How many times have existing anti-terrorism laws been misused versus "well" used for the purpose they were intended?
So many people's objections are based on the particular example they can quote, or the very bad outcome case that sticks in your mind. Just like in dumb presidential debates you can line up specific example after example of someone who got left out of the healthcare system, etc (for either side's argument).
But laws are for dealing with hundreds or thousands of incidents, not optimizing for the 0.001% case.
ACLU says that existing laws have unfairly targeted <xyz>, etc. etc. How many times? Versus what positive things did it prevent?
The ACLU is an advocate -- it isn't required to weigh and balance both sides. Lawmakers should.
How many times have existing anti-terrorism laws been misused versus "well" used for the purpose they were intended?
So many people's objections are based on the particular example they can quote, or the very bad outcome case that sticks in your mind. Just like in dumb presidential debates you can line up specific example after example of someone who got left out of the healthcare system, etc (for either side's argument). But laws are for dealing with hundreds or thousands of incidents, not optimizing for the 0.001% case.
ACLU says that existing laws have unfairly targeted <xyz>, etc. etc. How many times? Versus what positive things did it prevent?
The ACLU is an advocate -- it isn't required to weigh and balance both sides. Lawmakers should.