Following 9/11, I am aware of almost 3,000 people whose civil rights got pretty severely 'violated' that day.

I live in NYC, work less than four blocks away from Ground Zero, and (but for a quirk in timing that morning) would have been inside Tower Two when those planes hit. I am more keenly aware of the dangers of terrorism than you will likely ever be.

Do not think invoking 9/11 gain you any traction here, especially when my own wife is an EMT for FDNY and thus is a first responder.

That said, here's a news flash for you: "terrorism" is nothing new and is no more lethal or frightening than it was on September 10th, 2001. Its been a danger since our ancestors came down out of the trees. Its been a danger long before 9/11 and will continue to be so as long as there are humans who hate and fear one another for whatever reason they do.

The difference is our elected leaders are deciding now to behave as if its something more than an asymmetic military tactic. You might as well declare a "war against butter knives" for all the good this "war on terror" is actually going to accomplish. How does invading and occupying a country that hasn't attacked us prevent a loose network of fellow travellers from concocting and executing small-level acts of bombing and assassination?

Do I worry about maybe getting killed by a suicide bomber. Maybe once in awhile, when I'm not worrying over getting pushed into oncoming traffic on a busy sidewalk or my son's bus getting rammed by some idiot on the road.

The world is a scary place, yes. Clearly you aren't all that well equipt to live in it if you can't distinguish between serious versus less-serious threats.

Feel free to leave at any time. The sooner the better.

I prefer to think of them in a very cold, dark, damp place. And hopefully being treated in a far worse manner, by more serious interrogators, than the frathouse/bozo/reservist enlisted personnel at Abu Grhaib.

Yes, let's visit all manner of degregation and torture upon those who would supposedly wish us harm, irregardless of societal and legal norms.

Yes, let's destroy their minds and spirits, and our own in the process.

Yes, let's damn our nation to be a pariah and source of hatred the world over.

Yes, let's do all this in the name of defeating "terror".

You really should have quit while you still had a head, never mind a leg left to stand on. At this point, you aren't worth the time or energy anymore.

Nothing that I write can change your mind.

Perhaps you should just try explaining your reasoning, understanding that each of us have our own take on matters and none are necessarily more sensible than the rest.

We may not convince one another of anything, but that doesn't mean we can't at least try to respect each other's point of view.

Pinky, here is how "they treat us."

They hijack our airliners and fly them into downtown buildings.

"We" bomb their homes and prop up the dictators who repress and murder "them".

They blow up our troops and contractors while we attempt to fix their electricity grids and oil pipelines.

"We" invade their countries and treat "them" like animals.

They blow up our citizens while they sit on commuter trains.

"We" tread on their traditions, destroy their culture, and don't even bother to learn their language.

They behead our security forces, and burn their bodies.

"We" drop bombs on their neighborhoods and ignore their cries for help.

They kill our reporters and chop their heads off on videotape.

"We" round "them" up and lock them away without either trial or review, practicing torture upon them based upon 'intelligence' that is anything but.

AND YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT OUR HAVING 'WATERBOARDED' THREE OF THEM?

AND YOU THINK ALL THE ABOVE GIVES ANY OF US THE RIGHT TO BEHAVE LIKE SAVAGES?

Oh, and to the Salon reader who lives in Mahattan and whose spouse is a first-responder there...Could you please remind Pinky that Michael Mukasey, a neighbor of yours, has a bit of knowledge and experience in the legal war on terror, as he was the presiding U.S. Distict Court Judge in the (first) World Trade center (bombing) attack case?

I wouldn't cross the street to so much as spit on Mukasey now, never mind acknowledge he comes from here. You're also not helping yourself here given the first bombing was treated precisely as a law enforcement matter and was resolved without resorting the sort of morally-bankrupt idiocy Bush has been spouting since he came out of hiding on 9/14.

But in my mind, the surest way to separate Republicans from Democrats, and the surest way (in my opinion) to turn moderate Democratic voters into moderate Republican voters, is to separate people based on support for lawsuit reform. And to restore government by legislature instead of government by lawsuit.

The debate is whether or not elected officials can simply ignore the laws already on the books, nothing more complicated than that. All this nonsense about the "war on terror" and the like is a distraction from that fundamental question.

What do you expect "people" to do when they learn their privacy has been knownly compromised by private entities or the government that obstensibly serves them and not its own interest? What recourse are they expected to have or pursue when that happens?

What would you do?

Well, no, actually. The Bush Administration has said that no laws were broken,

Except laws were broken. The Administration cannot simply legalize activity by its own declaration.

but that it nevertheless wanted to protect the telcoms from vexatious and horrifically expensive civil litigation which might impact on future national security operations.

Too bad for them, given they were essentially co-conspirators in a criminal act. I seriously doubt they were in any actual financial danger for their law-breaking anyway, especially with their recent profits reported.