Reply With Quote
I understand all of that and don't disagree. My quarrel with Fabbs is really on more routine things like his anger over completely defensible evidentiary rulings in the Aaron Hernandez case that are cons utionally required despite being harmful to the prosecution.
I'm not here to beat the drum for terrorists, though I will say that the civil libertarian in me believes firmly that if we live by a rule of law and make the defense of our freedoms an essential justification for fighting terrorists (along, obviously, with security in general), it seems to me that you can't exalt our freedoms and then deny them in a reactionary fashion when it better suits your needs. If we believe in due process, then we believe in due process and we don't just afford it to those we like -- it's an all or nothing thing to me and, personally, I think the "all" part of that decision is the preferable course.
If we cede our freedoms in the guise of trying to feel more secure, I think the terrorists -- who, as President Bush famously said on September 11, 2001, "hate our freedom" -- have earned a major victory against us. Their barbarism will have compelled us to give up fundamental principles that define what freedom actually means.
