I agree with just about every word of that article. There are those for whom security is the higher priority. In a democracy we talk about freedom and for some freedom from insecurity is more important than freedom of nonviolent expression. This is sad because in the long run it is freedom of expression that leads to greater security, for it is when all sides believe they are being heard that most are less inclined to use violent means of expression. But no world can be completely safe without infringing on important rights.
Some will insist that their views must be the law of the land for a variety of reasons. Afterall, if their Bible says that life begins at conception (it doesn't) then they may claim the right to terminate doctors who perform abortions in direct conflict with the commandment, "Thou shall not kill." Simply put the human mind can rationalise anything and that applies to dogmatics of all stripes.
If someone wants to fly a plane into a building he might kill a few thousand people in a rather horrific manner. But if our leaders choose to use that as an excuse to listen in on citizens private communications which are protected by law without court oversight simply because court oversight is inconvenient, well let's just say that's as dogmatic as anything Al-queda has ever done. The article is entirely correct to conclude,
"While al-Qaida is an enemy of the values and principles of the United States and Western civilization and must be confronted, it can do no more than kill people and destroy property.
Bush can subvert our principles and institutions. He is the greater enemy."
Thanks for posting the link.