I gather from your comment to occasial observer that I am, perhaps, your least favoutite type of blogger, and that perhaps I should just blog off.

I reread my letters to just check if I had been too rude, and saw in only one letter an instance where I had questioned why you did seem to avoid the topic of 9/11. I think it is a legitimate question. Since you are from New York and are right in the centre of the action so to speak, I think you would be highly qualified to give an opinion. If you don't want to, a simple explanation of why would cause me to stop wondering, and the issue would be dropped.

Regarding my posts today, I think again that my original question is very reasonable. Could you be a target of Bush's executive order, and could it influence how you write? Both questions very appropriate.

I do not dictate to you about that which you write. You plainly have your own agenda, interests, and focus. My queries are pertinent, and directed at improving the general knowledge of people who read your blog. The key to enligthenment is discussion and education, not suppression of ideas.

I hope to continue provoking a reasonable discussion and dialogue about issues which are of grave significance to all of us.

I am not suggesting that Mr. Greenwald is suppressing ideas. I am merely asking for what reason he is not interested in commenting on the particular topic of 9/11.

The idea that L.W.M. puts forward, that I believe I am generally more knowledgable, is a fallacy. I have actually learned a lot about various issues from the insightful comments of readers, and of course the fruitful writings of Mr. Greenwald.

Aside from these misperceptions, I think that you are correct. There is no point pissing off the host, and that is not my intent. Having read many of your comments over months, I am simply interested in sharing a different perspective on life in the good old US of A.

My own wish is to see the US recover its course towards a more democratic centre, as this seems to be the safest course for everyone on the planet.

I will take your advice to heart, and stop hounding. I'm simply glad that a few of you may be thinking about the issue of 9/11, and its relevance to similar possible future events which could be a prelude to a defacto police state in America.

Chertoff, Santorum, and Cheney have all recently suggested that an event similar to 9/11 could occur,and that this may be what is needed to galvanise public opinion around the president and the Republican party.

If that occurs, and Bush puts himself in charge of all three branches of government (as per one of his recent executive orders), then it will not have mattered if GG did not attract government attention.

I conclude by saying that it is my true belief that this is the one issue which could solidify a reasonable opposition to this juggernaut of facsism. Being a concerned citizen of the planet, I can't help trying to do my part to wake up the masses before it is too late...

I've just finished A Tragic Legacy, and found it a very good read. One of those books that once started was hard to put down. Well done.

In your book, you mention the case of Jose Padilla, and your feature today mentions Maher Arar, a fellow Canadian. Your final paragraph in today's column suggests that one would have to be irrational to draw a comparison between the treatment of citizens in Libya and the USA by their respective governmnets. With respect, your detailings of the treatment of Padilla (an American citizen who was kept without charge or access to a lawyer for years), could easily be compared to similar detentions in a country such as Libya. The US is headed down the path towards dictatorship, and simply hasn't yet arrived in full force.

The fact that the Arar case has shown that the State will protect itself by claiming that release of information should be stopped due to "National Security Issues" is a lesson that no doubt applies to the situation in the US as well. No rational person believes that release of information about torture in Guantanamo would harm "National Security". What it would do would be to expose the government to accusations of hypocrisy, and lawsuits for illegal detention and violation of human rights. Hard for the pot to call the kettle black when the pot is fully naked and exposed.

It must be nice for Bush to live in a society that does not adhere to the rule of law. When you are King, let them eat cake.

RMP has a good point, that Glenn exposes the disease in your system, and that identification can lead to a cure.

The statistics in the Gallop poll lead me to a different conclusion. 63% of all adults disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. That means almost 2/3 of those polled do not think that their representatives are actually representing them.

This is the real disease in the system. Those elected do not represent those who have elected them. In your (essentially) two party system the Republicans and the Democrats are basically one and the same. And neither represents the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

Why aren't the Democrats listening? Opening that Pandora's Box will lead to their own implosion too. A two party system representing only big business? It's no wonder the little people aren't too happy with the outcome...