Quote:
Originally Posted by FCWood
I think the courtroom and the right to counsel, etc are not rights we should compromise lightly. For if we disallow the option for a trial to foreigners (who we lack substantial proof of their crimes) what prohibits the expanded use against ourselves? As Thomas Jefferson stated, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending a too small degree of it."
|
As you say - not lightly. Please understand that my point about an inability to pay the price is not made lightly or flippantly. We are used to the happy circumstance of mass affluence - thus, we can afford a great many good things. We can (and do) provide a great many amenities and comforts to those involved with our society.
However - the current unpleasantness with regard to California's budget is instructive. If matters at the national level get worse, then fiscal triage may become necessary. And so we face the rhetorical question of which important budget item gets cut. For example, given a choice between childhood vaccinations for the children of North Caroline and providing quality counsel to an alleged foreign terrorist, which do we do? (Yes, that's a shameless plucking on emotional strings. Perhaps its unfair. But "what if?" remains.)
What's the answer? I don't know. But maybe we should consider the implications of a strained budget, a long-term war on terror, and the costs of dealing with such matters as we are discussing here.
By the way...
The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.
LINK