"If you want to be free, you must accept all the risks that come with it."

There was nothing in my comment that suggested I didn't feel there wasn't risks, or that freedom or security aren't worth fighting for. I said that the ideals of freedom and security go hand in hand. We should never trade one for the other, blindly assuming that there must be some equation between the two.

Say the United States government, military and intelligence agencies actually did turn into a full out Orwellian society; they monitored our every movement, watched and limited our every purchase, controlled what films and books are produced, posted cameras on every corner, required us to report every anti-government utterance made by our neighbors, etc. Now, imagine what this does to the collective identity of the United States. Are we safer? Look at other countries in history who have had similar controls of freedom. People are enslaved in such societies, not safer. Armies can be made to fight in totalitarian societies, but they are coerced through fear or other heavy handed manipulation.

Societies without freedom lose something truly great, self determination. Their armies join and assemble voluntarily and their police forces are community minded and less corrupt. Societies with freedom have more honor, more transparency, more self respect and more will power.

I am not a hardcore nationalist, but I think that freedom and personal liberties are assets to the U.S. fabric, and I believe in a strong and rational military to be used for defense.

I disagree. I think it's inexcusable to simply state this was a intelligence failure due to failure to react to world post-cold war. Simply due to the following factual information:

The Cold war was built on the shoulders of relationship with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
They got miffed due to US military presence and the House of Saud.
The American Embassy in Africa bombings.
The 1994 WTC attack.
The CIA and FBI knew of their presence in the country.
Constant threats by Al Qaeda.
Intelligence failure post 9/11 with regards to Iraq.

Honestly all this back and forth about this tape is enough for me.

All I ask is that you don't consider the day, but what that day meant, and where that day has lead us.

The police state you mention we should avoid? We're already there... from Gitmo, arrest without trail, NSA phone taps, heabus corpus, NSA echelon program and so on and so on.

Do you know what the Terrorists want? No, the whitehouse tells us they hate the Western way of life. Or what is it? Islamofacists. No mention of their demands to end to house of Saud, Palestine and so on, i.e. specific grievances but no it degrades at this level to some clash of cultures and religions. Because the Decider has decided that for you.

Does it make logical plausible sense? No, if the intent of Al Qeada was to destroy the western way of life in American the attack would have been on nuclear power stations (check your maps its all there, its not state secrets or anything) around the East coast causing an event the size of Chernobyl. They knew that such an attack would lead to possible usage of nuclear arms against them, they don't seek a war of mutual annihilation, they are at issue with the foreign policy actions of the USA. So did not pursue that action.

In our world of fear due to terrorism, a massive securities and weapons supply chain is developing, the American goverment is spending nigh on billions on futuristic weapon systems that don't coincide with the needs of the US Army currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same money that could have been used to rebuild New Orleans which more then a year later is still there in tatters.

Are we safer today then we were before 9/11? No. It's worse. But you know, I guess no one read 1984 and am just paranoid.