Much of the argument against the Bush infinitely elastic approach to national security is on the grounds of the fundamentals of democracy. Anne-Marie has been making this points powerfully both in her postings and the cites and links she's been providing. No surprise, I concur with the importance of Vice President Al Gore's speech yesterday, and the prior ones he's given on these issues.

There's a second argument that needs to be made, which is more about efficacy than legitimacy. There are many Americans who do feel that trade-offs need to be made, that these are not normal times, that if it means preventing the catastrophic disaster scenario - take your pick, New York incinerated, or America's Mall being blown up, or anthrax in some major city's water supply, or such --- they're willing to go along with their President and his assurances that the national security ends being served justify the means being used.

Are these ends being well served, though? The article in today's New York Times about dead ends and dry holes into which the NSA data has kept leading the FBI adds to many other reports and revelations in raising real doubts about efficacy. Have there been some valuable pieces of information vacuumed up? No doubt, and the Times report gives some acknowledgment. But it's basic policy strategy and analysis to know that resources are limited, priorities have to be set, and net assessments need to be made. Just on this basis of national security effectiveness, the net appears negative.

Adding the inefficacy argument can help make the case to those for whom the legitimacy argument may not suffice.