Rove: "Blue, 21. Blue, 21. Hut, hike!"

(Hands off. Ball is run off-tackle for gain of six.)

I'm suin' y'all.
You can't use my Interweb this way.

Lies. It's all Lies.

I created the Internets and I'll create National Security Too.

I am tired of everything being framed as a discussion of security. Before or after 9/11, the risks of dying from a terrorist attack are very, very low. I am not saying we close our eyes and pretend the tragedy of 9/11 didn't happen, I am saying even if every step the administration has taken since then really did make us "safer" (most real attempts to evaluate if we are safer or not come to the opposite conclusion), I would not want them to happen (and I live only a few miles from the Pentagon). Singapore is a very safe place, I have no interest in living there. I occasionally ride a motorcycle without a helmut, I eat food from questionable street vendors, I run with scissors. Sometimes living is more fun if you aren't always afraid of what might happen. I will not cower in my basement wetting my pants everytime W invokes the boogieman. Security is not the final word, freedom matters. Every action this of administration that is supposed to make me more secure, impinges on my freedom. No thanks. I will now run about my office with scissors in hand.

Security is not the final word, freedom matters.

This may come as some shock to you, but without security, you'd have no freedom. It would be nice to have absolute freedom -- to be able to do whatever we want, whenever we want. But that level of "freedom" has another name -- anarchy. Sadly, there are people in this world who would gladly take away EVERY freedom you have based on the arbitrary whims of their own will and strength. Every good law we have and enforce is based on the understanding that it is almost always necessary, and often better, to sacrifice some small freedoms in order to protect greater freedoms. It's a tenuous balance, but I think that in our Constitution, we in this country have done a better job of it than most governments throughout history.

And that's what this is about. You say that the risks of dying from a terrorist attack are very, very low. Well, of course they are -- even if the chances of another attack occuring are great, our population alone guarantees that your chances of being one of the victims are statistically small. If that were the only threat that such attacks posed, I'd agree with you. But the goal of the terrorists is not merely to kill people. It's to kill people AND to manipulate the circumstances of their deaths in order to influence the policies and attitudes of the United States. They don't want our lives, they want our freedom, but they'll settle for our lives if that's what it takes.

While we're talking about being tired of things, I'm tired of liberals and people who dislike this administration talking about how Bush's actions "impinge on their freedoms", without actually showing how they are any less free now than they were 5 years ago.

I occasionally ride a motorcycle without a helmut, I eat food from questionable street vendors, I run with scissors.

LB Buddy, I have deep reservations about the veracity of this statement.

Usually I ride with helmut, but occasionally I ride with hans, very risky...

And Brian:
My work is now surrounded by a 10' fence and I need a cardkey just to get on to the campus. For my kids to come to see the fish at work, they have to have their backpacks x-rayed and their hands swiped for explosives. I loved explaining that one to them. Both DC and NYC have had random commuter searches before they got on the subway. Phone calls being listened to, internet searches being demanded. That's just middleclass white folk.
Ask all those Middle Easterners rounded up and tossed in jail for the crime of ancestry after 9/11 if their freedoms have been affected.
Ask Jose Padilla or anyone held as an enemy combatant without charge and without recourse how their freedoms are doing. The danger to our liberties are much more dangerous than any of those people running free would ever be.

LB Buddy -

Don't mean to harsh, but working for Father Justice, I can't handle a piece of mail before it's been run through an anti-anthrax scanner. The treatment turns the paper a weird brownish color and gives it a curious crisp texture. I worry a bit when I have to handle it, but I'm also thankful that somebody is watching my back. Also, I can't get into my office without picture ID, and there's a long security song and dance about both visitors and packages for which I am personally quite grateful.

Also, in all my commuting time on the Metro, while I occasionaly see law enforcement types standing around, I've never seen anybody stopped or searched at random for anything. Indeed, in the morning, I'm usually on the first car of my train. Every time I ask myself whether this is such a brilliant idea, given that this is the logical car to hit in any kind of attack. I also get somewhat jumpy every time I see some odd bit of trash sitting around one of the stations.

