Wow, what a rant. I don't even know where to begin. At least some of what you say makes some sense. But not much.

Ok, here goes... (by the way, is there some way you can enable italics or bold for the lettering in your blog? Would make commentary easier.)

"My guess is that the Brits didn't go to a judge for permission to put the British-born suspects, who are Muslims, under all kinds of surveillance."

Your guess would be almost certainly wrong unless they are breaking their own laws. As you yourself later correctly note in this blog entry, the Brits have lower standards of review when it comes to publishing government information and warrants. So if the Brits didn't go to a judge even with their lower standards of review, Britain is slidding into gross unlawfulness.

"In America, our courts say a threshold of "probably cause" must be met. This means law enforcement has to have some documentation or evidence to back up a judge's decision to use special surveillance options to track potential suspects."

First off, gee, how dare the USA have higher standards then the country we broke away from because they were oppressive. Gosh.

Second, it is "probable cause" not "probably cause" and it is not that high a standard in itself. It requires knowledge of reasonably trustworthy facts and circumstances sufficient that would make a reasonably prudent person to believe that something is going on. So just somebody saying that somebody seems suspicous is not good enough to invade their privacy. But having some actual evidence (it doesn't have to be written or spoken). God forbid that the government actually have to have even a slight bit of evidence to invade someone's privacy.

And we have special "secret" courts that were authorized by Congress to hear such cases in an efficient and quick and non-public matter when it comes to national security.

"What gets me is that U.s. law enforcement officials have done a good job in identifying potential terror suspects. They've broken up 15 domestic cells since 9/11.."

I agree wholeheartedly. There hasn't been any terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

"...all they do is get heat from civil libertarians who want to make it harder for them to do their job. Ordinary Americans are not getting harassed or losing their rights."

First off, what a gross overstatement. People protecting our civil rights are not trying to help terrorists. You denunciation is completely wrong and unfair and seems un-American to me. Some libertarians may be misguided, but their not purposefully trying to help terrorists. Stop jumping on the neocon bandwagon. I would hope that as a journalist yourself you'd realize this. But I guess you don't.

Second, you are completely wrong that "ordinary" Americans are not getting harrassed. I can think of one striking example was a lawyer in Seattle who defended some terrorist suspects and BAM! Before you know it, the FBI arrested him just because some minor level captured terrorist mentioned a person with the same name. Turns out it was the WRONG GUY. Hmmmmmmm. Just do a few goggle searches and I"m sure you'll find more.

"Do you think today's Americans would chose to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima if they could swap places with a previous generation that had to make a terrible choice to kill millions to end a terrible war and save the world?
My answer is "no." We've gone soft and we are unwilling to meet the brutal threat of jihadists with our own brutality needed to make them fear us."

Wow another gross exaggeration. If the current generation had a draft and about 250,000 American citizen soliders had died, this generation would have no more qualms about dropping the bomb on Japan then any other generation. It is a matter of self-preservation. Japan had shown at Okinawa that it was more then willing to inflict huge casualties on the USA with complete suicidal military and civilian defenses. The casualties would have been absolutely immense if the USA had invaded Japan... on both sides... instead of dropping the bomb. And, each atom bomb dropped on Japan actually killed less people then the usual nightly firebomb attack on Tokoyo. So your analogy is completely weak and wrong.

"Would we drop a bomb on Iran or Syria if we knew it would be the end-all of al Qaida?"

First off, we don't have to drop the bomb on either of these countries. If the USA fully mobolized like we did in WWII, we could crush both these countries at the same time easily.

Secondly, al qaida is a terrorist organization which has no true political boundries. Are we going to start "dropping the bomb" on every country that has al qaida people in it? Hell, we'd have to drop the bomb on Britain and Saudi Arabia which are close allies of ours and have produced more al qaida terrorists then any other countries it seems. Is nuking sovereign countries that happen to have terrorists in them the real solution?

This is a great question to pose. I'd tend to say no we wouldn't use a nuclear weapon because of the number of innocents that would be killed in such an attack, something no civilized nation wants (no matter how sympathetic a civilian population is to the terrorist cause). There is little doubt the terrorists want as many of us dead as they can get, but how successful they will be in the future isn't a known quantity. Its safe to say we know they won't stop if we don't stop them. Unfortunately dropping one bomb won't solve our problem now because there are plenty of other countries with terrorists ready to take their place. We'd have to drop so many it would verge on genocide.

