[diminoten]

You don't give due process to imminent threats.

It ends up fitting well into a battlefield metaphor - you don't try every single enemy soldier before you shoot them on the battlefield.

The argument can be had whether or not this is indeed a battlefield, but to cry, "due process" won't get much of a reaction out of the folks who are doing this (GCHQ/NSA).

[fnordfnordfnord]

>You don't give due process to imminent threats.

We do, in fact. But I can agree that we rightly don't allow imminent threats of grievous injury or disaster to proceed unchecked. Please, show me what grievous injuries and disasters have been or would have been wrought by anon via IRC. PS Defacing the DOJ website and sending black faxes to US attorneys doesn't count.

>It ends up fitting well into a battlefield metaphor - you don't try every single enemy soldier before you shoot them on the battlefield.

Except this isn't a battlefield and we're not at war.

>The argument can be had whether or not this is indeed a battlefield, but to cry, "due process" won't get much of a reaction out of the folks who are doing this (GCHQ/NSA).

Then they need to go. They have no function in a free/democratic society. If we must keep them, then they cannot have any judicial influence.

[mpyne]

> Then they need to go. They have no function in a free/democratic society.

Snowden himself has said that spy agencies have a place, when they're doing targeted operations. Maybe you should go convince him?

[diminoten]

This argument is a non-starter, because you already begged the question. The argument revolves around whether or not this is a battlefield, and if we are or are not at war.

[fnordfnordfnord]

I see. Can we agree that Ian Fleming and Tom Clancy wrote fiction?

[diminoten]

Quite good fiction, I'd even say!