Ever since the towers came down, and the flags went up, there has been a widening split over the best way to fight this war on terror. New legislation created to deal with these threats was initially met with full support, as immediate action was needed to effectively respond to the attacks. In the past couple of years however, these laws have been more carefully scrutinized, and met with increasing opposition. The central issue to these concerns is the possible violations of civil liberties that these laws may allow. But the larger issue goes beyond the laws themselves, asking the question, "Do the ends justify the means?" In fighting this "war" on terror we have been forced to change the way we view and approach the world, and while most Americans agree that freedom is worth fighting for, we all have different ideas on how to protect it. One such piece of legislation, the Patriot Act, has become the poster child for people frustrated with the way the Bush administration has handled our security after 9-11. While there are questionable sections to the act that deserve our attention and analysis, the cries are more against the misrepresentation and disenfranchisement many are feeling. In fact, when it comes to protecting our country and promoting freedom throughout the world, we may be closer in policy than we think.
             The testimony of John Ashcroft to the committee on the Judiciary goes a long way in explaining why these rifts exist. Not only by what is said, but by the way he says
             it. Throughout this entire campaign the Bush administration has relied on fear to force people to accept its mandates. Mr. Ashcroft opens his remarks by reading off the names of 6 people killed on September 11th, and then goes into quoting the fanatical fatwas made against the United States by terrorists. This is used to put fear into our hearts, so that when he gets to the proposed amendments to the Patriot Act, we would find them...