An increasing threat to our liberty and freedom is the long-standing provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001. It reads:

" 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully

This means that if you deny or fib to any official, then you are up the creek. This is the section that hooked poor old Martha Stewart. Roger Clemens is screwed if you read (a) in conjuction with (2) of (c). Of course, if Rog was under oath, then he can also be charged with perjury. This pernicious law is more and more increasing in scope and use.

In a time of crisis, all states tend to adopt draconian measures. A careful watch must be kept to ensure that they are not taken to extremes, nor become the accepted norm. For if either happens, the terrorists have had a fundamental measure of success.

I am not concerned at all and will not stand in the way of those who are working hard to protect me, my family and my property from potential terrorist activities or attacks. Freedom is not free, it costs the lives of troops, law enforcement agents and firefighters among others.

Unfortunately when terrorist's are active the only way you can use preventative measures, is to invade individual freedom. I'm not saying it is right or fair, but if you have nothing to hide, then you should not fear this. Also it is very hard for officials to deal with this horrible disease called terrorism. I think some latitude should be given. However I would say I'am concerned. 

UPDATED 03/21/2007 Due to the responces: Being ex military and personally having to deal with it, I have found that the only way to prevent it is to be invasive. Civilians don't like it and we have our rights, but in my experience it has been the difference between stopping it and watching people get butchered!! No one can properly defend themselves against terrorism, there is no sure plan, but like I said before, give a little latitude to officials trying to do their Job.

"When we sacrifice liberty for order, we lose both and deserve neither". 

Update: If one looks at things our government had already done- Lincoln during the Civil War, FDR with strikers during WW2, the FBI dealing with the Mafia, the KKK, etc., it is arguable that the government already had too much power to infringe on individual liberties. In the case of the Mafia and the Klan...granted, very bad people. Additionally, I am all for the war on terror and doing whatever we can to protect US citizens....so long as it is done within the framework of the Constitution.

Yes. It has been my experience that Americans are quick to sacrifice their civil liberties contained in the Federal Constitution. And this experience was accumulated before 9/11. As we have enjoyed our freedoms for so long, I think most of us Americans do not have an appreciation for what their absence means. The Founding Fathers did. That's why they included the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. These were major concerns of the people who had spent four years fighting off the British and losing thousands of fellow countrymen on the battlefield. What concerns me is that we may not realize what we have until it is gone. Perhaps spilling our blood is not the worst damage that Islamic extremists can inflict upon the U.S. Time will tell.

In fact I'm real concerned. Three years ago, I was about to shoot this teenage girl with a SQUIRT GUN and police (who ambushed me) told me to drop the gun. They thought it was real. Once they arrested me, they questioned me if I was involved in any terrorist acts? I mean c'mon. I was just using a squirt gun for fun. Luckily they set me free.

Yes. When right wing lunatics start calling our teachers and the quakers terrorists and dangerous,subversive groups for speaking out against an illegal war I believe that Freedom of Speech and the right to assemble peacably are in danger.A Government who locks up everyone who does not Goose Step does not belong in a Free Country.Where was the fine tooth comb when all those Saudis were attending flight school? I don't think U.S. citizens are the big threat.

If I lose a freedom temporarily or if I am a little inconvenienced and it helps to say hundreds if not thousands of lives then I say, it has well been worth it. Donvan stated this. I put it on here b/c i think that this is a wonderful form of wrong-thinking that has been going on in America since 9/11. yes you should demand that your government enact laws and do whatever they can to protect their civilians, but no you should never accept any of your freedoms being taken away or compromised. thinking like this has led to the creation of fascist and communist regimes all over the world, in the past. i myself am very concerned that the government's attempts to combat terrorism would lead to them penalizing their own citizens. i wouldn't want to live in a country that did this. but i guess others would. i'm sorry, but a comment like Donovan's is typical of the rampant anti-American sentiment existing within the neo-conservative structure of the country.UPDATE: thanks Donovan for the standard stock response. You'd do well over in China.UPDATE: as always Lance seems to think i'm defending the American Constitution. I'm not. i'm speaking of liberties given to my by birth. my own rights as a human being to be governed by no man's law. i do not, and have never cared with the founder fathers original or revised intent was for their nation. i'm defending my so-called contract w/God if you will. so in terms of American security, go ahead, amend and take away whatever you like. i guess it helps some people sleep better.*****well, that's good to know. nice to know my own rights and sense of self are defined and allowed by the benevolent society. seems too textbook an answer which doesn't take into account personal feeling and rights.

