The heart of the argument in this Economist piece is the analogy between the cold war and the war on terrorism. Of course, though on the whole this is an excellent re-perspectivizing, the enemy in each instance was significantly different in nature--from a common sense view, homeland security was less important in the struggle against the Soviets than it is likely to be in the new war. But, until the terrorists come armed with WMDs I am inclined to The Economist's strategy. The erosion of our liberties ought not to be disproportionate to the actual danger, especially as the example of our liberty may once again help us prevail in the struggle. This article is intelligent and courageous and wise.
http://www.economist.com/node/9833041
