So what is wrong with heightened security checks at airports for individuals fitting the description of the terrorists? Does this really violate their rights?
133049
Well, the people who bombed the building in Oklahoma City were white Americans.  Guess you should profile them too.
354918
LMAO  Perfect question. I just got done emailing someone who thought that his constitutional rights were being violated and that was MORE important than the war on TERROR. I challenged him to name one right that he has lost personally. Well, no return email yet. Nor do I expect any logical one to come my way. LMAO\nYour question is great. And NONE of my ( laughing my a_s off while typing this) friends or neighbors have been carried off in the night because of President Bushs' war on terror. Which is really OUR WAR ON TERROR.....   .. .when can we get the foolish folk to learn?\n\nThings that make you go HMMMMMMMM\n\n\nEDIT* - I don't believe the posting directly above me. How could anyone sue the Federal Government and win a decision in such a short time. I think some radicals have hijacked her mind. Either that, or she has misunderstood the facts.\n\nEDIT* - I just read all the posts. Incredible that snotty nosed fools didn't 'get the the true meaning' of your question.
331516
hell no!!! it violates my Right to privacy, hello! why isn't anyone outraged about this. Whats the point of having the bill of right this a_s_s h_o_l_e (bush)is violating most of them, we might as well be Cuba!
28620
I don't really see what the big deal is. I've got nothing to hide. If it helps them track down terrorists or even just deters terrorists then I'm fine with it.
455707
Doesn't make sense does it? These terrorist want to kill us and once we capture them they should be given rights? Terrorists love what these people are trying to do for them...
535628
I think that the term terrorist is being widely applied, and now is another excuse for the powers that be to flaunt our Constitutional rights.  \n\nI think that the US should respect and abide by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and not torture, nor deprive anyone of their due process.  As to the Guantanamo and other prisoners, we are at war, and it takes a while to process that many prisoners.  But justice should be meted out according to our own values and ethics.
530692
You've lost the "right" to have friendly phone chats with Osama.\n\nYou've lost the "right" to expose covert agents and secret programs while defending your terrorist activities.\n\n[Oh, and "Sneak & Peek" searches are done by warrant - it's just that you are not alerted. Don't these people know even the simplest thing?]
621324
I do not believe that terrorists should be given equal rights. I do believe that they shold be treated as humans though. If they can't be peaceful, then they should't be allowed to walk the streets. If terrorist can not be reformed, and they continue to even be disrectful, NO government should allow that! Terrorism is costing lives and well as tax dollars. I wouldn't think it was a bad thing if they were executed for their crimes! They might sound harsh, but think of how many lives it would potentially save!
150274
You have a point.  The recent arguments about immigration have focused on the border with Mexico.  But immigration can come overland from Canada, as well.  Which means whatever security we really need at airports to prevent terrorists, we also realistically need at every part of every border.  Such a thorough system of electronic search and so on is obviously impractical.  Therefore, are we kidding ourselves that the extra manpower, expense and inconvenience at the airports is serving any useful purpose?  As the questioner points out, it probably never did make much difference, anyway; the original 9/11 gang did not come in through an airport.\n\nSo how do we combat terrorism if these measures are about guaranteed to be ineffective?  It has been said repeatedly that the intelligence community (the spies, if you will) knew a great deal about Osama bit Leaden (I don't use his real name on purpose) before 9/11/2001.  They warned their bosses, including the president, who played it his way.  You gotta wonder if he didn't like the idea of an excuse to put restrictive measures on airports and the various other compromises to our freedom we have accepted under the "homeland security" rubric.  (Love the tee shirt with a picture of several old Indian warriors!)  \n\nFolks, our borders are too long, and with modern transportation, too open to everyone and anyone, for us to even try to stem the flow.  Why not say come; I lift my lamp beside the golden door.  If you come in peace, and are willing to work hard to make your way here, come.  If you do not behave well, we will send you home.
124883
Your question is a little hard to read but I'll give it a try. \n\nI own several firearms and have a license to carry a concealed firearm on my person. I took the training and got the license because there are bad people in the world today. I know from experience that there are folks who would shoot me or my family, steal our money and possessions and not have a problem doing it.\n\nI won't sit by and allow myself or my family to be a victim for some low life who chooses to steal rather than work for a living like the rest of us. The Police are not able to protect us anymore. Criminals have more rights than the rest of us and they know how to play the system. Maybe if more criminals were shot before they were able to complete their crime, they would think twice before doing something.\n\nI also believe with terrorism on the rise, that Americans have an obligation to arm themselves and be prepared to defend  this country against foreign terrorists if need be. \n\nWho knows, Sept. 11th possibly could have been avoided if the people on-board the airplanes could have shot the hi-jackers before they crashed the planes.
444347
A guerrilla in uniform is covered by the Geneva Convention as long as he fights according to its provisions. A terrorist is a criminal- worse than any other but more importantly just the same.\n\nThe 'Them animals....' statement could easily apply to IDF, the Iraqi security forces we sponsor, Northern Alliance thugs we also sponsor, Posada Carilles, Orlando Bosch plus the other gusanos we harbor. This hypocrisy really harms us.\n\nIf you shoot a terrorist in cold blood, perhaps not caring if civilians are close by (as in Pakistan, Yemen using Predator drones) then it is not one less future terrorist. That 'average Muslim terrorist' will have around 6 relations of military age; the civilians the same number- all with a strong revenge ethic. \n\nHence more bloodshed equals more terrorists. Its hard but justice is the only way- plus admittedly some intelligent violence at the right time.
596567
How sad when people use terms they have absolutely no idea about.\n\nAirport security is not 'ludicrous', hell, it is barely even adequate.\n\nOnly phone calls with foreign numbers identified or suspected of being terrorist are listened to. Others get warrants for wiretapping. \n\nThe 1st amendment does not include publishing national security secrets.\n\nBut let me tell you about statism.\nThe government has been savaging the Constitution and Bill of Rights for the past century. And I'm talking real abuses, not these imaginary ones you listed.
666335
No they are not terrorists. They were there in the first place, so why should they be kicked out? It's just not fair, in my opinion.
215332
Well, if you read the text of most (most) of the protections guaranteed by the US Constitution, it says "no person"  rather than "no citizen".... which kind of begs the question how some conservative strict constructionalists can argue that "person" really only means "citizen"...\n\nBut I've heard a lot of people say that they don't think non-US citizens should have rights. What's even more frightening is that a lot of people I've talked to think that even US citizens shouldn't have any constitutional protections if they are SUSPECTED of being involved in terrorist activities. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept is totally out of the window. At least, according to the Bush administration's current policies (see US v. Padilla).\n\nI'm just stocking up on popcorn (and canned goods) and waiting for the fireworks to start.
171432
great point.  Liberals seem ready to defend the lives of terrorists, but not of innocent babies.  We can't kill someone who is threatening to kill us, but a woman can take the life of an innocent child, b/c it is her "Constitutional right"  what about the Constitutional rights of the child?  Or don't they have any????  Just another example of how backwards liberals are.\n\np.s.  not that I think its great to kill terrorists...in a perfect world there wouldn't be any, and noone would have to kill...but that is in a perfect world.
75278
People get too worked up about freedom of privacy.. It's so ridiculous.  We are trying catch terrorists here, give me a break with all this crap.
168132
The reason is that more people are affected and those rights affect more individuals.  It is not necessarily true.  The Patriot act can be viewed as supporting community rights, though I don't agree that it does.