I agree that the anti-terrorist legislation is frightening...but that is the result of politicians going for the vote and NOT thinking the issue out properly in terms of how to best meet the threat.
I have read several articles by law enforcement officials who consider our anti-terrorist legislation to be dangerous and unconstitutional. In addition, they feel that as effective as the legislation MAY be, it is not as effective as we are led to believe it IS.
I, for one, agree with you with regard to terrorist threats. I don't believe there is much you can do to prevent them without significantly impairing individual rights.
However, taking strides to prevent a terrorist attack WITHOUT infringing on peoples' rights IS possible and desirable. To that end, I feel that preventing drunk driving is that type of activity. It prevents the infringement of others' rights to drive on relatively safe roads. The drunk driver, on the other hand, the minute he gets behind the wheel, HAS knowingly assumed a dangerous and potentially deadly position.
My comparison is this: if a gunman is holding my son hostage, but not harming him, then technically, I can't do anything until some harm is done. Similarly, a drunk driver holds everyone on the road hostage. |
