Aargh! Aargh! Aaaaaargh! The excluded middle, and fear

Yesterday in my local rag, I read an editorial by (apparently) the owner/publisher.  It goes something like this (link here, but free registration is required):

Simons: Security measures necessary to the war on terrorism

By Dolph C. Simons, Jr.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

What would the majority of Americans prefer: Allow wiretaps, the ability to trace financial transactions, intercept and study incoming and outgoing foreign phone calls, strict enforcement of the Patriot Act and other security measures designed to protect Americans from deadly terrorist actions, or severely weaken our country's security policies and consequently increase the possibilities of deadly initiatives against U.S. citizens?

Follow me over the edge for a little more, and my reply (in 250 words or less...)

Technically, this is a false dilemma: there is no reason to assume that it must be one or the other.  

And yet, the fear mongering continues:

If nine or 10 large airliners had been blown out of the air over the Atlantic Ocean, would those opposed to most all of the Bush administration's actions -- actions designed to try to safeguard citizens of this country against terrorism -- have said it was unfortunate but this is the price a country and its citizens must pay if we are to preserve the civil liberties guaranteed to those living in the United States?
[snip]
...death of 1,500 to 2,000 airline passengers...
[snip]
...to kill as many Americans as possible...
[snip]
... Uncle Sam's white flag of surrender to those fighting the United States....
[snip]
... a deadly war ... killing innocent civilians and instilling fear in the population are primary tactics.
[Editor's Note: who's making who afraid?]
[snip]
...the degree of danger posed by terrorists.

What will it take for the majority of Americans to accept and understand the seriousness of the situation?

How much more dangerous must it become, how many Americans have to be killed here within the country before the cynics realize and appreciate the danger?

What happens if the White House and congressional leadership should come under the "doves" within the Democratic Party who want to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible and who are willing to trust America's safety to the whims of U.N. members and to negotiations with our own enemies?

Force is the only thing that terrorists respect!

[Editor: Yeah.  Let's just kill them all.  Cool.]

This is a worldwide war and unfortunately it won't be over for years and will be won only if the United States and Great Britain remain strong in their resolve to fight terrorism.
[snip]
This week's excellent security work by British officials should be applauded by all Americans and should serve as a model for what is needed in the United States for our officials to use in fighting terrorism.

So.  I wrote this letter in response:

To the Editor:

In his column on Saturday, Dolph Simons Jr. presents his readers with a false dilemma: either we must allow illegal wiretaps of American citizens, or we must severely weaken our defense against the threat posed by international terrorism.

This is absurd.  There is no government, no organization, no power on earth that threatens the United States of America.  Certainly there are those who wish us ill and threaten "deadly initiatives against U.S. citizens," but they do not threaten the survival of the republic.  The  real threat to our nation is from a fearful and short-sighted voiding of long-held Constitutional protections and the rule of law.  

Against all odds, we have survived as a nation with the Bill of Rights intact since 1789.  We have triumphed in the face of invading armies, the burning of Washington, the Civil War, WWII, and the threat of nuclear annihilation -- not in spite of, but because of rights and freedoms guaranteed to us under the Constitution.  For us to now declare those freedoms and rights inimical to our survival, or to fearfully unmake what hundreds of thousands of servicemen have bled and died for, is foolishness.

To forgo our constitutional protections in the name of defense against terrorism is to give power to the terrorists, a power they do not have.   If we remake America into a country where individuals in the government are considered above the law, then the terrorist will have won -- but we will have destroyed America where they could not.

So, whaddaya think: Fear, or resolve?  Our republic, strong and faithful to its heritage, or shall we go fucking batshit crazy and erase our history, our birthright, our fucking self-pride?

Aaaargh!