Ghailani Acquitted On Major Terrorism Charges — Rep. King Responds With Call To Change Legal System

The trial of alleged Al Qaeda accomplice Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani has resulted in an acquittal on all major terrorism charges in New York. Ghailani was charged with crimes related to the 1998 suicide bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. I will be discussing the verdict tonight on Hardball.

Ghailani, a Tanzanian, was convicted only of one count of conspiracy to damage or destroy U.S. property but cleared of 276 counts of murder and attempted murder. The important thing to note here is that this is a unanimous series of acquittal votes — not some hung jury.

The Obama Administration made little secret that it wanted the trial in New York — the scene of the 9-11 attacks. It did not help with the jury which found the evidence (as opposed to the emotions) lacking. The government still intends to seek life without parole on that one conspiracy charge.

In a truly disturbing response to the verdict, Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) denounced the jury verdict as “a total miscarriage of justice” and insisted “this tragic verdict demonstrates the absolute insanity of the Obama administration’s decision to try Al Qaeda terrorists in civilian courts.” Of course, no one would accuse New Yorkers as being ambivalent on terrorism.

Nevertheless, Rep. King’s solution to a jury of citizens acquitting an accused person is to rig the system to avoid such juries in the future. It is the most raw demonstration that the interest in the tribunal system is the view that it is outcome determinative and pre-set for convictions. Rep. King appears to be joining the Queen of Hearts that we must have a system that guarantees “sentence first, verdict afterwards.”

Here is tonight’s debate with Governor Pataki on Hardball (title on youtube is not my own):

Source: LA Times

Jonathan Turley

130 thoughts on “Ghailani Acquitted On Major Terrorism Charges — Rep. King Responds With Call To Change Legal System”

  1. “is the desired response your true enemies desire”

    SB

    “is the desired response of your true enemies”

    One should not type and try to watch “Dexter” at the same time. The serial killer made me do it. That’s my story. I’m sticking to it.

  2. BBB,

    “Why? Because appealing to your own authority permits you to make that declaration?”

    No. Because I’m not the one trying to manipulate the sample space in a dazzling display of the logical fallacy of outcome determinism. That would be you dancing that jig.

    And prime facie evidence that you either 1) don’t understand statistical probability or 2) your desire for rationalization of an irrational fear outweighs your ability to apply logic. The third option would be simple stupidity. So as you see, I opted for the nicest option to explain your irrational fear, but ultimately it’s your motivation that is irrelevant in light of your reactions. Reactions based on smoke and mirrors. Which leads us to a fourth choice related to the second: denial in the psychological sense – you know you’ve been lied to and believed it but you just don’t want to admit it. If that’s the case, it’s nothing to be ashamed of. There are millions of people walking around in denial about something. I myself was in denial about just how insane my ex-wife had become until she came at me with a kitchen knife. I got over it though. Motivated by love or motivated by fear, denial is denial. Being in denial about your government lying to you about the actual level of danger you face, while dangerous to us all in the body politic, is not as damaging to you personally as if you were in denial about substance abuse or a cheating partner. So you got that going for you. But denial is still denial.

    Please, go ahead and call the numbers irrelevant again.

    It’s funnier than Hell watching you try to rationalize giving up your rights to an overreaching agency strategically and tactically incapable of doing the job they are assigned but not incapable of performing a useful function for fear mongers: giving them power over your life and liberty.

    It’s like watching a fitful sleeper unable to wake, but knowing they should instead of twitching in fevered dreams of mysterious enemies.

  3. “I’ll leave it to Mespo to explain why the TSA screening is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

    ************

    I’ve always contended that so-called administrative stops or those conducted pursuant to some overall regulatory scheme are no less invidious that stopping someone without cause to check their papers. Sadly, the SCOTUS has approved these “random check points” in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) and New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 107 S.Ct. 2636, 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987) finding that under certain guidelines these searches come within the language of “reasonable search and seizure” without warrant.

    In considering the constitutionality of airport screenings, the 9th circuit has reasoned that, “We have held that airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are “conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings.”  United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir.1973);  see also United States v. Hartwell, 436 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 945, 127 S.Ct. 111, 166 L.Ed.2d 255 (2006);  Marquez, 410 F.3d at 616.” United States v. Aukai, 497 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).

    The government always has at least the pretext of a legitimate interest in conducting warrantless searches. Usually it’s justified in Court with that old standby: the government’s interest in preventing crime or enforcing drug laws. Through some mental contortion, the SCOTUS found that this loophole in the 4th Amendment isn’t big enough and reasons that “closely regulated” industries like pawn shops (NY v. Burger) should “expect” these searches. In Michigan v. Sitz, sobriety check points were justified under a rationale that goes llike this: drunk driving is a big problem and it really isn’t that big a deal for drivers to stop and be searched, now is it? How’s that for the ends justifies the means logic?

