I want to preface my comments with the following: I do not make light of the terrorist attacks in London, and I feel great sadness that the people of London have gone through this mess multiple times in one month.
That being said, I want to take a moment and comment on the renewal and expansion of the Patriot Act. Following 9/11, many people, including people I know said that it was important for us to give up civil liberties in the name of freedom. I point to England, and ask how well it has worked for them. True, England is not a police state, but it has tougher restrictions on freedom of speech, on freedom of assembly, guns are outlawed, and the police in London have installed hundreds of cameras around the city. Estimates are that every single person in London is photographed at least 3 times a day.
Furthermore, England has had for a long time a domestic spy agency, MI5.
None of these measures have saved the English from suffering the horror and indignity of terrorism.
If we are safer by losing our civil liberties, then why hasn't it worked in England?
Comments (1)
Having been to London on several occasions, I noted that I just feel safer there due to the abundance of police presence, and their vast experience with AT measures. Now, it is true that there are more restrictions, but I don't see this as a bad thing. It's a case where people are simply held more accountable for their actions, which is something that would never fly over here in this country. The British have learned the hard way, after dealing with the IRA since the 1960s, how to fight terrorism, and although these new extremist Muslim clowns may be a different breed than the Irish ones, it really is not that much different. MI-5, which you call a spy agency, is one of the most effective agencies of it's kind in the world, and they get far better human intelligence than we can muster. MI-5 has already stopped several attempts at previous bombings by Islamic terrorists in the last year or so, but we haven't heard about it, because of the press restrictions in Britain..which is a good thing, it doesn't let the bastards know they they're onto them.
Your final point, which I must counter, is if you compare September 11, 2001 to July 7, 2005. We lost nearly 3,000 people on that horrible day, as compared to the 55 (appx) that were lost in London. Now, both events are obviously tragic, but if I had to choose one or the other, the choice is obvious. The U.S. has really gotten it's shit together and cleaned up it's act since 9/11, and although things are far from perfect, with threats like these out there, it's a necessity that must be heeded. The only other option is to have armed vigilantes, roaming the streets...is that really feasible? To assist the police and government agencies?
Don't get me wrong, I think it is practically impossible for us to avoid repeated attacks, especially with our continued presence in Iraq, but hopefully, the carnage won't be near as severe. Maybe, just maybe, these measures that we've taken to improve our country's security apparatus can help us to defeat, or at least minimize, the losses when the terrorists strike again.
Posted by Jeff | July 25, 2005 11:09 AM
Posted on July 25, 2005 11:09