Over in this thread The King of Soup said:
And that got me to thinking…
A lot of the items that are ‘fighting terrorism’ have struck me as ludicrous. The whole ‘taking peoples shoes off’ thing, for example. I understand why it’s done but it’s more a reaction than an action. It’s closing the door after the horse has escaped.
Well and good. But then I got to thinking about what we could do, without violating the constitution, to actually ‘fight’ terrorism. And it occurs to me that the nature of the fight might just make it impossible to have an effective pro-active response and maintain a free society (or as free as we like to tell ourselves we are).
In other words, to maintain a society in which economic, travel and speech freedoms are maintained at the levels to which we are accustomed then a certain amount of random or political violence is tolerated. To restrict freedoms in sufficient amount to curtail terrorism before it happens would require limiting right to speech, travel, economic and other freedoms that we currently enjoy.
How 'bout it?