There's seems to be a predicament, a dichotomy between preserving our civil liberties in the face of terrorist attacks and bringing in measures intended to stifle terrorism. If we pride ourselves on being a free society where our freedoms are sacred and make up the 'fabric' of our society. Can we afford to cash them in for the sake of legislation which should aid in tackling terrorism but also be open to abuse? When we have groups like 'Liberty' and Shami Chakrabarti lecturing us about the loss of civil liberties, the irredeemable trade in of our freedoms, do they have a point? Do we just halt any reactionary legislation and repeal all other anti-terror legislation for the sake of appeasing and pandering such groups? Does being a free society entail us not to bring in any kind of 'restrictive' legislation no matter how extreme/dangerous the threat? Me personally I am in favour of bringing in measures to tackle terrorism. Something has to be done to help combat terrorism although clearly creating new acts of parliament doesn't soothe the problem alone. Clearly resources such as intelligence play a vital part here too. People may look on the causes of terrorism, as Blair said "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". Although how can you reconcile with complete nutjobs who think they'll be greeted by tens of hula hopping girls because they torched themselves? Having said that I do understand the arguments against bringing in more freedom bashing legislation as we are meant to be a 'free' society with certain principles (Habeas Corpus et al). A Moral conundrum indeed..