<h3>Alaska Passes Anti-Patriot Act Resolution; Second State to Oppose Feds
</h3>
May 23— Alaska has joined a growing national rebellion against the USA Patriot Act, voting to oppose the massive federal anti-terrorism law passed by Congress soon after Sept. 11, 2001.
The state Legislature used some of the strongest language yet in passing a resolution condemning USA Patriot, following the lead of Hawaii and 112 cities, towns and counties around the country that have passed similar resolutions against the law.
But Alaska's measure goes further than most, advising police and other state agencies not to "initiate, participate in, or assist or cooperate with an inquiry, investigation, surveillance or detention" if there is not "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Alaska State law."
"We have a concern that [the Patriot Act] could be abused. The potential for abuse is too great," said Rep. David Guttenberg, a Democrat who co-sponsored the resolution. "America is an open state. There's a cost to that. Where are we willing to sacrifice for that? Guys are dying on the battlefield to protect our freedoms. It's up to us to protect those freedoms here at home."
"We hope that a resolution like this, with the bipartisan support that it has, will urge Congress to re-examine the provisions of the USA Patriot Act that challenge the individual freedoms that make this country great," said Rep. John Coghill, a Republican from North Pole who co-sponsored the resolution. "If we sacrifice our freedom, we let terrorism win."

Plea to Fix It
The resolution also says that "the Alaska State Legislature implores the United States Congress to correct provisions in the USA Patriot Act and other measures that infringe on civil liberties, and opposes any pending and future federal legislation to the extent that it infringes on Americans' civil rights and liberties."
Other local government resolutions have ranged from mild expressions of discomfort with the powers that the federal law gives law enforcement to orders to local police and other personnel not to assist federal agents in investigations, if it seems those investigations violate individuals' civil rights.
The Alaskan measure passed in the state House, with 27 Republicans and 13 Democrats, by a vote of 32-1. It passed 19-0 in the Senate Wednesday. There are 12 Republicans and eight Democrats in the state Senate.
Rep. Bob Lynn, a Republican from Anchorage, was the only legislator to vote against the resolution in either house. He said the job of evaluating the Patriot Act should be left to the state's congressional delegation.
"They have the information they need and the moxy to find anything that needs to be corrected in that law and to correct them." he said. "We just don't have the information that we need here."
He said that he doesn't believe the Patriot Act is perfect, but he feels that some extraordinary measures are needed to protect the country from terrorist threats.
"We just elevated the attack status up to orange and I think we need to keep some common sense measures in place to protect people from terrorism," said Lynn, a retired Air Force officer and a Vietnam War veteran. "I don't think we need to be second-guessing President Bush."
After Gov. Frank Murkowski signs the resolution to acknowledge that he has read it, copies will be sent to President Bush, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the Alaska congressional delegation, Sens. Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Don Young, all Republicans.

Balancing Freedom and Protection
Most local governments that have passed the resolutions have been smaller towns, many of them college communities, but major cities such as Baltimore, Denver, Detroit, Minneapolis, Oakland, Calif., San Francisco and Seattle have all passed measures.
Hawaii, the only other state that has passed a resolution, approved a statement in April that says in part "to the extent legally possible, no state resources — including law enforcement funds and educational administrative resources — may be used for unconstitutional activities."
Hawaii's Legislature is controlled by Democrats, but the resolution passed 35-12 in the House and 21-3 in the Senate.
Members of the Alaska Legislature are not the only state politicians who have voiced concerns about USA Patriot. The state's lone congressman recently said that he would likely co-sponsor an amendment to the federal law that would exempt bookstore and library records from scrutiny under the act.
Young told a group of reporters that he would like to revoke some of the powers given to federal law enforcement by the act, which he voted for in October 2001.
"I think the Patriot Act was not really thought out," Young said. "I'm very concerned that, in our desire for security and our enthusiasm for pursuing supposedly terrorists, that sometimes we might be on the verge of giving up the freedoms which we're trying to protect."
He said he was considering co-sponsoring a bill introduced by Rep. Bernie Sanders, Ind.-Vt., called the Freedom to Read Protection Act.
"It goes to show you I'm willing to look at the right side of an issue," Young said. "I think he's right in this issue. I don't think it's anybody's business what I'm reading in the library."

