|
>> More resources don't mean more tax. I would suggest they cut useless stuff,
>> like Government aid, the Office for the status of women, censorship, resources
>> used on drug law enforcement and channel that into intelligence and counter
>> terrorist ops. Unfortunately this is the same argument as "But spending more helping single
mothers wouldn't mean more tax - they could just cut some of the military
budget, and provide women with the support they need to solve the problems of
society". The fact is that resources must come from somewhere. By saying that the
resources could come from the OSW you have really just set up a three way
tug-of-war: Should one dollar go
- to the OSW
- to increased intelligence
- back to the taxpayer.
Demonstrating that 2) is better than 1) doesn't demonstrate it's better than 3). >> Terrorists ultimately show a bigger threat to people than do common armed
>> robbers, etc, but why not apply that to all police investigations? Yes - like taking every policeman currently arresting drug-users and sex
workers, and getting them to look at more serious issues. >> Generally, I
>> would assume intelligence or law enforcement agencies would know about members
>> of a cell before going after any of them. Sometimes, but sometimes they might just know about one - picking up someone
who just happens to be wearing a semtex shirt is a good example. >> You could say, you have a right to
>> representation, but your lawyer must stay here too. Is that more intrusive? Hmm .. interesting. The lawyer doesn't make an informed decision about
his 48 hours detention :-) .. it doesn't really work does it?
| 