    Bottom line is that airport security can be maintained without treating us all as human freight. There are plenty of unobtrusive means to conduct searches short of pat downs. The technology is there to be used. I have no problems with scanners, AIT, sniffesr of any persuasion, ID requirements, restrictions on items, armed air marshals, locked cabin doors, and intensified screening based upon reasonable suspicion. I do have a problem with blanket pat downs, profiling, and otherwise hassling citizens in the name of unexplained fears.

    I add this caveat that I have no problem with more intense measures when an articulable threat can be determined at a given airport or on a given flight. This calls for more intrusion on the public given the threat involved. I also have no tolerance for making light of bomb threats and furtive behavior by passengers on planes given the threat to security now existing. I understand the 4th Amendment doesn’t exist in a vacuum. However, Buddha and I agree that there is more at stake here than the important consideration of safety in the air.

  4. “I apparently understand risk analysis far better than you do…”

    Why? Because appealing to your own authority permits you to make that declaration?

    “as well as how to manipulate statistic by altering sample spaces”

    There is no need to manipulate anything when assessing risk. You only need to be able to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant data.

    “You wish to contort sample space to get the outcome you desire to reconcile the rationalizations you use.”

    Blah, Blah, Blah. You go ahead and keep relying on irrelevant data. It only weakens your position.

  5. BBB,

    I make it hard to keep up? The stone does not blame the water for washing past it and over it. To be a stone is good. To be like that which wears away stone with patience is another thing altogether. “Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.” – Sun Tzu

    I apparently understand risk analysis far better than you do as well as how to manipulate statistic by altering sample spaces, so save it for someone who’ll share in your rationalizations to justify a police state out of irrational fear.

    As to your claim not to have fear?

    That’s ludicrous.

    Everyone but psychopaths and some severe sociopaths knows fear. Even Miyamoto Mushashi and Sun Tzu knew fear. But much like the play, it is your mastery of fear that is the thing. You have shown no mastery. You wish to contort sample space to get the outcome you desire to reconcile the rationalizations you use. Despite your protests to the contrary, not only do you have fear, you’ve clearly let it influence your judgment to your detriment.

    Just like the Neocons and the terrorists wanted you to do.

    Your freedoms are what they hate the most. Your freedoms are what they seek to take from you. It is so much easier for them when you hand them what they seek on a silver platter.

    “Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.”

    “For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” – Sun Tzu

    “Do nothing which is of no use.”

    “Study strategy over the years and achieve the spirit of the warrior. Today is victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men.” – Miyamoto Mushashi, Go Rin No Sho

    In capitulating to the fear mongering of the TSA and the GOP, you have done something that is not only of no use, but detrimental to your interests. You have also failed to master yourself and the misshaped thoughts the fear within you produces. This is not evidenced by your proclamations to your character, but in your very actions in capitulation.

    Your mindset is exactly as the terrorists and our domestic enemies of freedom wished.

    Congratulations.

    Fear has motivated your inaction/capitulation, which by its very absence of action is the desired response your true enemies desire. Not all motivators are used positively. It is politically based fear you are soaking in right now and not any fear with a rational or mathematical basis.

  6. “Just because you disagree about the relevancy of the data says nothing about the quality of the reasoning, only that you don’t understand the nature of statistical probability. The goal of the TSA is to protect everyone, not just those who live near targets of opportunity, ergo, the proper sample space isn’t just where you think it should be, but the whole population. Airports by their very nature are areas of transit and not just domestic transit. Cherry picking data may make you feel better, but it won’t win over the irrationality of your fears.”

    One minute we’re talking about the war on terror, and the next your limiting the discussion to TSA screening. You make it hard to keep up.

    I understand the nature of statistical probability just fine. You don’t seem to understand that many factors influence the determination of risk. You presented a weak argument. Accept it. Get over it. And come back with a stronger one (if you desire).

    In case you haven’t figured it out; I have no fear. I identify a threat. I analyze the risk. If necessary, I eliminate the threat. No fear here. Just good old fashioned survival instinct. Only in politics does fear need to be a motivation for action.

  7. Bob Esq.,

    “For a man who has a problem with Ex Parte McCardle”

    In other words, here’s Bob’s chance to present something irrelevant to act as a distraction for the weak argument that follows.