Maverick Republicans
Sanders' bill would exempt libraries and booksellers from the provisions of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows FBI agents to demand patron records without the individual's knowledge. It also would make it a crime for a librarian or bookstore to tell anyone that the records had been demanded.
Under the bill, which has 105 co-sponsors including nine Republicans, bookstore and library records could still be sought by law enforcement, but only with evidence of probable cause. Though Section 215 applies to any business, Sanders' bill would only affect bookstores and libraries.
Lynn said that it should come as no surprise that Republicans in Alaska might not closely resemble others in the party from the lower 48 states.
"We're very independent people up here," he said."Some of the sponsors of this thing are conservative people, very conservative, but they're independent, too."
While the resolution does not have the force of law, the legislators hope it builds support for changes.
"A major part of American political dialogue starts at the local community and [percolates] up," Guttenberg said. "I think that the Alaksa legislature is so close to home that we just caught on to it faster than most of the country."

Boost to the War on Terror
Federal law enforcement sources have told ABCNEWS that successes in the war on terror would have been more difficult to achieve without the Patriot Act, which, among other provisions, allows tips gathered from foreign intelligence surveillance to be passed to police and prosecutors.
According to one senior official, following the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI turned over 4,500 intelligence files to the Justice Department's Criminal Division to review information to seek criminal prosecutions.
Officials said changes in foreign intelligence surveillance law under Patriot allowed authorities to make the criminal case against Sami Al-Arian, a Florida university professor indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit murder in Israel and the West Bank. The government alleges Al-Arian was a top leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad. One official said similar prosecutions are in the works.
Officials said that the sharing of intelligence information also allowed officials to indict the suspects responsible for the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Information was obtained through e-mail traffic that was routed through U.S. Internet service providers.
Defending the Patriot Act, officials said the "hysteria" over reports that the FBI was watching libraries was stunning. The act does not specifically mention libraries, but library records would be considered business records, which are covered in the law. One senior official said surveilling libraries would be an "enormous waste of time and … would be an asinine use of FBI resources."
<h6>Source: ABC News</h6>


(Note: sorry, didn't realize that this article is more than a month old already... But it could still be the inspiration for an interesting debate)

[ 07-06-2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Im sure I am gonna get hammered for this question, but could someone lay out in simple bulleted style the actual provisions in the Patriot Act. That are causing so much angst. Living here in DC where this is being implemented at full bore...and not having noticed any change in my life at all....I just would like to know what the hullabaloo is.

Thanks in advance [img]smile.gif[/img]
</font>

It's huge first of all -- and has the potential to raise many spectres of governmental usurpation of the Constitution. Here's the text. Here are a ton of articles discussing the many problems with the act, and here is a Law Professor's summary of those problems. Take 'em for what they are. ;)

The professor's not-so-brief list of problems:
____________________________________________
It is a crime for anyone in this country to contribute money or other material support to the activities of a group on the State Department's terrorist watch list. Organizations are so designated on the basis of secret evidence, and their inclusion on the list cannot be challenged in court. Members of any such targeted organization can be deported even if they have not been involved in any illegal activities. The government freely admits that some of the groups it will designate are broad-based organizations engaged in lawful social, political, and humanitarian activities as well as violent activities.

The FBI can monitor and tape conversations and meetings between an attorney and a client who is in federal custody, whether the client has been convicted, charged, or merely detained as a material witness. New York City attorney Lynne Stewart (the court-appointed representative of Sheik Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) has been indicted for aiding and abetting terrorism based on conversations with her client. Her trial is set for January 2004, and the prosecution is clearly intended as a warning: Attorneys representing people charged with terrorism-related crimes will be watched as closely as the defendants.

Americans captured on foreign soil and thought to have been involved in terrorist activities abroad may be held indefinitely in a military prison and denied access to lawyers or family members. No federal court can review the reason for the detention. Such is the plight of Yaser Hamdi, detained in a Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia, whose family and attorney made valiant efforts to gain access to him. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a federal trial judge's order that Hamdi be allowed to meet with the federal public defender.

