Well, it was certainly a wild ride us north of you Greg. We got to see news coverage without a party spin on it during the entire election process.

Two things:

- GW, when he finds Osama, will definately need to thank him prior to executing. Without the well timed release of the latest tape, I'm not sure Kerry doesn't sneak in. The tape iced it and guarantees Osama and his legions have an American presence, in the midst of the holy land, to vilify for a good long time to come.

- have your passports got microchips in them yet?

Boy, Orwell seems more the prophet everyday.

The great tragedy of all of this is that Al Qaeda isn't anywhere near as big as we've imagined. The threat isn't as bad as we believed.

Remember the Osama bin Ladens personal Castle Greyskull in the mountains of Tora Bora? That huge personal complex? It turned out to be imaginary. What was found was tiny holes in the mountains.

The terrorists are a threat, but they are just murderous thugs without any real central command. They are not as big a threat as we thought.

At least that is what I picked up from this fascinating documentary on BBC2.

What happened to you, Greg, was the symptom of what is happening to your country. Your country is acting out of fear.

I don't know who I feel worse for. The American people because he got re-elected or the rest of the world... because he got re-elected.

blah, blah, blah - Michael Moore pinheads thinking there is no real terrorist threat - but the twin towers did come down. Ever wonder why the special effects only happen in films David? Money. And 9|11 was one hell of a blockbuster. So spare me the Michael Moore regurgitation. So what your ID was checked, Greg. Just because there are a lot of public doesn't make it a public place. I carry the right to have you removed from my property if you don't show me proper identification. Look on the bright side at least, now you can relate to African Americans and rap music. Are you honestly glad that the terrorists civil rights were protected? I love your website and your honesty. But I wish I could hear a decent Democratic opinion that doesn't have the slightly pink tint of Farenheit in it.

Seems like a consistent theme is developing here ... Democrats asking, "Does it really have to be this way?"... Republicans responding, "Deal with it."

"Michael Moore pinheads thinking there is no real terrorist threat "
OK. So you voted Bush. You want the rest of us to think exactly like you do? Is that what you're driving at? "Heil"... not.

You brought up a good point about African Americans and Rap but your presentation took it right down the toilet. Good one Ace. You speak in public often?

"What happens if I skate board and take photos, does that make me a felon?"

I sure as hell hope not, because that's me!

Greg, as I stated here yesterday, we are becoming more and more of a 1984 - state. You know what's scary? This was the first presidential election I was able to vote for, my birthday is like one of two dates mentioned in the book, 1984 was the last book I read, I just finished reading it, and the election went exactly the opposite way I wanted it to.

I am honestly scarred that more than half of all voters thought he was doing a good job. That scares the bejeezus out of me. What, are you people blind? Sure Kerry's policy seemed somewhat impossible to do. Even if it was a 1% chance that it would work out that's still better odds than Bush being able to govern this country well.

To equate this to a story with great significance to some (I'm an agnostic, I swear) this is just like Jesus vs. Barrabas. It's blatantly obvious that Bush is a liar, a murderer, and a cheat but the people want him anyway because they don't like Kerry. It doesn't matter how much Kerry proves himself or how many lives Bush will ruin upon being "released" — all that matters is that Kerry doesn't win.

Oh and please, don't ever equate democrats with Michael Moore. Most everyone, on either side, thinks he's a "Big Fat Stupid White Man" however the ends justify the means. I think he's an idiot and a liar, but he's just fighting fire with fire — yes, that is the most snazzy unintentional rhyme, ever.

In long, Greg now you know how black people feel (I'm starting to refuse using "African American" as even they don't like the stupid term) and it's only going to get worse. Hopefully our next president can alleviate the problems of the next four years within the lifetime of the country. Bill Clinton was like 5 steps foward, George Bush is like 55 steps back.

BTW, at least your state gave electoral votes to Kerry. My state, also a swing state (Florida), gave it to Bush. I feel so dirty knowing that more than half of the people in my state voted for that man. BTW, you might like my blog entries for the past two days.

I didn't come here to gloat or anything (well maybe just a teeny bit: Woohoo!).

That said, I think 70% turnout is an amazing number, and a good sign that the American democracy is alive and well.

What is wrong with you people? I was shocked when President Bush won the election this morning. I wasn't expecting that at all. From reading the blogosphere, forums and the media, it seemed like everyone and their mom thought that Mr. Bush was a big idiot and that Kerry would be winning the election for sure. Not only did Bush win, but there was a record for voter turnout as well as a record for the popular vote!