    “I’m keen to guess where you think the document specifically empowers the Fed to wage war against a state of mind, tactic or gerund form of a verb.”

    Yep. As expected. Instead of crying foul, why don’t you tells us where the Constitution limits Congress after granting them the authority to declare war? Do you think that power is limited to war against a state(s)? If so; Why?

    “but the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus sans insurrection or rebellion, executive assassination orders — you’re okay with?”

    Finally! I knew you could identify specifics. 🙂

    Warrantless wiretapping: IMO unconstitutional if land line. It gets iffy if cellular (too easy to accidentally intercept to have any reasonable expectation of privacy)

    suspension of habeas corpus sans insurrection or rebellion: How about “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”? The purpose of suspension is to let the government focus on the rebellion or invasion, not to arbitrarily deny rights. Any U.S. citizen apprehended within the U.S. undoubtedly has a right to habeas corpus. Those captured who have joined arms with the enemy (al Queda, the Taliban, etc.), I say no right to habeas corpus review.

    executive assassination orders: It would depend on the specific instance. If someone is on the battlefield (or in the caves) with the enemy, I wouldn’t even think twice about making the call. You call it assasination. I call them a direct casualty of war. Piss on the traitors!

  8. BBB,

    Just because you disagree about the relevancy of the data says nothing about the quality of the reasoning, only that you don’t understand the nature of statistical probability. The goal of the TSA is to protect everyone, not just those who live near targets of opportunity, ergo, the proper sample space isn’t just where you think it should be, but the whole population. Airports by their very nature are areas of transit and not just domestic transit. Cherry picking data may make you feel better, but it won’t win over the irrationality of your fears.

  9. BBB: “What are you talking about? I was referring to the justification for a war on terror.”

    For a man who has a problem with Ex Parte McCardle, I’m keen to guess where you think the document specifically empowers the Fed to wage war against a state of mind, tactic or gerund form of a verb.

    BBB: “How exactly is the current war on terror repugnant to the U.S. Constitution?”

    Are you kidding me?

    http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=lossofcivilliberties

    Ex Parte McCardle is bad, but the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus sans insurrection or rebellion, executive assassination orders — you’re okay with?

  10. I want to caution all TSA Gropers. I may have a tendency to become an active participant by enganging in a little reciprocal “grinding” during the examination. I’ll just close my eyes and make the best of it. 🙂

    Is it customary to tip the TSA representative for “a job” well done?

  11. BIL,

    The only logical way to determine risk assesment and response is to focus on the personnel and areas most likely to become a target. Including those who are only remote possibilities with those who are at an indentifiable increased risk is what skews the numbers.

    You made use of irrelevant data in order to rationalize your argument against recognizing a threat. That’s poor reasoning.

    I concur with your suggested increased use of bomb-sniffing dogs. Newly developed portable electronic sniffers may be usefull in the future too. Geiger counters would only be usefull if radioactive material was being used. The two hour advance arrival to the airport would likely make the use of radioactive material prohibitive due to the exposure to the carrier.

    I once managed to board an aircraft and take my seat before I realized that I had five 38 caliber bullets in my pocket. I went thru the scanner, but it did not alert. I had forgetten to take them out of my pocket when I packed my pistol.

    “You failed to consider maybe he hasn’t made that counter-argument because it cannot be made rationally.”

    I won’t attribute a position to someone who has not weighed in. I would welcome his thoughts.

  12. Buddha is Laughing:

    That is a good idea. Dogs are very good at detecting odors. I would much rather have a dog sniff my “junk” than be groped or man handled by some TSA pervert. At least I know the dog is just doing it’s job and has no sexual motivation.

    The added benefit is that 3 year olds could pet the dog.

  13. BBB,

    Odds are odds, but if you want to skew them by selective application of sample space, that’s simply rationalization. Rationalization is a way to lie to yourself and that would be your prerogative. You’ve taken Cheney’s “zero tolerance” stance – a stance which is blatantly dumb. You can’t have perfect security anywhere. Perfection is not mathematically possible.

    “Yet, your chosen course is to wait for another attack before you expect them to act.”

    No, not at all. That is how the TSA operates right now: reflexively. Someone wore a bomb in their underwear so now they think they have the right to grope you and virtually strip search you. That’s the very definition of reflexive. I’m not against airport security, I’m against security theater that violates your rights and does jack monkey squat to stop terrorists.

