I think it is very different argument from what I hear from the critics of government policies. Their arguments are stated not in terms of inefficiency of the measures but in terms "them" (the police) vs. "us" (da people).
In fact, I share you opinion about the effectiveness of many (if not most) "counter-terrorist" measures adopted in the aftermath of 9/11 whose main outcome seem to be the demonstration of power and control for the gullible public while having zero effect on reducing the risk of a terrorist attack. My favored one was blocking the taxi lane at the Baltimore's main train station and stationing National Guardsmen armed with M-16 at the entrance to the BWI Airport. Of course, other idiocies of the Bush's war on terror - especially creating various "black lists" - are far less innocuous and should be vigorously fought.
At the same time I do believe that the policy of shooting to kill potential suicide bombers can be very effective in reducing the threat of terrorism - provided in it based on good information and with sufficient precautions. The London shooting might be rightfully criticized for the lack of the latter - but again, this is not what the bulk of the criticism seems to be. The bulk of that criticism seems to be aimed at giving the police new powers, which is perceived as threatening to "the people."
So I fully agree with you that some of police techniques may be ineffective and even potentially dangerous, the criticism and opposition to such techniques is fully justified. I also happen to agree with the first part of your statement:
> In fact, as I write, I believe my single biggest disagreement with you
> is over how you define the terms of the debate -- it's almost always
> Silly Idealists vs. The Rational with, as near as I can tell from your
> posts on this topic, nearly anyone questioning current methods and
> practices being a silly idealist knee jerkingly opposed to "the gummit".
However, I take exception to your contention that I label anyone who question "current methods and practices" as a silly idealist. I think the first part of this response clarifies that. In fact, I do think that the criticism of the effectiveness of many of the "current methods" is well taken and justified. What I see as silly is the criticism that implies the dichotomy "we" (the people) versus "them" (the police) embedded in the populist discourse
It is easy to consider such populism a "straw man," because it is very difficult to pinpoint to well articulated statements or position papers. It dwells mainly in what sociologists call 'stock knowledge' - tacit understandings, unspoken assumptions, metaphors, figurative speech, folklore, etc. It is there, everyone knows it, but when you try to pin-point and critique it -then suddenly those who know it pretend they do not know what you are talking about, and ask you submit concrete proofs, knowing darn well that no such proofs exist. It reminds me pretty much of talking with white suburbanites about race - their speech is full of racist hints and innuendos, but when you accuse them of racism they look at you nonplussed and pretend they do not know what you are talking about.
But to get back to the point, I detest populism and kindred "appeals to the people" (for a variety of reasons, which is another story) - especially of the "people vs. government" or "people vs. institutions" variety which seems to be deeply ingrained in the American collective consciousness. I think this stupid form of populism is one of the main reason why trolls like George Bush or Rick Santorum get easily elected, and it is very difficult to pass any coherent public policy on anything, from transportation, to health care, and to education. It is that "me" and striving to be popular, individualism cum populism, that I find particularly obnoxious.
Unfortunately, much of the left fell prey to that form of populism. On this list, there are only a handful of individuals who seem immune to it, including our fearless moderator. So I have to admit that my postings on the anti-terrorist tactic are, in part, a platform for scoring a few points with populism. But I also believe that in most discussion on the so-called issues in this country, from gun control, to crime and death penalty, to environment, to transportation, and to health care, reproduction, and Terry Schiavo, etc., the issues are merely platforms to score ideological points. So I am in a good company.
Wojtek