I don't see the problem with the FBI asking the media for help. This certainly isn't the first time it's happened. I'm certain that they have used other investigation methods to identify these men, but perehaps they have not had any success. This would be just another avenue to persue.

Either way, I hardly see any civil liberties being violated. The two men being that interested in how the ferry system works on multiple occasions seems suspicious enough to me. The photos were taken in a public place by a private citizen who willingly provided them to the FBI. The FBI then asked media outlets for help locating these men, seeing as the thousands of people who ride the ferries would take some time to interview. They did not strong-arm or intimidate, they asked.

I don't have any problem with the The Seattle P-I not publishing the photos and neither did the FBI apparently. For that matter, the person who writes the blog that was refferenced didn't express any dissaproval of the P-I's decision, they simpley mentioned it. In fact the only people who condemned the P-I were people responding with their (in some cases extreme) oppinions. They have as much right to do that as the P-I does to not publish the pictures. Come to think of it, all they were doing was exercising their civil liberties.

How quickly people forget how the FBI among other federal agencies was highly criticized for it's shortcomings prior to 9/11. Doesn't it make sense that they would try to improve their performance by thoroughly investigating any possible threat? Sure, these guys could just be tourists, but they could also be a probe for a terrorist organization. We don't know, that's why the FBI is looking for them. But can you imagine the pile of shit that would hit the fan if a terror attack were to take place and the FBI didn't use all means at their expense to investigate something that could have stopped it? Their not putting up wanted posters for God's sake, their just trying to locate the men in question so they can interview them. If these guys aren't doing anything wroung, then they have nothing to worry about.

The FBI seems to be unusually open and forthcomming with the media in this case, going so far as to ask for help. Their not wire tapping or getting warrents from secret courts, their openly exchanging information. I would think that would please the more liberal folks. But to be honest, I think anyone using this a civil liberties issue is making a big deal out of nothing.

8/25/2007 4:37:15 AM

Quote :

"how about classicLaw Enforcement investigation procedures. You know, standard detective work. as in, what they get paid to do, and what they should be doing. NOT posting "Duh, Has anybody seen these fellers" on Teh Intarweb. "

And that would be? How about some examples here? What do you propose that they do differently to locate these people?

8/25/2007 11:08:46 AM

Quote :

"What i don't think they should be doing is posting "Have You Seen Me??" photos on our milk cartons. Because this invites all sorts of undemocratic associations, instills a police state-mentality and desensitizes us to constitutionally protected civil rights."

you're the only one trying to instill a police state mentality

maybe we shouldnt have an FBI's 10 Most Wanted List since thats unconstitutional

8/25/2007 12:10:34 PM

So.. I was thinking, which is probably a bad idea, but if this was my picture up I think I would have contacted the FBI already and gotten everything straight. I mean, your picture is up everywhere(Saw it on some news program the other night FOX or MSNBC) and it just seems the best way to solve it would be to come forward if you have nothing to hide. Though, I guess they *could* be illegals and not terrorists.

8/25/2007 4:02:07 PM

i bet those boys could make some damn good doner kebaps

8/25/2007 4:37:32 PM

^^ haha, or they could be terrorists, or at least working in conjunction with them

8/25/2007 4:53:20 PM

Quote :

"maybe we shouldnt have an FBI's 10 Most Wanted List since thats unconstitutional"

Do not most of these 10 individuals have charges pending against them?

If the two individuals they were looking for were at least charged with a crime, that would be one thing. But all they're going to do is ask them a bunch of questions, I don't think that is grounds for a national campaign.

8/25/2007 5:05:18 PM

^ thank you.

that is, in essence, the point I'm trying to make.

i knew you libertarians were good for something

8/25/2007 6:04:00 PM

the only thing more irritating than having their guilt assumed because they haven't "turned themselves in" is the fact that you can aparantly now search the internet for the most politically biased blog imaginable and then link to it as proof that "the right is having a field day with this" or whatever the applicable term might be.

faggotry and paranoia

lets just be fucking thankfull it hasn't been made law to be that way
yet

8/25/2007 6:20:58 PM

the core issue here is not "right" vs. "left". I regret if I made it appear that way.

the core issue here is "police state" vs. "democracy".

