Originally Posted by
Bart
...So where do we draw the line between spending resources to stop something that is statistically remote and accepting the fact that the odds statistically favor the attackers in terms of choosing the time and place for such an attack? Do we bury our heads in the sand as you suggest? Do we flop our arms up in the air and declare it too difficult as you suggest? Do we question the moral integrity of those who undertake these efforts as you suggest in the name of civil liberties?
I'll stick with the doers.
1) liberty comes with risk - people need to accept that
2) liberty is more important than security - people need to accept that
3) life itself offers neither security nor any guarantee
I only expect the government to make its best effort, while respecting the law, the Constitution, my liberty and privacy - and without trying to push the envelope in respect to those items, nor singling people out for special attention because their background or appearance makes them 'suspect'
I expect the government to spend MY money wisely and not pi$$ it away on wild goose chases or by unjustly enriching political supporters
I expect the government to use the resources of intelligent, learned and experienced people to create policies and procedures which balance effectiveness with efficiency, security with liberty, and risk avoidance with risk aversion
I expect the government to leverage available and feasible technology to aid in this endeavor - not fund pie-in-the-sky nonsense or roll out devices which are potentially harmful to my health in the name of security
I expect the government to embrace proactive thinking by developing processes and procedures which are not just attempts to counter past events, but rather take a holistic approach to protection and security regardless of what schemes or plans a future attacker might have - with the understanding that I accept no process or procedure is foolproof, guaranteed nor absolute
I expect the government to take terrorism and dangerous people seriously, and not just use them as vague shadows to generate universal fear for political gain
I expect the government to respect both our laws as well as international laws and treaties, and the traditions of democracy and the free will of men which date back to the Magna Carta - and not use vague or unsubstantiated threats or the fear of potentially threatening people to ignore these traditions
I'll stick with those who recognize that life is risky, liberty requires sacrifice, that bogeymen are not hiding under every bed and making a "best" effort is sufficient, provided that effort is realistic, fair, and effective