>It seems a pertinent time to have the debate on what should be done in response, Some would say that it is especially poor practice to take drastic legislativ

>It seems a pertinent time to have the debate on what should be done in response, Some would say that it is especially poor practice to take drastic legislative action when emotions are high as they tend to be in the wake of a terrible event such as the one that took place in Paris Friday. >even if you are vehemently against certain preventative measures. Since not everyone agrees, some might say it's a good time to re-assess our positions on counter-terrorism. I haven't changed my mind on Orwellian surveillance. A single terror attack isn't likely to change my mind. I still feel okay calling Brennan's action shameless opportunism because this is a position that Brennan has held for a long time. Brennan is not adding anything new to the discussion, he's simply repeating old worn out rhetoric in hopes that people will accept it while they're in an agitated state. It remains unproven in my eyes that more surveillance means fewer terror attacks. It is also dubious to assume that more surveillance, even if it did imply fewer terror attacks, would be a preferable condition.