Warp wrote:
>   I'd say it's more the classical principle of "the end justifies the
> means". From the point of view of the gornment bending the law is
> justified if the reason for doing it is good enough. For example,
> averting terrorism is a good goal, and if reducing people's privacy
> (even against existing laws) is necessary to do that, it's justified.

	I agree with everything except for the "is justified" bit.

	Passing constitutionally sound laws to do just that is fine. "I 
violated the law to secure the country in the absence of a known threat 
that is generally more benign than, say, a war" isn't.

-- 
If you ate pasta and antipasta, would you still be hungry?


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message