The assertion that additional legal structures created to combat terrorism are anti-American, and that neo-cons are somehow similar to facists is simply ludicrous. Skizero has a perverted view of the constitution that though he may find it favorable, is nothing like the intentions of the founders or the way it functioned properly for close to 200 years. The founders felt that the greatest defense of freedom and encroachments of government were ELECTIONS not the written constitution itself. The original draft didn't even have a Bill Of Rights. The document is not an ends but a MEANS to protect liberty. There are substative checks upon power within its framework but the concept was wholly that We The People through deliberation could determine what the future path of our government should be. The concept of liberty therefore wasn't created by the document but the vesting of power in the People to steadily address each issue of the day. This new concept that the constitution is an ends in and of itself that CREATES and PROTECTS freedom through social contracts is absolutely asinine. The Patriot Act for instance was passed by congress and the president. It simply expands the organized crime statutes to address the issues of terrorism. There are checks on each additional power including additional warrants. To assume we have only liberty on one hand and tyranny on another is a myopic view of freedom. Free countries through free elections constantly deliberate and pass laws and repeal laws to address the issues of the day. To argue that to catch terrorists we need to give up freedom or to have freedom we need to allow for terrorism flies in the face of why we are free in the first place. Laws ARE created and can be created to do what we want or come damn close to it when they are structured properly. If the people find the encroachments are too great then they elect people to restructure the laws- that's liberty! Liberty isn't oh, well.. the fourth amendment says no searches I guess we can't look into why those bearded Muslims are collecting an arsenal of explosives in their shed... give me a break. There is a difference between liberty and license there Skizero, maybe you should learn the difference. The constitution isn't a suicide pact.******Skizero, animinals in nature have no liberty. Ask that new born who was tossed into the trash and froze to death how she feels about liberty. Ask the 2 year old who was beaten to death by his step father who took him by his feet and smashed his head into the walls of his house, how he feels about liberty. Liberty is created by a rational and natural understanding of what seperates us from the rest of the animal world. Positive law is simply therefore a human structure that respects these existance of those natural things giving life to true liberty. Chaos and anarchy as a defense of freedom is nothing of the sort- you have no liberty at birth unless it is recongnized by a benevolent civilization.

UPDATE: Skizero, I am anything but unAmerican. But I am glad you live in a country where you can express your feelings about me or our country. My son serves in the military and I would gladly give up a freedom if it keeps him or YOU alive. The freedoms that we would give up are not ones that would cause the average honest law abiding American citizen any undo concern. ORIGINAL MESSAGE: I am not concerned at all. I spend a lot of time in my job dealing with terrorism issues. If I lose a freedom temporarily or if I am a little inconvenienced and it helps to save hundreds if not thousands of lives then I say, it has well been worth it.

I'm certain of it, if it didn't we wouldn't be fighting terrorism. The rabidly bi-partisan (invoked incessantly by liberals and their wing of the media to attempt to criticize Bush during the campaign) 9-11 Commission, appointed to ascertain ways to avoid a REPEAT of the 9/11/01 attack/catastrophe, stated UNEQUIVOCALLY, that the Patriot Act DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH to protect Americans from another such attack! Hello? Anybody home?

I have nothing at all to hide so as far as I am concerned they can search my house if necessary if it would keep my family and I safe.

Not really. I've noticed most of the people who get in trouble or get interrogated usually have pretty shady pasts. The other measures are nothing to get up in arms about. If it gets worse, then I'll have a louder opinion to share, but I haven't experienced any infringements on my freedom since 9-11.

Much of the hysteria over the Patriot Act has been overexagerrated, but there are some serious flaws with the law. The law is over 200 pages long with dozens of amendments that were passed quickly after the attacks with little congressional debate. In fear of appearing soft on terrorism, the members of Congress shuffled the bill through and sent it to the President who signed it. The biggest problem with the Patriot Act is the enormous authority it grants the Attorney General in executing its provisions, and the lack of judicial oversight. Prior to the Patriot Act, law enforcement agencies had to provide justification to the court before obtaining a wiretap order. That is no longer the case, as the Attorney General must only inform the court that he is instituting a wire tap but does not have to provide reasonable cause or obtain permission. It is a severe erosion of the system of checks and balances, and thus unconstitutional. Some provisions of the law are indeed helpful in prosecuting this war against terrorism, but the entire package needs to be re-examined and judicial review of wiretap and surveillance orders must be restored to protect the principles of justice that is the foundation of our nation.

No one else seems to care. No one else seems to be interested in asking the President about it.

There always is the potential that some of the new measures that have been adopted might restrict some of our individual freedoms, but my belief is that these freedoms would be restricted on a very limited, individual basis, and not that the populace at large would be denied certain freedoms (as an example, I don't think that all immigrants or all Muslims will be denied the freedom to speak, or to assemble, etc.). You can bet that if that were the case, the ACLU would already have raised a stink that could be smelled in Beijing. I do believe that if the Democrats win this upcoming election, and there is some kind of terrorist atttack subsequent to Kerry being sworn in, we're likely to see more curtailment of individual freedom - it's a non-partisan issue in many respects. The greater the threat, the more extreme the reaction is likely to be.