Today, after reading around, I am very disappointed in some people out there. I really don't care who you voted for, but it is a vote. People lose elections. People win elections. The idea is that when one person is the victor by majority, not everyone has to be happy about it, but we can at least stand united as a country and recognize that even if your choice wasn't made, we are all in this together and nothing is going to change that. You people remind me of 5 year old kids. Can't have your way so you will have it no way at all.

Here are some words that I have seen thrown around in reference to our President. Psychopathic, religious zealot, selfish, short-sighted, etc... What? Is this our President that you are speaking about? Whatever happened to things like respect? I am proud to be American. I am proud to say that I can stand by my fellow Americans, and live in a place where the leader is the person who the majority of us wanted. What good comes out of insulting our Commander-In-Chief?

Who is the selfish one here? Don't you see that your crap is hurting America? We need you to stop complaining and join the rest of America to move forward. You can't change the vote. What's done is done. What makes you think, that just because you took one night to research who you wanted to vote for, that somehow your opinion on the matter is so much more intelligent or better than your neighbor? We are all different people! If you are looking for something else, there are plenty of countries out there for that kind of thing.

And then it gets worse. There are actually people that want to move out of the US just because of the election! So what? Things are down for you, it doesn't look good the way you want it, and so you just leave? Yeah, that's how America was founded. God help us if our soldiers had the same attitude.

Let's stand together America. America as a whole has spoken and its over. Let's all actively move forward together and all do our part to make this a great country instead of sitting around whining about the leadership.

And BTW, I didn't vote for Bush, just in cause you label me as one of those republicans spouting off "Deal with it." No, I am one of those Americans spouting off "Deal with it!"

George Bush's qualifications are for sale on ebay, naturally.

I think that the media was behind Kerry overall, so was the blog world. What this tells me is that people either tune out what they hear 100% of the time, or that they have learned to trust in other sources than the media.

I for one thought that the media could turn an election and that it could cause record youth voting...it did not.

I don't know what that means, but it is what I am thinking.

Move to Canada. They're still free there.

Think of all those.ca domains you could have too!

Wow, talking about a split nation...
The way things are heating up here is astounding. If this thread(t?) is in any way symptomatical for the tone of discussion on your side of the atlantic...
But forst things first:
Greg: I am not so sure about your predictions concerning a second term. My first thought about that was the contrary and I was reassured by reading an article some weeks ago about the implication of "game theory" and second terms which comes down to this: there is nothing more to loose for W.! The central argument: in repeated games (terms) you tend to cooperate because you know that if you don't, the others won't eather and that will not serve your goals. But that applies only if the end of the games is far in the future. The nearer the end of the games (last term), the more you tend not to care about the others and seek your own short-term advantage.
The perfect example is Clinton, who did sign a lot of stuff on his last days...
So think about what W. would do if he was the emperor of the US and knew he would die in 4 years. Things might tend that way. To me this looks frightening, to others it may not. But thats just a thought from "old Europe".

"It's blatantly obvious that Bush is a liar, a murderer, and a cheat but the people want him anyway because they don't like Kerry."

Well, that may be true, but one thing's for certain he doesn't do his own killing. Bush is also clearly a spineless, fascist bully. He's biggoted, delusional and ignorant. Right-wing Christian Fundamentalism has nothing at all to do with democracy and basing political policy on it's narrow-minded, short sighted moral code of good must conquer evil no matter the cost is without doubt going to cost many more americans their jobs, homes and lives.

Since George Bush has been president, America has flaunted it's contempt for the rights of it's own population and and those of many other countries. The US military has invaded several countries killing thousands of civilians and fuelling the fire of anti-US sentiment, US homeland paranoia has risen to rival that of the 50s mass hysteria over 'little green men' and communism, resulting in the kind of behaviour recounted in the photography stories. The Bush administration has compounded on lie after lie in it's bid to make Americans fear the 'bogeymen' that threaten the existence of Christian civilisation. They've succeeded in hyonotising and de-sensitizing the nation to the point that it no longer matters that those imprisoned on suspicion of connection to terrorism are held without trial, tortured and humiliated. How many Americans see the the connections between US militay 'intervention' and the spread of corporate culture, how many care that the so-called rebuilding of Iraq has been farmed out to US based conglomorates without any kind of tendering process.

