[sheltonmac]

Okay, so rather than talk about something that happened 60 years ago, why not simply call for the internment of Muslims in the U.S. and be done with it?

... I was encouraged by a just-released Cornell University opinion survey that finds nearly half the U.S. population agreeing with this proposition. Specifically, 44 percent of Americans believe that government authorities should direct special attention toward Muslims living in America ...

Yeah, and roughly 50% of Americans support a woman's right to kill her unborn child. That doesn't make it right.

... "the survival of the nation comes first." From there, she draws the corollary that "Civil liberties are not sacrosanct."

I guess the phrase "Give me liberty, or give me death" no longer holds any meaning for mainstream "conservatives." WorldNetDaily columnist Vox Day did a credible job of debunking Malkin's ridiculous anti-freedom, anti-American arguments.

She correctly concludes that, especially in time of war, governments should take into account nationality, ethnicity, and religious affiliation in their homeland security policies and engage in what she calls "threat profiling." These steps may entail bothersome or offensive measures but, she argues, they are preferable to "being incinerated at your office desk by a flaming hijacked plane."

Typical neocon BS. In time of war, governments should take into account the right of citizens to protect themselves. Federal gun control laws were largely responsible for the tragic extent of the damage on 9/11. One or two armed passengers could have saved 3,000 lives. Why anyone would even consider trusting a government that has been systematically disarming the public is beyond my comprehension.

I will ask again: If "the survival of the nation comes first," then why don't so-called "conservatives" call for the internment of all Muslims? If doing so could save millions of American lives, isn't it worth it?

Unless, of course, the proposed threat has been somewhat exaggerated.....

[dmz]

Interesting post.

I believe internment is a political albatross. I think the Admin wants us to believe that, while we are not 100% safe, all of the measures taken since 911 are having the intended effect of making us "safer". Let's keep business as usual, so we can continue to keep civilian production on track.

Internment would demonstrate that we are not "safer", that more extraordinary measures are necessary, which would have tremendous negative repercussions on the economy, if only on consumer confidence.

As to your point that one or 2 guns on planes could have saved 3000 lives, I have to point out that the hijackers would also have been armed, so very likely the situation would have remained the same. Just a thought. I'm OK with arming pilots, but I can't get behind allowing passengers to carry on board.

[Alberta's Child]

Why anyone would even consider trusting a government that has been systematically disarming the public is beyond my comprehension.

Outstanding point.

[Alberta's Child]

It's also worth noting that any kind of measure aimed at dealing with potential threats from Middle Easterners would overlook people like Johnny bin Walker, that Adam Something-or-Other moron from California who is now an al-Qaeda operative, the D.C. snipers, etc.