Wow Tom, do you even read the things you post? The only things within the borders of the United States that were prevented sounded like extensions to the 9/11 attack that were planned prior to the Patriot Act ever being thought up. The Padilla case is still in limbo with almost all the evidence that points to a dirty bomb attack being extremely circumstantial.

The other things on that list were attacks outside our borders. Almost all of them consisted of complicated multi-person plots that are much easier to infiltrate and stop. What I talked about were the simple single-person attacks that could have commenced any day since the 9/11 attacks. I doubt you could disagree with my contention that there are those undetected among us that have the motivation and tools necessary to carry out simple yet very scary mayhem.

It's the contention of the right that no attacks have occurred since 9/11 because of their actions but, if you accept my conjecture that individual terrorists could've struck anytime without detection, it seems to indicate instead that it's the choice of the terrorists and not the security measures that are in place.

Ask yourself Tom. Were you an Islamic radical living here in the United States or across the border in Mexico, just how tough would it be for you to carry out a suicide attack on numerous targets in our country? Even with the most stringent and intrusive security measures our government can come up with, how could they possibly stop you other than through sheer luck as happened with the foiled New Years plot and the stumbling across of bomb materials at a routine border stop? On it's own it's a frightening thought but if you examine the threat to any individual in our country, we're more likely to be the victim of a carjacker, random freeway shootings, a mugging, or violent burglary.

It's been shown through history that clamping down on citizen rights does not stop violence but instead simply moves the perpetrators into the shadows. That same intrusive police state actually creates more hatred of the government and more violence in the long run. Numerous studies (and no, I don't have the time to research and cite them) have indicated that violence is in direct proportion to the economic conditions in areas where it festers. Military and security buildups are exorbitantly expensive and give you little bang for the buck compared with the dollars spent towards economic and educational development. I'm not saying it's the only tactic needed. You always have to cover your ass with a good defense but the current administration seems to be neglecting the opposite side of the coin.

Art