Wow, this article has certainly brought out the extremes on both sides… Like Evan, I’m a bit surprised at the vitriolic opposition to the SC’s decision. They were simply responding to the Bush admin’s actions, and said that the executive branch has overstepped its bounds. We can debate whether or not that is the right decision, but it’s amazing how quickly people jump straight to the ad hominems and, yes, paranoid statements.

Angie, I won’t speak for anyone but myself – - but I think that the number of people, including the author of this article, who are jumping straight from this SC decision to the possibility of terrorists with nuclear weapons, indicates a fair level of paranoia. Should we be concerned about terrorism? Of course. But does that mean we simply allow our commander-in-chief to do whatever it takes to keep us safe from all supposed threats? Is that really the best approach for a country founded on ideas of limited government and individual freedoms? The impression I get is that a lot of people posting here would answer “yes.” I would say “no.”

And really, what does the argument that this decision will “cause more Americans to be killed” even mean? If we want to use that line of reasoning, we should never have gone to war with Iraq in the first place, because it will “cause more Americans to be killed.” The response, I’m sure, will be that it was worth it for some Americans to die for the sake of Iraq’s freedom. I personally never thought it was worth it.

So, what IS worth American lives? At the heart of it, I think that’s the question. And that is no simple question. I would only submit that sacrificing American lives in the hopes of creating a world free of fear is a tragedy based upon false hope. The antidote to fear is not finding complete safety, it is finding courage in the midst of danger.