Arming Syrian Rebels

AP sources: US close to OK on arming Syrian rebels

This gets difficult. Pro-democracy like ... ? Egypt? The USA? Turkey? Venezuela?

"The administration has been studying for months how to rebalance Syria's war so that moderate, pro-democracy rebels defeat the regime or make life so difficult for Assad and his supporters that the government decides it must join a peace process that entails a transition away from the Assad family's four-decade dictatorship."

Are we the new Western Power shaping the Middle East? Is anyone fearful how it will turn out?

The USA may have acted in the Middle East as it did in Latin America-support governments rather than people. Have we thought this through? I'd like to see some thoughtful, logical analyses of the options considered...

NSA & Social Functions

A person you have met at several social functions calls to thank you for bringing beer to the party... This person happens to be a person of interest, & you are now linked to them thanks to meta-data and cross-referencing by the FBI... Is that enough for local LE or the FBI to come stop you, search you, search your car, search your house, or stop & search your child? Thus, probable cause *is* important-as is civilian, judicial review of what LE or the FBI think is probable cause...

Though the government doesn't, I'd liken their Verizon-grab to LEOs thinking someone at a Red Sox-Yankee game may be involved in an illegal activity-without having any proof or probable cause against a single individual... So the LEOs search the inside of every car and stop and search every person at the game.

Yes, finding criminals is harder without the ability for LEOs to just stop and search every car and person. Yet, that isn't the issue...The issue is whether such stops & searches are *legal* and *Constitutional*...

Deadly Force...

Is it ever justified?

If not, why?

If you think it is justified, when is it justified? This is the point most people start to disagree-when can you use deadly force...

Do you have a right to be responsible for your own safety or do you think an individual gives up that right in "society" and entrusts that right to the LEOs? In other words, do you think you have to wait for the police? 

If someone breaks down your front door & comes into your house with a weapon in hand (gun, knife, bat, ...) and grabs your child and starts to drag your child out of the house, is deadly force justified? Does the weapon, or lack thereof, matter?

Does your answer change if the intruder/kidnapper starts to take your child into a car to drive away?

Or, would you rather die than take another life?

Let me say, there is the rule of law (that varies by jurisdiction) and there are moral & ethical opinions. There is also emotional positions... The answer depends on you and may be "right" for you and "wrong" for everyone else.

Would you feel okay with shooting someone who had just destroyed your front door and was entering your house? Would they need to do ... more? What else might be required? How close do they have to get? Do you know how much distance a person can cover in 3 seconds? Do they have to appear threatening? Would a 140 pound woman or man meet this definition? Or, is it they had just broken into your house enough?

Do you have to wait for the police? When is it acceptable to act on your own? What if the response time to your door was 30 minutes? Do you feel as safe as someone whose door the police can get to in 3 minutes? Does the time matter?

Don't just rely on your initial emotion or thought... Use your slow-thinking (that logical thought process). Question your thoughts, test your position.

What say you?