"You might find it callous but a strong big nation should be able to absorb occasional terrorist attack without giving up its freedoms or being drawn into expensive and unfocused foreign adventures. I do not think that we need Patriot act I and II or war in Iraq. I shudder to think what will follow another WTC like event."
Who would you choose to "absorb" the next terrorist attack? Who would you send to their deaths?
And why should any American protect another that wouldn't protect them?
You set the false alternative. I will use an analogy - an big and strong nation can absorb a significant occurence of crime without loosing its liberty or turning into a police state. This does not mean that crime is OK.
We can also make all pedestrians wear reflective body suits. There will be countless lives saved.
I think A. Pole's point, is that are 3,000 lives enough to give up our liberty? What is the magic number? What if the towers didn't fall and everybody on the non hit floors got out? Just say 300 people died. Would that be worth giving up our bill of rights?
I just want a number. What number of deaths equals absolving the first 10 amendments to the constitution? I want to know what this number is, so I can leave the next time a terrorist attack kills 50 people, and they decide that the second amendment is less important than "protecting us".
About 1 in 100,000 americans died on 9/11. It was tragic, and it needed to be punished, in Afghanistan.
Let's put that number in that perspective. If a guy comes into a city of 100,000 and kills 1 person with a hand gun, because he hates the city, and the freedoms they enjoy there, does that mean the entire city should junk their constitution? Ban guns, do warrant less searches, hold people without trial? Or do you attempt to nail the guy who did it, as well as their co-conspirators. You don't turn your entire city into a police state in response.
The Osama bastards hate our freedoms, so giving up our freedoms in response to their actions has the perverse result of letting them win. I honor and mourn those who died on 9-11, but I refuse, utterly refuse, to let my freedoms be gutted in response.
We are letting emotionalism dictate our policy instead of rationality. If 500,000 people die a year from cancer, and we lose 3,000 a year to terrorism, which is a bigger problem? We don't ignore the terrorists. We stay vigilant. We attack their nests, we shouldn't though allow subpoenas given out without a judge or a grand jury authorizing, and then placing a gag order on the person picked up, with no ability to seek council. If that is the america we want, then I will want no part of it.