The US electoral system is legendary throughout the world for having it's completely non-democratic electoral college layer, but as if that wasn't enough the campaigning and voting systems would give any military controlled, single party, banana republic a run for it's money. Where are the Un election monitors when you need them?

The land of the free, the world's largest democracy... it's becoming clear that these self-congratulatory hyperbole are simply marketing tools. If the election results are to be believed then Americans have no wish to be free. What price freedom? When you can't take photos of trains, when you can be arrested just for being a muslim who's been to the Middle East, when you don't know if your vote has been counted or not, when your president tells you you're winning a war that seems to need increasing numbers of human sacrifices to bring victory. Who the hell is he kidding?

Everyone in the world know that not all Americans are the same, yet the moral majority has spoken and that's the voice that the world will hear, frankly as a British citizen I cannot find the words to explain my disgust at our allegedly socialist government's choice of bed fellows. As for Americans believing what they see on TV, try watching some British TV, you might learn something.

I'm not so sure about Bush's second term being less radical than his first. For a start he doesn't have to worry about getting elected again so can push through unpopular reforms. I believe the Republicans have retained their majority in both houses, so there is little to stop them there.

Then you have the issue of the supreme court. Apparently it's likely that one of the Democratic aligned judges is likely to retire soon, and this will mean that Bush can put in a Republican leaning judge and start pushing through even more unpleasant laws and constitutional amendments.

I for one am happy the officer checked you out at Union Station. Scenario:

Man takes photos of trains. Nobody asks him why. 2 months later, train blows up. Same guy - gained safe access using his photos for a plan.

Outrage ensues - why aren't we watching the train stations and what people are doing there?

With some people there it's a no-win situation. Either we aren't doing enough to protect the people or we are doing too much. You can't please them.

If you aren't doing anything wrong, you should have no problem showing your ID and answering a simple question, or as he asked, registering with Amtrack to take photos. Wake up to the fact that we live in a post-9/11 world. Things have changed.

If the Bush administration really wanted to fight terrorism they should start at their own end. Stop helping terrorists with money and training when it suits US interest (as they did with the Taliban’s when the US wanted to get Russia out of Afghanistan).

They should also start following international law and stop using their veto to stop international agreement-attempts by the UN on international law. Israel and the US are the only countries that rejected them twice, Turkey at one occasion these occasions.

It is terrible that 9/11 happened, but the US does these things and worse on a daily basis and almost no one raises an eyebrow, mainly because the information does not get published, at least not in the US.

The Bush administration claims that "They hate our way of life" and "They hate the fact that we love freedom" is just plain bullshit. It’s propaganda! They hate the fact that the US exploits their countries, takes all the profit out of their economy and occupies them. And always support the oppressors in their region. Whatever region that might be, the middle-east, South America, Indonesia, Korea etcetera.

All this information is available if you just dig a little bit. But no one reports about it! And they still call it a democracy…

David Barrett,

I am certainly not advocating the loss of free speech. I am just asking what good is it doing? Its not going to change things. If people just need to vent, fine, but what about the whole idea that America's leadership does not make America, but American citizens make America. Right now, America needs its people to stand united together and look forward to progress. Everyone taking the doom attitude that nothing will ever change is not the right way to start out I believe.

The second idea is that of respect. I can't believe the names I am hearing from some people. I would never dare call the President of the United States some of those names, nor any other country's leader. Maybe I am just too nice, but I've been taught since I was small to respect elders.

I guess I am just not privy to the whole bitch and moan attitude that most people have. Airbag and 2 others are the only blogs that I read on a daily basis that talked about the election and were not face out mocking the country.

My point was that it all seems very childish. Things happen in this world we don't like. We are forced to live with those situations. Whining about them does no good. So why? Especially when there are so many alternatives that do far better. It just feels like everyone is jumping on some sort of bandwagon that is really inappropriate to begin with.

I suppose, if there are citizens who do want to leave after the election, do so, please. Staying around is only hurting America and I know there are thousands of people across the world who would consider it a blessing to live her. Maybe the whiners are not the type of people we need here anyway. I digress... *sigh*

Josh:
Respect is a great value to endorse, but it only works mutually.
But many people do not feel respected by the federal state that is governed by the administration of Mr. Bush. See this entry, see for example the experiances of others http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1098557282&count=1.
Looking at the statistical core of american citizen that voted for Mr. Bush I can imagine, that they never incountered any of the violations of personal freedom and rights described above. They do seldomly fly, do not take pictures of public spaces they do not copy the cd of a friend so they are seldomly affected by such weird so called laws as the patriot acts, homeland security, DMCA, whatever.
Would you feel respected by a president which predecessors first flooded your dictator with weapons and then bombs your house, because you were not able to get rid of him yourself?
Would you respect a president, that threatens your country with invasion if a citizen of his country is going on trial in a court that is respected by the whole world?

