A Couple of Questions

[FromWayDowntown]

The question seemed clear to me FWD, but I'll rephrase it:

Question 1: Which specific Civil Liberties being infringed upon (cite them) under the guise of protecting us from terrorism <---your arguement, are not an aid in the battle against terrorism, but are merely an abuse of Government authority?

Question 2: The Government insists that this infringement upon these Civil Liberties (specifically those you cited in response to Question #1) is an essential tool in effectively combating terrorism. What is the reasoning behind your belief that these violations are not essential to further assist the battle against terrorism?



p.s. I understand that you believe that "unecessary" infringement upon our Civil Liberites is capitulating to terrorism, but that's not relevant to the questions, no need to restate it. Thanks.

But it is relevant to the questions. I don't buy your premise, so my answer to your question #1 is that there is no infringement on civil liberties that is necessary in aid of fighting terrorism. Your premise that there are some civil liberties that can be infringed in the name of deterring terrorists attacks is fundamentally anathema to my view of civil liberties. And I also vehemently believe, given that fighting terrorism effectively was wholly possible before 9/11, I can't think of a single infringed upon liberty (broader exceptions to the warrant requirement -- things like wiretapping and information mining, to cite a specific example) that could be justified by saying it helps to fight terror, to respond to your question #2.

If your effort is to extract some sort of admission that government should, in some cases, infringe civil liberties (beyond things that ensure safety on a broader scale -- like increased security at airports) to fight terror, I can assure you that you'll never get that concession from me. To the extent that I believe anything that the current President says, one thing I do agree with him about is the notion that terrorists depise American freedoms. As a necessary corrolary of that position, I think that if we voluntarily give up some of those freedoms in the guise of preventing terror attacks, we've capitulated to terrorists.

[FromWayDowntown]

The Government, in an effort to combat terrorism and save my life violated the Civil Rights of someone on their watch list. Result? We have a few isolated instances where someone's due process was violated, but, this broad oversight into people of interest also results in;
-frustrating the efforts of terrorists, i.e, spared the lives of innocents.
-capturing terrorists, thereby sparing the lives of innocents.
- interfered and intercepted with terrorist communication, ultimately saving the lives of innocents.

Personalize it:
They interfered with your Brother who is on their watch list, but they saved your Sisters and your Fathers life.
Is it worth it?

The answer to that, to me, is simple -- absolutely not. Again, I've said from the get-go that I believe (from numerous reports providing similar information) that the 9/11 attacks could have been foiled under the civil liberties regime that was in place before those attacks. Given that possibility, I don't see the justification for eroding civil liberties in any manner (however slight) to accomplish things that could have been accomplished anyway.

I'd much rather run the risk of being killed by a terrorist knowing that I live with substantial freedom than reduce that risk by ceding any portion of my liberties.

It's really odd to me, too, that the conservative/libertarian faction that chastizes candidates like Obama for wanting governmental involvment in various aspects of American life is so willing to accept governmental involvment in aspects of American life that more directly impact the fundamental liberties that Americans have ensured for themselves.

[jochhejaam]

, I can't think of a single infringed upon liberty (broader exceptions to the warrant requirement -- things like wiretapping and information mining, to cite a specific example) that could be justified by saying it helps to fight terror...

Terrorists' mastermind attacks via communications that can be intercepted through wiretapping and information mining, and that's not an aid to fighting terror?
Are you kidding me?

Also, you spoke of the fact that there were pre-9/11 terrorist fighting techniques in place that offered us the effectiveness equal to that of wiretapping and information mining. What were these?

[jochhejaam]

If your effort is to extract some sort of admission that government should, in some cases, infringe civil liberties (beyond things that ensure safety on a broader scale -- like increased security at airports) to fight terror, I can assure you that you'll never get that concession from me.

Rest assured that I'm not trying to extract any concessions from you; I'm merely attempting to get you to give specific and direct answers to direct questions.

[FromWayDowntown]

Terrorists' mastermind attacks via communications that can be intercepted through wiretapping and information mining, and that's not an aid to fighting terror?
Are you kidding me?

Also, you spoke of the fact that there were pre-9/11 terrorist fighting techniques in place that offered us the effectiveness equal to that of wiretapping and information mining. What were these?

