onthebottom
Of course, rights and freedoms have been impacted. They've been impacted in major ways. They've been impacted in minor, subtle ways. On a business trip to NYC the other week, I took some time to again visit ground zero. I was again reminded that rights and freedoms aren't something freely given - they have to be fought for. That's why there aren't that many people on this planet who can exercise their rights and freedoms.
Rights and freedoms aren't merely something written in a constitution - that constitution can, at best, be a pale image of what we generally mean when we talk about such things.
Further, we think of these rights and freedoms as belonging to all in the nation. A violation of your rights or freedoms is therefore a violation of mine, even if I'm not directly or indirectly involved in your case. (the idea here is that, for instance, if you take away someone's right to vote, you've impacted the whole process and thereby impacted me, even though I can still vote...).
Alan Dershowitz was the first to point out that it will be necessary to put limits on rights and freedoms in the war against terror. A law which allows your rights to be infringed upon limits your rights and freedoms even if the law is never used.
So let's not pretend things haven't changed. The threat remains very serious - and it may require actions that violate your freedoms.
But the top poster wants to suggest that this means the terrorists have won. Nothing could be farther from the truth. These terrorists don't give a shit if your phones are tapped without warrants - that isn't their goal. And to pretend otherwise, is simply disingenuous. It displays a complete lack of understanding - historically; psychologically; and politically - of the terrorist mindset.
Let's not forget bin Laden believes God is on his side. Indiscriminant phone tappings aren't going to be his goal.
