The Janitor over at The Urban Politico takesa a look of the civil rights unfriendly turn many take when questions of terrorism are raised. Where does the Constitution come into play? Below is an excerpt
Over the past 10, 15, even 20+ years, we can cite to numerous attacks and attempted attacks by terrorists that have occurred both off and on American soil that were either aimed at the United States direclty or indirectly through its allies. The only thing all of those acts have in common besides being depraved inhuman acts of cowardace is the fact that none of the perpetrators stopped to first consider the anti-terrorism policies of United States before committing their crimes. Therefore, it is foolish for us to think that by trying terrorist suspects in military tribunals vs. federal courts, by having Gitmo or not having Gitmo, or by recognizing Constitutional rights or not, that any one of these policies will somehow make us safe or unsafe. You know what makes us unsafe? Crazy wacko's with bombs. Everything else is a myth.
Once you can come to terms with the fact that nothing you can say or do will stop a determined wacko from putting a bomb in his shoe, in his underwear, or in the back of a truck in the middle of Times Square, then you must concede that whether we choose to respect our own Constitution or not is of no consequence in detouring a person who wants to blow himself up (and take you along with him). Therefore, we have a question to ask ourselves: since it doesn't matter to them whether we uphold our own Constitution or not, then, on general principle, why not err on the side of upholding it?