[...]

> We declared a war against terrorists. Not a
> specific country. These terrorists *are* just a
> bunch of Middle Eastern guys. They come
> from all countries. They cross all borders. You
> *can't* define it any more exact than that. And if
> you talk to just about anyone who was alive
> and conscious during World War II, they aren't
> exactly the biggest fans of Japan. That's just
> the way people are. Not to mention the fact
> that the entire Middle East *already* hates
> America.

[...]

> Britain hasn't declared war on the United
> States, either. If they did, I guaran-damn-tee
> that they would not be welcoming Americans
> into their country with open arms. I
> guaran-damn-tee that they would keep a
> *very* close eye on Americans in their
> country-even kick them out or imprison them.
> That's they way war is. The rules change. You
> *don't* welcome your enemy into your land.
> And in this war, our enemy is very broad: Men
> of Middle Eastern descent who come to this
> country on temporary/student visas. That's the
> way it is.

[...]

> Nowhere did I say that they were the right thing
> to do. As they say: hindsight is 20/20. I was
> merely pointing out examples of the rules
> changing during wartime.

You repeatedly say that America is "at war". Although this makes a nice soundbite for the media, it is simply incorrect. War has not been declared. In fact, seeing as America doesn't recognise the Taliban's right to govern, it would be technically impossible for war to be declared upon them.

During wartime, I agree that a certain tightening of civil liberties is acceptable, but this is *not* the case at the moment. And anyway, this would need to be handled very carefully to ensure that it doesn't become de facto law after hostilities cease. After all, would you want to live in a country where any foreigner could be arrested without charge and imprisoned without trial?

winter"Thank you for your patience"mute