Trampoleena responded to my blog titled....."Third Anniversary of Mission Accomplished" in her response she she says...."

I hope you aren't suggesting that there is no threat from terrorism. September 11 was not an "oh well, let's move on" experience. Nor should such an event be reduced to the trivializing many are doing just to get in some Bush Bashing at a war that didn't go according to plan. Like any war really does."

In fact, she is half correct, the part of lets move on, yes I believewe should, as far as the trivializing the war, No! I never trivialize any war even undeclared private wars that Bush has lied to the americancitizens for justification of his Iraq war.. There is no sin or moral wrong in moving on with tragedies.Many tragedieshave occurred in U.S. history such as theRevolutionary War, the War of 1812 where the White House was burned down, the Civil War, the attack on Pearl Harbor, all of which were far worse than 911, yet we moved on.You see right wing neocons need to keep the fear going because without the fear they cannot justify the war effort in Iraq they have to tell America be afraid be very afraid of terrorism & terrorists and engage in all sorts of fear mongering. By living in fear of terrorism it actually gives power to the terrorists, but when we move on with life we show the terrorists and the world that we are not afraid of you and that we have overcome and have become a stronger nation because of our resolve to move on, its time for the grief to end the mourning is over!

trampoleena goes on to say.....

"Did you know that during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? Presidents do have the power during times of national security concern to make decisions that seem to be in conflict with the Constitution."

Yes trampoleena I hold a degree in political science and I am well aware of Lincoln suspending habeas corpus, but how you can equate that with domestic spying and the invasion of privacy of american citizens and keeping secret databases from phone companies with Lincoln's habeas corpus I do not know. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody, two seperate issues. AllI can see is that Trampoleena is trying to justify the right of an american president in this case [Bush] to make decisions that conflict with the constitution which would render the constitution valueless. What trampoleena does not understand is, that american veterans have died face down in the mud not for the president nor his right to conflict with the constitution if there is such a right, but they in fact died for the constitution itself! Also one other sidebar issue, if trampoleena read the biography of Lincoln by Delores Kearns Goodwin she would know that Lincoln regreted his decision on habeas corpus.

now lets take the third and final part of trampoleena's response to my blog.....

"However, upon closer examination one discovers that such decisions are not unconstitutional at all. Nor do they deprive the citizenry of rights. And that's mostly because there is a difference between "rights" and "privileges". It would be helpful if that distinction were made more often.

I beg to differ with trampoleena's statement that privacy is just a "privilage", in legal decisions by judicial decree and by Government it has been established that there is a modified right to priviacy. The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) protects personal information held by the federal government by preventing unauthorized disclosures of such information. Individuals also have the right to review such information, request corrections, and be informed of any disclosures. The Freedom of Information Act facilitates these processes. Also there is Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy protected by the 14th amendment. The 1st, 4th, and 5th, Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which limits access to personal information. Bush may be a precident setting president that may actually provoke constitutional admendment[s] further guaranteeing more privacy rights to the american citizenry because of his flagrant abuses or as trampoleena would say confliction with the constitution.