Isn't that called an income tax return?

Be sure to scroll all the way to the bottom of the Stuart's post.

Dean,

I think some of what you and many other Americans think of as onerous provisions of Patriot Act II are simply a hard choice competing with other hard choices in an age when the physical safety of the American homeland is more threatened than at any other time since the near-collapse of the United States in late 1860 and early 1861 and the terrible civil war which followed the secession of 11 states.

We are all threatened with terrorism, including the possibility of incidents far more horrendous than the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York and the partial destruction of the Pentagon building in Washington the same day.

There are people living in this country who, if given an opportunity, would blow it all up, poison our population and, in short, destroy the United States. There is sufficient evidence that some of these people provide comfort and outright support and other cooperation to active terrorists.

Many -- although perhaps not all -- of these people are Arabs or other Moslems, or stem from Arab and/or Moslem families and cultures or have adopted their way of life. Many were born here, but no more regard themselves as Americans than does our family's pet cat.

What would you have the government do in this situation? Deport them all or lock them up in largescale detention centers? Any more major terrorist incidents in this country, and it may come to that. But there is no political thrust to take such drastic steps in advance of another attack. Nor is there public will at this time to support the government in such measures.

So the only alternative -- other than to surrender this country to outright Wahhabism -- is to isolate certain or likely traitors among these populations and deal with them accordingly.

But the agencies that make up the homeland security network cannot easily infiltrate these circles and therefore isolate the traitors truly involved with terrorism. Government agencies by their nature operate at less than efficient levels of performance. Look at NASA and the way they ignore warning from safety engineers about the way that ice or broken-off pieces of fuel tank insulation threaten the structural integrity of the shuttle orbiters every time they blast off at Cape Canaveral. Look at the Internal Revenue Service and they way they hardly keep up with tax cheats. Look at the problems the US Bureau of the Census faces ever 10 years merely counting the resident US population. Look at the problems the US Border Patrol has in keeping illegal aliens from sneaking across our border with Mexico, to the extent that some of their work must now be performed by civilian militias who now patrol the deserts of the border area.

So the agencies responsible for rooting out terrorist cells almost certainly have no option but to set up an unimaginably complex and comprehensive domestic espionage apparatus directed against any US citizens, residents and foreign tourists in this country. The implications of all this on our civil liberties is terrible. But if these actions result in saving one or more of our large cities from detonation of a compact and hidden nuclear device, would that not be a compensatory outcome? The same goes for any other kinds of terror that we may be facing at this very moment.

The British way of life, in times of clearly perceived emergency, is to permit and even encourage their government to quietly enact -- and enforce -- legislation that, simply put, enables Her Majesty's officials to dispose of the persons, properties and rights of anybody at any time whenever they perceive that failure to do so poses a danger to the safety of the Realm. But when the emergency is over, and the Spanish Armada, the Napoleon, or the Adolf Hitler of the moment has been beaten into the ground or otherwise neutralized, the Brits all take back their liberties as if they had never been taken away to begin with.

Perhaps, as a pro-gun activist, I should not be using the United Kingdom as a good example of people's liberties being restored! Nevertheless, their proud, free island, which they and their ancestors have successfully defended for a thousand years and more, and in which the liberties of what became the American nation were first planted and nurtured as seedlings, are the best example that I know of in handling national emergencies.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

I understand Arnold Harris's reasoning. However, there are still some aspects of the PATRIOT II Act that serious concern me. First, I am worried that politicians gave it the euphemistic name of Patriot to make everybody believe that it is patriotic to surrender our rights to the central government.

Second, I am quite skeptical of the PATRIOT Act has no expiration date. I would trust our politicians if they passed it with that requirement. They should have passed it with the provision that it requires renewal by congress every five years at least. Presently, it requires that congress vote to surrender the power it legislated for the executive branch! Booo! Does anybody really believe that the executive branch will ever wish to surrender its power?

I do trust Bush or Ashcroft. They are both very decent men. Ashcroft is a ten-fold improvement over his predecessor Janet Reno, who does not deserve nomination.

What I am seriously concerned with is who will follow George W.? You know that the Democrats will eventually win the White House some day. If history is any indication of future success, they will probably nominate their worst candidate. They usually nominate a boob like Stevenson, a cad like Clinton, or a socialist like Dukakis. Is there any wonder why Democrats traditionally do not win two Presidential elections is a row? Clinton is an exception, of course. But then, Clinton is an exception to every pattern in American politics that preceded him. Nothing is scarier than having a future President such as I described.