Editorial on September 11 was unfair to liberals

In the Sept. 11 editorial, “9-11 — Five years later/Seeking clarity,” you stated: “With fear, came clarity” immediately after the attacks. I disagree. In the wake of such fear, people and groups sometimes make poor decisions. Yes, it was a wake-up call, but I do not believe we reached any kind of clarity. We have become a nation divided. In describing the differing views regarding 9-11, you said: “Come now, say others. Terrorism may be scary … but they are mere pests we will have to endure.” This is a creation of divisive TV pundits, not a liberal position, as you suggested. I am a politically involved Democrat and a liberal, and I have spoken to thousands of people since 9-11. The idea that terrorists are “pests we will have to endure” is an extreme viewpoint I have never heard expressed by any Democrat or any liberal. We do believe that we can create reasonable security while remaining true to our Constitution and our long-standing values, but we submit that total security is available only at an unacceptable cost to our freedom. We submit that freedom requires courage and the acceptance of some risk. We are in desperate need of an honest, comprehensive national discussion regarding our national security and our liberties. We need to decide whether we can achieve adequate security and continue to honor our traditional values and our Constitution. Can we be reasonably secure in a world where we are losing the respect of our allies and where there is rapidly growing hatred of us, not only by growing numbers of radical Islamic extremists but also in the general Muslim population? What can we do about it? Where do we go from here in Iraq? Are we more secure taking liquids and gels from airline passengers and waging war in Iraq, or would we be more secure spending that money implementing the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission? What provides real security and what merely offers an illusion of security? How much of our freedom are we willing to sacrifice for real security? We must decide. We must not sit back and give one man or one president the right to decide for us. If we believe that an extraordinary expansion of presidential power and secrecy is appropriate, we might think of the person we would least like to see in that office and then decide if we would give him or her that expansion of power. We need to bring all our ideas to the table and begin an honest, open national discussion, and we need to begin it now. Gail Frank, Northdfield - Published in the Atlantic City Press, September 18, 2006