Actually, DC, it mattered very much to the 9/11 terrorists that civilians should die. That, after all, was there plan. svsg's point is that the role of the police and security forces is to preserve innocent life, whereas the terrorists' object is to kill and, well, terrify.

A further point is that we should never allow ourselves to be reduced to the thinking or morality of the terrorist.

The main concerns over the de Menezes shooting is that (1) an innocent man was killed by police (a tad worrying, don't you think? - well it should worry you). (2) The police lied about the incident, saying he was running away from police and wearing a baggy jacket, in fact neither was true.

What really pisses me off is people who just shrug their shoulders and say "ah well, in this great God-inspired war against terror and evil, some innocent will die.". For me, "ah, well" is NEVER an acceptable response to the taking of an innocent life.

My support for security and counter-terrorism STOPS at the point where the state becomes as bad as the terrorist: when it violates rule of law for example. "Rule of law" is not simply a nice liberal catchphrase, it means something very important, without which free society cannot exist.

If we abrogate the rule of law in the name of the war on terror, then the terrorists have made a significant victory. They're aiming to destroy Western civilization... we respond by suspending civil liberties and rule of law... you don't have to be a genius or a liberal to see that we're handing victory to the terrorists on a plate.

Looks like DC went for the filibuster.