------
I wrote:
Just admit you don't want our country to be a democracy any more. Then we can just talk about other important things: like food, and funny jokes.
A reminder: In a democracy: all are treated fairly by the rule of law, you are innocent until proven guilty, checks and balances are key.
If you're not for any of these things - and ok if you're not, the world has changed after all, no? - then you're not for democracy, you're for something else.
Just admit it and we can move on.
------------------------
he wrote:
?
------------------------
I wrote:
What's unclear?
Democracy, the US variety, demands certain things: abiding the rule of law chief among them. (eg, the 4th amendment is fairly powerful: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.).
innocent until proven guilty is a pretty good one as well, speedy trial of one's peers another, the use of checks and balances (in all its elegance) another.
If you don't want these things then you don't want a democracy. Something akin to loving capitalism but not wanting competition.
-------------------------
He wrote:
two things:
1) this guy was a pakistani, not an american, apprehended in pakistan. you'd agree he isn't accorded any constitutional protections?
2) he had knowledge as to an imminent terrorist attack, one that would likely eclipse 9-11 as the most deadly in history. you're ok with a little "direct interrogation" to get that information?
you sound angry. this is a good thing that the authorities did (u.k., u.s. and pakistani).
we're in a war, (although you probably doubt this and feel like we're up against a few rowdy teenagers with too much time on their hands). remember, we did incinerate 200,000 japanese civilians to win WWII -- and that was considered a good thing. here, we're only talking about making one guy feel a little uncomfortable.
i don't get you.
---------------------------
I wrote:
you are wholly correct with # 1.
Am I happy no catastrophe happened? Of course. (not that you're saying I wouldn't be.)
Number 2 is difficult, I admit, but I want our side to abide the law. I don't want to be like Pakistan.
I am angry. I have no illusions -- I don't think some of these guys can be reasoned with by a good poetry reading.
Being at war does not mean chucking out who we are - a nation of laws.
Those charged with such things - upholding the law/constitution - can't pick and choose which laws to honor.
My point is our democracy upholds a few basic tenets and if you don't want to deal with those tenets you don't want democracy.
I don't mean that in any obnoxious way, I mean it by definition.
------------------------------
He wrote:
here's my list of priorities:
1) win the war.
2) win the war.
3) win the war.
oh, and 4) allow democracy to flourish.
you should go and do some research - i'm serious - about what we did during The Civil War, WWI and WWII. A sitting congressman was expelled from the Union for speaking out against the war, and people were actually jailed for speaking out against the government during WWI -- imagine that today! And we had warrantless wiretapping during WWII. Was it good? No. Was it pretty? No. But we had our priorities straight. In case you forgot...
1) win the war...
--------------------------------
I wrote:
we can Win The War and be a democracy.
--------------------------------
He wrote:
and we will.
--------------------------------
I wrote:
in which case...
. you should be against holding American citizens (especially picked up on American soil - why that aspect is so relevant, it is unclear to me) indefinitely, without charges or without counsel.
. you should be against cruel and unusual punishment.
. you should bask in the brilliance of checks and balances.