Rather than scratching such a law as unfeasible, impractical and irrational, they would simply make another law criminalizing clicking the "terrorist" button without just cause, making false police reports, etc. Following up with tracing your IP address and arresting you. Either way, liberty become prey.

Agreed. But if you were to accuse any one American or small group of Americans, they would be offended at such remarks. Americans don't see themselves as ignorant or gullible. But hat certainly doesn't change the facts does it? They even take pride in their ignorance and gullibity by associating it with (radical) individualism. They believe you can believe what you want no matter how uninformed it might be. Take religion as one example.

Of course they do. Viruses are no different than other microbes. They will eventually do whatever it takes to propagate and survive. Which in many cases is in response to changes in their environment.

You obviously are unfamiliar with the "precautionary principle" which says in essence that being overly cautious is safer than employing too little caution. Just like the so-called "protocol lapses" in which nurses have contracted Ebola. Those protocol problems are guesses at best on the part of hospitals and the CDC. You also seem to be unaware of a recent broadcast on CNN in which it was stated that the Ebola virus CAN live outside the body so long as the medium that contains the virus remains "wet". That includes door knobs, mop handles, clothing, hand rails, etc. It's better to be "reactionary" than lackadaisical in such an unknown situation. Besides, you've provided no reasons whatsoever to ASSUME that Ebola is not easily transferred from one person to another (including being airborne). You can accuse (me) of being irrational but you fail to provide any reason to back up your claim. The facts are, the CDC has no idea of the virulence of this strain. And the idea that you would be willing to accept the government's propaganda at face value merely demonstrates naivety on your part.

What in the world are thinking! Are you proposing that viruses don't mutate? Fact is, any microscopic organism can and do mutate all the time. Ever hear of influenza? HIV? Cold? Plus hundreds of other viruses?

That's naïve. You seem to ignore a number of significant facts such as: Muslims are easily identified; their radicalism usually takes months to ferment into deadly action; radical activity can to a great degree be remotely monitored for signs of potential dangerous plots; and their movements are easily monitored. None of those apply to a microscopic organism that is unseen, can easily spread to a large area undetected and is more deadly than any terrorist because the infection can kill within days. Few (of any) global conflicts have killed (or maimed) as many people as bacteria and viruses.

The problem with that philosophy is this, healthcare administrators are premised upon certain assumptions. For one they keep insisting Ebola is not airborne even though this strain has not been tested for mutations that could make it so. Doctors Without Borders claim they have successfully treated Ebola for years in Africa. However, there is no explanation as to why this outbreak has been so virulent and easy to contract. It may be true that their isolation protocols give the appearance that it is not airborne. But those same protocols would also provide protection against an airborne strain. However, assuming it is not airborne could end up being a big surprise for potential victims. Besides, viruses have a tendency to mutate (survival mechanism) as the number of immune systems it is exposed to increases. Discovery of mutations are almost always an after the fact. Also, I don't buy the excuse that banning travel to and from infected African areas is more harmful. It's scandalous in fact. All one needs do is extrapolate the use of isolation in foreign nations (such as the effected African ones), in medical wards in Africa, Spain, the U.S. etc. as a mechanism of infection control, and wonder why isolating travel into this country is no big deal. Logically it makes little sense.

True. There is good reason for police (all law enforcement) to be distrusted. Everyone is now suspect even with a modicum of evidence (or no evidence just mere suspicion). When people feel they are potential targets, unjustly, they will begin to loose confidence in law enforcement. Ultimately that could lead to anarchy. Even though law enforcement feels justified in suspecting everyone, they are ultimately undermining public confidence in the system. In the interim, people should be seeking out non-traditional methods of communication, such as snail mail. Snail mail may not satisfy everyone's fascination with instantaneous talk, but from a privacy perspective it is far safer.

You put too much trust in encryption. Any encryption can be cracked (eventually). The government believes they could and should take any measures to curb terrorism. That includes waging a consistent war upon encryption systems. They can do that from a distance, deconstruct multiple encryption systems simultaneously at relatively low cost. There is nothing safer than innocuous, non-descript snail mail. Given the fact that snail mail is often delivered in a matter of a day or two, the added privacy benefit it conveys and the relatively low cost (as opposed to the money it costs for a computer, internet service, etc.) snail mail has a definitive privacy advantage.

