its a tightrope of a subject indeed
the argument about the threat of terrorism is valid...but the longer the vigilance against the threat is successful the less the percieved threat becomes...and when the presumtion of safety appears then the pressure to reverse any restriction of liberties begins...which could potentially open up another chance for a terrorist act
i'm not arguing for increased restriction of liberties...please dont misunderstand me...
the police force for my local area are going to be responsible for next months G8 summit and as such have requested increased anti terror powers which are most definitely geared towards the restriction of liberties and my own father who is a delivery man who regularly takes parcels to the auchterarder area (the nearest town to Gleneagles hotel where the summit is being held) is already suffering from severe restrictions in the form of regular searches of his van when delivering to the hotel
all guests at the hotel for the past few months have all been subject to security checks by MI5
i definitely think it can be taken to far...
but there has to be some give and take in this debate to get a acceptable balance
how many of you americans regularly suffer inconvenience because of restriction of liberties...my guess is probably a very small number of people
its a very different world we live in post sept 11th even if it doesn't manifest itself very conspicuously
look at it from the security services point of view
if they told the public of every terrorist threat that appeared and which subsequently failed to materialize then they would be accused of scaremongering...if they never told the public anything and another major incident occured then they would be accused of cover ups and being incompetent
dont forget that the people that work for the security services aren't engaged in some giant conspiracy to enslave the US population...many of them are just normal people trying to do a job to benefit you