The government must give proper weight to both keeping America safe from terrorists and protecting Americans' privacy. But when Americans lack the most basic information about our domestic surveillance programs, they have no way of knowing whether we're getting that balance right. This lack of transparency is a big problem.
Who defines terrorists? Today's terrorist is tomorrow's friend.
If America has the right to target Osama bin Laden, or terrorists, of course Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism.
At the beginning, because the lives of the hostages were at stake, then during this silent period we have taken several measures like not accepting the ultimatum of the terrorists threatening to kill our foreign affairs minister.
I have strongly rejected the proposal to pardon and transfer her to the United States. I do not have the legal power to pardon terrorists and even if I did, I would not use it.
In fact, this is a blackmail of the terrorists at the expense of the suffering of the hostages.
We have shown, given these last three years, that we were succeeding in fighting terrorists. While during the first 30 years of the former governments they didn't.
In the short run, using militias might be the quickest and easiest way to improve order on Iraq's streets and uproot the terrorists and guerrillas who routinely attack American troops and civilian targets.
The American pledge not to negotiate with terrorists has been honored more in the breach than the observance from the moment President Ronald Reagan made it.
The whole macho thing has to be reexamined. Because in my view, the Bush administration was weak, not strong. To engage in a policy of torture is a weak policy. Because ultimately, it encourages the terrorists. It undermines our own values. It corrupts our system. And it doesn't get good intelligence.
