> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > John D. Giorgis
... > No, we are at war because September 11th caused this President to > recognize > that we had long since been at war in a way that we had not previously > recognized. Moreover, 9/11 caused this President to realize that the > commoditization of WMD-technology was rapidly creating a very dangerous > future for the United States unless we attacked to prevent that dystopia > from happening. Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove evil from the world, I'm quite sure. How does this end? Can anyone offer a definition of the conditions necessary for us to return to peacetime, or whatever one might properly call 'normal' conditions? With a clear articulation of the conditions that define whether or not we're in a state of war against terrorism, we seem to be creating a perpetual emergency. Given that the emergency is the justification for suspending and modifying some civil rights, and some even argue that it is inappropriate to criticize the current administration, I think it's quite reasonable to worry that our country is not just responding with temporary measures, but is changing in ways that don't jibe with our fundamental notions of freedom and privacy. Am I going to wake up 20 years from now to more reminders that we are living in a state of emergency because the evil-doers have not yet been wiped off the face of the earth? Tell me why not, please. If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't we return to normal political discourse, in which one is not branded a traitor for questioning the leadership. If we can't question and criticize our leaders today, what is going to change to allow us to question them tomorrow, or in 20 years? Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
