[Gondring]

Regardless of the implications of words, let's go back to the original point. Is it productive to act hypocritically and suggest we are a free nation but not act like it? Is it productive to single out citizens who have committed no crime? Is it productive to weaken our Constitution when it's the strongest weapon we have against a takeover of our government?

I say no.

[ariamne]

The primary duty of a free nation is to stay free and defend her people from those who would see this nation destroyed and American freedom crushed under the bootheel of a theocratic rule. Weakening the Constitution is not at issue, I believe. Oh, certainly we have had constitutional crisis, where rights were temporarily curtailed during times of war, Lincoln certainly muffled dissent among the press during the outset of the Civil War, even imprisoned some journalists; while FDR suppressed the Constitutional rights of certain Americans during WWII by forcng them into internment camps, but America has endured and so has our most precious document.

I believe it will survive the current crisis as well, though if we are speaking of the Patriot Act, I just don't see it as a threat to the Constitution.

And it depends on what you mean by singling out citizens who have committed no crime. Do I believe in deporting or putting them in internment camps? No, not at all. Do I believe in surveilance of certain so-called charities, houses of religion, and Islamic web sites? Yes, in accordance with the Patriot Act. And what has brought me to this belief? The actions of the parties in question, no more, no less. When soldiers frag their own officers because they believe their religion is a higher order than loyalty to their country, we have a problem. That is, admittedly, one example, but there are many more.

It is a fine line to walk, and we must step carefully, lest we lose what we are fighting so hard to preserve.