Without those things, we knew enough to break up the 9/11 plot. The problem in foiling the attack wasn't the lack of resources to provide information -- it was the lack of internal communication about what various agencies knew. The government didn't need warrantless wiretaps and omnibus information mining to get that knowledge.

You're either willfully avoiding my point or you simply don't understand my position.

As to your point, if the end you seek is foiling terror plots, then why not support random raids on people's homes or temporary detention and interrogation of those who might seem su ious? Those tactics would almost necessrily ensure that there would be no more terror attacks that have their launch points in the United States.

[FromWayDowntown]

Rest assured that I'm not trying to extract any concessions from you; I'm merely attempting to get you to give specific and direct answers to direct questions.

I've given you specific and direct answers -- I don't think that the infringements upon our liberty (no matter how effective they might be in fighting terrorism) are justifiable. Can I make that point any more simply for you? For me to engage you beyond that fundamental disagreement with your premise would be for me to either engage entirely in hypotheticals or for me to admit that I agree there is some merit to your position. Given that I fundamentally disagree with any additional erosion of civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism -- the point I've made all along -- I'm not sure what point is served by pretending that I might somehow agree with your premise.

[boutons_]

"it was the lack of internal communication about what various agencies knew"

... which was fixable if the agencies' boss, aka the WH, would have put all the federal/state/local law enforcement agencies on high alert (as the 9/11 Comission said), and perhaps opened new ports to an information clearing house, that would have permitted "this Arab student pilot wants to learn to fly and turn jets, but not how to take-off 7 land" reaching the top rather than being snuffed by the FBI bureaucracy.

Since the WH hates government and always intends/expects/encourages it to fail, esp when the WH was looking for pretext for the Iraq war, the WH did nothing, absolutely nothing pre-9/11 about terrorism. The WH let 9/11 happen.

As bad as the security/law enforcement agencies are about not cooperating and turf wars (we can assume they are no better now, and worse with DHS in the mix), good EXECutive initiatives and leadership

For expansion of Exec branch spying on anybody without a Judicial branch warrant, this totally nullifies the 4th amendment, removes checks & balances.

Did the states ratify that nullification and change to the Cons ution?

The assumption in the paranoid Cons ution is that all power will sooner or later be abused, that all men are corruptible by power and money, will consider themselves above the law. Therefore, the magnificent system of check and balances.

yeah, yeaH, I know, I'm for checks and balances, therefore I'm a liberal, tree-hugging, treasonous, terrorist accomplice and I "must have something to hide" from the govt.

[jochhejaam]

I've given you specific and direct answers -- I don't think that the infringements upon our liberty (no matter how effective they might be in fighting terrorism) are justifiable. Can I make that point any more simply for you?

Simply put, it's quite clear that as far as you’re concerned, the lives of innocent Americans that are protected from terrorist elements by state-of-the-art terrorism fighting techniques, via minor infringements on our Civil Liberties, mean less to you than the preservation of those liberties, even though the intrusion into those liberties are totally imperceptive to the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans.

Got it, thanks!

[FromWayDowntown]

Simply put, it's quite clear that as far as you’re concerned, the lives of innocent Americans that are protected from terrorist elements by state-of-the-art terrorism fighting techniques, via minor infringements on our Civil Liberties, mean less to you than the preservation of those liberties, even though the intrusion into those liberties are totally imperceptive to the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans.

Got it, thanks!

Yep -- you got it. Liberty is what being an American is about. Consider me unconvinced that even minor infringements of civil liberties are "necessary" to protect innocent Americans.

Fight crime smartly and let people live their lives with the freedoms our Cons ution ensures.

[jochhejaam]

Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left
Excerpt;
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay...
-Barack Obama-

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...egislatio.html


Nice to see that even though Obama is Harvard educated, and a Civil Rights activist, he can still appreciate the value of FISA and wiretap statutes as being meaningful and substantial tools for fighting terrorism.






"Timing is everything"

[PixelPusher]

Nice to see that even though Obama is Harvard educated, and a Civil Rights activist, he can still appreciate the value of FISA and wiretap statutes as being meaningful and substantial tools for fighting terrorism.

As opposed to the Bush Administration and paranoids on the right, who thought FISA should have been scrapped completely, and the only "statute" for wiretapping should be absolute, unchallenged executive authority.

[jochhejaam]

As opposed to the Bush Administration and paranoids on the right, who thought FISA should have been scrapped completely, and the only "statute" for wiretapping should be absolute, unchallenged executive authority.