Remember that terrorist interdiction is not the same thing as domestic law enforcement. With the latter, the police are supposed to respond to specific reported incidents and only to take carefully proscribed action if there is probable cause to do so. But with the former, the rules are different - the relevant authority must cast a wider net, hoping to catch the individual potential miscreants within it before they blow their target to smithereens. (Our military readers can provide a better explanation of the rules of engagement in such scenarios. But the historical rule of thumb is that non-uniformed irregulars are not entitled to any of the benefits of the traditional rules of war.) If some transit cop or TSA flunky wants to frisk me or my kids and search our bags in pursuit of this goal, I don't have any problem with it. And I've got no problem telling the Llama-ettes that the world is full of viscious bastards and that these people are trying to protect us from them.

Why? Well, for one thing, I strolled into work on 9/11 like on any other day. When they shooed us out of my building an hour or two later, I could smell the smoke from the Pentagon blowing across the Mall. And as the Missus and I scrambled to retrieve the eldest Llama-ette from school, not all that far away from CIA HQ, we wondered where the hell the next plane was coming down.

On a more general point, I'm astounded by the oxymoronic Donk drumbeat that pre-9/11 security was too slack, incompetent and complaisant while post-9/11 security represents a nascient Waffen SS. It just don't wash.

Look, I've avoided invoking Jackson's line that the Constitution is not a suicide pact for fear of setting off the triteness alarms. But the truth of the matter is that this sums up my attitute pretty well.

"Ask all those Middle Easterners rounded up and tossed in jail for the crime of ancestry after 9/11 if their freedoms have been affected."

How can you ask imaginary people?

LB Buddy,

Exactly how is the Evil BushRoveCheneyAshcroftian Cabal responsible for heightened security measures at your work? And are you suggesting that you'd rather just do away with them, and all security screenings for public transportation? That's a great idea -- let's yank the metal detectors from the airports, remove air marshals from all flights, ban the police from the subways.

Phone calls being listened to, internet searches being demanded. That's just middleclass white folk.

As has been pointed out, phone calls have been "listened to" for a very long time, so again, I ask, how are things any different now than they were five years ago in this regard? And internet searches are a much newer form of electronic communication, but I suspect they fall into the same category.

Ask all those Middle Easterners rounded up and tossed in jail for the crime of ancestry after 9/11 if their freedoms have been affected.

I drove by one of their relocation camps yesterday. they seem quite comfy. Seriously, though, try offering some actual facts instead of hyperbole.

Ask Jose Padilla or anyone held as an enemy combatant without charge and without recourse how their freedoms are doing.

I will, right after I ask him why he took up arms against his own country, and after I ask them what the deal with Sharia is.

The danger to our liberties are much more dangerous than any of those people running free would ever be.

Tell that to the passengers on flight 93. Oh, wait....

Exactly how is the Evil BushRoveCheneyAshcroftian Cabal responsible for heightened security measures at your work?

I work for the federal government.

And are you suggesting that you'd rather just do away with them, and all security screenings for public transportation?

No, I am suggesting we recognize that it isn’t 100% about security. I am totally against random searches in subways.

As has been pointed out, phone calls have been "listened to" for a very long time, so again, I ask, how are things any different now than they were five years ago in this regard?

It is different because what they are doing now violates the constitution. DOJ official James Baker said so in 2002:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/significance-of-administrations-july.html

I drove by one of their relocation camps yesterday. they seem quite comfy. Seriously, though, try offering some actual facts instead of hyperbole.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/liberties/2002/1220socal.htm
http://www.thememoryhole.org/usccr/usccr_muslims_wisconsin_summ.htm

I will, right after I ask him why he took up arms against his own country, and after I ask them what the deal with Sharia is.

I give you those crazy liberals at the Cato Institute:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html
try offering some actual facts instead of hyperbole.

Tell that to the passengers on flight 93. Oh, wait....

Good point. Let’s go build us some of those nice internment camps then. There is a 1 in 100,000 chance that if we lock up every Muslim, we will get a terrorist. This is a logical extension of your argument. I am saying we need to recognize both sides: freedom and security, not just the security part.

And Rob, you were right, DC only considered random bag searches:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050720/a_subways20.art.htm