"The" NY Times article...

Here.

You can find plenty of related reading at Malkin's blog here.

My primary response to the larger issue of the "War on Terror" and government abuse of civil liberties is relatively simple.

The President does not show nearly the same sense of urgency for controlling our borders or deporting the illegal aliens who are already in the country as he does when the discussion focuses on expanding federal police power beyond those power already demanded of it (i.e. repelling invasion).

I believe that border security is inexcticably linked to "homeland" security, in fact the two terms are essentially synonyms. Suggesting that this Republic is in anyway safe so long as our border is left virtually undefended is not only wrong, but deserves impeachment.

If President Bush took the measures that Americans have been saying they want such as tight border security, the "hysterical activists" who are more worried about the threats to the Bill of Rights by our federal government than by the "terrorists" would be more willing to go along with Bush's agenda.

As it stands right now, we are being forced to swallow one phony government solution after another. The TSA, the Department of Homeland security, the 9/11 commission which still refuses to address Able Danger, the PATRIOT Act, etc... Until the civil libertarians are given some clear sign that our government is intent on fulfilling its Constitutional obligations, we have no choice but to protest the expansion of other powers not outlined therein.

Especially with this story coming on heels of the shooting in Miami airport last week, the public is understandably nervous about trusting a government which seems more inept and untrustworthy all the time.

Simply hearing Scott McLellan state that the President believes in fulfilling his Constitutional obligations and is concerned with civil liberties is no longer enough to fool a large portion of Americans. It's time for some evidence.

National Security
Civil Liberties
Big Brother
Patriot Act