Security vs. personal freedoms

With the latest apparently terrorist attacks in Boston...the question is raised once again. And I say 'apparently' in lieu of further evidence and analysis. As the perps may be indeed as Red pointed out elsewhere of any faction and ideological bent.

What level of security is required? Acceptable? Are those not based on collective experience and always subject to change and or amendment?


This is not an easy question given the still uncertain of the latest incident. Ntl..based on past experience is a 'patriot act' and creation of additional federal agencies, now in hind sight a worthy decision?

Or is it, as it will be no doubt countered, nothing more then a 'given' of the human condition in this moment in time and now impacting in America. And any action then, a sop.


Will the reaction, no matter the perpetrator and agendas, be an over reaction where potential further erosion of civil liberties are seen to enhance collective security?


This thread is in reference to the American experience; hence focus on it if your going to respond.


*As a side note....My personal best and well wishes to the victims in Boston.

Or are required too by fascist or communistic totalitarian governments.
But your point is apt.


And I agree it is impossible to entirely stop lunatics of whatever political or theological or ideological agenda. The technology is there but the willingness to completely 'big brother', a community is not. And then of course there is the divise nature of the politics involved.

Hence the conundrum.... hence the dilemma.