He's taking a pro-terror position just like anyone else who wants to talk about the rights of accused terrorists without also addressing the fact that our laws fall woefully short of addressing the threat posed by international terror groups.

He's more concerned about the rights of a guy picked up in Afghanistan found in the company of known Al Queda operatives than he is the right of his neighbors to go to work in the morning without being blow up.

We aren't going to be able to treat terrorists fairly under the law until we have laws in place that better define what being a terrorist is. So until we fix our legal system the choices are to hold these people illegally or let them go. Being on the "let them go" side of the arguement is not as correct a moral stance as fools want to believe because it ignores the fact that there are real terrorists and they really do murder people.

"The world's greatest nation seems bent on subjecting itself to a similarly humiliating defeat, by playing a game that could be called Terrorball. The first two rules of Terrorball are:

(1) The game lasts as long as there are terrorists who want to harm Americans; and

(2) If terrorists should manage to kill or injure or seriously frighten any of us, they win."

Giving it a clever name and spewing "I ain't scared but everyeone else is chicken" bravado is all well and good if your lone goal is to puff out your chest. But the alternative to "Rule #1" is giving up and lettting them blow us up at will. I don't see how saying we need to try to stop terror attacks for as long as people want to attack us is anything but common sense. And "Rule #2" is a load of horseshit. I'm sure the underwear bomber scared the shit out of everyone on that plane. I don't remember anyone calling him a "winner". Even after 9/11, I don't remember anyone saying the terrorists gained anything by doing what they did. For the most part, I remember people asking "What was the point?"

As for the "hysteria" - I think that someone should have had to explain how a guy who's parents report him as a terrorist gets on a plane without a passport. Obviously, there is room for improvement here.

"Spoken like a good sheep willing to sacrifice liberty for security. Baaaaa..."

Amusing that someone who is spewing a talking point in response to someone who actually took the time to convey an idea would go the "sheep" route. You clearly lack in self awareness. You also can't dispute what I've said so you rely on tired slogans. Guess what? Your slogans have been repeated a million times over and they've solved nothing. Instead of hinting that you might be able to contradict the ideas I've expressed, why don't you actually do it? In case you didn't understand my points, let me break it down for you:

I invite you to tell me what the logical alternative is to trying to stop terrorists for as long as they try to murder us. (And don't give me some Utopian non-answer about making everyone in the world happy so there are no terrorists)

I also invite you to cite any source that indicates a majority of Americans say that "the terrorists win" any time any of us is scared by them. I said that was a horseshit point to make because it isn't true. If you think it is true, back it up.

I expect your reponse to be brief and completely without an original thought.