I'm arguing that the acceptance of broadcasting photos of people "suspected" of, essentially, thinking bad thoughts ( ) evidences a mindset or a mentality that is becoming more and more pervasive, and threatens to erode basic constitutional right, civil liberties, especially those related to presumption of innocence.

(now there was a side note about how certain conservative bloggers are railing against the decision by at least one newspaper's largely symbolic stance in declining to publish the photos... but that is not the point of this thread)

8/25/2007 6:35:54 PM

Quote :

"Yes, shooting someone is always cause to celebrate. "

Ytsejam

Shooting a person or persons in the commission of a terrorist act? Yes, that is a cause to celebrate--now you have it, dummy.

Quote :

"Blah, blah, blather, and more words"

moron

Shut the fuck up.

I find it absurd that the same left-wing loons who continually squawk about terrorism being a "law enforcement issue" do not now want to assist law enforcement with this issue.

8/25/2007 6:49:53 PM

^ run along, please. the adults are having "grown-up talk" now.

8/25/2007 7:36:24 PM

^^^ It certainly seems like more than just "suspected of thinking bad thoughts". We're talking multiple incidents of suspicious behavior, all being linked by the FBI to the same person, so again I ask, what would you like them to do differently to find these people? I am being serious here, I want to know what other method you suggest for tracking these folks down?

8/25/2007 7:46:32 PM

1337 b4k4 : the problem with your question (and others like it) is that it presumes some level of guilt of the men pictured, and thus forcing me to defend them.

Here is what I understand to be true, based on the FBI report:

the men are not pictured committing any crime
the men have not been charged with any crime
the men have not been accused of any crime
the men are not rumored to have committed any crime

and this includes crimes of conspiracy. to everyone's knowledge, there has been no crime committed.

so what has happened?

two men were reported to have been "interested" in details of ferry operation.
they "took pictures" of the ferries.
they "asked questions" about the ferries.
they may have, on one occasion, gone into an area of the ferry limited to crew only.

and they may have done this on more than one occasion!

....

so what?

I have been (and am) "interested" in details of ferry operations. As an engineer by profession, I'm interested in big, complex, electro-mechanical systems. Being ex-Navy, I'm also interested in boats.

I have "taken pictures" of the ferries including mechanical areas, because they "look cool"

I have "asked questions" about the ferries

I have gone into restricted areas of the ferries. why? because I was curious to see what was there. they weren't secure in any way, they just had signs.

and I have rode the ferries multiple times. --- It is not uncommon for, on one weekend's round trip of the islands, to have to take four (4) separate ferries in as short as a two- or three-day period... maybe more, depending on the route you take.


Does that make me a terrorist suspect worthy of a nationwide manhunt complete with billboard photos and Breaking News releases? Probably not ... I'm not very swarthy. But maybe if i had a beard and was scowling when some WA DOT employee surreptitiously snapped my photograph, who knows then?

Quote :

"what would you like them to do differently to find these people? I am being serious here, I want to know what other method you suggest for tracking these folks down?"

If the FBI analysts and agents think some guys' behaviors are suspicious, then fine. Go investigate them. just do it according to the law that exists to protect innocent citizens rights. Federal and State law enforcement have plenty of tools available to them to track down persons of interest. Networks of agencies with multiple databases... they aren't so fucking helpless that they need every fatass couch-detective to go put on sunglasses and case out the local coffee shops.

My issue is that theres this thing called the Fourth Amendment. Perhaps you've heard of it? That's why I'm against Law Enforcement plastering your photograph around the country and saying:

"ATTENTION CITIZENS!!! If You See These Potential Terrorists, Please Report Them To Your Local Homeland Security Office."


finally,

Quote :

"msb2ncsu : If someone is a "person of interest" in a child abduction or kidnapping case ... we flood news networks with photos and video"

In that case, a crime has been committed. the person described is suspected of being involved in an actual crime.

so, what you did is called a "red herring".

but thanks for trying.








[Edited on August 25, 2007 at 9:47 PM. Reason : ]

8/25/2007 9:30:23 PM

Quote :

"Shooting a person or persons in the commission of a terrorist act? Yes, that is a cause to celebrate--now you have it, dummy."

No, sorry. Taking a life is *never* a cause to celebrate no matter how just or necessary it may be.

