I am not sure if this will get moved or not, not sure where or if this belongs. Not necessarily a debate, but may blossom into one. I was spekaing witha friend of mine about the anti war protesters and about the homeladn security agency and he kept asking me about losing my civil liberties and all of this other stuff. My question to him was, what civil liberties am I losing? Granted I am pretty dense when it comes to things like this, but the question I guess is, what civil liberties are people stating that we are lsoing with the formation of the homeland security department and from the events of 9/11, I keeping hearing the term police state being thrown around. Can someone clarify to me besides the wiretapping issue which I know about, what other issues there are that make up this concept of losing civil liberties?

suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, selective abandonment of due process, suspension of the right to see an attorney, right to privacy being invaded at the macro level with government oversight of all electronic transmissions, and at the micro level with more checkpoints and searches such as mandatory inspection of vehicles at checkpoints without probable cause.

Before I get jumped on for being wholly unpatriotic. I am not opposed to all of these things at all times. But once you start suspending civil liberties in peace time it gets easier and easier to do it on a normal basis.

Asian Thunder,

Look up these two programs, they are extremely close to becoming law. A war with Iraq, or the smallest terrorist attack will see them passed into law in days.

- The "TIPS" program : (the next time your cable guy comes to fix your TV, or the pool man to clean your pool, or the garbage man to take your garbage, they would likely be employed as snitches hired to spy on your everyday activities. This means leaving an "Idiot's Guide to Arabic Cooking" book on your kitchen table, might get you thrown in prison for the rest of your life, without ever being charged, or given access to a lawyer or anyone else.)

- The TIA program, or Total Information Awareness: (Everytime you pump your gas, buy a dirty magazine, or use your credit card at a STRIP CLUB, the government will know and remember in an effort to profile you. Records will be kept of everything you buy, and everywhere you go, and with whom.

I also understand that, under the new laws, people exercising their democratic right to peaceful demonstration can be arrested as terrorists.

USA PATRIOT act, section 802: (a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- 1) in paragraph (1)((iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting '; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`( appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`© occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(this was copied stright from the text itself. this is LAW)

habeas corpus is suspended in terrorism cases, (section 412 deals with H.C.)

also, this little tid-bit I found-
SEC. 503. DNA IDENTIFICATION OF TERRORISTS AND OTHER VIOLENT OFFENDERS.
Section 3(d)(2) of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:

`(2) In addition to the offenses described in paragraph (1), the following offenses shall be treated for purposes of this section as qualifying Federal offenses, as determined by the Attorney General:
`(A) Any offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)( of title 18, United States Code.
`( Any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code).
`© Any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the above offenses.'

DNA testing of terrorists, I can see, (but then again, protesters of the war can be terrorists) but what do violent offenders have to do with the security of america?

remember, only two people opposed this piece of legislation, senator russ feingold, and a member of the house (can't remember her name) it was NOT read and debated, but shoved through congress. this is a framework for a police state, homeland "gestapo" security is the police force, and now they are working on a second piece of legislation MORE draconian the the USA PATRIOT act of 2001 (Info the domestic security enhancment act of 2003 and here is the document itself)

The atmosphere of "God Bless America" and attitude that it is no longer acceptable to question the government is a loss of civil liberties. This was quite pronounced in the months after 9/11 and that effect lingers.

all I can say is damn.... thanks for the information....

I assume that the government could attempt to halt prostests or arrest protesters on the erroneous basis that the protests are intended to either "intimidate or coerce" the "civilian population." I suppose some methods of protest might be better suited to this definition, but I can't help wondering if they could extend it to the most peaceful of protests, such as a silent protest. Would the gathering of silent citizens, having some unmeasurable influence on society as a whole, be classifiable as coercing the civilian population?

But, wait a minute... maybe we have nothing to fear:

(From: Levendosky Commentary)

These are the rights that are on shakey ground, in severe jeoporady, or are completely gone for all intents and purposes. If you are accused of aiding or participating in any kind of terrorist group or activity...if you make the wrong charitible contribution or sign the wrong petition among other things you could be subject to all kinds of things you never thought would happen because this is supposed to be America where certain things are not allowed.

When you are a terrorist & you aided in the attack on 3000 unarmed people (of course, this is New York we're talking about folks...maybe they were armed), you don't deserve a bloody trial. You deserve to be hung up by your ears for the rest of your worthless life. And about an impartial trial, i don't think they'll find one American who would find these morons not guilty!