Andres, don't make me get the deer rifle from the back window of the pickup truck. Red hair, not red neck. Two different body parts, two very different things.

The electoral college needs to be evaluated and fixed, but it certainly has it's place in a democracy. It was a brilliant bit of policy when it was crafted at the founding of this country. It keeps the power to elect the President from being concentrated at the population centers, and therefore includes the rural parts of the country in the election process. If it weren't for the electoral college, you could get to the white house by merely campaiging in a few large metro areas. The electoral college system also puts some control over the election process in the hands of the states (states' rights being central to this republic), who decide how to allocate their electoral votes.

The problem, as I see it, is that most states have an "all or nothing" system, where even if you only lose a state by one single vote, you lose all the electoral votes. I think the states need to evaluate their electoral college allocation systems and fix this problem.

Well, the Irish and Basque seem to be pretty good at terrorism, and they come in light colors too.

It's not that "I people" get idiotic ideas, you're the one who said you think the cop (or the situation) was very stupid, you being trated like you were taking intel photos, being all white and angelical.

White men can't jump nor take intel photos? Please, take a look outside your navel, that kind of comment is part of the same meme that gets hindu PhDs cavity searched a airports by Homer Simpsons that couldn't think their way through high school.

Like the dumb rednecks in Arizona that voted a bill to deny access to public libraries, amusement parks or emergency rooms for illegal immigrants, but still employ them.

So, are you against Bush because it's what cool, intellectual-type guys do and you worked out the 'net connection from your ALA cotton-picking ranch?

"The problem, as I see it, is that most states have an "all or nothing" system, where even if you only lose a state by one single vote, you lose all the electoral votes. I think the states need to evaluate their electoral college allocation systems and fix this problem."

Amen to that. It aggravated me to no end to stand that the candidates didn't even bother to campaign in all 50 states. They just hit the "important" states and thumbed their noses at the rest of us.

The results of the election are a shame but no surprise. It is my firm belief that the "winner" in this whole thing will end up holding the bag. Our economic and foreign policy situation will not hold water forever, and in my mind it is only fitting that the house of cards collapses during the reign the numbskull who created the mess. If Kerry had won (not that he wasn't at lests partially complicit in the Iraqmire) he would have been blamed for the whole thing. Perhaps the Dems are better off in the long run.

As for the shakedown by the security peabrains, this just shows how ill-planned and badly implemented "homeland security" is. If they can't tell the difference between a terrorist threat and some carrot-topped geek snapping pix for his own amusement, one has to wonder about the hiring and training policies in the agency.

And, I'm not sure about their authority either. They may have been overreaching. For anyone who is interested, I found some information on photographers' rights (I regret I don't remember from where), which I posted here.

My first response after reading all of these comments was "Arrogance has now taken on a new level that was before unbeknown to man..." I'm sick and tired of hearing people say things like "I feel sorry for America because Bush was re-elected." Don't feel sorry for America; America re-elected Bush. You should be saying "I feel sorry for myself because Bush was re-elected." If you still don't know where my arrogance comment came from, this pretty much sums it up(and is what I hear when I read your comments): "I know better than any of you Bush-supporters what is good for America/Americans." Some even seem to think that Bush should still be thrown out and Kerry put in even though Kerry lost the election. My response? This is a democracy and I'm hoping we are going to have open elections for at least a little bit longer.

As for the original topic(taking photos in public[or not so public] places), I'm not sure you can blame Bush for that. You couldn't take pictures in Wal-Mart long before the Patriot Act, and I would say that is as "public" of a place as an Amtrak station. Sum up: Bush can't be blamed for everything that you happen not to like.

At least that's my opinion. ;)

Adam Brill,
Wal-Mart is privately owned. Amtrak stations are build and maintained with public money. It's hardly the same thing.

Bush can be blamed for what happend to Greg. It's his ineffective terrorism policy and his rhetoric that is driving our new fear-based society.

