‘If your idea of “principles” is to submit to defeat against a commited aggressor, than I guess it is another bastardization of english words, like “gay”, or “progressive”.’
Absolutely not. However, to claim that American civil liberties needed to be abrogated to counter the terrorist threat revealed by 9/11 is absurd. A good example of a completely misguided and ineffective approach is airport security post 9/11. Billions and billions have been spent, Americans have given up even more privacy, yet in recent tests 75% of simulated bombs made it through. Most studies have shown it to be less effective than pre-9/11. Even today not all checked bags are screened for explosives. And of course, the laws that “would only be used to fight terrorism” are being used widely for other purposes.
There have been good, common sense efforts like reinforced cockpit doors and increased Marshal presence on airliners. Many of the other measures taken have essentially been naked power grabs in the name of “Homeland Security”. All this while border security has remained a low priority.
If you really want deterrence for terrorists on US soil, push for more CCW permits. The more armed Americans on the scene, the less likely the terrorists will get far. While you’re at it, push for heightened surveillance of Muslim foreign nationals on US soil, and more emphasis on foreign intelligence gathering (though it’s hard to say what’s actually going on there for obvious reasons). Not one of those measures would infringe the rights of a single American, while effectively countering the threat of Muslim extremism.
Who made such a claim? Has the koolaid taken an irreversible turn?
Please, don't confuse rejection of Ron Paul with acceptance of big goverment, loss liberties, etc, etc.
Ron Paul jumped the conservative shark, thus all the scorn of him on this forum.
He echoes Al Qaeda talking points.