    As to solutions? Sniffer dogs and electronic sniffers combined with more passive and less intrusive monitoring than the electronic strip search (like Geiger counters and better luggage screening) combined with a staggered check point system like the Israelis use would be more effective and far less intrusive. And they don’t require you be exposed to ionizing radiation or a groin/breast grope. If you don’t think so? Even before 9/11, Reno’s airport used electronic sniffers. I got detained (and I was told this wasn’t uncommon), because when I was touring a silver mine I got microscopic explosives residue on my shoes. It was cleared up quickly enough and I didn’t miss my flight, but if I’d have had a bomb in my shoes, I’d have been screwed. Yet I managed to get cleared by security without a strip search or a groping.

    As to mespo and the 4th Amendment? He hasn’t rushed in to defend this practice yet and he’s had plenty of opportunity. It’s not an argument I fear either, should there be one. You failed to consider maybe he hasn’t made that counter-argument because it cannot be made rationally.

  14. Bob Esq.,

    How good of you to avoid taking a position of avoidance, Bob. Your position was that the threat is not significant enough to warrant the current response, but when asked about the point at which the threat would become sufficiently significant, you retreated.

    “BBB: “Are you going to tell me that al Queda, if left to prosper, would not once again become a legitimate immediate threat?”

    No; but since when did a legitimate immediate threat become a justification for decimating the constitution? After all, every officer in the military is sworn to protect it; right?

    BBB: “Terrorism doesn’t just threaten our lives, it threatens our way of life.”

    No, overreaction to terrorism is the cancer that eats away at our republic. Over-reactive rhetoric, re-affirming the idea that the constitution must take a back seat to ‘the fear’ is the true enemy.”

    What are you talking about? I was referring to the justification for a war on terror. Tell me; How exactly is the current war on terror repugnant to the U.S. Constitution?

  15. BBB: “I asked you to specify you mean by “the means taken of late to prevent them”. Your response indicates that you find “the means taken of late to prevent them” to mean pretty much any expenditure of resources whatsoever. Is that correct?”

    No; it’s a matter of proportionality.

    BBB: “If we follow the premise presented by Luke Mitchell, we should be calling for the elimination of our standing military forces. The expenditure simply cannot be justified when compared to other sources attributed to the loss of life.”

    Really? Reductio ad absurdum much?

    BBB: “Who is Luke Mitchell, and what are his credentials when it comes to assessing a threat?”

    Logic dictates that you should be focusing on the argument itself.

    BBB: “Is the accumulated loss of life the only reason we fight against terrorism? I’m not even sure we would consider the loss of life to be the primary reason. Terrorism is the attempt to control/influence by fear.”

    Allow me to repeat myself: Terrorism is a fulcrum based activity; the real terrorists are the ones who use the fear as leverage for their agenda.

    Those who over leverage the fear of terrorism so as to whittle away basic civil rights are the terrorists in fact.

    BBB: “Fear is the appropriate response to a legitimate immediate threat. We don’t currently live in fear, because there is no recognized legitimate immediate threat.”

    But things just happen to go all orange whenever the body politic needs some more convincing about moving in a particular direction.

    BBB: “The purpose of military intervention is to keep that threat at bay, which keeps it from becoming a legitimate immediate threat.”

    You do know you’re arguing with yourself on your premise regarding military intervention; don’t you?

    BBB: “Are you going to tell me that al Queda, if left to prosper, would not once again become a legitimate immediate threat?”

    No; but since when did a legitimate immediate threat become a justification for decimating the constitution? After all, every officer in the military is sworn to protect it; right?

    BBB: “Terrorism doesn’t just threaten our lives, it threatens our way of life.”

    No, overreaction to terrorism is the cancer that eats away at our republic. Over-reactive rhetoric, re-affirming the idea that the constitution must take a back seat to ‘the fear’ is the true enemy.

    BBB: “The American people have experienced real fear. Most adults don’t have a problem recalling the way they felt in the aftermath of 9/11. I sure don’t. You go ahead and bury your head in the sand.”

    Article VI compels me to take my head out of the sand and protect the constitution against fear-mongering.

    “Real valor consists not in being insensible to danger, but in being prompt to confront and disarm it.” —Sir Walter Scott

    “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.” – Oscar Wilde

    “Liberty, as we all know, cannot flourish in a country
    that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near war footing. Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of central government.” — Aldous Huxley

    BBB: “Just ignore the problem, Bob, and someday in the near future you may just get your wish. When the death toll by act of terrorism is significant enough for you to then choose to address the problem, you’ll have all the fear you need to muster support for addressing it.”

    “Boo hoo, you had me then you lost me; Billy Idol.” — Phil Hartman as Frank Sinatra

    BBB: “In support of your position, you suggest that the number of deaths were not sufficient to warrant our response.”