Our security personel need to be better trained to know the difference between a tourist and a terrorist!

While that officer was accosting Greg, there could've been a real threat that was covertly gathering intelligence about the station with a camera phone while pretending to be on a call.

Democracy doesn't mean the leadership is going to represent a demographic breakdown of the republics population.

Who is blaming Bush for the police state? He's just notably made it much worse with things like PATRIOT.

Andres has a good point in criticizing your comments about your appearance, though, Greg. They are completely irrelevant observations that indicate an assumption by you on who is more likely to be a terrorist based solely on appearances. That's not really up for debate, it's right there in your statements, so... to deny it? As if...

Interesting how everything these days spirals into Bush-bashing. Since the primary issue here is the enforcement of the Patriot Act, isn't it important to point out that John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act as well?

I didn't vote for Kerry or Bush, but this vicious name-calling, and toxic hatred from both sides is shameful and I'm embarrassed for all of you participating.

Josh Bryant said: "America's leadership does not make America, but American citizens make America. Right now, America needs its people to stand united together and look forward to progress."

I understand your point. I even hope that our country will be able to find some issues we can unite around. But that does ignore the apparent divide described by the pollsters (for what that's worth, anymore) that has developed around "morals". It would seem that many fervent supporters of Bush voted on abortion or gay marriage or the fact that he wears his religion on his sleeve. Fine with me. Your criteria for choosing is your own.

Here's the rub, though. Few of the people who voted on what are essentially religious issues - broad generalization, I know - are going to change their minds. My view of "moral" issues is different. It is not likely I will change my mind, either. These issues obviously caused a lot of venom to fly between the two big sides in this election.

Aside from that, those that voted for Bush in support of the war in Iraq are not likely to unite around finding a (faster) way out. The same goes for those that voted against Bush because of the war. They are not likely to suddenly start calling for more bombs and soldiers to be sent.

I'm all for coming together for the sake of our country. I just hope the divide this election widened can be overcome. I also hope that people who took the political attacks (spurred by our politicians) personally, can start talking to their neighbors again.

As far as the original topic: I can see the point of people who say we need to protect ourselves, but taking pictures in public places is not a problem. I'm just not willing to take away what is a harmless liberty for 99.9 percent of the people. People throughout history have been willing to give up liberties here and there for a little more security each time, only to find that they no longer had any security from their own security provider. No thanks.

Now, if people want to learn how to fly planes, but tell the instructor it's okay to skip the part about landing, that I have a problem with.

Tony,

You said:

"It's not my job to know how to craft policy that will protect us from terrorism."

I agree! It's not your job (in the least)...which is why I questioned your original statement:

"Bush can be blamed for what happend to Greg. It's his ineffective terrorism policy and his rhetoric that is driving our new fear-based society. Our security personel need to be better trained to know the difference between a tourist and a terrorist!"

I would argue that you have no idea on how to critique his policy, other than by results. After all, you were unable to provide me ANY information on how to improve things or on how to distinguish a terrorist from a tourist.

So given that the only criteria you have to compare against Bush's terrorism policy is *results* (i.e. has another major terrorist attack happened or not?), how has his policy been ineffective? Has it prevented another 9/11 scale attack? Well, presumably it has (although who knows what other factors have played into it).

So you respond by saying:

"But anyone can clearly see that it is three years after 9/11 and the local authorities still do not have the tools and training needed to adequately protect our country from terrorism."

Alright, so you tell me that you don't know how to create policies that will protect us from terrorism, and then you turn around and tell me that it's clear to anyone that local authorities don't have proper tools or training. Do you see the inherent contradiction? You can't tell me what the proper tools or training are, just that they don't have 'em!

I'm not convinced.

Am I supposed to care what color you are? When you start making some sense I'll continue replying.

Nathan,
You feel like you are really making substantive responses to my statements, but you are not.

Somehow your inability to see/admit to a problem is morally superior to my ability to see the problem but not have all the facts required to craft a detailed plan to correct the problems?

I only have access to very local information, and from the information I have (in the D.C. area, BTW), our law enforcement institutions do not have the information or tools they need to combat terrorism.

If you have contrary information, please share it. If all you are going to say is "prove it," don't bother responding.

Tony,

The burden of proof is on you. You made the original statements and they were not backed with any evidence.

