Originally posted by mitac
Rictor,
this is not about giving up civil rights, this is about limiting their range to a point that allows effective control over criminal subjects. This does absolutely require a strict system of checks and balances, no doubt. But as someone said before, no control = total freedom. And I'm absolutely no fan of either that variant or the other extreme. The right path leads somewhere to the middle, but denying any possibility for a compromise by pointing fingers and shouting "bull****" is of no help.
Any political or legal system has an inherent possibility of failure or abuse. You can't get rid of that. But it is a must to try and find a compromise that works.
And to stress that point : no, I wouldn't want cameras all over my place, or random searches or any of that stuff. But sticking to this example : I'm willing to support searches and cameras wherever they're necessary and helpful, like to check suspicious folks at airports or large fairs. I know some examples, where the police makes video recordings at large events, which often help in identifying criminals or preventing crime. However, these recordings have to be destroyed after 24 hours. That's how it should work.
Call that "bull****" if it makes you feel better.
I'm not advocating going to either extreme, only that I would prefer a less powerful government than we have now, yes even at the cost to saftey (though we both know that the "terrorist threat" is so remote that is hardly a threat at all, mostly just scare tactics by the media and those with an interest in having people scared.)
Here's the deal: I mistrust anyone with power. The more power, the more I mistrust them because the greater the consequences of them abusing it will be. You say you would support searches etc "where necessary and helpful", but who decides when they are necessary and helpful? Do you? Is it decided via a referendum, or any other democratic process? Of course not, the experts decide. Essentially, what you are doing is letting one group, who are by definition power-hungry (not law enforcement, but rather the politicians who give the orders and make the laws), simple promise that they won't try to take more power to themselves but meanwhile give them means to simpl ignore their promise with little consequences ("they'll get voted out next election" is kind of stupid, New Labour isn't going anywhere no matter how badly they **** up.)
I think the difference between you and me is that, fundamentally, you believe that the government is a caring entity, who has the best interests of the people at heart and not the advancement of their own power. Let me ask you this: can you point to a single example in the past 50 years in a Western democracy where the government has willingly given up even one iota of its power? I can't think of any. Its a one way street, you slowly get your rights take away, of course for your own good, but you will never get them back.
Quite aside from that, the threat of terrorism is, as I've said, so small as to be almost negligible. 700 millon people in Europe, 300 of which (more or less) have died in terrorist attacks recently.
That's a 1/2,000,000 chance of death. Now, assuming that the ID card scheme will reduce the threat of a terrorist attack by an astounding 50%, you are essentially giving up your liberties because the government promises to protect you from a threat that has a 1/4,000,000 of occuring.