Most definitely. This (illegitimate) administration can't be trusted any further than you could throw an obese Republican elephant.

And if you think it's bad now, just wait until after the NEXT spectacular terrorist attack.

Every single time I have been on a flight in the past two and a half years I have been pulled aside for additional screening, either because my bags set something off or for random screening. This does not bother me at all; in fact I am relieved. My life is more important than a 5-minute delay.

Of course, I have my concerns over new anti-terrorism measures that have the potential to restrict our freedoms. These concerns revolve around the PATRIOT Act, which was billed as a sweeping reform of law enforcement matters in relation to terrorism. It was passed the month after 9/11 amid the hysteria of the times. It isn't all evil like a lot of it's detractors claim, but there are some very obvious issues that need to be addressed and even amended. What the Act essentially does is it gave law-enforcement officers wire-tap surveillence authority on suspected terrorists, it removed barriers between the FBI and the CIA concerning information sharing, and it provided tools for cracking down on terrorist financial networks. Terrorism is a law enforcement matter; yes we needed to streamline communications between law enforcement agencies. Domestically, terrorists operate over broad geographical spaces. From Seattle to New York, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago and Miami, terrorists have cells where they can operate from. The best way to combat these threats are to make sure that state and federal law enforcement agencies know who is who; streamlining was necessary. Terrorism is a legitimate threat that should be taken care of. The government needs to do a better job of securing our borders and inspecting what goes through our ports. That will go a long way in preventing terrorism. However there are major constitutional issues that need to be addressed as well. The sneak and peek search warrant authority needs to be modified. Essentially, when property is searched, notification may be delayed indefinitely. This is a breach of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The Patriot Act doesn't demand positive ID before placing wiretaps. Library and business records may be searched without reason. These measures are all very unnecessary. At the time, the Congress gave way too much authority to the government and that is a major threat to our civil liberties. We need to be careful that we don't go down the path of a permanently militarized state. When the government can search library records without a warrant, that is a major cause of concern. The flow of information is very important and when the government stops it, we should all take note. The Patriot act also vests too much authority on the Justice Department in decisionmaking. The potential for abuse here is very great, especially when someone who has an agenda decides to use Patriot for their own purposes. The power of search and seizure, which is at the heart of our constitution, is very strong. The Justice Department shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily use it. We must remember that we cannot allow the government to abuse its power. When people are fearful, this is what happens. Those in power are not held to the full account because we as citizens become passive. Our state must never become excessively militarized.

Yes, I am very concerned. You know the terrorist fighting has gone too far when the FBI has the right to monitor your book purchases and phone calls, and then show up at your door without telling you why. That is clearly a violation of the Bill of Rights. Every American has the right to privacy. John Ashcroft and his Patriot Act are serious threats to our individual freedom. What is so patriotic about restricting Civil Liberties?

I am concerned with the broad language of the Pariot Act, and I think it could be used to justify some very questionable practices of privacy invasion. A law that gives government absolute power and is simply a linguistic way of bypassing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is dangerous, and makes me wonder about the motives of its author. I suppose this comes back to Solenoid's post about leaders of integrity; if we elect some, I'll feel a little more at ease with this.

Considering there have been no major terrorist attacks whatsoever on American soil since 9/11 I think it is somewhat redundant to barge into peoples homes and arrest them, disturbing their privacy. How can we call this a free nation if the government can do whatever it wants under the guise of patriotism?

Yes, absolutely. I'm worried that the Patriot Act may one day come back to bite us hard in our individual freedom loving butts.

Not really. I haven't followed alot of the measures that are being taken, but I can say for sure that in the mortgage business we now have a bunch of new, redundant disclosures that the gov requires. I doubt that asking for a loan applicants' date of birth instead of just their age is going to prevent terrorists from flying jets into skyscrapers. the gov has a long history of overreacting in stupid ways to issues like this, so I'm sure other new regulations will come to light that make no sense whatsoever. For now, my freedoms haven't been affected.

Yes. Remeber, in the aftermath of Sept. 11th, the Recording Industry lobbied to tack a bill onto the coat tails of The Patriot Act which would allow it to hack into people's computers and delete files without due process.

Yes - there is always that possibility. It all depends on whether or not you are being ruled by people of integrity.

I'm still trying to determine the lesser of two evils here. I don't know what's worse, a life where my every move is closely monitored or having to meet my maker after becoming a part of some assholes crusade against the great american satan.