SNIP
>
>It says nothing about any of those. You are reading way too much into the decision. You do realize that we are at war and that information is the primary weapon, do you not?
>
Hi Jake,

The U.S. still has on-going wars on
- drugs
- cancer
- poverty
- illiteracy (I think)

None of them have involved the depth and breadth of governmental intrusion or governmental malfeasance as this "war" has wrought.

Do you find it a bit odd that those "wars" didn't seem to endow the President with the powers this current President seems to think he has?
Do you find it odd that, when convenient you (the U.S.) are in a war, but when it is inconvenient (rights endowed to citizens in certain circumstances by being "at war") you are not?

I believe only the U.S. has an on-going "war on terror" that it actually treats as a "war" (when convenient). Most other countries are also battling terror on many levels but they have elected to not declare a state of "war" in doing so. Do you think there's a small possibility that the President and his close associates need this state of "war" to accomplish other objectives they may have?

Just some thoughts.

cheers
SNIP