That is frighteningly unAmerican. How can they be positively identified as having helped without a trial? What if the person being held was in the wrong place at the wrong time? What if he didn't really know what Al-Queda is and he just tagged along in Afghanistan because they fed him?

It amazes me how people value their own liberties to a zealous degree but couldn't care less about the rights of others. Rights are USELESS unless they are universally applied.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." Tomas Paine

It may suit our emotions to deny suspected criminals a trial; deem them guilty on the basis of anger, rather than evidence and truth; and hang them up by their ears for the rest of their sure-to-be miserable lives. But it will not serve us or our cherished liberties.

Supporting our liberties, in the face of 3,000+ lost lives on an autumn morning, includes applying the equal and inalienable rights of all people to even those we loathe. The minute we deny another these rights, deny ourselves the right to liberty.

There have been many Americans who have been arrested by the FBI for being suspected terrorists & were then let go because of a mistake.

Safety supercedes liberties sometimes. Would you rather died because the gov't backed away or live with inconvienience?

CP

Obviously liberty cannot be universally applied to the point of no government intervention. However, EVERYONE should be afforded the same rights. GoAmerica's bloodlust invalidates the entire essence of the American constitution.

All I think he is saying is that the people who contributed to Sept. 11 should die a horrible death, does any American disagree with that?

CP

No. But they still deserve a trial to prove that they are guilty.

It's obvious they are guilty if they have an AK-47 & are either shooting at US Marines or have Diagrams of a dirty nuke or a "How To" book on how to make pipebombs easil and/or a blueprint of the Golden Gate Bridge on their desk

That is not only absurd, but it flies in the face of any sort of precedence.

SHould a Nazi soldier on the front lines be hung for the slaughter of Jews in a concentration camp 800 miles away? No. Last time I checked merely hating someone isn't a crime. The people who planned the attacks are liable for prosecution, as are those that participated in them. Somehow I doubt that every single Taliban fighter and Al-Queda terrorist being held can be implicated as such.

Of course we have no way of knowing this since they are being held indefinitely without council.

Don't you see these terrorists need to have lawyers, so the lawyers can get paid first.

It's not really about due process, it's about due payment(or is that payment due)

..End sarcasm

This isn't "merely hating someone". This is hating someone & then ramming 3 Jumbo jets into their property in the name of Allah.

This is another false choice that we are told we have to live with. We don't have to lose our judicial rights because terrorists blew up the WTC. That's just stupid. It's simply a tool that the government is taking advantage of while they promote fear. It's much easier to throw people into a black hole at camp x-ray than it is to live in a society with the freedom we have always had and that other countries like Canada still enjoy.

IMO, those who are afraid to live in a free and open society should move. The rest of us are not willing to give up our Constitutional rights because we understand we would be no safer. We may even be less safe worrying about the government AND terrorism.

We cannothave the exact same amount of freedom as before Sept.11, look what happened, time have changed, and people need to realize it is for the good of the population.

CP

As my quote is intended to imply... yes.
We're much too quick to sign away our liberties for the illusion of safety. If a terrorist really wants to kill some Americans, regardless of on what scale, they will find a way to do it. We can't "crime-proof" our society with largely ineffective social programs, intended more to alleviate the fears of the general public.

There are just some things in life we can't control. Somebody killing us, or dying in a terrible act are just a couple of them. Personally, once I'm dead, I don't think I'm going to care.

I guess it's an issue of quality -vs- quantity.
I'd rather live a life cut short, but filled with freedom, as opposed to a long life with my liberties but a faint and dying memory.

And we know they've had any of this how...? How do their lawyers even know any of this? From what I understand, we have a court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance. Some things about the FISA court and it's powers following the potential acceptance of the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (brought up previously in this thread):


Sure, we don't mind an extra 30 minutes at the airport or leaving out backpacks outside the sporting events. But how many people are aware of measures like this being pushed in Washington?

Charles Levendosky Commentary

That is a very good point, so you want to live your life short with lots of freedoms, unfortunately there are about 270,000,000 other Americans, and three thousand of them died because our terrorist prevention was crap. Other Americans feel that a little bit less liberties, and more safety is a good thing.

CP

WE haven't lost our rights...just terrorists like jose Padilla & the Gitmo guys

Besides...Richard Reid got a trial! So did that mossuaoui guy...what's the problem?

