Reply #28: So, would you say

[sabrina 1]

that, eg, Cindy Sheehan was a serious threat to Bush when she showed up wearing a tee-shirt honoring dead troops? She was hauled off to jail and kept there until Bush was safely back in the WH. Was she more of a threat than this guy holding a sign actually threatening the President's family?

How about Amy Goodman and her producers? Were they more of a threat than this guy in your opinion?

And what about those students who were charged as terrorists under the Patriot Act? Were they, in your opinion, more dangerous than this guy?

You're not getting why people are questioning these decisions. We were told for eight years that people such as Quakers posed a threat to national security, or people wearing tee-shirts supporting a Democrat. The list is long, there isn't time to present all the examples of people who were dragged away from events simply because they expressed disagreements on the president's policies.

You are defending the actions of the SS and the FBI. You say we should trust them to make the right decisions. You say they always 'err on the side of caution'. Is that what they were doing under Bush then? And if so why has the bar been raised as far as what 'caution' means in less than a year? Has the threat level decreased, or were the same people just wrong back then? Because if they were, then they need to say so.

I don't know if you were defending the actions of the SS under Bush or not. But you definitley are ignoring the fact that there has been a sudden change in what constitutes 'caution' on their part.