[hasugopher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
theoretical, independent question (doesn't reflect your thoughts on the 'war on terror', or anything like that)

Say that there's credible intelligence that there is an immanent catastrophic attack in a major city, say NYC, LA, Chicago, whatever. By catastrophic, I mean something that would make 9/11 look like a walk in the park. Something like an NBC attack.

What suspicion or chance of 'guilt' would it be ok to deny somebody of their rights to freedom in this situation?

edit: to clarify, I think it's very unfortunate that the 'war on terror' has been abused like it has. That's a different issue though and one that I don't really want to get into. Hence, independent event.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the doublethink where it is ok to lock people up
"indefinitely"
for an
"imminent"
attack.

I mean if somebody is arrested for something that will happen "any second", shouldn't their legal issues be pretty much resolved after a year or two?

[/ QUOTE ]
I never suggested that this shouldn't be the case.