Interested-OK, but those examples were for limited periods of time, and it is now recognized by historians that FDR’s decision to inter Japanese-Americans during WWII was a shameful overreaction to the prevailing threat.

Your looking with the benefit of History. At the time - they were open-ended.

especially since our efforts seem to be producing a spread of terrorism instead of curtailing it.

You seem to be meshing Military and diplomatic actions with the Patriot act here.

I doubt that Americans would have put up with those conditions for an open-ended period of time, especially since our efforts seem to be producing a spread of terrorism instead of curtailing it.

CS- Yes I agree with what you wrote, and it is a difficult question. We don’t really have the knowledge to determine exactly which curtailments are necessary. Unfortunately, some of the abuses - like the FBI’s National Security Letters have poisoned a lot of people against their own government. Misinformation about the war and the fact that government agencies seem so incompetent when dealing with expanded powers and have become politicized has added to the mistrust. I’m not sure what the answers are, but I do know that whoever comes in in ‘08 will have to work hard to restore that trust. My problem is that most candidates aren’t even acknowledging that there is something that they need to repair.

If not, then how do we balance the need to protect against external threats with the need to protect against our own government overstepping its authority?

I agree. It was not good in the aspect that investigation turned up abuses of the Patriot act. But at the same time it was good that they were found. One should start to really worry if nothing was found at all - for it would have meant either the law was way too strong - or way too weak.

Koppel described it best in his show on the Patriot act - We better have this discussion now - for if another 9/11 happens, there will not be another discussion.

There are many people who will argue (and they are correct) that our civil liberties have been curtailed more at certain points in our past than they are now, but that we survived and the infringements were reversed after the ‘enemy’ was defeated.

WWII is one example, and the Civil War was another.

Now, the reason I don’t agree with those arguments is that today’s ‘enemy’ is more ambiguous and the fight is more open ended, so we have to be more cautious about temporarily suspending liberties because the temporary part may become permanent. I imagine you’d agree with me- but my point is that I think it’s helpful to understand the other viewpoint and also to ask ourselves: can we really assume that some of these infringements on our civil liberties aren’t needed, given that they obviously were used to defeat threats in the past? If not, then how do we balance the need to protect against external threats with the need to protect against our own government overstepping its authority?

Altho I abhor the rhetoric framing Democrats as terrorist appeasers and surrender monkeys- it definitely hits a chord with those who care only that we not be defeated-ever. That’s not the way I think, but I get it that many- especially those in the military do think, and are receptive to it. Many cannot concieve of the benefits of using diplomatic efforts over military force. I think we need to use both, but be careful not to be seen as the world’s bully.

Anyway- I would like to see more of the candidates pledge to work within the FISA framework (or change the law to fit the need) and re-examine some of the more controversial portions of the Patriot Act. I will vote for someone who respects the Geneva Conventions, believes in a strong, healthy press, and wants to restore habeas corpus, and our confidence in a depoliticized Dept of Justice and in our intelligence agencies. Also, it is important to maintain the separation of church and state

I do feel the biggest enemy we face is ourselves, because don’t the terrorists win if we dissolve in hatred of the other side and respond to any attack by limiting our freedoms?

My fears have come out of the actions of the current administration, and watching the two Republican debates, where I felt that the only candidates who were standing up for the preservation of civil liberties were McCain (anti-torture) and Ron Paul.

I don’t have a problem with stating concern over authoritarianism, but only with the way Kim has phrased it. If you don’t think the Republicans should fearmonger over terrorism, then the same standard should apply to the Democrats when it comes to fearmongering over loss of civil liberties. Both are legitimate concerns and we should openly discuss policies to determine where we think the balance should lie, but we shouldn’t demonize people from one party or the other because that actually shuts down the discussion. In other words, conservatives/Republicans aren’t going to be any more receptive to that kind of rhetoric than the Democrats are to being called traitors.

True enough.

If I were American, I would oppose the wiretapping program. The government is already able to tap people, it needs to meet certain qualifications to do so though, and those qualifications / demands are there for a very good reason.

For me, an example would be the NSA wiretapping: I think Bush was right to seek a more vigorous and flexible surveillance program but I think it should be set up with oversight so it’s not the Executive branch alone deciding when warrantless searches should take place.