By reading the articles, the debate questions addressed by both arguments are about the poly changes in national securities or homeland securities after the terrorist attack on Sept 11, 2001. The tragedy made all Americans afraid of their safety in flying an airplane and made them felt miserable when their friends had died on the attacked. It is very important that the US need to take measures to improve homeland securities to eliminate any possibilities from terrorist attack (terrorist threat) again. The US have employed extra security measures rather than sacrificing security of the people for some comfort and convenience.
The viewpoint of the writer on John Ashcroft (Attorney General) is basically to point out on the Patriot Act that brought the latest law to prevent the terrorist. One of the Ashcroft opinion on this articles is "Once detained, these lawbreakers are accorded the rights to which they are entitled." I think the INS plays an important role to conduct as a front line in the border that guard the US from the terrorist threat, but it might give an uncomfortable feeling for foreigner who has nothing to do with the terrorist activity. I have a friend who has a citizenship of Oman, but he is originally from India who immigrated to Oman when he was child. One of the times when he was returning back from vacation to enter the US he has a problem with the immigration due to his citizenship of Oman. Well this situation might happen to a lot for the people who come from Middle East countries who want to enter the US. Another statement that the writer mentioned is "To keep the public informed, we have consistently released criminal documents and redacted Immigration and Naturalization Service document as they have been unsealed. We would violate our own creed, ...