Thomas wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Furthermore, it it were all a sham to provide only the appearance of security, I would not hear as many news items about terror funds being traced, suspects being arrested, and terror plots being discovered on time.
Why not? It's easy to trace funds on the suspicion that they're being used by terrorists, easy to suspect people and arrest them, easy to trumpet the discovery of terror plots. Consider how little evidence was produced for the "dirty bomb" plot, and how little we hear about the yet-uncaught Anthrax terrorist, who is known to be somewhere out there still.
If the effort were an insincere sham, one wouldn't hear about a lot of results, such as organizations being shut down and people being arrested for funnelling money to terrorists, or would-be bombers being caught before they have the chance to put their schemes into effect, or major shakeups in government departments, such as the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. By choosing the Padilla case as an example, you merely chose one of the weaker ones.
Thomas wrote:That leaves you with your other two points, which basically boil down to 'I trust the Bush Administration based on the other things it did'.
I said that:
(1) My own analysis tells me that there is danger where they say there is.
(2) When they speak, they tend to echo thoughts I have already had, which causes me to suspect that their beliefs and motivations may be similar to mine.
How does this boil down to the idea that I
merely trust them?
