Originally Posted by roachboy

would someone from the right explain to me why exactly they treat ALL questions about the restriction of civil liberties--real or percieved--with the assumed exception of gun control--in such a cavalier manner?

i dont see how this squares with the libertarian strain that you see floating to the surface in so many other conversations from the right...

on the other hand, i assume that these problems are treated as they are because a republican administration is in power--but even given this, what i see as a systematic refusal to take these questions seriously makes no sense.

another way of posing the same question: one explanation that i can come up with is the status of this "war on terror" thing--how folk from the right understand it, what relation they create between themselves and this "war"---for myself, i do not see anything coherent in this bushpolicy or discourse, frankly--perhaps this explains why this kind of information about surveillance bothers me as it does (in general)---

i have raised questions on this order before and probably will again----but right now the gratification to be had from repetition eludes me. (if there was no such gratification i doubt seriously that i would still be participating in this forum. that i dont walk around thinking "how nice is repetition is nice how" changes nothing)---but from what i have seen, there is a direct correlation.

so is this debate really about the putative topic, or is it about a cluster of other matters that converge in ways that are a function of political (or aesthetic) committments that are not necessarily directly addressed in the op?