    Amazing how you can comprehend proportionality when it comes to Happy Meals, but when it comes to the important stuff…

    BBB: How many people must die by an act of terrorism before you think we should find a need to actively fight against it?”

    I’m sorry, but you’ve inserted a premise of yours into my argument and have reduced it to absurdity; please check the number and dial again.

    BBB: “At what point will you stop considering the those deaths acceptable?”

    At what point will there be a scintilla of cardinality between the fearful world you imagine and the world in which we live?

  16. BIL,

    Demagoguery is only effective when presented to the woefully ignorant.

    Do you know where I live? If you don’t, you can’t possibly assess my chances of being the subject of a terrorist attack. Can you? Do you consider those who live in Billings, Montana to be equally at risk as those who live in NYC?

    My chances of being struck by lightning are even less than your stated chances of being involved in a terrorist attack, but I still don’t walk around outside during a thunderstorm.

    “And I expect our leadership to act better because when under attack fear makes one make stupid mistakes.”

    Yet, your chosen course is to wait for another attack before you expect them to act. How many stupid mistakes do you want our leaders to make?

    Do you want to address “dubious purposes” that have a “negligible effect” with a proposed method for achieving the goal, or are you satisfied with pointing out the ineffectiveness of the current efforts?

    I’ll leave it to Mespo to explain why the TSA screening is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

  17. BBB,

    “But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.
    All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

    That surrendering your Constitutional rights for something that has 9.3m:1 odds certainly qualifies as a “large-scale falsehood” and seems self-evident.

  18. BBB,

    Here’s a fine article about how fear is used to manipulate people. Although the object of fear in question is different from terrorism (global warming), the mechanic is the same.

    Fear is often used to make people act against their best interests and not on a factual, rational basis.

    This is why the samurai recognized its strategic and tactical value.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=fear-based-messaging-may-influence-10-11-20

  19. Gazoo,

    Attack me all you want, troll. It’ll get you exactly nowhere.

    That I’m am still attracting Neocon trolls?

    It’s a sign of success. I’ve bothered you enough to where you attack me personally instead of the argument. That’s a weak tactic and it always backfires on you clowns because 1) despite your opinion, I am indeed smarter than the lot of you put together as established by my elementary and secondary educational experiences as a lab rat for psychologists, 2) I am very selective about whose opinions of me personally matter to me (psst! you didn’t make the cut) ergo calling me thick skinned is a bit of an understatement and 3) I’m simply much better at insults (and rational critical thought) than you. I can smell the stink of fear coming from your lot. Your very responses and poor tactical decisions reek of it.

    Propagandists always fear the truth.

    It is their enemy.

  20. Don’t you expect the overwhelming majority of Americans to “think like an untrained civilian”?

    Yep. And I expect our leadership to act better because when under attack fear makes one make stupid mistakes. The mistake in this instance is that “security” against a 9,300,000:1 chance of attack justifies violating the 4th Amendment. What airport security is accomplishing isn’t increased safety. It’s draconian thuggery designed to harass and violate the rights of American citizens – a fear tool being used by the government against citizens to justify keeping track of you, invading your rights, and discouraging freedom of movement to ordinary citizens.

    Just because you don’t care/don’t see your rights being violated doesn’t mean that they aren’t. As to voluntary? Tell that to the business traveler because you’ve just made the composition fallacy – not everyone has a choice in flying unless they want to be unemployed. That’s not a choice. That’s a Morton’s Fork dilemma – surrender your rights or your unemployment.

    You also clearly don’t understand the operative nature of terrorism: actual damage is a secondary goal, making your opponent fearful, jumpy and stupid is the primary goal. Compare this to the tactics of guerrilla warfare where the priorities are juxtaposed: the primary goal is damage, the secondary goal is to strike fear into your opponent.

    You, BBB, have been defeated by irrational fear of something that is highly unlikely to happen. Unless you think 9,300,000:1 are good odds, in which case I’d advise staying as far away from Vegas and Atlantic City as possible. If you hadn’t been blinded by irrational fear, you’d realize that in intrusive police state is a far greater danger to you than terrorists. Terrorist, by the nature of their tactic, have to strike quickly and decisively, just like guerrillas, but a police state can steal your rights and your life one little piece at a time. That famous poem of Martin Niemöller?

    “They came first for the Communists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for me
    and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

    That is what a steady erosion of civil rights will get you.

    So which is more dangerous? An enemy you are unlikely to encounter as a citizen or the steady erosions of your rights?

    If you answer “terrorism”? History has plenty of examples of what the steady attack on citizens and their rights leads too. It’s much worse than any terror attack.

Comments are closed.