I'm afraid I disagree with your perspective. I believe most people were impacted enough by 911 to have willingly accepted some inconvenience. They have allowed much more than would have ever been suggested out loud prior to 911 because of the ongoing mantra: "But times are different now." Most of the complaints lodged against the completely ineffective, PC oriented way in which we SEEM to be carrying out much of our "Homeland Security" efforts. On the surface, the entire monstrous department / agency (what is it at this point?) appears to be all for show with respect to actually accomplishing anything, save for the occassional proposal float like granting police powers to the military, which seems exceptionally contrary to what this country was always about.
The complaints are centered around the 80 year old granny strip searches, stories of the national guard carrying empty guns in the airport, the refusal to allow pilots to carry guns, etc., while Visas are renewed for the actual terrorists who flew those planes on 911! This is what people are getting fed up with. They are seeing themselves inconvenienced, but very little inconvenience for a would-be terrorist. Unfortunately, most of the general public is probably clamoring for even more Constitution dismantling in the name of fighting terror. Intricate foreign policy issues and fundamental questions of governance from a philosophical perspective are really only dealt with here on FR on one side of the fence, or by the even more power mad liberals on the other.
Personally, do fear much of what we see happening in the name of fighting terror. Having said that though, I will suggest that we simply aren't going to be privy to much of the real terror war that is being fought behind the scenes anyway. I trust many elements of this war are successful and we will never know about it. Bush was brutally honest in his coming out speech when he told us as much. Bits and pieces of the hidden efforts may be deduced after the fact.
By and large, we are left to debate only those elements of the war that the powers that be have chosen to make public, and those public pronouncements are meant to soothe or mislead one party or another.
I laugh to myself at the extreme reactiosn to a headline or public pronouncement that we often have here - especially when the topic is one handled by the Executive Branch or the State Department. The reality is, the very things we often react to could be nothing more than smokescreens.
I do get wary however when Congress jumps in with new laws, whether they are for their own political posturing or they are simply rubberstamping administration proposals. It is the overwhelming passage of laws that should scare us all, because it is so difficult to reverse them. Rights sacrificed now are most likely rights sacrificed forever, and those that dismiss this are simply naive or too blind to recognize that a less friendly administration will be operating under those laws some day. MY complaining is directed at not doing enough with the actual laws and power that the authorities already have.
This one jumped out at me because of the hysteria about modifying the PCA to allow just that. The reason given for the unloaded guns was that the white House lawyers said loaded weopens may violate the Posse Comitatus act. As to the blue haired granny, how much of that is urban legend?
Agreed