Brian, you know that I like and respect you. However, as I read and re-read your post, you have, indeed stated a political opinion. By the mere conceding of the argument that freedoms have been infringed, and that you are pleased with that, you have indicated a position. Perhaps not a fanatical, wild-eyed positions, but a concession that loss of freedom is inevitable or past correction, and that it is acceptable to go along to get along. I understand political pragmatism, and would not say that it is always a bad thing. But it still is a position, and it can often be read clearly, even if it retains plausible deniablity.
For better or worse, I've changed my tactics on these "pdf manual" threads. It is much easier to let the mods and Mama Kaw handle it from the "legal" side. If someone really wants to discuss the "moral" side, then it usually doesn't take too long to get the opposite points of view displayed and clarified.
I let myself get drawn into the political side of the freedom/societal cost discussion, because many who claim to value freedom do not understand just how far they may have drifted from the basic tenets thereof. As individuals and as nations, we have often traded freedom for security and comfort, to the extent that we find true freedom and responsibility almost foreign and often politically "incorrect" or unpopular.
