>>You can't "never go" that way. The problem is that we are trying to apply rules of civilized engagement against an uncivilized group of thugs. I don't think there ever will be a definitive answer to how best this will be handled.
>>
>
>I know we will never agree, but as the saying goes "being there, done that" I have seen what happens when your own government decides to break to law to uphold the law, and let me tell you, it´s not pretty.

And here I think you have a very valid argument.

>
>When I was 16, I was almost shot by a government "agent", just for riding my motorcycle too close to their car. He pointed at me with a .45 pistol for about 10-15 seconds while we where driving in traffic, deciding if to shoot me or not.
>
>Just try to imagine how i felt for those 10-15 seconds, and how I felt for the next couple of years, I mean, there is no one to call, no one to stand up for you, what are you going to do? call 911? They ARE 911. Please try hard to imagine how that feels.
>

And this is also very well said and a very good example of what you are talking about. (and, I might add, pretty much unheard of here )

>Exactly the same thing is happening with the american government, the laws and rights of the people are put aside in the name of the fight against terror.

And here your argument falls apart. I agree there is a debate about to what extent civil liberties and public safety must be balanced, but as to the laws and rights of the people being "put aside" this implies something like martial law, a police state etc and that just isn't true.
>
>Let me tell you just one thing, I know no one in America cares much for a bunch of arab terrorists held in a distant prison, but have you heard of...
>

You are right about that. But I also don't see a slippery slope here. In wartime you shoot enemies, but that doesn't mean the next step is to shoot friends. It is an argument that perhaps holds up a classroom or a coffeeshop or a party of like minded earnest college students but it really doesn't hold up in real life.

That is not to defend cruelty or gratuitous sadism. But sympathy for one's enemies is a luxury more appropriate to a non-combattant than to those with responsibility for actually protecting people.


>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
>
>Just pray they never decide to come after you.

This is a well known - and valid - argument against political repression of minorities and dissidents. It is not applicable to the case of fighting suicidal madmen of a death cult that believes it is being directed by God.

>
>Carlos Alloatti