The FBI can order librarians to turn over information about their patrons' reading habits and Internet use. The librarian cannot inform the patron that this information has been provided. Librarians, on the whole, are outraged at their new role; some have taken to posting signs in the library warning users not to use the Internet, others to destroying their logs of Internet users. One librarian said to a Washington Post reporter, "This law is dangerous.... I read murder mysteries--does that make me a murderer? I read spy stories--does that mean I'm a spy?"

Foreign citizens charged with a terrorist-related act may be denied access to an attorney and their right to question witnesses and otherwise prepare for a defense may be severely curtailed if the Department of Justice says that's necessary to protect national security. Jose Padilla, the American Muslim fingered by Ashcroft last year as a would-be "dirty bomb" builder, is a case in point.

Resident alien men from primarily Middle Eastern and Muslim countries must report for registration. And hundreds of the ones who have reported have been detained and arrested for minor immigration infractions. It recently came to light that immigration authorities are refusing to let the men appear with their attorneys, a refusal that is a violation of Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS, formerly the INS) regulations.

Lawful foreign visitors may be photographed and fingerprinted when they enter the country and made to periodically report for questioning.

The government can conduct surveillance on the Internet and e-mail use of American citizens without any notice, upon order to the Internet service provider. Internet service providers may not move to quash such subpoenas.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) can search any car at any airport without a showing of any suspicion of criminal activity.

The TSA can conduct full searches of people boarding airplanes and, if the passenger is a child, the child may be separated from the parent during the search. An objection by a parent or guardian to the search will put the objector at the risk of being charged with the crime of obstructing a federal law enforcement officer and tried in federal court. Travelers in Portland and Baltimore have reported such arrests.

The TSA is piloting a program to amass all available computerized information on all purchasers of airline tickets, categorize individuals according to their threat to national security, and embed the label on all boarding passes. The Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) program is designed to perform background checks on all airline passengers and assigns each passenger a "threat level." Passengers will not be able to ascertain their classification or the basis for the classification.

The TSA distributes a "no-fly" list to airport security personnel and airlines that require refusal of boarding and detention of persons deemed to be terrorism or air piracy risks or to pose a threat to airline or passenger safety. This is an expansion of a regulation that since 1990 has looked out for threats to civil aviation. Names are added daily based upon secret criteria. Several lawsuits that challenge these regulations are now pending, some from irate passengers who were mistaken for people on the list.

American citizens and aliens can be held indefinitely in federal custody as "material witnesses," a ploy sometimes used as a punitive measure when the government does not have sufficient basis to charge the individual with a terror-related crime. The 1984 material witness law allows the government to detain citizens at will for an arbitrary period of time to give testimony that might be useful in the prosecutions of others. A Jordanian man picked up a few days after September 11 was held more than nine months before being released. And last week a federal judge in Oregon ordered that Mike Hawash, a software engineer and long-time naturalized American citizen who has been held in solitary confinement in a federal prison for more than a month, be questioned by April 29, 2003. It is notable, however, that the judge has already conducted a secret hearing that determined Hawash's detention to be lawful.

Immigration authorities may detain immigrants without any charges for a "reasonable period of time." The BCIS need not account for the names or locations of the detainees, and what constitutes a "reasonable period of time" is not defined.

American colleges and universities with foreign students must report extensive information about their students to the BCIS. BCIS in turn may revoke student visas for missteps as minor as a student's failure to get an advisor's signature on a form that adds or drops classes. College personnel cannot notify students to correct the lapse in order to save them from deportation. To a very large extent, campus police and security personnel have become agents of the immigration authorities.

Accused terrorists labeled "unlawful combatants" can be tried in military tribunals here or abroad, under rules of procedure developed by the Pentagon and the Department of Justice. All it takes to be named an unlawful combatant is the affidavit of a Pentagon employee, who is not required to provide the rationale for his or her decision, even to a federal judge. (In the case of Yaser Hamdi, the federal appellate court ruled that it has no authority to look behind this affidavit and question the determination.) Unlawful combatants are also denied counsel and contact with family members. In fact, hundreds of "unlawful combatants" are still being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without attorneys, without family contact, and under conditions said by some to be tantamount to physical and psychological torture. A federal court ruled in March that these persons had no access to the federal courts since they were on Cuban, not American, soil.

