> t 01:58 AM 7/25/2000 -0400, John Bronson wrote:
> > Just watched this hearing. I just subscribed to this list, so while
> > I don't want to piss anyone off, I question what seems to be a
> > knee-jerk reaction against Carnivore. In theory, I positively agree
> > with the need for such a tool. I want the FBI to be able to check
> > out the pedophile next door who's preying on my daughter or the
> > terrorist that wants to blow up the office building I work at -
> > that's what the FBI is there for.
>
> That is not what the FBI is there for.
>
> That is what your local cop is there for.
>
> The FBI is there to maintain the power of the state and spy on whichever
>
> factions are politically incorrect this time around.
>
> The US got along fine without ANY equivalent of the FBI through most of
> its
> history.
That's very true. But we have future Oklahoma Cities to contend with now.
Remember the y2k Seattle thing? Where foreigners were trying to sneak bomb
shit across the canadian border so they could kill the new-year's crowd
there? The FBI may have prevented uncounted deaths there and in other
places as well, where they are on the lookout for people like the
Al-Queda.
I don't know about your local cops, but mine are definately not capable of
protecting me from this kind of stuff. Someone recently posted that
"Terrorism is the future of warfare." That's _very_ spooky, especially if
we are morally ambiguous enough to condone terrorism as a form of
"warfare". If terrorism is the future of warfare, the FBI, or some other
counter-terrorist group, is going to be our only real defense.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
