pyotr filipivich wrote:
You take one lousy week off to join Thorax at the Elvis concert, and
this is what happens: Gunner Asch writes on
Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:37:59 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :


And over the last few years, such capacity has been compromised by
media outlets, eager for a scoop and wanting to appear 'in the know'
(and with an understanding of operational security based on TV shows
and conversations in bars with guys claiming to be "spooks".)

AFTER 9/11
Fear destroys what bin Laden could not
ROBERT STEINBACK

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America
that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's
attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic
spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people
to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very
Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its
people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would
have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America
to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and
honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a
legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and
operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for
the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting
human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as
revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by
bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and
ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military
policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina
is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an
absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've
been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country
appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised
attack on Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I
once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke --
speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White
House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest
that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair
and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a
nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a
civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the
Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still
managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind
anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against
U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His
justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to
disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect
the American people.

Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are
there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would
have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up
a little liberty if it protects me from death?''

Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the
''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end.
Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue
nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still
wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting
terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you
must continue the fight or it will strike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law
forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe
the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things
his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us.
We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down
its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is
holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built.
Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?



http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...s/13487511.htm



--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com