It's a topic to be discussed at length in another post -- which I inted to create eventually -- but just over 3,000 people died from terrorist attacks because our government failed to follow the standard order of procedure following a hijacking in the United States.

"The Enemy Within"
The planes crashed into the WTC buildings and the Pentagon (in order) at 8:45, 9:03 and 9:35 a.m.

Personally, I'd rather know why these procedures weren't followed. I'd also prefer we work on these issues before we begin robbing the citizenry of their civil liberties. Maybe it's just me...


Edited to address Goamerica:

The problem is with the Patriot Act that has already passed and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA) that I mentioned in my previous post. Should that act pass, we no longer have to know about arrests (note: secret arrests); those arrested would no longer be allowed to hear the evidence against them; and some arrested may never have charges filed against them, leaving them to twiddle their thumbs until somebody remembers they're there. Not all of our liberties have been lost, now, no. But I'm looking to the future, and with legislation like the Patriot Act, the DSEA and whatever comes later, our civil liberties will be the things dreams are made of.

I don't feel safer living under a hostile secretive government. I'll take my chances and stay away from major monuments that the terrorists seem so drawn to.

It sounds to me as if you believe the fairy tale that goes...'They hate America because they hate freedom.'

They hate us because we go trampling all over their land causing death and war and suffering in our wake.

Example...our government will stop at nothing to use Turkey. The actions it's take so far have undermined a democracy and rekindled old hatreds that were finally going peacefully. The Turks and the Kurds will be fighting a bloody war because of America and the way it's turned it's back on the Kurds.

Only American arrogance ever let us believe that we could truly be safe. Dangers always abound and they are more likely to get at us from within than from without. Why didn't Americans jump up and down trying to root out terrorism when Timothy McViegh blew up a government building in Oklahoma City.

I believe what defines the United States and what always should define the United States is a commitment to a vision a natural law that allows individuals freedom and protects us from intrusion from the government wherever allowable.

There will always be crises, but we must not ever indefinitely suspend our liberties. The war on terrorism is an undefined never ending "war". Giving up civil rights in this struggle is a very serious matter.

As for the jingoism in above entries, I do not believe in the death penalty and I think that the way to show the world that America is a great place is to try the people who committed crimes against Americans inside our public system in a jury trial.

This secret tribunal stuff is the stuff of fascism and it reflects poorly on my country. To claim that I am un-American because of these beliefs is a rejection of some very cherished American values.

I think danya hit the nail on the head. they don't hate us cause we are free, we haven't really been free in a long time. they hate us cause we support countries like Israel, (a country led by arab haters) put dictators like Hussein, or the shah of Iran, into power, we occupy their countries, so on, so forth.

when you trade away your freedoms in exchange for "security" you will eventually find that you no longer have either. bush may not be comparable to Hitler, but it does seem that America is becoming a NAZI state. they can deem protesters as terrorists, search your home while you are out and never tell you, wiretapping is much easier to do, they want to secretly arrest people suspected of terrorism, and they already have secret courts. remember, America took in a bunch of Nazi scientists at the end of WW2, and our current prez's grand-dad had his assets taken for trading with the enemy (the Nazi's)

you are not free.

We support Israel because the arabs decide to hate the Israelis &
fire-bomb them while they are SHOPPING at outside marts or standing in a BUS TERMINAL or even in a BUS

Osama should have stuck his head out of his musty cave a few years ago to see why we were really assisting Israel...because his fellow arabs are blowing themselves up to kill innocent people..kinda like what he did on 9/11.


Danya Posted on Mar 14 2003, 07:47 PM


Fine. I'm sure Iraq or Iran would love to have you...of course, Iraq's government has a worse secret police then what you ACCUSE the U.S. as having

GA

Our support of Israel has nothing to do with suicide bombing.

It has been a long term policy of the United States to support Israel, We were the first nation to recognize their independence and we have called ourselves their ally through many wars and crises. Our support has extended through many questionable policies in regards to the Palestinians including Golda Meir's claim that there is no such thing as a Palestinian and their present policy of extending settlements into Palestinian areas.

Telling Danya to go move to a state like Iraq or Iran because she likes exercising her freedom of dissent makes it sound like it is you who would be more comfortable living in a dictatorship where you wouldn't have to be troubled with all of those individual freedoms and you could use all of the jingoist nationalism you wanted to support the state.

A point well made, Eeyore...

