Jay Honeck wrote:

Some
people have said that in a way Al Quaida has already won in the sad
sense, that much of the freedom that the US stood for (and freedom is
what these people hate most) in the past has vanished already.

That's nonsense. Let's not play up the hyperbole *too* much, okay?

Bush-haters would have you (and everyone else) believe that our basic
freedoms have been infringed upon in some demonic way, in order to root
out
Osama, and that America has already lost the war on terror. Nothing could
be further from the truth.

Let's step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and analyze what has
really changed in our day-to-day lives:

1. We now have to arrive at the airport 2 hours early when we fly
commercially. (Formerly it was 1 hour.)
2. TFRs pop up occasionally when the President travels.
3. Ah, um, hmm.... *Surely* there must be *something* else?

How about the fact that dissent has now become equated with treason. It is
now (apparently) once again justifiable to use force to break up lawful,
peaceful protest.

Or that government officials now can now get away with unprecedented secrecy
in all sorts of matters just by whispering "terrorist threat" three times.

I agree that sweeping statements such as the above a bit over the top. But
equally over the top are sweeping statements such as yours that suggest
that the everything is fine and anyone who thinks otherwise can be
dismissed as raving.



Not. Precisely NOTHING of consequence has changed. Those first two
items
impact a tiny, tiny percentage of our society. 99% of Americans don't
notice any difference between pre- and post-9/11 America -- because there
ARE no meaningful changes.

Behind the scenes, "power-to-investigate" kind of stuff *has* changed --
but
these don't effect most people in any but the most peripheral way. And
most of THAT impact is philosophical.

I know you're old enough to have seen what happens when the power to
investigate is abused. The lessons from J.Edgar come to mind.

The search and seizure type protections are there to protect the innocent.
(As are all our constitutional rights.) It's not enough, indeed it is
un-american, to justify removing protections on the basis that "most"
aren't affected. (Caution: Sweeping statement ahead.) None are free unless
all are free!


Yes, we all of the free societies must stand together to fight this
threat. But to believe that the threat of terrorism can be overcome by
increasing security and military action more and more will lead to the
destruction of precisely what we want to defend, the free society.

I take comfort from the fact that we were able to beat the Japanese in
World War II -- perhaps the single most warped, hateful, suicidal society
in the
history of the world -- and eventually become allies with them. Hell, if
*that* can happen, anything can.

In this war, the trick is to do PRECISELY what Bush has been doing --
fight
terrorists where *they* live.

I'm sure you think I'm a "Bush-hater", and to some extent you're right. But
it's not that I disagree with what he's done so much as I think he's
bungled it so badly.

If that means Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq,
or the entire Middle East, well, that scenario sure beats waiting until
the *******s put bombs on trains in Chicago, or kill a busload of school
kids in Des Moines.

Bottom line: When you're rooting out an insect infestation, you don't just
kill the roaches in your kitchen -- you go after the nest.

It's just too simplistic to think that if we can just kill another 10, 20
200, 5000 (or whatever number you think exist) terrorists we can all go
home, pat ourselves on the back, and have a beer. If it were true then we
should all feel safer now than 18 months ago. If it were true then West
Bank tourism would be on the rise.

We (the world) will only defeat terrorism if we treat it as a problem to be
solved rather than a war to be won. In some cases force will be effective.
In some cases humamitarian efforts will do more. In some cases we may have
to swallow some unpleasantness and do something we'd rather not. In all
cases we should be looking to measure the results to see if we really are
being effective.

--
Frank....H