What have you sacrificed?

The U.S. military may soon infiltrate Iraq and possibly incite a new round of terror attacks on the homeland. On the eve of such potential horrors, editors nationwide have derided Pentagon efforts to develop a system designed to prevent terrorism by analyzing patterns of individual behavior and then scrutinizing those people the Pentagon software identifies as having acted in a manner consistent with terrorist behavior. The same editors have also criticized attempts to scrutinize groups based on their origin, arguing such tactics unfair and racist. The essence of their argument is that government should scrutinize people based on their individual acts, not solely their race or origin. \nAre these two stances not somewhat incongruous? The same editors that disparage the feds for scrutinizing groups based on race, also ironically criticize the feds' best efforts to scrutinize individuals based on their actions, citing infringements of privacy. Despite the critiques, I've yet to find a single editorial recommending any alternative means with equal potential for effectiveness outlining how our intelligence agencies can better investigate potential terrorism without being castigated for "racial profiling" or for infringing "privacy." \nRecent revelations of terrorist possession of the deadly poison Ricin in a London apartment, coupled with information that some of the Guantanamo Bay detainees exhibit symptoms of radiation exposure, demonstrate the danger of failing to adjust our "privacy" expectations.\nMcCarthyism notwithstanding, the modern risks of government abuse of the Pentagon program -- especially considering the modern climate of 24 hour news media, government leaks, and innumerable watchdog groups certain to publicize civil rights abuses -- pale in comparison to the risk and damages of another terrorist attack. \nWe must sacrifice some of our historical "privacy" expectations to avoid feeling like Israeli civilians have for years. Aside from enduring delays at the airport or ballgame turnstiles, most non-enlisted Americans have not been asked to sacrifice much for national security. One easy sacrifice we can each make is to forfeit protections from some personal embarrassment. \nI have nothing to hide. If security means some person I'll never meet gets to intercept my emails and learn the embarrassing cache of nicknames my fiancee and I call each other, so be it. If somehow I wind up on a person of interest list because I visit an Al Qaeda Website out of intellectual curiosity and later purchase a component for my Mazda that is frequently used to construct some weapon, it may be a terrible ephemeral embarrassment to explain myself. Because I am innocent, however, I won't have any difficulty explaining why I was targeted to my neighbors, the media, or anyone else. Conceivably, those who don't know me will fail to listen and unfairly label me. So be it. The risk of scorn from those who don't personally know me is not a great fear of mine. I'm more concerned with being able to place my kids, when they come, on a school bus without apprehension whether they'll make it through the day safely.\nIf we as a nation truly want security, we cannot continue to act as 21st century red coats, marching into battle, row upon row, led by a drummer and a flag, constrained by worthy historic, but now somewhat antiquated ideals and unwilling to adapt to the present reality, while the "revolutionary" Al Qaeda army, hiding in bushes and cornfields in their tattered war garb, persevere unconstrained by rules and eager to seize every advantage. The once seemingly invincible British were defeated by undersupplied yet idealistic American revolutionaries. If we as a society fail to recognize times have changed, I am afraid that we seemingly invincible Americans will soon unnecessarily feel the pain of a greater loss than our nation has ever endured.