Terrorists vs Dissidents

I don't think anyone in the country has a problem with surveillance of legitimately identified potential terrorists.

---

The qualifying term is "legitimately identified". The problem is that we have seen the list that includes people with bumper stickers, American flags, Tea Party affiliation, and who use other 1st amendment rights. So far, a majority of the terror attacks on this country have had connections to the middle east and to the Muslim religion. I know nobody likes to say that out loud because it isn't politically correct. But it is factually correct. It is not necessary or economical to look at every person residing within our borders. Only the ones who fit that dreaded word -- the "profile". This government seems to be confused about the difference between terrorists and dissidents. Terrorists intend to terrorize us by inflicting harm. Dissidents openly and publicly disagree with certain government policies. There is a vast difference. The first is illegal, the second is legal. When the terrorists are able to silence the dissident we have lost our constitutional rights and are no longer a representative republic. Wayne A. White Englewood, FL

---