"Regarding your question, why only two-and-a-quarter years before 911. The same time span applied after 911 takes us to the present. There have been terrorist attacks in the USA prior to 911, largely unnsuccessful, but people have been killed and injured." --you have not answered my question. Why not? You have referred to a specific time period during which this country has been under the thumb of the Homeland Security Office in which you calim we have been "safe" from terrorist attacks. I asked for a correlating level of attacks or threats which, accoridng to your logic, should have occurred in the time before we had this auspicious agency looking out for our protection. You have not provided such correlating evidence. why not? Could it be that the Homeland Security Office is making NO difference in our level of safety and security? That is what the evidence seems to suggest. Further, if there are any "successful" terrorist attacks from here on in, your claim that America is now safer than before will be shown to be erroneous.
"The anthrax incidents post-911 that you refer to, as far as has been reported over this side of the pond, was carried out by person, or persons unknown, therefore cannot be verified as "terrorist" attacks.' --huh? They were received with threatening letters and delivered anonymously. their intent was to intimidate, injure and kill; in short, to terrorize; they succeeded. They were not random or accidental attacks. This is terrorism. You are quibbling over definitions to suit your own arbitrary, fair-weather opinions.
"Peg, if what you describe is the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered, then you have led a pretty privileged and sheltered life." --Hah! That's a larf. I never said it was the worst example I knew of. Nor was that what you asked for. Why castigate my response with irrelevant criteria when it merely fulfilled specifically what you asked?
"A responsible Government, puts in place what measures it has to to ensure the safety and security of the general population." --how nice that you feel "safer." I do not; in fact, quite the opposite.
"But it would appear that you could not tell the difference between responsible and tyrannical if it jumped up and bit you." --no, I simply define these uses of power differently than you do. To me, "responsible' does not include fear-mongering a la some color-coded ratungs system handing to dish out to the media every few weeks to get everyone's mind off the tanking economy. to me, "responsible" does not mean sacrificing privacy and civil rights for the sake of enforcing a militant police-state methodology of making every individual a suspect.
"I'd like to ask some of your good many citizens who had been arrested, detained and strip-searched if they would have foregone that in exchange for the opportunity to be blown-up. The arrests, detentions and strip-searches had to be based on some premise." --why did they "have to be?" That is called reductionism, and it is not an advisable approach to discussing the most basic human rights of people held in captivity for OVER A YEAR with NO access to legal counsel and NO contact with family, in addition to being held with NO OFFICIAL CHARGES being made. I don't know what fucking world you live in, but this is tyranny, cruel and unusual punishment, and a clear violation of due process. That is why these prisoners are being held in Cuba; because this manner of detention is flat out ILLEGAL in the United States (not to mention most nations) and because the government-controlled media there is nowhere near as likely to allow access to, or dissemination of any information on, these people who have been all but forgotten.
"On real police states - maybe you should go and experience life in some of them - If this forum was based in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe - quite a number would have gone silent long ago for some very sinister reasons." --maybe you should go there; you seem to relish the idea that this is the destiny of humanity: to be bound in chains and treated like dog turds. Maybe you should go there and experience this first-hand; perhaps then you'd find some compassion. I was born with it, but some aren't so lucky. Apparently.
"All currently being held at the Guantanamo facility...are "suspects." And will remain so until such time as their interrogations are completed and they can fully explain their presence in Afghanistan within the captured ranks of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces.' --interrogation? with no legal counsel present or even available? with no access to foreign embassies or consulates despite being deported to this detainment facility? This is illegal. All prisoners are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If these people are U.S. prisoners, why are they not afforded the most fundamental rights of the U.S. legal system?