To make things quite clear, your statement regarding an "ineffective terrorism policy" includes the qualifier "ineffective". I asked for clarification on *how* it has been ineffective. I also already provided the proof upon which I rely (that is, we have not again been subjected to a large-scale terrorist attack, which pragmatically makes the policy effective, not ineffective).

Your following statement is, again, completely unfounded. "Our security personel need to be better trained to know the difference between a tourist and a terrorist!" If you cannot provide evidence for this statement (specifically, ways their training could improve in this area), then you need to present it not as a justified and reasoned statement, but as opinion. I asked for you to provide evidence to back your statement and you did not.

So although my arguments may be lacking substance (again, a statement not backed by a single example or evidence on your part), your original statements did the same. To echo your sentiments, unless you are either going to make evidence backed statements or qualify what you say as strictly your opinion, don't bother to respond (or post in the first place).

Nathan,
Why don't you ask the law enforcement unions if the policies are effective?

Lack of an attack is not evidence of effective policies, unless you think that Clinton had highly effective policies and that Bush is entirely to blame for 9/11. Is that what you are saying?

Beerzie: So then they SHOULD profile racially right? That's what you're saying.

Hey, unless the guy has a turban on and sandals, don't bother him!

I mean I have red hair and I look American, there's no way I could be a terrorist right? Hey - it's OBVIOUS he isn't a terrorist!

Signed, Timothy McVeigh's corpse.

I'm glad Homeland security isn't up to geniuses like you, but up to stupid people who know what security actually is.

"lack of an attack IS evidence for effectiveness...much like lack of crime in a given city IS evidence for an effective police force"

Not exactly true -- social issues such as economic stability and education are also factors into effective law enforcement.

Besides, that's a looped statement that really has no merrit. You can argue all day that any type of preventative measure works because nothing has happened... some of that is chance, some of that is the preventative actions, some of that is the fact that we are humans and cannot control everything in our lives.

But just because nothing has happened, doesn't justify the actions getting there. This is my criminal psych degree coming out now.

Brady,

Quite true. The fact that no major terrorist actions have occured on US soil since 9/11 is not definitive proof that Bush's policies have worked. It is merely 'circumstantial evidence'. That's why, in an earlier post, I said:

"Has it prevented another 9/11 scale attack? Well, presumably it has (although who knows what other factors have played into it)."

The correlation between Bush's policy and the lack of attacks is not necessarily 100% direct. On the other hand, at least it's a piece of evidence (as compared to statements made by Tony with absolutely none).

And Tony,

Until you provide me with some evidence to back your statements, I'm done wasting my time interacting with you.

You made the statements. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to back them.

Tom: "I for one am happy the officer checked you out at Union Station. Scenario: Man takes photos of trains. Nobody asks him why. 2 months later, train blows up. Same guy - gained safe access using his photos for a plan."

Erm... with a couple of hundred bucks, I could wire myself up with a hidden camera and take videos of the station. I would not be noticed doing anything conspicuous, and would draw no attention to myself.

These things are dirt cheap these days, and any smart terrorist (ie, one who actually put some thought into an attack) would follow this kind of tactic.

Besides, how many people gain "safe access" to the station every day? It's a public area... taking photos isn't going to help people get into it any better.

Tony: "While that officer was accosting Greg, there could've been a real threat that was covertly gathering intelligence about the station with a camera phone while pretending to be on a call."

Amen to that. People don't understand how easy it is to get this information in non-suspicious ways. I wouldn't worry about "overt" "terrorists" like Greg Storey here. The action taken against him only stops the terrorists too stupid to actually do much, at a massive cost in terms of resources and civil liberties.

I don't think you can rationally justify this cost, not without making certain false or dubious assumptions about the effectiveness of these measures.

Nathan Logan: "Again, so true. So let's not stop or question anybody (including those who want to learn how to fly, but don't care about learning how to land...)."

Erm, that's genuinely suspicious. Bear in mind that it's only incompetence on the part of your FBI that stopped these guys getting caught in time, and this was before the patriot act.

Later you say: "Well, in the case of COUNTER-TERRORISM policies, lack of an attack IS evidence for effectiveness."

It's circumstantial evidence at best. It could be that few or no attacks have been attempted. You've also phrased this quite loosely... I mean, how do you identify exactly which policy prevented an attack? How can you be sure that post-9-11 measures actually did the prevention, and not pre-9-11 measures?

You also said: "Has it prevented another 9/11 scale attack? Well, presumably it has". Why do you presume this? I don't think you really can.

