I've been pondering this one for a while now...

You know the stereotype as portrayed by Hollywood in the Lone Gunmen from the X-Files and Gene Hackman's character (heck, the whole movie's premise) in Enemy of the State.

These same people believe some to all of the following:

1. Apollo moon landing was faked.
2. 9/11 was actually planned by the government.
3. Kennedy assaination conspiracy.
4. Existance of UFOs.
5. New World Order/UN/Jews running everything.
6. Hollocaust was staged.
7. Global warming.
8. US automakers have surpressed technology of water-powered cars.
9. The government is spying on you.

I'm not going to go into any of these in a pro/con type of thing, 'cause debating these is like telling a fanboy that their favorite brand of chip or videocard isn't as good as the competition or posting spam on this site... ultimately an exercise in futility.

Wiki's article on this is fairly interesting reading: Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you've read any of my earlier posts about the wireless tapping and the Attn. General, you know my opinion of both, but something recently popped up again with this:

News Link

Granted it comes from the Washington Post, which is denounced by some as being left-leaning in it's political views about a circuit court in San Francisco which is also reportedly very liberal, but when it comes to my constitutional rights, I would hope the judicial branch would err on the side of caution.

Quote: Originally Posted by Washington Post "This seems to put us in the 'trust us' category," Judge M. Margaret McKeown said about the government's assertions that its surveillance activities did not violate the law. " 'We don't do it. Trust us. And don't ask us about it.' "

Not to mention don't ask us to prove we complied with the law, and try not to think about the case of US vs. Reynolds which the claim of State Secrets is based upon, and the fact that after the documents were unclassified in 2000, there were no classified reasons to note other than the condition of the plane which would have benefited the claimant's case.

So my question is this: at what point do you go from "I think the government is doing something it shouldn't." to "I'm certain the government is running amok"?

What do you think? And if you think they are doing something illegal, are they justified in doing so in times of war? Are they ever justified?