Counter-Terrorism Laws Exist for More Nefarious Purposes
Since 9/11, there have been a lot of laws added, giving the government more powers to violate individual rights. Now, some of the things they’ve done have been good, necessary, legitimate things, and I have nothing against those. But other actions, such as warrantless surveillance, authorization of an assassination of a U.S. citizen, imprisonment without charges, suspension of habeas corpus, torture, and more in that vein—including the latest, an attempt to strip suspected terrorists of U.S. citizenship, even before they’re proven to be a terrorist in a court of law, are harmful to the rest of us, even if they help stop terrorists in the process. The ends do not justify the means. The government’s role is indeed to protect us from force being used against us, but by implementing such policies, they are using force against us in the process of preventing force from being used against us. Even if those in charge have good intentions now, someone in the future will misuse them, and expand their powers. There's a reason the Constitution limited the powers of government significantly—not significantly enough, though, apparently.
Post Comment