A warrant to conduct widespread surveillance on any American thought to be associated with terrorist activities can be obtained from a secret panel of judges, upon the affidavit of a Department of Justice official. If arrested as a result of the surveillance (as was the case with the attorney, Lynne Stewart), the defendant has no right to know the facts supporting the warrant request.

The FBI can conduct aerial surveillance of individuals and homes without a warrant, and can install video cameras in places where lawful demonstrations and protests are held. Facial recognition computer programs are used to identify persons the FBI deems suspicious for political reasons. An ACLU employee in South Carolina was recently indicted for the federal offense of being in a "restricted area" at the Columbia, South Carolina airport in October 2002, when President Bush made a political campaign appearance. (The South Carolina AG, who happens to be the son of retired Senator Strom Thurmond, authorized the indictment.)

Most of these restrictions on liberty were not part of the letter of the Patriot Act; they were shaped by means of rules and regulations adopted in agencies and departments of government with little notice to the public. That's because the Patriot Act granted sweeping new powers to agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, and BCIS to go their own way in prosecuting the war on terror.

Will the Clinton/Bush expansion of federal powers help much in protecting the country from terrorism? That is an imponderable, since we can't know what might have happened by now, or what might happen going forward, in their absence. But the arrests hyped by Ashcroft so far don't suggest that his new powers are yielding much. One of the most notorious cases involved Jose Padilla, an American-born Muslim arrested for allegedly plotting to build a dirty bomb. Padilla is still being held without charges, and many believe it's because the government has no real case against him. (The file on Padilla is secret, obviously, but some news accounts have suggested his sole crime was attempting to download "dirty bomb" construction plans from the Internet.) Several people charged with terrorist-related acts have pled guilty to some charges, such as visiting an al Qaeda training camp (as defendants in Buffalo have recently done), or to lesser non-terrorist-related offenses (money laundering instead of financing terrorist activities), in order to avoid the risk of conviction and longer sentences. The Justice Department seeks grand jury indictments of the "kitchen-sink" variety--throw in everything remotely chargeable, and then declare victory when the defendant pleads to one or two charges.

What we do know about these laws is that they allow government agents to be more aggressive and, when they wish, more abusive. Most of the people indicted in Buffalo and Portland have been charged with being terrorist sympathizers because they were in the presence of people themselves labeled as terrorist sympathizers (visiting their homes, for instance) or because they had contributed to a non-profit organization that the government has decreed to have a connection to terrorism somewhere in the world. Attorney Lynne Stewart was indicted for the "crime" of zealously representing a convicted terrorist she was court-appointed to defend.

[ 07-07-2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I heard on the radio that many librarians have taken to posting copies of the Patriot act in prominent places with the relevant portions highlighted to get around this ;)

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
TL, I attempted to post this yesterday...lets see if I make it today....

It is all well and good to point me at a stack of a million documents and words...what Im asking for is a simple bullet list of the provisions that have people all in a flap. As of today here int he nations capitol, I have seen diddley squat impact on my life. </font>

MagiK, that IS the bullet-point list. Read it. Each paragraph is a bullet point. The act is HUGE, so summaries are going to be lengthy. Just because it isn't impacting your life, doesn't mean it shouldn't offend you. You are a WASP (no offense, but IIRC it's accurate), so the act is targeted at most everyone else more than you. But, woe be it to you if you have a friend named Aziz who happens to write you a letter one day.

My basic gripes: no one should be held indefinately (or for over 12 hours, IMO) without a charge being filed, and no one should ever be denied a lawyer (which is a constitutional right if you're a citizen -- but which this law calls into question). Think about it, you're arrested today, and it's THREE DAYS before the feds let you see a lawyer. Do you know how long most confessions take? Can you endure 3 straight days without sleep, fielding complex questions, being told you are an evil liar and you should just come clean, having FOOD held as a reward for saying what they want (whether or not it's the truth)? If YOU could endure that, SHOULD you?