Lastly, I think there's a genuine danger that people in the US will dismiss honest criticism based on the fact that they can easily label it as "lies from Fahrenheit 9-11". I fear that even if the criticism was never mentioned in the film, people will just stick to their conclusions and unreasonably dismiss the critique.

I hate the way us humans think :)

"I really don't care who you voted for, but it is a vote. People lose elections. People win elections. The idea is that when one person is the victor by majority, not everyone has to be happy about it, but we can at least stand united as a country and recognize that even if your choice wasn't made, we are all in this together and nothing is going to change that. You people remind me of 5 year old kids. Can't have your way so you will have it no way at all."

Wow... imagine if back in the 40s, 50s and 60s, the minorities just rolled over and took it up the arse because of the prevalent racism that permeated the country? What was more popular then? Salvery mentally? Segregation? Public racism? Did that make it right? Should people back then just chalk it up to, "Oh... I guess I need to be nice to those racist freaks now since they won that segregation vote"

Think it through before you say things like this.

As for the problem with security, etc. The issue of Greg's post is not about terrorism policy or whatnot. The issue is that Greg was restricted from his right to do something that should be perfectly legal in a free country.

Look people, Al Qaeda outsmarted security experts in the this country by simply attacking airplanes using BOXCUTTERS and four guys each in a small confined sapce. How on earth does preventing Greg from taking photos at a train station prevent that sort of low-tech, suicidal attack?

When people are willing to die for their cause, no amount of forceful policing, over-reaching laws or high-tech gadgetry will keep you or anyone else in the population safe from them executing on that threat in some fashion. they will do it, and they will take some of you with them. You want to feel safe? Stop attacking the problem with more force in a vain attempt to solve the issue. It just won't work.

Those that would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security. In the words of Mr. Franklin.

We haven't been attacked in the past three years because the threat is simply not that problematic. YET. 3,300 people died that day on 9/11. Some 42,000 died that year in car accidents here in this country. Hello! As Jon Stewart said on yesterday's program, those folks in Kansas sure have a lot of targets them terrorists want to take out.

Terrorism is a severe problem, I will grant that, but our current approach to it is throwing gasoline on the fire. Fear is begetting more fear and promoting violence as a solution, which is begetting more fear and violence.

Stop being afraid to die from terrorist attacks or "nucular war" because the more you fear it, the more realsitic it becomes. You, myself and he rest of us will die one day. It will happen and that's just the sad fact of being human. Get over your fear and start facing the problem pragmatically. And if we all die from nuclear war due to own failures, then what does it matter since we will all die one day anyway? There's nothing to lose, so stop acting like there's a winner in this race.

Our children deserve better than what we are leaving them. Stop acting like a fearful child in addressing the problems we have here at home.

"Terrorism is a severe problem, I will grant that, but our current approach to it is throwing gasoline on the fire. Fear is begetting more fear and promoting violence as a solution, which is begetting more fear and violence."

Yep. Wouldn't it be better if the US were to put a stop to world hunger, stop giving the world the finger, and started acting like a responsible world citizen?

As I like to call it, it's the "give no excuse" anti-terrorist policy.

Sorry about the link troubles, hopefully this will work:

http://www.govtech.net/?pg=magazine/story&id=91952

I dont actually live in the US can just cant see why this 9/11 thing has been taken so far. I understand that thousands of people died and it immeasurably shook the country but I cant understand why its referred to as if some fundamental part of the universe changed.

Im mostly referring to a comment above, I cant be bothered finding it but it was something along the lines of "wake up, we're living in a post-9/11 world". This is what I just cant understand: the attacks were horrible but things haven't changed that greatly. American flags were burned, the US was the target of many peoples hatred and western interests attacked before 9/11 and the only thing thats changed is one of the attacks occured in the US.

I don't see why pre 9/11 a guy taking photos was acceptable but now, post 9/11, its for some reason fundamentally more dangerous and sinister, which is what so much of what I read seems to imply: that since 9/11 something has altered and millions around the world have suddenly decided to dedicate their lives to destroying the US.

The reasons for any rise in terrorism or anti-Americanism since 9/11 are debatable but the Bush administrations attitude and the invasion of Iraq has to have contributed to it. The idea that America has done some shitty things to many, many people didn't just become apparent to terrorists on 9/11. I don't really have a point, just any Americans attitude would be good as I cant understand why its pre and post 9/11 this and that yet you dont hear events being referred to as pre or post Pearl Harbour/Lebanon barracks bombing/or whatever.

