Since the argument is a normative statement, it cannot be verified against evidence, but at least it should be universal, as that old fart Kant had it. So let's apply this argument to, say, the Katrina debacle. The risk of major damage was small so the federal government decided it was not worth wasting taxpayers dollars on improving levees. The left-of-the center folk criticized the government for ignoring that small risk, when it materialized. Yet the same people blame the government for exaggerating small risk when it comes to terrorism.
....................
Comparing the Katrina fiasco to the alleged liquid explosive bomb plot is not useful - the situations do not compare in any way. We needn't go into why, after a few minutes of quiet thought, it should be evident.
I note - in all of your responses on this topic - a curious resistance to listening to critiques of counter-terrorism as presently practiced and heavy dependence upon caricatures of leftist positions as knee jerk anti-government rantings (despite the fact many of the harshest evaluations of Anglo/American counter-terrorism have come from people who cannot be categorized as 'left-of-center').
Clearly, as was the case during the London shooting, you're not willing to consider objections based upon technical, tactical and operational considerations.
So it's really quite pointless to continue.
.d.
I never liked you Rusty...you were always a smart alec, a sass mouth and a bit of a giggle puss.
Dr. Impossible
...................... http://monroelab.net/blog/