But, before everybody else starts in on Israel and Palestine, our conflicts with other Arab states, and so forth, don't forget we're still talking about civil liberties here.
I don't like it when threads I enjoy close!

Eeyore



It was more like me just venting

I would like to apoligize to Danya

Then I would like to apologize for you for engaging in the same behavior, This is genuine sentiment but I will provide no e-flower for you. I hope you understand.

I've always wondered just what 'freedom' is given up at times. Or civil liberties? Times have changed. Technology has provided new opportunities.

For instance, let's take national ID cards. What is the objection to that? I often hear a general 'no way', but I never hear specific objections.

Seems to me that it would solve a lot of problems without really stepping on too many toes. At least not the toes of law-abiding citizens that is. Non-citizens would also have to carry a similar card, color-coded for alien/visa status.

Know what? There might be enough on that subject alone for a new topic.

We'll see,I reckon.

Regarding the ID cards...I really don't see how we're going to get away from that future. However, I do understand why people are afraid of them. Just look at history and then use your imagination and you can find all kinds of reasons to think it could be a very intrusive thing.

Suppose we elected a really bad man accidentally. Suppose he had all kinds of devious friends who had lot's of idea's that they believed would improve our country.

One of their wacky idea's might be to deport or round up all of the Jews and put them in concentration camps because this extreme group of leaders believed they were dangerous terrorists. Or maybe they believed that because as Christians the Jews were now their enemy. Who knows...people do all kinds of crazy things that you don't believe will ever happen until it does.

Anyway, the Jewish population is afraid for their lives. Every where people go they need to be able to show this card on demand...it's used to pay for goods and to access certain places. Without it you could be arrested...The card tells everyone what your nationality and religion is along with credit history, education, marital status, communicable diseases, and it can even verify if you are considered high risk by authorities. Even non Jews would have to worry that they may have something on their card that identifies them as being a Jewish sympathizer because they visit the wrong web sites or read suspicious magazines. All kinds of information can be accessed with this new ID card as time goes on and technology becomes more and more intrusive.

It's a more advanced form of the Star of David arm band or an id number tattoo on the arm. Sounds crazy but these are the things people fear and for good reason. You can switch the Jews in that story for Mexicans, French, atheists, Christians, or whatever. There is always a chance that someone who hates you will be in charge of your government. Prejudice runs rampant in America and lately it seems to be growing.

My grandmother and her family was chased out of Germany, Poland, Czecheslovakia, wound up in a pogrom in Russia, and eventually made her way to Israel and now Canada. Her parents died long before. All because she was Jewish. Anyone who would like to see identity cards and profiling try explaining to her why she should have to carry some identification with her to validate her presence.

I don't care if there is a police state as long I can get some French fries. I think checking Iranians, Saudis or Algerians extra carefully to make sure they aren't terrorists isn't a major loss of freedom.

It's no major loss to your freedom perhaps. What right do you have to decide what freedoms other Americans receive?

Two words:
SLIPPERY SLOPE

A police state may start with those of Middle Eastern heritage, but it would soon expand to cover any potent or suspect groups and organizations that may pose a threat to the state's authority. It helps to think long term with things like this.
[Edited: below]
The threat of terrorism is an intangible spectre... and certainly not a tool of freedom. For example:
Hitler and the Reichstag Fire

The frequent comparisons of America to Nazi Germany and Bush to Hitler on this forum are disconcerting to say the least. I am saddened to think that some take that view. There is no validity to it whatsoever. No matter how you bend, twist or spin it, the truth is that you don't make your case.

'Slippery slopes' are dangerous when there are no safety measures along the way. Our system of checks and balances provides the greatest safety net in the world. Whenever one branch of government begins to stray, the others are there to steady it. That's exactly the case now. More restrictive rules are being used to combat the threat of terror. Rightfully so. Some time down the road those rules will be loosened up, for one of two reasons. Either the need won't be as pressing or there will be abuses that need correcting. That is what makes this country the envy of the rest of the world.

Those who don't believe in our system of government, and would rather work against it, are always free to go elsewhere. Another thing that makes America great, those who do leave are never referred to as 'exiles'. And they are always free to return.

You are certainly free to continue your attempts to defile this great country, but you won't win much support for your views. The constant use of snide, disrespectful names for those in office may pass for wittiness in some circles, but they are merely childish. The elitist comments about 'what passes for intelectualism for most Americans' only shows disdain for the people who live here. Those things negate whatever slim chance you have of getting anyone to buy into your arguments.