8/25/2007 10:31:54 PM

Quote :

"so what? I have been (and am) "interested" in details of ferry operations. As an engineer by profession, I'm interested in big, complex, electro-mechanical systems. Being ex-Navy, I'm also interested in boats. I have "taken pictures" of the ferries including mechanical areas, because they "look cool" I have "asked questions" about the ferries I have gone into restricted areas of the ferries. why? because I was curious to see what was there. they weren't secure in any way, they just had signs. and I have rode the ferries multiple times. --- It is not uncommon for, on one weekend's round trip of the islands, to have to take four (4) separate ferries in as short as a two- or three-day period... maybe more, depending on the route you take. "

But YOU have never been reported to local police and law enforcement multiple times while doing any of the above acts, therefore, no one considered your behavior, demeanor or character to be suspicious, and therefore you are not wanted by the FBI for questioning. They on the other hand were and are.

Quote :

"My issue is that theres this thing called the Fourth Amendment."

Quote :

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

OK, so what unreasonable search or siezure of their person, house, papers or effects is occuring here? The FBI is simply asking if anyone knows these people to contact them so that they can get in touch with them. They're not asking for vigilante groups to hunt these men down. They're not even asking people to report if they see them, just to contact the FBI if you know who they are.

8/25/2007 10:58:33 PM

yeah, i certainly lean towards the pro civil-rights/anti-overreaching gov't side of the spectrum, and knowing what I know about this situation, I'm not up in arms about it. I'd say I have a watchful eye towards the authorities, wondering if they might go overboard about this--but I don't think this qualifies.

Quote :

"Yes, shooting someone is always cause to celebrate. "

Quote :

"No, sorry. Taking a life is *never* a cause to celebrate no matter how just or necessary it may be. "

Maybe not to you as a matter of personal tastes, and I can understand, accept, and maybe even respect that...but to me, killing people like that would be on the short list of my favorite activities--and I don't think I'm wrong or perverse at all for feeling that way. It's that you and I are two very different types of people. You accept it; I relish it. We don't need everyone, or even most people, to be like me...but like it or not, you need some.

[Edited on August 25, 2007 at 11:43 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

8/25/2007 11:42:26 PM

^ I would think most people like you end up either dead or in jail. If you feel that on some level you can determine who it's justifiable to kill and not kill, it only takes one bad judgement to make you a blood-thirsty murderer. I really don't see how we need ANYONE like that.

8/26/2007 12:19:11 AM

Everyone on some level can determine who is justifiable to kill and who isn't. Just because you can make a bad judgement doesn't mean you shouldn't make judgements.

8/26/2007 12:31:47 AM

Quote :

"Shooting a person or persons in the commission of a terrorist act? Yes, that is a cause to celebrate--now you have it, dummy."

hooksaw

Aw, come on! That's the problem with some of you leftists--you can't pull the trigger on anything except more anti-Bush rhetoric.

Did you happen to catch the part in the quotation at issue about "IN THE COMMISSION OF A TERRORIST ACT"? If I took out two terrorist thugs trying to hurt innocent people--old ladies and little girls and so on--I would consider it a gift from above to be able to kill them in order to prevent such a horrific act. The fact that several of you don't get that reveals much.

8/26/2007 1:09:36 AM

^^ I would think when making judgments regarding ppl's lives, you wouldn't be so blind as to look at it as something to revel in. That seems somewhat psychopathic to me.

I like to see bad people die as much as the next guy, but i'm not naive enough to think I alone can spot bad people with enough accuracy to say that I can kill them.

8/26/2007 1:42:03 AM

Quote :

"In that case, a crime has been committed. the person described is suspected of being involved in an actual crime. so, what you did is called a "red herring". but thanks for trying."

Maybe you didn't read... "a person on interest" is not the same as "suspected kidnapper".

8/26/2007 2:42:31 AM

ok.

(1) no crime has been committed or alleged.

(2) a crime has been committed.

...

can you spot the difference between (1) and (2) ?

take your time.

8/26/2007 3:15:35 AM

Quote :

"Everyone on some level can determine who is justifiable to kill and who isn't. Just because you can make a bad judgement doesn't mean you shouldn't make judgements."

Is that the Compassionate Conservatism Doctrine?