Sure, whatever Pix, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post!

[PixelPusher]

Sure, whatever Pix, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post!

"sure, whatever" seems to be the extent to which you've considered this issue.

[boutons_]

"Liberty is what being an American is about"

no, it's not. What excites foreingers about USA is the Rule of Law, a synthetic nation of laws. That's why dubya violating and gutting so many laws, and putting his Exec above the law in total secrecy, has pissed off so many people and brought down the USA in eyes of the world.

[Wild Cobra]

What you don't seem to grasp is that it is relevant to the question. Even if it helps combat terrorism, the diatribe is whether it's worth infringing on other liberties to do so.

There are several things that have always been legal that can by accident restrict a persons liberties. The Patriot Act isn't meant to do so.

I'll give you an example: Say you're an American lawyer, living in the US, and you have a client overseas that's suing the government, that's on one of the government watch lists. You have no way to call and talk to this person over the phone, because you know conversations are tapped. That's basically a violation of the 4th and 6th amendment all at once.

Not true. The government does not tap every overseas call. The client would first have to be on the suspect list. Read the fourth carefully. "Against unreasonable" is in there.

Now you might not give a about civil liberties, but I'll take the word from somebody orders of magnitude more savvy when it comes to society:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "
Benjamin Franklin

We are not giving up liberty. I care far more for them than most here in this forum, and I see no problems here. Yes, there is the occasional mishap. Do we put a stop to all law enforcement efforts for the 0.001% times mistakes are made? It appears you want to take this to the extreme of Anarchy, with no authority of law.

What liberties have you lost? What liberties might you lose?

[ElNono]

No, FWD's premise that "infringing on Civil Liberties = capitulating to terrorists" is not relevant to the information I"m seeking. I'll be the final arbiter of that.

Every single one of us will be the final arbiter of that. Your 'neutrality' on the subject is no different than anybody else.

That's all well and good, but I'm not argueing that there are not Civil Liberties being violated.

The Government, in an effort to combat terrorism and save my life violated the Civil Rights of someone on their watch list. Result? We have a few isolated instances where someone's due process was violated, but, this broad oversight into people of interest also results in;
-frustrating the efforts of terrorists, i.e, spared the lives of innocents.
-capturing terrorists, thereby sparing the lives of innocents.
- interfered and intercepted with terrorist communication, ultimately saving the lives of innocents.

That's what you believe. There's no proof that the violation of liberties has actually prevented ANYTHING. As a matter of fact, the entire system is so secretive, complete lacking any kind of check and balances, that you will probably never know. What's worse, we actually know for a fact that things like the National Security Letters, implemented under the Patriot act, were and still are being abused. I mean, tapping calls didn't prevent the Madrid or London bombings, did it? Do you have ANY proof your security increased by tapping of communications?

Personalize it:
They interfered with your Brother who is on their watch list, but they saved your Sisters and your Fathers life.
Is it worth it?

Well, I personalized it the day I decided to live in this country. Nobody else other than my wife lives in this country, and the day I decided this is the place I'm going to live in, is the day I also decided that living free and enjoying the liberties this country provide come at a price. Unlike you, I have lived in an oppressive country. And I'm fully willing to risk my life to enjoy the liberty and freedoms of this country. You know what's your problem? You live in fear, you live terrorized that those terrorists will strike and kill you or somebody around you. This is exactly what the bad guys want. I refuse to live like that. I will not submit to them, and I will defend what makes this country great.

Lets straighten that out, I care.

No you do not. You say you care, but you are so terrorized that we just have to spook you with the words security and terrorism, and you'll give up the keys to your house.

That's good, I like Ben, but that doesn't address giving up a little liberty to gain a lot of security, say preventing a dirty bomb, another 9/11, etc.

Intelligence was not what failed in 9/11, it was the government inability to act on that intelligence. There was no reason to start the citizen profiling that has been going on in this country since then. Everyone is a threat until proven otherwise? Bunch of nonsense. And you sense of security is completely misplaced. Have you ever been to the Valley down south? Do you realize how many people/cars/drugs are smuggled every day? Do you know how easy it would be for bad guys and their gear to sneak through there?

[ElNono]

There are several things that have always been legal that can by accident restrict a persons liberties. The Patriot Act isn't meant to do so.

