No, I asked a question and even if you're intervening on someone else's behalf, you're supposed to answer it.
So here we go again: are YOU really saying that people who drink and drive are as bad as TERRORISTS?
I'll tell you what, let's go with your hypo. Let's ask the victim of the average drunken driver what they think, and we'll ask the victim of the average terrorist what they think. I'm pretty sure the victim of the average drunken driver will be silent--because I would take bets that the average drunken driver makes it home scot-free, and nobody is killed and there is no victim. And it probably happens in your neighborhood every day. What these laws do is harshly criminalize behavior that so many people get away with, and they lose respect for the law entirely as a result. And it doesn't solve the problem. I'm not saying we shouldn't be HARSH, not at all, but where we are it should at least solve the problem.
A lot more Americans are killed by drunk drivers every year, than were killed by terrorists on 9/11. In 2001 (to choose the 9/11 year as an example), 17,448 people died in alcohol-related vehicle accidents, and 33% of those (about 5,800 or almost twice as many as killed by the 9/11 attacks) were not intoxicated themselves. Apparently you are willing to dismiss the seriousness of this, on the grounds that the majority of drunk drivers in a given year don't manage to kill anyone (though many cause serious/permanent injury and/or major property damage, even when they don't kill).
By the same theory, we shouldn't worry at all about the thousands of Muslim men in this country who are enthusiastically attending religious services and lessons where they're brainwashed about the supposed glory of committing homicide bombings or other forms of terrorism, since the vast majority of them won't ever get around to actually doing it.
I think that any societal custom that is resulting in thousands of deaths of innocent people, is cause for great concern.
"Let's ask the victim of the average drunken driver what they think,:
Funny you should say that cuz you arer talking to one right now. ARE you listening?
"I'm pretty sure the victim of the average drunken driver will be silent--because I would take bets that the average drunken driver makes it home scot-free"
Many that are caught go off scott free too. I see a problem with that, do You?
"What these laws do is harshly criminalize behavior that so many people get away with"
That is exactly why you see BAC's going down and down people aren't listening quite yet.
I'd also like to know how a person who just has to yak on their cellphone (or apply makeup, or any of the other stupid things that people do while driving) and veers across the yellow line while not paying attention, causing a head-on collision, is any better than the drunk driver who causes one (never mind the "drunk" driver stopped at a checkpoint who blows a BAC of .10 but hasn't hurt anyone). But one is a criminal offense, while most people would chalk up the second as "just an accident", when in fact it is an example of negligence.