Defensor Fidei said:
There is the same chance of that happening to the janitor who sweeps up the White House.
O rly? So the odds of a White House janitor being assassinated during their term are 4/43, and the odds of failed assassination attempts on White House janitors are 8/43? For a total of 12/43 odds (28% chance) of an assassination attempt being made on a White House janitor within an 8 year period? I don't think so.
Defensor Fidei said:
The U.S. president's life is not worth more than any other because of his money and power.
I disagree, the president is the result of the democratic process. When a president is killed, and a vice president takes his place, the assassin was able to overrule the people's vote. Democracy in a republic is damaged every time there is an assassination of a president, or other elected official. It's important to national security that presidents be protected.
It's also important that the president cannot be intimidated by small groups of people. This is damaging to the democratic process as well, if someone can threaten the president and cause him to act differently because of it. Both this and the above give more power to violent and bloodthirsty people, exactly the kind of people who should have as little power as possible.
If you protect the president only while they are in office, the threat can be made while they're in office and carried out after they leave office. Presidents and their immediate family should be as safe from assassins as is possible. Presidents should not give extra credence to violent organizations. Again, these are the groups that should have the absolute minimum of influence in our government.
Defensor Fidei said:
What happened in this case is charging a man for precrime...
As should be the case. Bush and future presidents should not fear people who threaten their lives.
Defensor Fidei said:
...after being turned in by his own doctor for making such offhand comments.
The court will decide if it was an offhand comment or serious.
Defensor Fidei said:
If it were not a powerful former government official he was referring to, the government would not care.
I'd give that a 50/50. It's not an issue of national security to protect random people, even from feeling threatened. Nonetheless, threats on people's lives are taken pretty seriously.