Welcome to the BDSM Library.
  • Login:
beymenslotgir.com kalebet34.net escort bodrum bodrum escort
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    396
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?

    Civil liberties make it harder for governments to govern. Governments will use any excuse to curtail freedoms. It is said that restrictions on freedoms (ie Patriot Act) were already drawn up before 911 and 911 was merely the excuse to implement them.

    There is little accountability when it comes to the effectiveness of specific controls in combating terrorism. The government will say it helps prevent but there is no audit, no figures, no details to proof this. Everything is shrouded in the national secrets laws.

    My view is modest controls (ie metal detectors) will prevent most of the amateur terrorist attempts like airplane bombing or highjacking but are taken too far. The controls do little against well financed professional terrorists especially when they can easily switch targets to public places like malls, buses etc. The most effective precaution is intelligence from infiltrators.

    In my view any proposed control that curtails civil liberties must present a sound legal argument in court that it would be of significant value and then should only be authorised for a limited period after which evidence must be presented as to its effectiveness if the control is to be continued.

  2. #2
    {Leo9}
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Terrorist attacks: safety versus freedom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Denzark View Post
    Civil liberties make it harder for governments to govern. Governments will use any excuse to curtail freedoms. It is said that restrictions on freedoms (ie Patriot Act) were already drawn up before 911 and 911 was merely the excuse to implement them.

    There is little accountability when it comes to the effectiveness of specific controls in combating terrorism. The government will say it helps prevent but there is no audit, no figures, no details to proof this. Everything is shrouded in the national secrets laws.

    I have to agree with you on this, same where I am and it is a problem.

    My view is modest controls (ie metal detectors) will prevent most of the amateur terrorist attempts like airplane bombing or highjacking but are taken too far. The controls do little against well financed professional terrorists especially when they can easily switch targets to public places like malls, buses etc.
    While at the same time making endless bother for ordinary citizens!

    The most effective precaution is intelligence from infiltrators.
    I do not think you can rely on that, but I think that more resources to police and intelligence should be the answer without any more laws. It is crimes, pure and simple, and calling it 'war' is just an excuse to, as you implement laws to give more poser to the government.

    In my view any proposed control that curtails civil liberties must present a sound legal argument in court that it would be of significant value and then should only be authorised for a limited period after which evidence must be presented as to its effectiveness if the control is to be continued.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Back to top