<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Worst Danger from Terrorism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/01/the_worst_dange.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/01/the_worst_dange.html</link>
	<description>Dispatches from a Small Business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:39:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shannon Love</title>
		<link>http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/01/the_worst_dange.html/comment-page-1#comment-3071</link>
		<dc:creator>Shannon Love</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 19:13:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/01/the_worst_dange.html#comment-3071</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I think you are being penny wise and pound foolish with liberties. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Successful terrorism will eventually bring about the collapse of the rule of law. Even if the actual body counts from successful attacks are relatively minor, the sheer fact that small groups of people can strike at will erodes the polity&#039;s trust in the law. No modern state has ever slowing evolved into authoritarianism by the accumulation of state power but many have rapid collapsed after an ineffective state could not maintain basic order.   &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It behooves us to grant some increases in government power now to prevent rapid and uncontrolled expansions in government power down the road. After all, relatively minor changes in the law pre-9/11 might have prevented the attack and the Patriot Act would have never existed. &lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you are being penny wise and pound foolish with liberties. </p>
<p>Successful terrorism will eventually bring about the collapse of the rule of law. Even if the actual body counts from successful attacks are relatively minor, the sheer fact that small groups of people can strike at will erodes the polity&#8217;s trust in the law. No modern state has ever slowing evolved into authoritarianism by the accumulation of state power but many have rapid collapsed after an ineffective state could not maintain basic order.   </p>
<p>It behooves us to grant some increases in government power now to prevent rapid and uncontrolled expansions in government power down the road. After all, relatively minor changes in the law pre-9/11 might have prevented the attack and the Patriot Act would have never existed. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene Hoffman</title>
		<link>http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/01/the_worst_dange.html/comment-page-1#comment-3070</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene Hoffman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2006 03:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/01/the_worst_dange.html#comment-3070</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Though I certainly agree with your spirit I also think that again you oversimplify. Pre Nixon, these issues around an actual military conflict were very much the executive&#039;s prerogative. Can we all get this mad about the application of patriot act provisions to drug dealers and money launderers who aren&#039;t terrorists?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#039;ll put this to you this way. Do you agree that the executive can order the Army to kill an Al-Qeada member in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, or even Jordan? I believe he easily can with the stroke of a pen. Now tell me why he can&#039;t order that the guy these guys are calling or emailing shouldn&#039;t be subject to surveillance. Echelon is far more surveillance with a pointer to the wiretap than an NSA guy with a cup of coffee listening in.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though I certainly agree with your spirit I also think that again you oversimplify. Pre Nixon, these issues around an actual military conflict were very much the executive&#8217;s prerogative. Can we all get this mad about the application of patriot act provisions to drug dealers and money launderers who aren&#8217;t terrorists?</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll put this to you this way. Do you agree that the executive can order the Army to kill an Al-Qeada member in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, or even Jordan? I believe he easily can with the stroke of a pen. Now tell me why he can&#8217;t order that the guy these guys are calling or emailing shouldn&#8217;t be subject to surveillance. Echelon is far more surveillance with a pointer to the wiretap than an NSA guy with a cup of coffee listening in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