But it did, that's why at least 3 provisions were struck down by courts as uncons utional, and thus illegal (NSL, the 'sneak and peek' searches and material support).

Not true. The government does not tap every overseas call. The client would first have to be on the suspect list. Read the fourth carefully. "Against unreasonable" is in there.

Is the list available to see if my client is there? Who is to decide who is in that list? If my client is there in error, how to I correct the error? Can I challenge whether 'unreasonable' in the fourth applies to my calls?
There are no checks and balances. There's no way to know whether the system is abused.

We are not giving up liberty. I care far more for them than most here in this forum, and I see no problems here. Yes, there is the occasional mishap. Do we put a stop to all law enforcement efforts for the 0.001% times mistakes are made? It appears you want to take this to the extreme of Anarchy, with no authority of law.

I don't think anybody here is asking for law enforcement to cease. I think we're only asking law enforcement to be lawful. And if we believe it's not, to be able to challenge it on a court of law.

What liberties have you lost? What liberties might you lose?

Until struck down as uncons utional, I lost the right to privacy on my own home.I might still lose the liberty to travel freely, if somebody ever arbitrarily decided I should be on the no-fly list. A list I can't have access to, and that I have no possibility to challenge before becoming a part of. Most important, being that I'm not a citizen yet, I'm still on the hook for indefinite detention without a trial.

[jochhejaam]

Every single one of us will be the final arbiter of that. Your 'neutrality' on the subject is no different than anybody else.

El, it's not about neutrality, it's about me being the one that's privy to what specific information I'm seeking from another poster. (why do I feel that you still won't get it?)

That's what you believe. There's no proof that the violation of liberties has actually prevented ANYTHING. As a matter of fact, the entire system is so secretive, complete lacking any kind of check and balances, that you will probably never know. What's worse, we actually know for a fact that things like the National Security Letters, implemented under the Patriot act, were and still are being abused. I mean, tapping calls didn't prevent the Madrid or London bombings, did it? Do you have ANY proof your security increased by tapping of communications?

Major Fail.
Do we have any proof that increased security at major sporting events has done prevented tragedy? (I'll answer it for you, NO!) And it would be idiotic to go back to minimal security because we can't prove that the extra security was a deterrent. Common sense should tell us that high-tech security, and added security is an aid in protecting our Country from terrorist elements.
FISA has unequivocally prevented terrorist attacks (skeptical? prove that it hasn't).

No terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 would support my stand, and undermine yours.

You live in fear, you live terrorized that those terrorists will strike and kill you or somebody around you. This is exactly what the bad guys want. I refuse to live like that.

Pompous of you to characterize someone you no almost nothing about. Fear of what, death?
Allow me to educate you in an effort to allow you to make observations that aren't steeped in ignorance.
I'm secure in the eternal ramifications of leaving this life, absolutely no fear.

I will not submit to them, and I will defend what makes this country great.

A welcome to you and your wife to America, but again you are in dire need of an education, America is not a great Country because of a history of ignoring the threats of foreign dangers (I'll assume that your somewhat educated of how the citizens of our great Country have shed their blood through fighting for the freedom we now have), that would deprive of us liberty and freedom.

Tell me El, how do you play do defend this Country from terrorist threats, by protesting in front of Government buildings with a little sign that says "No To Wiretapping?".

No you do not. You say you care, but you are so terrorized that we just have to spook you with the words security and terrorism, and you'll give up the keys to your house.

Too ignorant to merit a response



Work beckons, later El.

[spurster]

All these arguments for increased security for terrorism have always applied for substantial criminal activity that the US has always had (judging by our huge prison population). Terrorism and other hot button issues (child porn, drugs, illegal immigration) are wet dreams for those in law enforcement who have always wanted total access to what all of us are doing. Of course, none of us of want those things, so to protect us, we need all of our communications wiretapped and our travel tracked and cameras watching us everywhere, or so the logic goes.

[FromWayDowntown]

Major Fail.
Do we have any proof that increased security at major sporting events has done prevented tragedy? (I'll answer it for you, NO!) And it would be idiotic to go back to minimal security because we can't prove that the extra security was a deterrent. Common sense should tell us that high-tech security, and added security is an aid in protecting our Country from terrorist elements.
FISA has unequivocally prevented terrorist attacks (skeptical? prove that it hasn't).

No terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 would support my stand, and undermine yours.