But, there are many other little problems -- check the list, just because one hasn't bitten you in the arse yet doesn't mean it can't or won't.

I believe that anyone who values their freedoms and rights should be able to find something in the USA PATRIOT Act that they feel is harmful to America.

I'm ashamed to say that I was not aware until recently, that letters in title of the act actually mean something:

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

I wonder how much effort it took to come up with this acronym?

Mark

Here is a good breakdown of the 120+ page Patriot II act. Lots of fun stuff in there:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PA2ACLUbrkdn.html

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Ok, I see that the bullets are umm larger than I thought.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. Now...Im not a WASP at all
Im a White Anglo Saxon Catholic or WASC. :D

That being said. You are worried (or at least it appears to me) by what "may" be interpreted into it. The fact remains, that however you slice it. Honest law abiding citizens who do not associate with criminals or suspect persons are not going to be affected. The average Joe Schmoe or even Achmed Falaffel isn't going to be targeted. The act hasn't done away with any civil liberties that I can see. I realize as a lawyer you have to be concerned about that 12 hour issue. Some times 12 hours isn't enough. I still say there are steps that need to be taken for national and civil security against terrorists...AND there are a LOT of people (especially around universities) that are just the kind of people who should be rounded up and have their visa's revoked.

That being said...let me take some time to wade through this muss and see what is up.</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
There my honest reactions to the points. I do see that there MAY be possibilities for abuse, but I have faith in our system that it will move quickly to squash any true abuses that are comitted. Agree or disagree thats your right and priveledge [img]smile.gif[/img] I will wait and watch and see what comes to pass. </font>

_________________________________________________
See, here is our en passe. I have no faith in our system, and I think it is widely abused. I also realize that on a purely philosophical level, a free society has a duty to mistrust those who are in power.

I did not respond to every point -- some you had were valid, and some parts of the article were a lot of "making hay."

[ 07-08-2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

P.A.T.R.I.O.T.
...W.A.S.P
......B.C.I.S.
..........F.B.I.
...........A.C.L.U.
.............C.A.P.P.S. II

ARGHHGHGHGHGGHGH!!! Too many acronyms!

I've got a couple that could fit in the Patriot Act just as well:

F.U.B.A.R. or B.S.

And how 'bout one that's not an acronym?: Gerbil Jam

No matter what race, religion or political bent...not even a PROVEN terrorist should be caged without charge. No matter where it happens, if Americans are doing it (particularly the government), we're violating the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter of the law.

edit: To clarify, not even a PROVEN terrorist should be caged without charge for this long. I suppose in an extreme case, like Afganistan or 9/11, some rules could be bent but X-Ray is quickly becoming something no similar (not the same, I realize) to what went on in the Taliban or Hussein regimes.
And that's just ONE issue out of the lot.

[ 07-09-2003, 03:24 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Mopery ]

You're right about proven terrorists, they shouldn't be caged. They should be taken out in the field, if their whereabouts are known. Like the Israeli's did in the 70's and 80's with terrorists who thought they had a safe haven in countries like France and East Germany. No need to waste time on bringing them to court. If they are positively identified, and no innocent bystanders can be harmed, they're game for all i care.

The Israelis' assassination policies have been tolerated for too long. Whatever your argument for the past, the fact is that this policy has been instrumental in continuing the current intifada. For every dead Israeli there are 3 dead Palestians and how many of those were children?

How do you "positively identify" a terrorist? And, in executing one, how do you avoid creating two more like the first one? Or worse? Maybe by executing the terrorist's extended family?

The best weapons against terrorism are education and opportunity. Fair, free-minded education of the kind that doesn't preach "democracy" as if it were the be-all, end-all of political evolution is paramount. Treat Muslims with respect, tolerance and fairness--sometimes even when you don't receive the same treatment--and change the cycle for the better. Allow them the freedoms to voice their opinions, no matter how radical, and you'll often find that the very freedom to speak marginalizes the radicals' effectiveness.

Or sometimes they just get sick of Theocratic rule that doesn't lead by example, as has been happening in Iran in recent years.

The whole point of the Patriot Act was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, rather than a thoughtful measure. We're letting terrorists turn us into fascists, which is how they see us in the first place. Who wins in the end?

