You've boiled it down so well as always. The Caucasian is here whining about the rights of Asian and Middle-Easterners not getting trials, getting kidnapped, gays not be able to marry, all of us being searched including the whites. But for you, it was about the whites. My response.
There's a word for that type of thinking.
It's not a matter of Democrat vs. Republican, conservative vs. liberal. It's about politicians keeping Americans scared to get blown up on a plane, or releasing terrorists back into the world. Obama inherited an office in shambles, and he's doing the best he can. Also, he's got to play the political game, giving up on some of his promises and conceding to the opposition in order to get something more important passed. Yes, he hasn't come out and said "gays should be allowed to marry on a national level" but in a recent speech he did say that the issue of marriage is and has always been an issue of the state, not the national government. So he's not against gay marriage, he's just leaving it up to the states to decide.
As far as Guantanemo goes, I'm sure it would be closed now if there were any room on court dockets to get each prisoner a trial and a cell in a prison to put them. I'm sure Obama wants to try every one of those people, but he can't. And releasing them is an even worse idea. Imagine if he released all of them, and then one or some of them went on to commit acts of terrorism on our country or another? It would be an international catastrophe. Then Obama would indirectly have the blood of whoever died in those attacks on his hands. Yeah, it sucks that those prisoners are stuck in jail without a trial, but we have no other choice.
I see it this way. It doesn't matter who is in office, we the people will always have to face the idea that in order for us to be secure, we have to give up some of our liberties. You can't be free and secure, you have to find a healthy balance. Sadly, the TSA has taken things too far, but if it wasn't for the Shoebomber and the Underwear Bomber, they wouldn't be searching people's diapers and crotches. Another problem they face is the fact that they can't profile. If profiling were allowed, only people who look or act like terrorists would be inspected. So everyone suffers for the acts of a few. It's been like that since grade school. And it would cost the TSA too much to train all of their employees on profiling techniques and pay them more than $9 an hour. So, we are stuck again at this crossroad, do you want to be free or secure?
Obama wants to "get each prisoner a trial". That's a projection, and it's not true. Obama called for a ban to military tribunals in January of 2009. Obama. They are going to move forward with trials now, but this is anything but a speedy trial. It's unimportant until it's you that has been imprisoned for 9 years without a trial, attorney, or family. There are innocent people there, and that's cool as long as you feel secure? Does that really sit well with you?
You suggest that the TSA is going too far. So whom is in charge of TSA? Janet Napalitano. And whom does she answer to directly? Barack Obama. I don't know why I'd excuse him. Beyond that, I've asked this a number of times here, why does Ben Gurion not have pat downs of all passengers? (passive security measures) Why does Aeroloft not have bombings? Sulimov Dogs are fantastic searchers and they don't even need to have the bags put anywhere specific, just let the dogs roam. Our methods are unnecessary as demonstrated by much more dangerous parts of the world. You may even be able to argue that they are ineffective in that they don't deter while other countries are so effective that attempts at terrorism on airlines have virtually stopped.
As to this question, "Do you want to be free or secure?" Free.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
~Ben Franklin (as quoted by R. Jackson, 1759)
"The price of Essential Liberty is Justice to purchase Permanent Safety".
Side note: Perhaps a good idea to at least quote correctly?
I'm so glad you are that confident in your sources.
The problem is: every quote I wish to invoke has at least a dozen versions here and there on the Internet and, perhaps, half a dozen different attributions. Since the idea is perfectly clear, I'm afraid I'm not prepared to spend half my waking hours reesearching such entries in order to pick and judge which version I am most inclined to believe.
On the other hand, believing that ones own words are worthy of being quoted is more than a little gauche.
"(...) I am most inclined to believe."
Because accuracy is less important than finding something which corresponds with your position (aka Confirmation Bias). Gotcha. :)
I see, so R. Jackson appeared to you and gave you a personal (written) guarantee that is EXACTLY what Ben Franklin said, eh? Lucky you. The rest of us depend upon "secondary" sources. And where they differ (which they VERY often do) we have to use our judgement.
"accuracy"? - horseshit