"Police may be arresting marginal terror suspects to clear decks for Olympics"

[Lyriok]

It's understandable that they'd do it, with the upcoming Olympics. I do think that they're going a little too far, though. Better safe then sorry?

Took the words pretty much out of my mouth

It is extreme but it isn't the most unreasonable thing ever heard of.

[Deleted]

Keep living in fear of the terrorist, it's what they want you to do.

<insert Benjamin Franklin quote here>

An excellent point. As tragic as past terrorist attacks have been, life goes on. If we're going to constantly be expected to live in fear each time someone decides that there's a risk of a terrorist attack, then what sort of future are we bringing to this world? It's the same with health and safety in general - just could something could happen, it doesn't mean we need to live our lives in constant fear. The government and military should take the necessary precautions by all means, just don't kick up a fuss about it for the sake of scaremongering or misplaced pride.

[Sealed Shut]

An excellent point. As tragic as past terrorist attacks have been, life goes on. If we're going to constantly be expected to live in fear each time someone decides that there's a risk of a terrorist attack, then what sort of future are we bringing to this world? It's the same with health and safety in general - just could something could happen, it doesn't mean we need to live our lives in constant fear. The government and military should take the necessary precautions by all means, just don't kick up a fuss about it for the sake of scaremongering or misplaced pride.

I dare say that precautions like this (and then some) have gone on for a long time. but due to our 24-hour merciless media, everything is out there. Citizens shouldn't live in fear, it should be the responsibility of the government to maintain. If they didn't announce this stuff and the media didn't run it, we would all be oblivious of the behind the scenes actions taken.

Also, i don't believe that being aware of the world we live in is considered living in fear.

[Adam Jensen]

An excellent point. As tragic as past terrorist attacks have been, life goes on. If we're going to constantly be expected to live in fear each time someone decides that there's a risk of a terrorist attack, then what sort of future are we bringing to this world? It's the same with health and safety in general - just could something could happen, it doesn't mean we need to live our lives in constant fear. The government and military should take the necessary precautions by all means, just don't kick up a fuss about it for the sake of scaremongering or misplaced pride.

Regular Americans are more likely to die in a myriad of horrible ways (car accident, skiing accident, cancer, you name it) than being killed by a terrorist.

It is truly a hyped up fear.

This isn't to say that we don't need security nor to say that we don't need to stop terrorists when we find them, but I do believe we're taking it way too far.

[Deleted]

No offence to any Britts, but the UK has been going down the tubes pretty badly in terms of civil rights.

[roboaxxil]

I think the Olympics deserve more security than Obama does.

Too soon?

[Deleted]

Regular Americans are more likely to die in a myriad of horrible ways (car accident, skiing accident, cancer, you name it) than being killed by a terrorist.

The pro-surveillance state people would reply to that with: "the reason regular Americans aren't killed more often by terrorists is because of all the anti-terror spending and surveillance".

It's good to know though that there are extremely few cases of actual terrorists being stopped that weren't trained, motivated and under the control of FBI in the US. Most of their use of anti-terror powers are in the drug war, not war on terror.

[Simulacrum]

Wonder if, in a few decades from now, we'll have armed unmanned drones flying around blowing up terrorist suspects, and people suspected of aiding terrorists suspects, and other threats to the state. And if all the terrorists go away, well, we can't just dismantle all those drones - then people'd lose their jobs, and contractors'd lose their contracts! Better lobby to keep them around... lobbying totally isn't the same as outright bribery, by the way, oh no, y'see - they don't expect anything in return for their money, so it's okay. Then why do they do it? Don't ask so many specific questions, sir. What, do you hate freedom? Communist!?

The pro-surveillance state people would reply to that with: "the reason regular Americans aren't killed more often by terrorists is because of all the anti-terror spending and surveillance".

It's good to know though that there are extremely few cases of actual terrorists being stopped that weren't trained, motivated and under the control of FBI in the US. Most of their use of anti-terror powers are in the drug war, not war on terror.

Hey, that's a good point. Maybe we could use those drones to kill- uh, mitigate the danger represented by some of those guys.

[Deleted]

Not seeing a problem, when you are arrested you are let go soon unless some actual problem reveals. Few muslim guys arrested by accident (and let go after a short while in jail) are much more acceptable than a freaking stadium/subway train/... with thousands of people blowing up.

[Sealed Shut]

Regular Americans are more likely to die in a myriad of horrible ways (car accident, skiing accident, cancer, you name it) than being killed by a terrorist.

It is truly a hyped up fear.

This isn't to say that we don't need security nor to say that we don't need to stop terrorists when we find them, but I do believe we're taking it way too far.

Why do you think it is that we don't see the suicide bombers at our grocery stores? or the gunmen taking over hotels? or pirates kidnapping people off our shores? or incoming mortar attacks?

[Grraarrgghh]

Why do you think it is that we don't see the suicide bombers at our grocery stores? or the gunmen taking over hotels? or pirates kidnapping people off our shores? or incoming mortar attacks?

Because there aren't that many of them with resource pools of that size?

It never happened prior to 9/11. The likelihood of being killed by a terrorist then and now are markedly the same. The fear and government investment in companies associated with anti-terrorism is just far higher.

[Palmatum]

An excellent point. As tragic as past terrorist attacks have been, life goes on. If we're going to constantly be expected to live in fear each time someone decides that there's a risk of a terrorist attack, then what sort of future are we bringing to this world? It's the same with health and safety in general - just could something could happen, it doesn't mean we need to live our lives in constant fear. The government and military should take the necessary precautions by all means, just don't kick up a fuss about it for the sake of scaremongering or misplaced pride.

There's a difference between being scared and exercising caution, vigilence... Especially when recent history tells us we should do so.

[saberon]

I don't get the whole "we shouldn't be doing this because we shouldn't be living in fear" argument. I'm not living in fear because there are people out there stopping it from happening. The only thing that scares me is people insisting that we'd be better off doing nothing.