Just remember, if you're always trying to tear things down then you don't have time to build anything. That makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

Please note that this posting is not specifically directed at ABs, it just happens to follow his. Or at least it did when I started it many moons ago .

It strikes me that the universal application of the right to a fair trial (and other supposedly inalienable rights that are eminently alienable on the whims of government, given sufficient motive, as in the UK as well as in the USA) is not really about the rights of the criminal at all.

It is instead about the society that prosecutes them.

We tend to think that our societies in the Anglophone West are superior to both 'cowardly' non-Anglophone western countries, and to 'backward' or 'brutal' Islamic countries or regimes, because of the basic principles of fairness, equality, tolerance, and so on, that are enshrined at the heart of our societies.

If, when we perceive that we are under threat, we abandon those principles to fight on the same terms as our supposed adversaries (using imprisonment without charge or trial, denying access to legal counsel, etc, as detailed here and elsewhere) do we not sink to the same level as the people we affect to despise?

Or, do we just think that we are intrinsically superior, and that our own liberties and freedoms, produced from the careful construction of many clever people of many years (which, clearly are rather delicate things if they can be abandoned in less time than it took to build them), are not what make our countries special?

Taking the US Constitution as an example (easy than the UK, as it was composed by identifiable people at particular times, and is in any case summarised into a single document, unlike the labyrinthine UK constitution), it seems to me that, by defining the rights of government and citizens, the drafters understood human nature well enough to define things that they wanted to see as minimum standards, if you like. If they trusted people and governments to work things out for themselves, they wouldn't have bothered to define those areas, right?

So, if they (by implication) trusted that future US governments would not imprison without trial, they wouldn't have enshrined the rights of citizens to demand them, would they?

Further, if they recognised these tendencies in the nature of government and in human nature well enough to specifically prohibit their expression in the Constitution, surely they saw that there is no intrinsic superiority in being born American, only a privilege, and that the thing that makes America special is that the Constitution fundamentally recognises at least some of the flaws in human nature and human organisation (we'll let some of the flaws they didn't consider pass, such as greed, for another time or thread). The British (and yes, the French) constitutions do much the same, albeit in their own way and in the contexts of their own cultures.

So, if the constitutional back-pedalling that is being applied now in the US, UK and elsewhere, is not driven by intrinsic superiority, and is not what makes us 'right' and them 'wrong', what, exactly IS the justification, at first principles, for the current war.

NB I can see the pragmatic case for it - Saddam is a bad man- but that's the only argument I can see for doing it, and if that's the only justification it applies to many other countries, some of which are currently allies or at least not in the 'Axis of Evil' (e.g. Israel, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria). It also requires the US and UK to review or change their own activities and policies - not least our arms sales, or the blind eye turned in the US to IRA and ETA fundraising. If we want to wear the white hats to justify our actions, we have to be unequivocally good guys.

I went back through this thread and I don't see anybody attempting to defile America or even using "snide, disrespectful names for those in office." All the arguments on this thread coming from the side of lost liberties and comparisons to the German police state appear to be sound arguments.

Now, you say there is no validity in it, no matter how much we might like to "bend, twist or spin it." Yet, I'd fail to see how comparisons can't be made when people are being secretly arrested and secretly deported... many of whom are innocent. The Total Information Act and TIPS program certainly isn't serving to protect our freedom considering their sole purpose seems to begin with the invasion of privacy, innocent or otherwise.

You attack the idea of people "defiling" America and people "who don't believe in our system of government," but the objection to, say, the USA Patriot Act and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (coupled with TIPS, the Total Information Act and others...) appear more as though they are trying to preserve our system of government. Perhaps you explain in some detail how you view the questioning of these draconian measures to be an attempt to tear our system of government down?

And as far as the Reichstag fire, which I can only presume incited your posting:

There are draconian restrictions being passed, or attempted to be passed, right now in government. The administration wants more power to invade the privacy of individuals and infringe upon their rights. They want to create massive computer databases compiling all the little secrets of Americans everywhere... a system which has been attempted and largely abused before by the FBI (Hoover). And we have "enemy combatants" being beated and tortured in Guantanamo Bay in Camp X-Ray... but before anybody suggests this is justified, we just released 18 or so people over a year later because it turns out they really were innocent. Others haven't been so lucky, dying from blunt force trauma in the face of U.S. officials attempting to justify what they term "a bit of smacky face." And on another thread here at AD we've detailed where some 1,200 people were held in America following September 11, in solitary confinement coupled with inhumane treatment, and 89.2% weren't guilty of any crime.