And also, "who is justified to kil", is do God damn ambiguous that I am surprised hooksaw hasn't jumped on on you for that. He sure loves to jump on the dirty liberals when they make grammar/spelling mistakes.

8/26/2007 8:52:00 AM

No, just realism. I have never claimed to be, nor desired to be a "compassionate conservative" so I don't know where you got that idea.

8/26/2007 12:54:15 PM

Conspiracy is a crime. When people are engaging in behavior that is consistent with conspiring to commit an illegal act they become worth finding.

8/26/2007 2:04:23 PM

^ again, nice red herring.

the men are not charged or even alleged to have committed conspiracy, or any other crime.

are you doing this on purpose, or are you just not paying any attention here?

8/26/2007 3:10:42 PM

Quote :

"But YOU have never been reported to local police and law enforcement multiple times while doing any of the above acts, therefore, no one considered your behavior, demeanor or character to be suspicious, and therefore you are not wanted by the FBI for questioning. They on the other hand were and are"

ya i no rite?

the exact same behavior only seems to raise flags when the person's skin is brown or olive.

8/26/2007 3:14:26 PM

Quote :

"^ again, nice red herring. the men are not charged or even alleged to have committed conspiracy, or any other crime. are you doing this on purpose, or are you just not paying any attention here?"

I don't understand why its so difficult for you to understand. Their actions/behavior is consistent with the planning of a terrorist attack in a place considered one of the prime maritime targets... its a valid concern. They aren't a criminal suspect and the government simply wants more information on their suspicious activity. If they were looking to detain them or ship them to Cuba then I'd understand the hesitation but that is not the case. The more the authorities come to understand different behaviors the better they become at weeding out erroneous threat suspicions. The government hopes that it was completely innocuous but they can't know if they can never ask.

Quote :

"the exact same behavior only seems to raise flags when the person's skin is brown or olive."

FALLACY! FALLACY!

[Edited on August 26, 2007 at 3:27 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2007 3:24:14 PM

Quote :

"In that case, a crime has been committed. the person described is suspected of being involved in an actual crime."

so wait, is planning a terrorist attack a crime, or not? because, if those guys were doing that, then wouldn't a crime have been committed? granted, we have no way of knowing if that is what those guys were doing or not, but still, the point stands.

by your logic, there would be no reason to want to question the 9/11 hijackers when they were going through flight school and only wanted to know about how to fly, not how to land. nope, we can only ask questions AFTER a crime has been committed. God forbid we actually do something that might PREVENT a crime...

8/27/2007 9:32:56 PM

oh jesus.

when a child is kidnapped, you can reasonably assume a crime (kidnapping) has been committed. law enforcement should absolutely pursue all leads and suspects possible.

when "photos are taken", or "interest is shown" you can NOT reasonably assume a crime (conspiracy to commit acts of terror) has been committed. this does not give law enforcement the right to publicly harass people who must be presumed innocent.

WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND?

8/27/2007 10:09:49 PM

it's not that interest was shown. it's that unusual interest was shown on multiple occasions, and was witnessed by MULTIPLE PEOPLE. what part of that do you not understand?

for someone bitching about a lack of evidence of wrongdoing, you sure are going a long way to accuse the FBI of wrongdoing without any evidence whatsoever...

and, like I said, would you agree that we shouldn't have questioned the 9/11 hijackers who were enrolling in flight schools and didn't want to learn about landing?

8/27/2007 10:13:06 PM

Time for you to catch the ferry, schmoe.

8/27/2007 11:10:23 PM

Quote :

"the problem with your question (and others like it) is that it presumes some level of guilt of the men pictured"

the FBI apparently presumes the potential for guilt...I still don't see what rights of theres are being violated...it seems to me if someone is publicly accused of something...whether it be Barry Bonds of steroids or the Duke Lacrosse team...some people vehemently defend themselves as being not guilty, while others don't seem to worry about it...neither of those scenarios are clear cut proof of guilt or innocence, but you'd think if these guys in the photos on the ferries were indeed innocent that they would want to clear their names...if I was being investigated by the FBI for potential terrorism acts and my picture was all over the place and nobody had come forward saying they knew me or knew my names, I would certainly go forward to clear up my name and any rumors of potential terrorist ties or activities...I don't really see a good reason why these two men wouldn't attempt to resolve the situation...unless of course they are somehow involved in terrorism...in short:

Quote :

"by your logic, there would be no reason to want to question the 9/11 hijackers when they were going through flight school and only wanted to know about how to fly, not how to land. nope, we can only ask questions AFTER a crime has been committed. God forbid we actually do something that might PREVENT a crime..."

i mean joe_schmoe when is it ok to do anything preemptively? i think rob riggle from the daily show had a fairly relevant joke he told when he was in iraq the other week and doing comedy for the troops...it was something to the effect of "in the rules of engagement with insurgents, do you have to wait to fire on them until their gun is completely up your ass, or only half way up your ass?" basically i dont have a problem with pictures of suspected terrorists being posted...mainly again because if they were completely innocent i'd expect them to want to clear their names

8/27/2007 11:20:46 PM

Quote :

"when "photos are taken", or "interest is shown" you can NOT reasonably assume a crime (conspiracy to commit acts of terror) has been committed. this does not give law enforcement the right to publicly harass people who must be presumed innocent. "

first, i'd like to know on what constitutional/legal basis you have for this? innocent until proven guilty, i'll give you... and protection from warrantless searches and seizures... sure.... but where does this investigatory limit that you've placed on public identification of people of interest come from?

if indeed they are innocent until proven guilty, then they are just that; people of interest. The authorities are within their limits to investigate it using whatever they can within express constitutional limits. if these guys have a problem with it, they can take it to the courts and go that route...

8/27/2007 11:49:57 PM

Quote :

"and, like I said, would you agree that we shouldn't have questioned the 9/11 hijackers who were enrolling in flight schools and didn't want to learn about landing?"

well, the even more fair argument would be if that scenario played out now, when you'd think we'd know better.

Quote :

" i dont have a problem with pictures of suspected terrorists being posted...mainly again because if they were completely innocent i'd expect them to want to clear their names"

i know what you're saying, but the concern, which is legitimate, is that it's setting a precedent for a bad way to do business. Going fishing for people like that on a hunch, reasoning that "if they have nothing to hide, they'll come show me" isn't something i'm comfortable with, at least not as a primary way of investigating.

however, this is more than just a hunch. The open source information is fairly damning, but the other stuff I read makes me pretty confident that these dudes were up to no good. Confident enough, at least, to justify putting their picture up for the public to see and provide information about.

8/28/2007 9:22:01 AM

This whole thing doesn't seem right. Why would they do this?

If they're guilty, they've gone underground. If they're innocent, the FBI looks dumb.

There must be an ulterior motive.

8/28/2007 9:28:27 AM

so...no luck finding these guys yet? .these guys are looking more and more like they were up to no good and have gone into hiding.

8/28/2007 9:55:02 AM

yup. bring out the hounds.

8/28/2007 11:18:46 AM

Interesting article and video from CNN. Witnesses reported the two men appeared to be measuring parts of the boat, taking pictures of restricted areas, and studdying emergency escape routes. If you watch the video a State Trooper describes it as a "pattern of behavior." Make sure you pay close attention to the last two sentences of the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/28/fbi.ferry/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

8/28/2007 11:59:53 PM

Quote :

"Many such reports turn out to be nothing of concern. However, seizures of al Qaeda materials overseas have turned up reconnaissance photos taken in the United States "

ie, sure it may be nothing...but theres reason to think it might be something

8/29/2007 12:42:19 AM

Quote :

"There must be an ulterior motive."

to quote myself:

Quote :

"Finally, there are couple of scenarios that I think it could be besides planning for a potential ferry attack. 1. Probing of defenses...see the nature of the response when a potential threat is identified. 2. I wonder if it might be an attempt by CAIR or a similar group to fish for a lawsuit, etc. "

but i think there's a good chance they were really scouting out for a potential ferry attack

8/29/2007 12:46:03 AM

I must be one crazy, nosey ass bitch cause if I noticed these guys and genuinely believed they may be terrorists, I woulda followed they asses. Using my PI skills that I picked up from Simon & Simon, of course.

Maybe this thread should be about what lazzy ass pussies Americans are.

8/29/2007 1:28:38 AM

yeah, maybe so

8/29/2007 1:39:49 AM

interesting point, Bridget.