Bob: your are dead on. Way too much "hype" about 9/11. 100K killed in Iraq. Any mention of pre/post Iraq...don't think so! In any event the one thing that is _unique_ about post 9/11: Americans have been losing their civil rights and freedoms as fast as we are losing species in the world. How can a country with the robustness of its enviable Constitution succumb to the rights-bashing Patriotic Act! Unfathomable! And what is it with yr Homeland Security and it’s red/orange/yellow alerts? Paranoid inducing civil robbing Political manoeuvring is what it is. The citizens of the USofA need a wake up call. Osama is not bogey man! Look under your own beds. Shades of McCarthyism … .History can repeat itself, after all. Have a good day my friends….

I don't have time to read *all* of the comments here, so I apologize if this is a repeat of what somebody else said, but here goes.

Dude. Lighten up. Police state? Is it a crime to take photos in public?

Well friend. Obviously not. The cop asked to see ID, informed you of the proper procedure and let you go. Hmm... that really doesn't seem so unreasonable to me. I was in a pet store the other day and took a few pictures of some gerbils. The store staff informed me I couldn't take pictures of the animals. I didn't feel harassed. I didn't feel like my constitutional rights had been violated. I just put my camera away.

In case you hadn't noticed, there is a war going on, like it or not. We need to be a little more careful now. But until the police start shoving you around, confiscating your camera, or taking you to jail, I suggest you lighten the hell up and be comforted by the fact that due in part to these changes, we've not suffered any more attacks on our soil.

I'll also take note that you are in favor of racial profiling as evidenced by your declaration that your hair and eye color exempt you from the rules everybody else has to follow. If you are indeed in favor of racial profiling, perhaps you should write your congressman.

max,
If Greg was taken precise photos of structural importance, or trying to map out details of the trains, and or station then I'd back a search for an ID... However someone taking a few snaps on their camera and some probably innocuous items isn't a call for an ID check, especially in a public place. I mean Christ if I was a terrorist and just took ONE photo, no one would stop me. I could take a quick snap and be out. I could do this once a week and over the course of a few months possibly a year, have all the information (I know it'd need a lot more info) that I’d need to build a profile of the places and best places to plant bombs.

Josh,
So what you are saying Is that we should always respect people who are in a higher position then ourselves? I’m sure the Jews did back when Hitler was slaughtering them. That is utter nonsense. If a child was constantly being beaten by their father… should they still respect him?

It's funny that it is easier to accept that some secret mass phobia of homosexuals is what Dems seem to think lost them the election (especially given the popularity of 6 feet under, Will and Grace, Queer Eye, the Bravo network, etc).

Couldn't it possibly be that while there are a lot of people who simply don't agree with the notion that the "Great Society" can be attained under the guise of government funded programs and that terrorism might actually not be the fault of the American policy's in the Middle East, but that a minority of 'religiously' motivated murders might in reality bear the brunt of the resposibility (and a trememdously frightening proposition is that it is simply a buisance that can be turned away from)?

Keep drinking the Koolaide, buddy.

Appauling... how could they possibly think a red headed, blued eyed, white guy could ever be capable of doing anything wrong? Oh yeah, wait... Oklahoma City...

Hey bud, the calendar has flipped all the way to '04.

what lost the election for kerry was the "moral" voters. The people that go to church on sundays and dont believe that being gay is a natural thing and maybe even a sickness after all it is a proven fact that nearly 80% of homosexuals have addmitted to being molested when they was a minor.

I don't go to church on Sundays. I'm Jewish. I don't believe that being gay is wrong. Does that make me immoral? Because usually I feel like a pretty moral person and I feel like if someone has desires and tastes, no matter how different they may be from your own desires and tastes, and they're not hurting anyone then it shouldn't be an issue at all. I think that's the "moral" thing to say.

I think that "Fear of homosexuality" definitely merits being added to that list.

"At any rate, have a great life Johnathan you po-dung hick."

Got to love insults and did I say that is the way I think...???? I don’t think so. I was talking about the "majority of America"

As far as grammar goes...that was posted in a speed type 3 minutes before I went to work. Also I would like to say that you misspelled my name its Jonathan not Johnathan funny it was right on the screen and you still messed it up. It is Kind of the pot calling the kettle black?

That is if you want to turn this into a grammar contest.