Nobody who uses a library, anyway.

They gotta want that education themselves you know, and i wonder what kind of education your talking about. Teaching them OUR values of freedom and how one is supposed to live in peace ? They have their own educational system, and their teachers ARE highly educated religeous people, who will continue to teach them that the way we live is wrong, or immoral. As long as we can live in peace together, that's fine with me. But obviously that's not going to work. So how do you propose an education that learns that the terrorist solution is wrong ?

And about treating others with respect, even if you don't get respected in the same manner, is NOT going to work either, you should know that. That's just not the "human" way. Every action causes a reaction. If the action is one that shows no respect, expect a violent reaction in return. That's the way it is, and always has been, and no education is ever gonna change that.

Not a lot of time here, so please forgive my butchering of your text.

I agree with you to a point, but you're saying exactly what Sharon says. And it's gotten Israel nowhere...just more dead people. Hate breeds hate, true, but the Holy Land is gonna be blood red FOREVER if people mindlessly follow the logic you posted.

It's not my logic Mr. Mopery, it's just a conclusion i draw from what i see day in day out, be it in my direct vicinity, or on TV. It would be nice if things were like you pointed out, but it's not likely to happen. But feel free to give me a call when it's a perfect world, and i'll buy you a beer. :D

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Hey, I kind of like Gerbil Jam [img]smile.gif[/img] may I use it? </font>

Q* What does America stand for?

Not democracy.refer 5 to 4 high court ruling in Bush v Gore.

Not the land of the free

The patriot act just about defies all major points in the American constitution as we overseas know it. While I may not be able to back up timbers points with facts. There is a great Australian joke from a film, which deals with our own constitution. It goes, when asked specifically what part of the constitution has been broken the lawyer replies "the vibe your honour, it's against the vibe".

MagiK ask yourself, in years to come when people ask what is America? can you honestly reply "It's the land of the free"

Is America, once the beacon for human rights and ideals, the resting place for those oppressed and victimised, now a monolith to past glories?

MagiK, in your first couple of responses you refer to terrorists caught "in the field" while the points I was making go to citizens "in the States" who are caught in the net of this law due to a vague allegation of association with terror.

BTW, I think it is unconstitutional to limit association. If I want to send money to Al Queda and support its efforts to overthrow the US global tyranny, I *should* be allowed to do it. Shouldn't I? Ugh... ignore that -- it's an idea that I'm working on, but it has problems.

Yes, it was base of me to resort to poking at GWB's dim wits. Sometimes I hop from the Ivory Tower to the Ebony Tower.

<font color = lightgreen>I think the reason there is not more opposition to the Patriot Act is because the average American citizen doesn't dare raise any objection for fear they may be targeted. "You wouldn't object to the Act if you weren't trying to do something the Act forbids" etc.

You won't see widespread opposition to the Patriot Act until a highly visible American citizen suffers negatively due to the Act. "Excuse us, Rev. Graham, but we'd like to ask you a few questions about your so-called 'religious unity festival' you held in Riyadh last month" [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img]

Personally, I don't have anything to fear, unless they make some sort of connection with the name "Azred" [img]tongue.gif[/img] , but one of my exes would--she had many Middle Eastern friends and visited a couple of countries over there.

Only a fool couldn't see how the Patriot Act slaps the Constitution in the face. :rolleyes: </font>

In a perfect world I'd expect something more than a beer, for God's sake. At least a bottle of 12yo whiskey, please.


Of course. But...um...I'm kind of hoping you mean the phrase and the phrase ONLY.

>Enlightened Baatorian mode ON<

I think it's all a case of "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out", though less severe.

A policy where you are fully aware that you are risking some innocents, but are willing to do so in order to make sure that you are getting ALL the guilty people.

And besides, we are all going to die from some meaningless cause anyway. Why not let the cause be injustice? Especially when you are thus allowing the law enforcers and the military a clear shot at getting some people who could hurt a lot of your friends.

>Enlightened Baatorian mode OFF<

[ 07-11-2003, 04:25 AM: Message edited by: Indemaijinj ]