Please show one post I have made where I advocate "freedom for terrorists" or support or anything else beside hoping bin laden faces a firing squad. (hey bush, remember bin laden?)

Its an old tatic you are using LJD, attack the patriotisim of anyone who does not toe the party line. The fascists and communists made an art form of it and it does not suprise me that you resort to it, especially given your rather limited debate skills.

Freedom for terrorists? I am against that.

Outing CIA agents? It didn't happen. That's why. If you got away from the kool-aid you would know that.

The subject here is the media informing terrorists of our techniques for locating them, to stop them from killing us. Period. Again, how exactly does this have a damn thing to do with controlling the lawful ownership of firearms by responsible American citizens?

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Now why, suddenly, after decades of supporting the right to bear arms, are "conservatives" giving up on the Consitution?

Why do you want to scare me with a "dirty bomb" and make me change my mind? Isn't that exactly the kind of argument gun-control advocates made, when they tried to scare people with "saturday night specials" and tried to get them to change their mind?

Both are cheap appeals to fear, in order to get you to give up your Constitutional freedoms.

"Legal communications" aren't the problem. Aiding the enemy is. If you don't see how publicly "spilling the beans" aids terrorists, then you simply choose not to accept reality. Perhaps a dirty bomb will change your mind...

"...as if legal [communications] had anything at all to do with an increase in the [terrorism] rate… sheesh You call youself a conservative?"

... and what is your position on gun control?

WRT "why traffic?"

It's just a freedom (or privacy) versus security (or safety) trade-off that we are all familiar with. Certainly, the Oregon (GPS monitoring) proposal spawned a raft of freedom/privacy responses.

I'm not sure what that has to do with whether people with access to classified info should take it to the press or whether the press should print things that might endanger the nation's security.

(Approx 40,000 people die each year?)

Do you think we should restrict our driving freedom? Should we put speed-limiting govenors on all cars? Should we add monitoring eqiupent to every car to monitor speed (as they've suggested in Oregon)?

(I think we react differently to terrorists because they are a "new" kind of risk, one that we haven't processed, or lived all our lives with, like driving in traffic.)

I think we owe it to ourselves to understand how "minimum civilian casualties" are playing out, for both moral and practical reasons.

WRT this all being to "protect us" ... I think the fear gets a little bit irrational at times. I worked in a 12 story office building during 9/11, but way out in the suburbs. Some of the poor women in our office were actually scared someone would come crash a plane into us. We've got to be patient with people like that, and help them understand the difference between their actual risk and their perceived risk.

I think our armies and our law enforcement is adequate to deal with terrorists. We don't need to break the law to compensate for some irrational fear.

And if we need to change the laws, or adjust the laws ... in a democracy we can certainly do that.

Out there? Protecting individual freedom and personal choice is out there? I'll offer what I hope is accepted as constructive criticism but probably won't be, but here goes. Since you apparently know nothing about modern Libertarianism it's probably best you refrain from discussing your uninformed opinions.