The difference with World War II was the near certainty of the number of casualties that would be incurred by the US invading Japan and the other costs of the war to that point. Japan was also a traditional nation state enemy (in a conventional war) at the time of Hiroshima.

The future cost of the war on terror in lives and dollars is harder to nail down. The enemy is also so much harder to identify. Look at how many of the recent British terrorists were home grown. We've had a few home grown terrorists of our own (McVeigh, Nichols, Rudolph, etc.). Though dropping the bomb on Japan wasn't an easy decision at least the enemy was clear.

One thing I will say is that I think each generation rises to the challenge it is presented. The resolve of our young troops overseas now should tell us all we need to know. They don't want us backing down now. All the debate we engage in here can take place because they get it done over there. The previous generation always seems to think the next is softer, its the way of the world. Its the old uphill both ways in the snow story. Many things are easier for younger Americans today, some things aren't, but there will always be new and different challenges the previous generation never had to face. I'm sure the parents of the "Greatest Generation" had their own doubts too. If confronted with all out global war again, I think my generation would step up do what was necessary to protect our way of life for ourselves and our children. I also think The rest of the world knows it, that's why they sink to cowardly acts of terrorism to get at us.

Smokey and Dr. No, I'd like to get the both of working on the Connecticut election campaign for U.S. Senate. Smokey can work for Lieberman; Dr. No can work for Lamont. Let's see who wins in November. Anyway, here's the larger question about our moral conviction if faced wtih a drastic choice to drop an end-all bomb: Will it be the U.S. or Israel that takes out Tehran's nuclear power plant over the next six months or so? You don't think that we could allow Iran to give nukes to terrorists do you?

While the British deserve praise for stopping this plot, Jim, how do you respond to this: Back in 1995, Ramzi Yousef (the original bomber of the World Trade Center in 1993) and Khallid Shiek Mohammad (the main planner of the 9/11 attacks) launched a plot to destroy ten aircraft flying from Asia to the US by using liquid explosives brought on board in carry-on luggage. Their operatives blew themselves up prematurely and the plot was discovered. So since 1995, we have known that terrorists were planning to destroy commercial aircraft using this tactic. How, after 9/11, could we have continued to allow liquids to be brought on aircraft? Hasn't our government been playing Russian roulette with the lives of all who fly? What were they waiting for before they implemented prudent security measures? A successful attack? This administration's ineptitude is staggering. Had they been in charge in August 1945, they would not have used the bomb against Japan because Japan actually attacked us (unlike Iraq) - they would have dropped Little Boy on Venezuela or whatever other oil-rich country they were lusting after at the time. And as a self-proclaimed liberal, I would have no problem with a US administration that was competent and credible (which, of course, rules out this crew) using nuclear weapons in our defense.

As a self-proclaimed liberal, Dick, you have no right to complain about an administration trying to crack down on terror. It is you and your kind that enable it. Not intentionally mind you, but by your actions and your support of wacko organizations like the ACLU that make it nearly impossible for government agencies to take the necessary steps to end the problem. Before you go bashing the Bush administration, how about you worry about your cuddle buddies on the left who are trying to weaken the Patriot Act and every other law enforcement tool in the name of "civil rights."

Tough call on the Iran nuclear plant attack. If Israel thought they wouldn't be invaded by every country surrounding them, they would have done it already.

I don't know if the US would take it out, though clearly we have the capability to do it without sending in ground troops. The problem would be the position it puts our allies in. Our Arab friends would disown us and Israel would probably be attacked. Tough spot. It is almost a deterrence situation.

Based on what Iran does for Hezbollah, I'm sure they make every effort to get the stuff in the hands of the terrorists as soon as they can. At the very least they going to use the threat to advance their agenda.

Did anyone catch Mike Wallce's interview with the Iraninan head of state on 60 minutes? (I can't call him a president). The guy was so smug and crazy looking I can't recall anything like it. Either he's dumb like a fox or truly a nutcase. I lean towards the former right now based on his education and background, but I don't discount the latter.