What a load of nonsense. The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 is consistent with the fact that there had, in large part, been no terrorist attacks on American soil before 9/11, too. Regardless of that, the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 doesn't prove that FISA -- which the Administration has argued it need not follow (and, to follow jochhejaam logic, likely hasn't followed) -- is effective; it proves that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil.

And how ridiculous to say that FISA has worked unequivocally and then place the burden of negation on someone else. If you think FISA has "unequivocally prevented terrorist attacks," I'd say the argumentative burden is on you to establish that fact.

[ElNono]

El, it's not about neutrality, it's about me being the one that's privy to what specific information I'm seeking from another poster. (why do I feel that you still won't get it?)

No, what is it is your complete dishonesty in seeking for an answer that suits you needs to either vilify him as a person who doesn't care (which you did, completely expected) or should have he chosen to fall for your deceit, engage in conversation under your terms. This is a public forum. Your terms mean .

Major Fail.
Do we have any proof that increased security at major sporting events has done prevented tragedy? (I'll answer it for you, NO!) And it would be idiotic to go back to minimal security because we can't prove that the extra security was a deterrent. Common sense should tell us that high-tech security, and added security is an aid in protecting our Country from terrorist elements.
FISA has unequivocally prevented terrorist attacks (skeptical? prove that it hasn't).
No terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 would support my stand, and undermine yours.

What does sporting events have to do with anything? I have no problem with increased security just as long as it is legal, and does not infringe on anybody's rights and liberties. And I can see you're completely ignorant in what you're trying to argue about. FISA was passed after the massive wiretaps on civilians directed by Nixon in order to put a stop to citizen profiling. FISA is legal, contains provisions for the checks and balances I mentioned in earlier posts and already provides immunity to telecoms. What we're talking about here are the secret NSA wiretaps, which we discussed at length with Wild Cobra (and we couldn't agree) on this very same board. The sole reason they need to re-issue immunity for telcos is because this government went around FISA in order to wiretap at will without a court order.

Pompous of you to characterize someone you no almost nothing about. Fear of what, death?
Allow me to educate you in an effort to allow you to make observations that aren't steeped in ignorance.
I'm secure in the eternal ramifications of leaving this life, absolutely no fear.

A welcome to you and your wife to America, but again you are in dire need of an education, America is not a great Country because of a history of ignoring the threats of foreign dangers (I'll assume that your somewhat educated of how the citizens of our great Country have shed their blood through fighting for the freedom we now have), that would deprive of us liberty and freedom.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm very well versed in the history of this Nation, and proudly so. And my wife is American, born in the great state of Texas. And what really intrigues me is the contradiction in what you posted above. So American soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice for liberty and freedom, yet you are so easily foiled into giving up what they fought so hard for. You're not even putting up a fight. Truly a disgrace.

Tell me El, how do you play do defend this Country from terrorist threats, by protesting in front of Government buildings with a little sign that says "No To Wiretapping?".

Terrorists are not the only threat out there. This is a country that prides itself on freedom and justice. Whenever somebody comes around and chips away part of your freedom and passes a bunch of uncons utional laws, no matter the excuse, you also need to be vigilant. Democracy is a system of checks and balances, and when those are not present, abuse creeps in. Those people are putting up a fight for the liberty you are ever so willing to give up.

And BTW, I noticed you completely avoided the question:
Considering the amount of people/trucks/drugs coming through from the south, what is to prevent a bad guy and their gear coming through that area? Is that how we protect against terrorists? You're telling me that a guy with a sign protesting government worries you more than protecting our borders?

[ElNono]

What a load of nonsense. The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 is consistent with the fact that there had, in large part, been no terrorist attacks on American soil before 9/11, too. Regardless of that, the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 doesn't prove that FISA -- which the Administration has argued it need not follow (and, to follow jochhejaam logic, likely hasn't followed) -- is effective; it proves that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil.

And how ridiculous to say that FISA has worked unequivocally and then place the burden of negation on someone else. If you think FISA has "unequivocally prevented terrorist attacks," I'd say the argumentative burden is on you to establish that fact.

