"Conversations dominated by fear almost always have outcomes that we later regret."

Ron Suskind, interviewed in Salon:

I've said many times, and I say in the book, that the central challenge of this war on terror is to win it with both tactics and some coherent strategy while not compromising those things that make us distinctive as a democracy and distinctive in terms of the long human pageant.

I think the big question for those in the counterterrorism community, in the administration, many of those around the country, is what happens after the next attack and what can we do to think clearly about where the lines ought to be drawn in terms of privacy, in terms of civil liberties, what the public ought to know -- not the least, but the most it can possibly know -- and that we should try to draw those lines now, before the next attack occurs, so that they're in place, with oversight, with transparency, and with these key issues not being left to the political mandate of whatever party's in power. That's just a formula for some things occurring that we might later regret.

Whichever party's in power, whoever's in the White House, power has a way of aggregating itself, and that's why we need checks here that are agreed-upon, that occur during the intervening period between attacks. After the next attack -- and I think it's a matter of when, rather than if -- then the conversation again becomes one dominated by fear. Conversations dominated by fear almost always have outcomes that we later regret.

I'm reading Suskind's book right now, and recommend it highly, though I have to consume it in small bites, lest my blood pressure soar too high.