All this in less than two years.

Some people here seem to be forgetting this:

'The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either'.
Benjamin Franklin

Yes, But it seems many enjoy applying this only when it benefits their stance.


At one point we were free to own slaves.

At one point we were free to smoke tobacco anywhere we pleased.

At one point we were free to dump or garbage anywhere we pleased.

At one point our businesses were free to pay their employees as little as they would work for.

and so on...


We have lost many of these freedoms, but we did so because these freedoms could directly effect the quality of life of another individual.

As we go on we will lose even more freedoms.

Some want to outlaw fire arms...

Some want to ban SUVs....

Some want to have a maximum wage....

Some want to ban profanity in music lyrics...

and the list goes on...

How are any of those examples you chose 'trading freedom for security'?

Owning slaves, tobacco use, dumping garbage, abusing employees, 'so on' ? How did any of those specific examples of abandoning 'freedoms which enfringed on the quality of others' rights' relate directly to our abandonment of freedom for security? Am I more secure because I can't pollute the environment, own slaves, abuse others? Would I be more secure if we established a maximum wage?

The outlaw of fire arms is the only arguably relating 'freedom' which the quote encompasses . It hasn't happened, and I am against it on the same grounds.

Now...If the quote were something like, 'Individual freedom for me usurps the individual freedom of everyone else' that response might apply. But, it wouldn't really have a nice ring to it, would it?

I think you missed this part of my post.

I was speaking of our freedoms in general and how they relate to the way our freedoms now can effect those around us.

I am sure we are in agreement on most issues as i have read many of your posts.

I just believe the quote by Franklin is thrown around too often in the debate of freedoms and security.

Just think what people would have said if Bush had the terrorists detained before 9/11 on grounds of suspicion...

Sleeper

I understand your point. Perhaps my quote is overused, but I think it’s appropriate here, in this context. The Patriot Act scares me. It is very Markofthe beasty, by my way of thinking. Its impact will endure as future administrations have their chance to invade our privacy as well. Once a freedom is chipped away by the government, it will never be reclaimed. Just like any government agency or entitlement, that encroachment will exist forever.

If we had a crystal ball, Bush should’ve detained the ‘suspected’ terrorists prior to the crash. I am not familiar with the specific evidence which was available at that time, so I can't make an educated judgement on that. If we had a crystal ball, we should’ve intercepted the planes with fighter jets and shot down all the passengers, to save everyone else. If another plane were taken over today, do you think we should shoot it down? I hope the answer is no. There is no way to know what will happen until it does, and killing a plane full of passengers is an unacceptable price to pay for uncertainty. Did our civil liberties enable the attack? Would massive wiretapping and big brother inspecting our google searches have saved lives? When you consider that evidence suggests most of the terrorists themselves didn’t know they were on a suicide mission, I doubt it.

Terrorist activities have gone on throughout the world for decades, and this is the first time it has ever hit our boarders. Perhaps we should review what worked before, and start applying it (like, increased intelligence that was neglected for almost a decade), before so easily abandoning our essential liberties.

At risk of drifting a little off-topic, I'd like to address the intelligence point first. What we desperately need is a restored "human intelligence" capability - old-fashioned cultivation of well-placed contacts, "wet" work, etc. In the past decade or two the intelligence has embraced signals intelligence as some sort of panacea, and diverted billions from payroll/bribe/whatever budgets to pay for high-tech toys. That trend must be reversed. OK, returning to the real topic...

The idea of learning from countries that have endured terrorism for a long time is an excellent one. We could learn, for example, that Germany was able to do well against the Baader-Meinhof group, and the Italians against the Red Brigades, without resorting to secret detentions and wholesale repeal of civil rights. The most effective method against any terrorist or criminal group is infiltration, and yet with respect to al Qaeda that seems to be one approach the Bush administration has practically no interest in trying. "Total Information Awareness" isn't going to win the war against terrorism, and neither will other infringements of our rights. The current conduct of the domestic war on terrorism is like the approach to fishing where you just haul in a big net full of fish and throw away the ones you don't want. It needs to be more like a hunt, where targets are selected first and then taken down instead of the other way around.