Not everybody is fighting terrorism

Michelle Malkin has a dead-on column about all the people who are impeding the war on terror at the local, state, and federal level. I would disagree that their resistance constitutes “spitting on their graves,” but it does endanger the living.
Last night on PBS (yes, I do watch PBS on rare occasions) they had a BBC special on Sept. 11, focusing on the government response to it. One of the things the Federal government did was seal the borders. I thought, “If they can seal the borders for one day, why couldn’t they do it every day?” They must have meant closing down border crossings. Whatever they did, two of the most significant things we could do are to seal the borders against illegal aliens, and deport illegal aliens who are here, with a high priority placed on countries that export crops of terrorists (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Colombia).
Neither one is going to happen, because the Bush administration doesn’t have the guts to stand up to the Diversity Uber Alles crowd. That virtually ensures another terrorist attack from foreigners. For the sake of their own sense of moral superiority, the Left, along with far too many irresponsible folks on the Right, has decided that any new law-enforcement measure is ipso facto one more move toward a police state. No matter how innocuous the plan, such as classifying air passengers by the risk they pose, the reaction is the same as if the feds abolished the Bill of Rights.
Some people apparently think that law enforcement is like a sport, and neither team should have a particular advantage over the other one. Like I said, this silliness isn’t limited to the Left.

David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, worries that the computer screening program will go beyond its original goals. “This system is not designed just to get potential terrorists,” Keene said. “It’s a law enforcement tool. The wider the net you cast, the more people you bring in.”

Aaack! The cops might catch MORE CRIMINALS! Why, if this plan goes through, CRIMINALS MIGHT NOT EVEN TRAVEL BY PLANE ANYMORE! How will they get to visit their relatives in other states? Let us rend our garments.
(Our bishops aren’t too helpful here. Has anyone seen a statement from any U.S. prelate with even the mildest rebuke for immigration violators? Everything I’ve seen from the bishops says that all of our immigration laws are immoral, more or less.)
I’ve been mentally preparing an essay called “The emerging anti-anti-terrorism,” about the backlash against the war on terror. So much of this new phenomenon is identified as anti-war or anti-Bush activity, but we’re seeing an intellectual movement that is rapidly becoming an ideology. Just as the premise of anti-anti-Communism was that Americans had an “inordinate fear of Communism,” as Jimmy “Ask Me about My Foreign Policy Successes!” Carter put it, anti-anti-terrorists don’t think that terrorism poses a particular threat to the U.S., or at least not one we ought to get excited about. We’ll see if I get around to writing it. (Not that you probably care too much — I’m throwing it out there to see if it sounds interesting to anyone.)