Guest, of course, is right. The response to these various "codes" and the undeniable inconveniences that security measures produce is determined by the feeling of vulnerability. Americans, sheltered as we have been for centuries, don't really feel threatened. Hell, we didn't even take it seriously when the first, failed attempt was made on the WTC. It is not dificult to understand our smugness. We have not had foriegn attack on our soil since 1815 (discounting Pearl Harbor which was well before Hawaii became a state). We read about terrorist attacks in Israel, Paris and a lot of places we can't pronounce. We felt invulnerable for so long that it is hard to change our views. But we must change if we are to survive an enemy more avid and ruthless than we have ever known. Finding an acceptable compromise between security and civl liberty is not easy. Total freedom is simply not possible with increased vigilance. Attributing base motives to the present regime may be philosophically satisfying but, unless the Bush haters (and I am of their number) can come up with a better plan for security, I will trust those who, at least, are doing something beside just bitching.