Yes.

Fidel Castro has less security protecting him, and he faces a much more real threat than Bush Does. (George Bush Himself)

They are not protecting themselves from terrorists.
They are building a fortress for when the masses can't afford anything on TV.

They are expecting you.

Well, I'm more afraid of my government than the 'Terrorists', so this kind of has the opposite effect of security for me.

It appears that some federal legislators and bureaucrats are more concerned with their own safety than the general welfare of Washintgon, D.C. residents as a whole, considering that the city has been known as the "murder capital" of the United States and residents currently do not benefit from the same representation as do most Americans.

police state. unnecessary evil.

I'm with you on this. Preach on, brother.

I do think it was Ben Franklin who said something about those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither security nor liberty?
How many American citizens have died from terrorism compared to how many have died as a result of poverty and all it's associated ills?

crime as a whole has been declining for at least a decadeyet police are constintly saying they need more troops and more money, i guess they need something to do, some use of their troops, some justification for their demands.

"i'm talkin about a full on,motherfuckin...R E V O L U T I O N...."....

Whats the modern american equivilant to the bastille? It'll be some mess when the peasants storm a nuclear bunker.

In the october revolution in 1917 russia, most of the police refused to fire on the revolutionaries, similarly in the french revolution. Do people think the American Army and 'defence forces' would mobilise in favour of the government against the American people?

911 was a terrible event, but its worth keeping a sense of proportion on the risk created by terrorism.

Here are some annual death rate statistics for America.

435,000 - Tobacco
400,000 - Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity
85,000 - Alcohol
43,000 - Motor Vehicle Crashes

Source : http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

How might we act if we judged our actions on the actual number of people killed by various causes?

If I was in Al-Qaeda, I would buy shares in Phillip Morris and give away TV's and cummfy sofas.

If I was the President, I would drop napalm on tobacco fields.

quoting a former co-worker who was in the army(in unintelligent sounding monotone voice):" well, the government knows what's best, so..."

I think we should step back a bit and look at the highly abused word combo, "necessary evil."

I maintain that this phrase is meaningless. PLEASE, stop using it, as it is very damning and very dangerous.

FIrst of all, what, exactly, does "necessary" really mean in this context? Whose idea of necessary, after all? Is having two legs necessary? What about freedom - is it necessary? Yes and no. Depends on who you're asking, and when. And where. And why.

Secondly, "evil?" Give me a flippin' break already. Is there a word more ripe for contextual misinterpretation? Enough philo-treatises have been written about the word to fill the Vatican's vaults. Which one do we pull off the shelf for "necessary evil?"

Both of these words are wide open to exceedingly subjective interpretation. Shouldn't we strive for objective analyses when it comes to inter/national affairs?

Y'all are being clouded by this "necessary evil" poppycock. Toss it out of the debate. Refuse to engage it. Necessary evil is snake oil, my friends. . .the kind used to make the slope so damned slippery.

I just looked up the number of people killed by the A-Bomb in Hiroshima, which was about 200,000

Just imagine, smoking kills just over twice that number each year!

Taking the risk from inactivity, the car and the TV must be the most effective WMD's ever invented.

Are you really going to surrender your freedoms because of the risk from terrorism?