The problem with that is if you are open and honest using "electronic" communications, anyone hacked into your stream of data has the ability to manipulate what you sent with no accountability because the government has the ability to coerce ISPs into covering their tracks. And given the fact that the courts have a tendency to lean in favor of the government (for national security reasons or whatever reason they can plausibly invent) I would not put any trust with either one of them. Using snail mail could on the other hand overwhelm government ability to monitor a vast majority of communications, makes USPS jobs more secure and takes electronic companies out of the communication loop. This is not a pitch for the USPS. Rather it is a pitch for more secure communications.

We should support the USPS and go back to snail mail. With email (and such) the government can employ one person to spy on electronic communications and monitor thousands of accounts at one time. With snail mail the government could never hire enough people to open letters and packages to spy on their contents. You might suggest they could merely train USPS employees to do their spying but changes little. With the amount of mail the USPS processes everyday they simply could not take the time to monitor the contents of the same amount of mail they can monitor with electronic communications. New Age communications are premised upon electronics. They simply could not muster enough physical resources to spy on even a small fraction of snail mail nationwide.

We already have chimps (and other animals) running the country that have the right to vote. I might even suggest that chimpanzees (or dolphins) are more human (in thought or behavior) than many of our so-called powerful and wealthy. Because humans that are wealthy and/or powerful can be more inhumane than chimps or dolphins.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Seriously? Tehran actively supports the Shiite side in that religious war. That is a well known national security fact. You also have a very naïve notion about what can be done with air power in taking out armored ground forces. You're talking about a massive air campaign using up millions in aircraft, ammunition, guided rickets, cruise missiles, fuel, etc. It's very easy for a ground force to spread out its units so that each tank, guided missile platform, armored vehicle would require its own separate targeting. That would also include targeting of most of their modified half ton trucks they've retrofitting with 50 caliber guns. The fact of the matter is, the forces they have now is a direct result of the U.S. leaving all that equipment behind in the (unrealistic) hope the Iraqis would have the guts to defend what we set up for them. They didn't. Why? Because when you hand someone something they haven't really earned there is little appreciation for what they had. The Iraqis walked away from the force we left them. The whole period of time we spent supplying them with armor and training was a failed plan from the get go. Why? Because their religious war runs so deep that even their own troops had more allegiance to their religion than civil government. They have NO appreciation for what they've never had. Civil, strong, democratic civil government. You won't defend what you don't understand. They've proved that many times over. Democracy is NOT appropriate everywhere. A population has to understand such things, deeply appreciate such a concept, are willing to die for it, and belief in it overrides any competing ideology. That's simply not the case over there. We should've let them to their own devices years ago and they'd still be fighting with swords and single shot rifles. And ISIS would have very little military power as a result. In fact the whole thing started when the Reagan administration armed the jihadists just to fight of the russian invasion. But everywhere we stick our nose into we end up making things worse in the long run. Just like a jihadist recent said in an interview, they don't care about democracy, about diversity, about compassion and civil rights. They only care about establishing their own retrograde Islamic caliphate with strict Islam law. When asked about the fact that many people don't want to live under such conditions the response was, "who are they, why haven't they left." Completely ignoring the fact that thousands have left. I say let them form what ever form of government they want. People will eventually leave or form their own committed revolution to get rid of them. It will be their blood spilt and their money spent. It is the price of revolution. Only then will they have an appreciation for democratic rule.

The more armor, the heavier, the more costly to operate, with questionable end results because you'd have to upgrade armor on nearly every ship to guard against attack. The boat swarm idea may very well be more cost effective. A more diversified attack/defensive force could be more successful by spreading out military but coordinated small units makes it much more difficult for an enemy to concentrate its force against any one target. Assuming the boat swarm units are smaller, faster, relatively light weight they could very well have results superior to monstrous single units with heavy armor.