I agree. If I had witnessed these two men, and they were truly acting as suspicious as the DEFCON-5-Terror-Level-Red Alarmists portray them -- you know, to the point that I felt I needed to take their pictures and call the FBI...

I damn sure would have gotten more than a couple mediocre, anonymous shots with my Sony Cybershot zoom.

I would have followed them to their car and got the license plate, or if they were walk-on pedestrians I would have followed them off the boat while I called the cops.






[Edited on August 29, 2007 at 11:34 AM. Reason : ]

8/29/2007 11:31:14 AM

^Equivocation at best. People were concerned enough about the behavior of the two men in question to report it. The fact that they were also concerned enough about their personal safety to not follow the individuals in no way delagitimizes that.

8/29/2007 11:51:14 AM

meh. they dont look so tough

8/29/2007 1:58:14 PM

Agreed.

8/30/2007 12:43:05 AM

any news?

9/25/2007 5:22:36 PM

Quote :

"Civil liberties under threat The real price of freedom Sep 20th 2007 From The Economist print edition It is not only on the battlefield where preserving liberty may have to cost many lives Illustration by Daniel Pudles “THEY hate our freedoms.” So said George Bush in a speech to the American Congress shortly after the attacks on America in September 2001. But how well, at home, have America and the other Western democracies defended those precious freedoms during the “war on terror”? As we intend to show in a series of articles starting this week (see article), the past six years have seen a steady erosion of civil liberties even in countries that regard themselves as liberty's champions. Arbitrary arrest, indefinite detention without trial, “rendition”, suspension of habeas corpus, even torture—who would have thought such things possible? Governments argue that desperate times demand such remedies. They face a murderous new enemy who lurks in the shadows, will stop at nothing and seeks chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. This renders the old rules and freedoms out of date. Besides, does not international humanitarian law provide for the suspension of certain liberties “in times of a public emergency that threatens the life of the nation”? There is great force in this argument. There is, alas, always force in such arguments. This is how governments through the ages have justified grabbing repressive new powers. During the second world war the democracies spied on their own citizens, imposed censorship and used torture to extract information. America interned its entire Japanese-American population—a decision now seen to have been a cruel mistake. There are those who see the fight against al-Qaeda as a war like the second world war or the cold war. But the first analogy is wrong and the moral of the second is not the one intended. A hot, total war like the second world war could not last for decades, so the curtailment of domestic liberties was short-lived. But because nobody knew whether the cold war would ever end (it lasted some 40 years), the democracies chose by and large not to let it change the sort of societies they wanted to be. This was a wise choice not only because of the freedom it bestowed on people in the West during those decades, but also because the West's freedoms became one of the most potent weapons in its struggle against its totalitarian foes. If the war against terrorism is a war at all, it is like the cold war—one that will last for decades. Although a real threat exists, to let security trump liberty in every case would corrode the civilised world's sense of what it is and wants to be. When liberals put the case for civil liberties, they sometimes claim that obnoxious measures do not help the fight against terrorism anyway. The Economist is liberal but disagrees. We accept that letting secret policemen spy on citizens, detain them without trial and use torture to extract information makes it easier to foil terrorist plots. To eschew such tools is to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind your back. But that—with one hand tied behind their back—is precisely how democracies ought to fight terrorism. Take torture, arguably the hardest case (and the subject of the first article in our series). A famous thought experiment asks what you would do with a terrorist who knew the location of a ticking nuclear bomb. Logic says you would torture one man to save hundreds of thousands of lives, and so you would. But this a fictional dilemma. In the real world, policemen are seldom sure whether the many (not one) suspects they want to torture know of any plot, or how many lives might be at stake. All that is certain is that the logic of the ticking bomb leads down a slippery slope where the state is licensed in the name of the greater good to trample on the hard-won rights of any one and therefore all of its citizens. Human rights are part of what it means to be civilised. Locking up suspected terrorists—and why not potential murderers, rapists and paedophiles, too?—before they commit crimes would probably make society safer. Dozens of plots may have been foiled and thousands of lives saved as a result of some of the unsavoury practices now being employed in the name of fighting terrorism. Dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives. So be it."

http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9833041

9/25/2007 5:30:28 PM