Yesterday, they posted a very good article pointing out how we ended up giving up Liberty for security... and it isn't all W's fault (although he's still taking a dump all over the Constitution, he's not the only one doing it)
The well made point: If you can't target your security to a small subset of likely participants in a crime, you have to cast a wide net. The Left says it's mean to single out Islamic Arabs, so everyone has to be searched. The same logic gets the government with a list of all of our phone calls, instead of getting warrants for a few.
Of course, this also shows how well the current Administration lines up with the Left.
Your answer to this question shows where you line up:
So, would'ja rather have an open society, or more effective counter-terrorism security? If you choose the former, then you must accept that the risk of a major terrorist attack increases. If you choose the latter, then you are choosing to give up some liberty.
My answer is the former. There are risks associated with Liberty. I'll take them any day over the risk associated with the government taking my Liberty to protect me from mean people.
Another fitting analogy - are you better off with a loaded shotgun in your house when someone breaks in, or unarmed dialing 911.
Picking 'more effective counter terrorism security' is like giving your shotgun away and hoping the police show up before the intruder kills you.
The terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001 were a direct result of the relinqueshment of Liberty for security.