[gustavo_duarte]

I think the Economist did a great job on this in their recent piece:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/wh...

Think about the incentives to the _President_ (whoever that is) to NOT let an attack happen, no matter what the cost. As Daniel says, it's not about numerical risk or objective damage, it's perception. Obama would have done anything not to have an attack during his terms.

And that's the really sad part. Due to the political process, different interests, and so on, the terrorists WERE able to inflict grievous damage to us as a society.

[cobrausn]

He (linked article) tries a bit too hard to paint Obama as a sympathetic figure who 'must' spy on everybody or else he won't be reelected so he can right all the social wrongs in America. His handling of prosecution of whistleblowers doesn't really show him as 'reluctant' to me.

[gustavo_duarte]

I agree with you that the post is soft on Obama, and personally I'm disappointed with the Administration in general.

However, I think the main point of the article still holds and is important in our fight towards a stronger rule of law.

There's a political game being played here, and we need to see it clearly. I don't mean to defend Obama at all, but _any_ administration is under extreme pressure to "fight terrorism" and this creates a huge distortion between the actual risks and consequences of an attack compared to the measures taken by the Executive branch to: 1) avoid attacks, and 2) create the perception they're doing all they can to avoid attacks. There are also other players, like the defense industry, federal departments, etc., with their own interests at play.

Remember DFW's commencement speech? [0] In our situation the political game _is_ the water. We need to see it clearly to fight back and keep our societies lawful and free. While logic is important, it's not going to win an essentially political battle.

0: http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/david-foster-wallace-in...