He's completely ignorant on FISA. FISA existed before 9/11, and provides for a secret court to issue subpoenas to authorize wiretapping. Even more, FISA contemplated starting wiretaps before obtaining the court authorization, provided that the law enforcement agency applied for the order within a week of the tap's start. Even more interesting is that FISA was enacted after the Watergate scandal, a notorious political abuse case, because Nixon wiretapped the media and citizens in general. It was a system designed to provide checks and balances, judicial overview, and a fair immunity system for telcos. The fact that this government completely avoided FISA goes to show the complete disregard for law and accountability. What's even more sad is people buying into the necessity of breaking the law under the guise of terrorism.

[jochhejaam]

What a load of nonsense. The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 is consistent with the fact that there had, in large part, been no terrorist attacks on American soil before 9/11, too. Regardless of that, the fact that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 doesn't prove that FISA -- which the Administration has argued it need not follow (and, to follow jochhejaam logic, likely hasn't followed) -- is effective; it proves that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil.

What a pant load. That’s like saying that even though the levees that failed before Katrina were breached, they should be built to the same structural integrity before Katrina, because they were sufficient before. You’re leaving out a big part of the picture, KATRINA HAPPENED! Thank God that the USACE used common sense and didn’t follow FWD’s flawed logic when restoring the levees, they realized, as logic would dictate, that maintaining the status quo, i.e., the levy strength they had in place before Katrina, obviously wasn’t adequate.

Likewise the pre 9/11 consistency you speak of was shattered by 9/11, and it mattered not that it was adequate before because; 9/11 HAPPENED!
In light of the devastating and crippling affects of the terrorist strike on 9/11, maintaining the status quo within our National Security Agencies was unthinkable. Changes were in order, changes were demanded, and changes came!

[FromWayDowntown]

What a pant load. That’s like saying that even though the levees that failed before Katrina were breached, they should be built to the same structural integrity before Katrina, because they were sufficient before. You’re leaving out a big part of the picture, KATRINA HAPPENED! Thank God that the USACE used common sense and didn’t follow FWD’s flawed logic when restoring the levees, they realized, as logic would dictate, that maintaining the status quo, i.e., the levy strength they had in place before Katrina, obviously wasn’t adequate.

That's a ridiculous analogy, Joch. I realize that we're talking at cross-purposes here and neither will convince the other of the perceived error of his ways. But there's a clear distinction between my point and your contrived Katrina analogy.

Nothing that Katrina did was avoidable, except by the construction of better levees. As such, the justifiable course of action to avoid the consequences of other storms like Katrina is enhancing the protections against those sorts of storms.

My point is that the protections that existed were sufficient to stop 9/11 -- what interfered with that wasn't some structural problem that could have never stopped the ensuing destruction; what interfered with stopping the attack was bureaucratic nonsense that could have clearly been avoided. As such, the justifiable course of action to avoid the possibility of other attacks like 9/11 was to reorganize the bureaucracy. There was no justification for eroding civil liberties in the name of stopping another terror attack -- that's rebuilding the levees but using better engineering and ideas; it's not taking people's property to build stronger levees than ever conceived.

Likewise the pre 9/11 consistency you speak of was shattered by 9/11, and it mattered not that it was adequate before because; 9/11 HAPPENED! In light of the devastating and crippling affects of the terrorist strike on 9/11, maintaining the status quo within our National Security Agencies was unthinkable. Changes were in order, changes were demanded, and changes came!

So if there's another attack, further erosion of civil liberties will be the order of the day? Where does it end? Are you comfortable with the notion of a police state if that's what it takes to prevent terror attacks? Taken to its logical conclusion, that's precisely the point of your argument -- government should do whatever it must to stop terror attacks, even at the cost of individual liberties, right?

9/11 is not proof that changes were in order in terms of the civil liberties of Americans; it's proof to me that changes were in order in terms of how intelligence-gathering en ies in local, state, and federal governments interacted with one another. You're right that maintaining the status quo was unthinkable, but you've not done one thing to persuade me that the People were the cons uency that should have had those changes foisted upon them -- fix the bureaucracy first.

[jochhejaam]

That's a ridiculous analogy, Joch. I realize that we're talking at cross-purposes here and neither will convince the other of the perceived error of his ways.

"And never the twain shall meet". I'm good with that FWD. My participation in the thread is three fold; in general, for educational purposes, and to define my own position on the issue through the exchange of opinions (that's 2 of the 3 for those that are counting), and specifically, in the discussion with you, to find out where your bottom line was on the issue. Mission accomplished so to speak.

(I don't agree that the analogy was ridiculous)